H.R. 3000

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 220
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 30, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: April 10, 1975
• Content Type: REGULATION

C)1.-
Apprtatartnny1tdittrAneffailie0002-8
, OF 1975
PART I
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
`AWE COUNSEL
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EMPLOYEE POLITICAL RIGHTS AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 3000
A BILL TO RESTORE TO FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
THEIR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, AS PRIVATE CITIZENS,
IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF THE NATION, TO PROTECT
FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM IMPROPER. POLITI-
CAL SOLICITATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
MARCH 25, APRIL 8, 9, 10, 1975
Serial No. 94-17
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-137 WASHINGTON : 1975
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman
MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Vice Chairman
DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey
ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania
JAMES M. HANLEY, New York
CHARLES II. WILSON, California
RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan
WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado
WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida
GLADYS N. SPELLMAN, Maryland
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina
HERBERT E. HARRIS, Virginia
WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD, Michigan
PAUL SIMON, Illinois
NORMAN Y. MINETA, California
JOHN W. JENRETTE, JR., South Carolina
STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York
EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois
ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania
JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California
ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California
JAMES M. COLLINS, Texas
GENE TAYLOR, Missouri
BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York
ROBIN L. BEARD, Tennessee
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JoHN H. MARTINT, Chief Counsel
VICTOR C. SMIROLDO, Staff Director and Counsel
THEODORE J. KART, Associate Staff Director
ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Counsel
ROY C. MEEKER, Senior Staff Assistant
SUBCOMMITiEE ON EMPLOYEE POLITICAL RIGHTS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PROGRAMS
WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
GLADYS N. SPELLMAN, Maryland BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York
STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California
CHARLES H. WILSON, California
HERBERT E. HARRIS, Virginia
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado
Ex Officio Voting Members
DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina EDWARD I. DERWINSKI, Illinois
LLOYD A. JoHNsoN, Subcommittee Staff Director, Room 603, 11011 Annex?Ext. 59121
(in
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
CONTENTS
Page
Testimony of?
launtroy, Hon. W.alter E., Member of Congress of the United States,
from the District of Columbia 115
Garrison, Dennis, executive vice president, American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, accompanied by L. M. Pellerzi,
general counsel, AFGE, Stephen Koczak, director of research,
AFGE; and Carl K. Sadler, legislative representative, AFGE 120
Hampton, Hon. Robert E., Chairman, Cvil Service Commission; ac-
companied by Anthy L. Mondello, General Counsel; and Lynn R.
Collins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel 19
Koch, Hon. Edward I., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York 55
Ledbetter, Donald N., president, National Association of Postal Super-
visors, accompanied by Joseph J. Meuse, administrative vice presi-
dent, and Bruce W. Sterling, national secretary.. 112
Leyden, John F., President, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Or-
ganization; accompanied by Allan Moskowitz, legislative director 181
Lyons, Kenneth, national president, National Association of Govern-
ment Employees; accompanied by Alan J. Whitney, executive vice
president; Michael Riselli, general counsel; and Gary Altman,
director, research department 134
McCart, John A., executive director, Public Employee Department,
AFL-CIO 159
Mitchell, Clarence, director, Washington Bureau of the National As-
sociation for the Advancement of Colored People 165
Nilan, Patrick J., legislative director, American Postal Workers Union,
AFL-CIO 65
Rademacher, James H., president, National Association of Letter Car-
riers, AFL-CIO, accompanied by Joseph Vacca, executive vice presi-
dent, Austin B. Carlson, vice president, and Joseph II. Johnson,
national business agent 91
White, Robert L., president, National Alliance of Postal and Federal
Employees, accompanied by Wesley Young and John W. White 103
Wolkomir, Nathan T. president, National Federation of Federal Em-
ployees, accompanied by George Tilton, deputy general counsel 138
Statements and communications?
!Callaway, Linda, secretary-treasurer to Arkansas Auxiliary to APWU,
letter dated February 22, 1975 195
Brooks, Sidney, president of Washington, D.C. local, American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO_ 76
Daniels, Hon. Dominick V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey 192
Dougherty, James E., president, Citizens for a Better City, Falls
Church, Va., letter dated April 29, 1975 201
Pasco, Peter, general president, Laborers' International Union of
North America 196
Hampton, Hon. Robert E., Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission,
letter dated February 28, 1975, enclosing responses to questions
which were submitted by Chairman Clay 2
Hampton, Hon. Robert E., Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission,
letter dated April 15, 1975, in response to questions which were sub-
mitted by the minority members of the subcommittee 52
Jerue, Herb, legislative able, Arkansas Postal Workers Union, letter
dated February 20, 1975 195
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1;i, CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Page
Statements and communications?Continued
Kiernan, Edward .1., president of the International Conference of
Police Associations 195
Murphy, Hon. Joint M., a Representative in Congress 1.170111 the State
of New York 190
Simons, William H., president of Washington Teacher-' Union, Local
No. 6, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CI() 215
Shreve, Judith H., chairman, City of Falls Church Republican Com-
mittee, Falls Church, Va., letter dated April 8, 1975 196
Stone, Kathryn H., chairwoman, executive committee, National Civil
Service League, letter dated April 22, 1975 198
Waller, Jack A., legislative representative, International Association
of Fire Fighters 199
Administration reports--
Office of Management and Budget 208
U.S. Civil Service Commission 201)
Copy of H.R. 3000 202
Articles and submitted material-7
Code of Federal Regulations, title 5, part 733, "Political Activity of
Federal Employees" 14
"Political Restraint of Government Employees?A Time for a Change,"
submitted by Frank Giordano 72
"Opponent of Hatch Act Speaks Out," by Joseph Young, Washington
Star, March 16, 1975 77
"Hatch Act Changes Are a Bad Idea," by Joseph Young, Washington
Star, March 4, 1975 78
"Hatch Act Political Ban Ruled Illegal," by Barry Kalb, Evening Star
and Washington Daily News, July 31, 1972 79
Summary and analysis .of H.R. 3000 submitted by the American Postal
Workers Union, Patrick J. Nilan, legislative director 80
A brief history of the meaning of "Political Activity" with special
reference to the Hatch Act of 1939, submitted by the American
Federation of Government Employees 124
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
ACT OF 1975
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,
SUBCOMMEITEE ON EMPLOYEE POLITICAL RIGHTS
AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS,
-Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 ELM. in room 210, Cannon House Office
Building, Hon. William Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) pre-
siding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WILLIAM CLAY
Mr. CLAY. The hearing will conie-to order.
This morning the Subcommittee on Employee Political Rights and
Intergovernmental Programs begins the first of seVeral clays of
public hearings on H.R. 3000, the Federal Employees Politicd Ac-
tivities Act of 1975, mid related legislation.
The Hatch Act (secs. 7321 through 7327 of title 5,
the..eampaign contributions and prohibits coerciOn of employees of
the Federal Government; promises of employment orIhreatS of depri-
vation of employment for political reasons and fictive partici_pation
in political activities. Its enactment in 1,930 was a congressional effort
to prevent improper political pressure upon Federal civilian em-
ploye. 'Given the conditions of the time, its enactment assured a
Competitive, classified merit system which inspired public con-
fidence. It also protected these public servants from undue political
influence by overzealous superior officials.
In the 35 years that have passed since the enactment of the Hatch
Act, little has been done to bring the. law into conformity with the
problems, opportunities and realities of the 1970's The vagueness of
the act leads many Federal employees to "play it safe" by not be-
coining involved in political activities. The act tends to infringe upon
the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and free associa-
tion by Federal employees. Indeed, the sad and cruel reality is that
the act systematically denies meaningful political participation to a
select group of people?Federal civilian and postal employees.
Of course, it is essential to preserve integrity in governmental af-
fairs and to maintain and to develop an impartial civil service. It is
possible to do so while broadening and more explicitly flefining the
extent to which Federal civilian an postal employees may participate
in the political process. A balance can and must be struck between
these two imperatives.
(1)
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
2
In addition to H.R. 3000, whose reintroduction has been cospon-
sored by 55 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives' similar
bills have been introduced. by other Members of Congress. Each of these
legislative proposals seeks to amend the Hatch Act by protecting Fed-
eral civilian employees from improper political influence and coercion
while defining permissible political activities.
H.R. 3000 would enable Federal civilian and postal employees to
participate more actively in the democratic political process. It
authorizes voluntary political contributions by employees. It permits
employees to express their views and to participate in political manage-
ment of campaigns. It defines the meaning of political management
and campaigns to include the following activities: candidacy for
service in political conventions; participation in political meetings,
caucuses and primaries; preparing for, organizing or conductinc, a
political meeting or rally; membership in political clubs; distributing
campaign literature and distributing or wearing campaign badges and
buttons; having a publishing, editorial or managerial connection
with political publications; participating in a political parade; cir-
culating nominatincr. petitions; and. candidacy for any public office.
I do not suggest that this legislation provides the complete and
final answer to this problem. It is extremely complex and of longstand-
ing duration. It does however represent one approach to the issue of
raking full participation in the political process a reality for all
Americans.
I know that I speak for the subcommittee when I state that it is
important that we welcome and solicit the views of others in seeking
to constructively address this too long neglected problem. In order to
facilitate this process, the subcommittee will be conducting public
hearings on H.R. 3000 and related legislation in Washington, D.C.,
on April 8, 9, and 10. In addition, field hearings will be conducted in
the following cities on the dates indicated: Annandale' Va.; April 14,
1975 ; Riverside, Md., April 15, 1975; St. Louis, Mo., April 19, 19Th;
Cleveland, Ohio, April 21, 1975; New York, N.Y., May 2 and 3, 1975.
Responsibility for administration of the Hatch Act rests with our
first witness the U.S. Civil Service Commission, represented by its
Chairman, hon. Robert E. Hampton. Earlier, the Commission
responded to several questions posed by the subcommittee. Without
objection, the replies to these questions will be inserted into the
record at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., February 28, 1975.
Hon. WILLIAM L. CLAY,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Employee Political Rights and Intergovernmental
Programs, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representa-
tives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CLAY: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1975, re-
questing information concerning the Commission's enforcement activities with
respect to alleged violations of the Hatch Act on the part of Federal employees.
The responses to your specific questions are enclosed herewith. We have not
yet been able to complete extracting the statistics necessary to respond to ques-
tion 5 concerning a breakdown by year, type of complaint, executive agency, and
geographical region, of the average length of time between the filing and final
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
3
disposition of complaints of alleged violations of the Hatch Act by Federal
employees. The General Counsel informs me that we should be able to provide a
full response by March 5, 1975.
I trust that the information contained in the enclosures is responsive to the
concerns which you have expressed. We are looking forward to the opportunity
to testify before the Subcommittee on March 25, 1075, concerning the revisions
of the Hatch Act which are being proposed in the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosures.
ROBERT E. HAMPTON,
Chairman.
1. PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE COMMISSION PROCESSES COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS
The Commission's General Counsel has been delegated the authority and re-
sponsibility for pursuing complaints of alleged prohibited political activity. Sec-
tion 733.131 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that the Commis-
sion ". . . will determine whether to investigate an allegation of prohibited
activity that it receives from an agency or from any other sources." When a
complaint is received, it is assigned to an attorney on the General Counsel's
staff for review to determine whether the individual complained of would be
subject to the Hatch Act and whether the activity alleged would constitute a
violation. Frequently it is necessary to request additional information from the
complainant or to make initial inquiries to determine employment status, the
partisan or nonpartisan nature of an election, etc.
The attorney to whom the complaint is assigned makes a recommendation as
to whether an investigation should be conducted. The attorney's recommenda-
tion is then reviewed by the Senior Attorney or the Assistant General Counsel
for Political Activity. If it is determined that no inquiry is warranted, the
complainant is so advised. If an inquiry is warranted, an investigation will be
conducted to obtain the necessary affidavits, election records, and other docu-
mentation. The investigation is conducted either by an attorney from the Office
of the General Counsel or by one of the Commission's investigators in the field.
The latter usually occurs when the work-load is heavy.
After review of the report of investigation, the General Counsel may close
the case or issue a letter of charges to the employee. An employee who is
charged with a violation may answer the charges personally and/or in writing
within 15 days of the date the letter of charges is received. If, after consideration
of the employee's answer, the General Counsel determines that further proceed-
ings are warranted, the ease is submitted to the Commission's Administrative
Law Judge, who schedules a hearing. The hearing is conducted at a location
convenient to the employee and the witnesses, generally in or near the city where
the employee is stationed. The hearing is an adversa ry proceeding, with the
witnesses subject to cross-examination. The employee is furnished a transcript of
the hearing without charge.
Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge prepares a recommended
decision as to the violation and the appropriate penalty, which is then forwarded
to the Commission, with the record of the hearing. The Commission makes its
decision on the basis of the record and notifies the employee and the employing
agency. If the Commission determines that a violation has occurred, the penalty
is removal from the services, unless the Commission unanimously agrees that a
lesser penalty is warranted.
2. COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE IIATCH ACT ON THE PART OF FED-
ERAL EMPLOYEES FILED WITH TIIE COMMISSION DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS
The statistics provided herein generally reflect only those complaint's which
were docketed, and do not include those which on their face indicated that no
violation had occurred. A significant number of the complaints docketed each
year are closed on the basis of an initial inquiry to obtain pertinent information,
but prior to actual investigation, while others are closed upon the basis of the
evidence developed during the investigation indicating that further proceedingw
are not warranted. The information is provided for fiscal years 1970 through
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
4
1974, inclusive, and for fiscal year 1975 to date. During thai period from July 1,
1969 to the present, the Commission has docketed 320 complaints of alleged vio-
lations on the part of the Federal employees. The types of complaints have
lations on the part of Federal employees. The types of complaints have been cate-
gorized into the broad areas which encompass the more specific activities. This
method was discussed and agreed upon by Mr. Lynn R. Collins, Acting Assistant
General Counsel, and Mr. Lloyd A. Johnson, the Subcommittee Staff Director.
FISCAL YEAR 1970
The Commission processed 59 complain
agencies and departments in 17 states,
Rico, as follows:
Type of complaint:
ts, involving employees of 10 executive
the District of Columbia, and Puerto
State:
Candidacy
6
Alabama
2
Campaigning
27
Calif ?rola
2
Campaigning/Management
3
Colorado
2
Management
9
Connecticut
1
Soliciting contributions
11
Delaware
1
Misuse of official authority__
0
District of Columbia
1
Unspecified
3
Idaho
1
Kentucky
3
Employing agency:
Maine
1
Agriculture
3
Massachusetts
3
Air Force
3
New Jersey_
1
Army
1
New York
4
IRS
0
Ohio
7
Navy
2
( dilahoma
2
Postal ,Service
44
Pennsylvania
9
SBA
2
Puerto Rico
16
VA
1
IT'ex11 s
1
Commerce
1
Utah
1
FHA
1
Virginia
1
FISCAL YEAR 1971
The Commission processed 65 complaints, involving employees of 10 execu-
tive agencies and departments and the District of Columbia government, in
25 states and the District of Columbia, as follows:
Type of complaint:
State?Continued
Candidacy
17
Arizona
10
Campaigning
32
Arkansas
3
Campaigning/management
0
California _
1
Management
4
District of Columbia
3
Soliciting contributions
2
Florida
2
Misuse of official authority__
1
Georgia
6
Unspecified
7
Indiana
1
Employing agency:
Iowa
1
Agriculture
1
Kentucky
1
Air Force
9
Louisiana
1
Army
13
Maryland
5
District of Columbia Govern-
Massachusetts
1
ment
1
]Niichig,an _
1
9
Minnesota _
1
Labor
1
Nebraska _
1
Marine Corps
1
New Jersey_
1
NASA
1
New Mexico
2
Navy
2
New York
4
Postal Service
27
North Carolina
2
VA
5
Ohio
3
Unidentified
2
Oklahoma
3
State:
South Carolina
2
Alabama
1
Texas
2
Alaska
2,
Washington
3
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : cIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FIS CAL YEAR 1972
The Commission processed 56 corn
agencies and departments in 22 states
plaints, involving employees of 15 executive
and the District of Columbia.
Type of complaint:
State :
Candidacy
15
Alabama
2
Campaigning
15
California
2
Campaigning/management
1
District of Columbia
4
Management
7
Georgia
1
Soliciting contributions
8
Illinois
1
Misuse of official authority__
2
Kansas
1
Unspecified
8
Kentucky
1
Louisiana
1
Employing agency:
Maryland
2
Agriculture
5
Massachusetts
5
-Air Force
4
Missouri
3
Army
4
New Jersey
2
Defense (other)
3
New York
4
GSA
7
North Carolina
5
HEW
1
Ohio
1
HUD
1
Oregon
1
IRS
1
Pennsylvania
3
Justice
1
South Carolina
1
Marine Corps
1
Texas
7
Navy
3
Utah
1
0E0
1
Virginia
5
Postal Service
20
Washington
1
Transportation
1
Wisconsin
1
VA
3
Unidentified
1
FISCAL YEAR 1973
The Commission processed 51 complaints, involving employees of 13 executive
agencies and departments in 23 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and
Puerto Rico, as follows:
Type of complaint: -
State----Continued
Candidacy
15
California
5
Campaigning
20
District of Columbia
1
Campaigning/management __._
0
Florida
2
Management
12
Georgia
2
Soliciting contributions_______
0
Guam
1
Misuse of official authority__
1
Illinois
1
Unspecified
3
Kansas
2
Employing agency:
Kentucky
2
Agriculture
7
Louisiana
1
Air Force
2
Massachusetts
9
Army
8
Michigan
2
Defense
1
Mississippi
GSA
Missouri
1
HEW
1
Nevada
1
HUD
3
New York
3
IRS
2
North Carolina
2
Navy
4
Oregon
1
Postal Service
13
Pennsylvania
5
SBA
1
Oklahoma
2
Transportation
1
Puerto Rico
1
VA
1
Rhode Island
1
Unidentified
6
South Dakota
1
State:
Tennessee
2
Arizona
1
Texas
4
Arkansas
1
Unidentified
3
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/16 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FISCAL YEAR 1974
The Commission processed 37 complaints, involving employees of 12 executive
agencies and departments, the District of Columbia government, and the Na-
tional Guard, in 14 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as follows:
Type of complaint:
Employing agency?Continued
Candidacy
12
Postal Service
7
Campaigning
6
Transportation
1
Campaigning/management ___
9
VA
1
Management
8
State:
Soliciting contributions
4
Alabama
2
Misuse of official authority__
0
District of Columbia
3
Employing agency:
Georgia
1
Agriculture
6
Illinois
2
Air Force
3
Kentucky
1
Army
6
Massachusetts
1
Defense
1
Missouri
1
District of Columbia
Ne w -York
3
government
1
North Carolina
6
EPA
1
Oklahoma
4
GPO
1
Pennsylvania
4
Interior
1
Puerto Rico
1
IRS
6
South Carolina
1
National Guard
1
Texas
3
0E0
1
Utah
3
Wisconsin
1
1Expected service appeal case.
FISCAL YEAR 1975
The Commission, thus far, has processed 52 complaints, involving employees of
12 executive agencies and departments, and the National Guard, in 22 states and
the District of Columbia, as follows:
Type of complaint:
State?Continued
Candidacy
11
District of Columbia
1
Campaigning
22
Florida
2
Campaigning/management ___
9
Georgia
2
Management
12
Hawaii
1
Soliciting contributions
0
Kansas
1
Misuse of official authority____
1
Kentucky
1
Unspecified
4
Maryland
5
Employing agency:
Massachusetts
1
Agriculture
3
Michigan
1
Army
9
Missouri
:4
Coast Guard
1
Nebraska
1
FDA
1
New Hampshire
1
FEA
1
New Mexico_ .
1
GSA
1
New York
6
IRS
1
North Carolina_
3
National Guard
1
Pennsylvania
1
Navy
7
Tennessee
1
0E0
1
Texas
1
Postal Service
23
Washington
1
SBA
West Virginia
1
VA
1
Wyoming
1
State:
I7nidentifiecl
2
Arkansas
1
California
2
1Excepted service appeal.
3. FINAL DISPOSITIONS OF COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE HATCH
ACT ON-THE PART OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MADE BY THE COMMISSION DURING
THE PAST 5 YEARS
During the period from July 1, 1969, through the present date. the Commis-
sion made final disposifi ens in 327 cases involving alleged prohibited political
activity on the part of Federal employees.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 plA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FISCAL TEAR, 1970
The Commission made final disposition of 67 cases, involving employees of 11
executive agencies and departments in 21 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico, as follows:
Closed without investigation,: 38
Type of complaint:
Candidacy 4
Campaigning 23
Campaigning/Management _ 2
Management 5
Soliciting contributions__. 3
Misuse of official authority_ 0
Unspecified 0
Employing Agency:
Agri '2ulture 2
Air Force 2
Commerce 1
IRS 1
Navy 3
Postal Service 28
SBA 1
State:
Alabama 1
Colorado 2
Connecticut 1
District of Columbia .___ 1
Idaho 1
Kentucky 2
Maine 1
New York 3
Ohio 2
Oklahoma 1
Pennsylvania 4
Puerto Rico 16
Texas 1
Utah 1
Virginia 1
Closed subsequent to investigation: 21
Type of complaint:
Candidacy 3
Campaigning 4
Campaigning/management 1
Management 6
Soliciting contributions 3
Misuse of official authority 0
Unspecified 4
Employing agency:
Agriculture 1
Army 4
Defense 1
IIEW 1
Postal Service 12
SBA _ 1
VA 1
State:
Alabama 2
Delaware 1
Massachusetts 3
Minnesota 1
New Jersey 1
North Dakota 2
Ohio _ 3
Oklahoma 2
Pennsylvania 4
Texas _ 2
Suspensions: 7
Type of complaint:
Candacy, 1-60 days.
Campaigning, 4. 1-90 days. 2-45
days.
Soliciting contributions, 2-30 days.
Employing agency:
Army 4
IRS 1
Postal Service 2
State:
Alabama 3
Colorado 1
Hawaii 1
Tennessee 1
Pennsylvania 1
Removals: 1
Type of complaint: Candidacy.
Employing agency: Navy.
State: Washington.
FISCAL YEAR, 1971
The Commission made final disposition of 74 cases, involving employees of 11
executive agencies and departments and the District of Columbia government in
26 states and the District of Columbia, as follows:
Closed without investigation: 28
Type of complaint:
Candidacy
Campaigning
Campaigning management
Management
Soliciting contributions
Misuse of official authority_
Unspecified
9
7
4
4
1
2
Employing agency:
Air Force 2
Army
District of Columbia govern-
ment 1
Justice 1
Postal Service 17
VA 3
Unspecified 2'
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
8
FISCAL YEAR
State:
Alabama 2
Arkansas 2
District of Columbia 1
Florida 1
Iowa 1
Louisiana 2
Maryland 2
Massachusetts 1
Michigan 1
Minnesota 1
Nebraska 1
New Mexico 1
New York 2
North Carolina
Ohio 1
Pennsylvania 4
Utah 1
Washington
Closed subsequent to investigation: 4.4
Type of complaint:
Candidacy 8
Campaigning 26
Campaigning/management _
Management 3
Soliciting contributions 3
Misuse of official :authority 0
Unspecified 4
Employing agency :
Agriculture 1
Air Force
Army 12
FHA 1
HE W 2
I CT 1?Continued
Employing agency? Continued
Labor
9
1
Marine Corps. 1
NASA 1
Postal Service 17
VA 1
State:
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
9
10
1
California 4
District of Columbia 2
Florida 1
Georgia 5
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts 1
New Mexico_ 1
New York 1
New Carolina_ 1
Ohio 4
Oklahoma 2
Texas 2
Washington 1
Unspecified 1
Suspensions: 2
Type of complaint:
Campaigning, 1---4. days.
Management, 1-60 days.
Removals: 0
Employing agency:
Postal Service.
State:
Alabama.
New York.
FISCAL YEAR 1 0 7 2
The Commission made final disposition of 54 cases, involving employees of 12
executive agencies and departments, the District of Columbia government, and
National Guard in 18 states and the District of Columbia, as follows:
Closed without investigation: 13
Type of .complaint
Candidacy
Campaigning
Management
Soliciting contributions
Misuse of official authority:
Unspecified
Employing agency :
GSA
HEW
IRS
Justice
Marine Corps
Postal Service
Transportation
ATA
unspecified
2
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
State:
California 1
District of Columbia 1
Kansas 1
Kentucky 1
Louisiana 2
Massachusetts 2
Missouri 2
New Jersey 1
New York__ 1
North Carolina
Closed subsequent to investigation: 20
Type of complaint:
Candidacy
Campaigning
Alanagement
Unspecified
4
10
3
3
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : 9A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FISCAL
Employing agency:
Air Force
Army
Defense
Navy
Postal Service
State:
California
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Washington
Unspecified
Letters of charges dismissed: 1
Type of complaint: Soliciting c
Employing agency: National G
State: Alabama.
Removals: 0
YEAR 1972?Continued
1
2
1
5
11
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
2
3
1
1
Suspensions: 18
Type of complaint:
Candidacy, .3-30 days.
'Soliciting contributions, 15.
1, 120 days; 3, 90 days ; 1, 69
days; 1, 45 days; 9, 30 days.
Employing agency:
Air Force 1
District of Columbia govern-
ment 1
GSA 6
National Guard 9
VA 1
State:
Alabama 9
District of Columbia 1
-Georgia 1
New York 1
Virginia 6
ontributions.
uard.
FISCAL TEAR 1973
The Commission made final disposition of 56 cases, involving employees of 12
executive agencies and departments, in 25 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico, as follows:
Closed withoutinvestigation : 9
Employing agency?Continued
Type of complaint:
Army
8
Candidacy
5
Defense
2
Campaigning
1
HUD
.1
Management
2
IRS
2
Unspecified
1
Navy
1
,Employing agency:
0E0
1
Army
3
Postal Service
13
HUD
1
Transportation
1
Navy
2
VA
1
Postal Service
2
State:
SBA
1
'Alabama
2
State :
'Arizona
1
Arkansas
1
California
3
California
1
District of Columbia
3
Massachusetts
1
Florida
1
Michigan
2
Georgia
3
Oregon
1
Illinois
1
Puerto Rico_
1
Kansas
2
Rhode Island_
1
Kentucky
9
Utah
1
'Louisiana
1
Closed subsequent to investigation: 42
Maryland
1
Type of complaint:
Massachusetts
1
Candidacy
12
'Missouri
1
Campaigning
14
New Jersey
1
Management
8
New York
1
Soliciting contributions
2
North Carolina
2
Misuse of official authority__
1
Oklahoma
1
Unspecified
5
'Pennsylvania
2
Employing agency:
Tennessee
2
Agriculture
8
Texas
10
Air Force
4 Wisconsin
1
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
10
FISCAL YEAR 1974
The Commission made final disposition of 37 cases, involving employees of
12 executive agencies and departments and the National Guard, in 18 States,
Guam, and Puerto Rico, as follows:
Closed without investigation: 17
Type of complaint:
Candidacy 6
Campaigning 2
Campaigning/management 1
Management 1
Soliciting contributions _ 2
Miscellaneous 1
Unspecified 4
Employing agency:
Agriculture 4
Army 1
EPA 1
IRS 6
Postal Service 3
Transportation 1
Unspecified 1
State:
Alabama 1
District of Columbia 1
Georgia 1
Illinois 1
Massachusetts 1
New York 1
North Carolina 2
Pennsylvania 4
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 1
Utah 3
Closed subsequent to investigation: 14
Type of complaint:
Candidacy 4
Campaigning 4
Management 4
Soliciting contributions 2
Employing agency:
Agriculture 5
Army 2
GPO 1
GSA 1
HUD 1
Postal Service 3
State:
California 1
District of Columbia 1
Kentucky 1
Mississippi 1
Missouri 1
New York 1
North Carolina 1
Oklahoma 1
Pennsylvania 4
Puerto Rico 1
Texas 1
Suspensions: 4
Type of complaint:
Candidacy, 1-45 days, 2-39 days 3
Management 1-60 days.
Employing agency:
Army 1
National Guard (excepted serv-
ice appeal) 1
Navy 1
Postal Service_ 1
State:
Guam 1
Nevada 1
Pennsylvania 1
Texas ( excepted service appeal) 1
Removals: 2
Type of complaint: Candidacy, 2.
Employing agency: HEW, 1; Postal Service 1.
State: Florida, New York.
FISCAL YEAR 1975
The Commission, thus far in FY 1975, has made final disposition of 38 cases
involving employees of 11 executive agencies and departments and National
Guard, in 23 states and the District of Columbia, as follows:
Closed without investigation: 22
Type of complaint:
Candidacy
Campaigning
Management
Unspecified
Employing agency:
Army
FDA
GSA
National Guard
Navy
0E0
Postal Service
SBA
11
5
2
4
5
1
1
1
3
1
7
1
Employing agency? Continued
Transportation 1
Unspecified 1
States:
Arkansas 1
California 1
District of Columbia 1
Florida 2
Georgia 2
Hawaii 1
Illinois
Kansas 3
Kentucky 1
Maryland 2
Massachusetts 1
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :1lA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FISCAL YEAR
107 5?Continued
States?Continued
Missouri 1
Nebraska 1
New Mexico 1
New York 1
South Carolina._ 1
West Virginia 1
Unspecified 1
Closed subsequent to investigation: 14
Type of complaint:
Candidacy 5
Campaigning 2
Management 7
Employing agency:
Air Force 2
Army 6
Coast Guard 1
Postal Service 4
VA 1
State:
Alabama 1
Georgia 1
New Hampshire 1
North Carolina 6
Oklahoma 2
Texas 1
Washington 1
Wisconsin 1
Charges dismissed: 1
Type of complaint: Management.
Employing agency: Postal Service.
State: Illinois.
Suspensions:
Type of complaint: Campaigning/
Management, 60 days.
Employing agency: Army.
Slate: New York.
Removals: 0
4. COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE HATCH ACT ON THE PART OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
As of the date of this response there are 30 complaints of alleged violations
of the Hatch Act on the part of Federal and District of Columbia government
employees pending before the Commission. These complaints involve employees
of 9 executive agencies and departments and the District of Columbia govern-
ment, in 16 states and the District of Columbia, as follows:
Type of complaint:
State:
Candidacy
6
Arkansas
1
Campaigning
18
California
3
Campaigning/management
3
District of Columbia
2
Management
2
Georgia
1
Misuse of official authority__
1
Kansas
Employing agency:
Maryland
4
Agriculture
3
Michigan
1
Army
1
Missouri
3
District of Columbia govern-
New York
5
ment
1
Pennsylvania
2
FEA
1
South Dakota
1
HEW
1
Tennessee
1
IRS
1
Texas
1
Navy
4
Virginia
1
Postal Service
16
West Virginia
1
SBA
1
Wisconsin
1
VA
1
Wyoming
1
0. PERSONNEL RESOURCES OF THE COMMISSION ASSIGNED THE FULL-TIME RESPON-
SIBILITY FOR PROCESSING COMPLAINT OF ALLFGED VIOLATIONS OF THE HATCH
ACT
All of the personnel of the Commission who are assigned the full-time respon-
sibility for processing complaints of alleged violations of the Hatch Act are
located in Washington, D.C. The following is a list of personnel so assigned, by
position title and General Schedule classification for fiscal years 1970 through
1974, and at present. Since promotions and within-grade increases occur inter-
mittently throughout any given year, no attempt has been made to indicate the
within-grade step level of the personnel at the various GS grade levels. It should
also be noted that the personnel so assigned in fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972,
also performed duties in connection with the Commission's litigation function
(non-Hatch Act) and, in addition, the personnel listed for all fiscal years, includ-
ing the present, had responsibility for State and local political activity cases,
as well as political activity advisory and informational services.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1i,j CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Fiscal year 1970:
Fiscal year 1972?Continued
Assistant General Coun-
sel for Enforcement
and Litigation GS-15"
1
Staff assistant GS- 9
Secretary/
stenographer GS- 6
1
1
Senior attorney?
Do GS- 5
Enforcement GS-14
1
Clerk stenographer__ GS- 4
Senior attorney?
Clerk/typist CS- 4
1
Information GS-14
1
Fiscal year 1973:
Trial attorney GS-13
2
Assistant General
do GS-12
2
Counsel for Enforce-
do GS-11
1
ment GS-15
1
do GS- 9
1
Senior attorney?en-
Legal clerk trainee GS-11
forcement GS-14
1
Staff assistant GS- 7
1
Senior attorney?infor-
Secretary/
mation 05-14
1
stenographer GS- 6
1
Trial attorney GS-13
3
do CS-S
1
Do GS-12
1
Clerk/stenographer _ GS- 4
1
Staff assistant GS- 9
1
Clerk/typist S- 3
1
Secretary/
Fiscal year 1971:
Assistant general
Counsel for En-
forcement and
Litigation GS-15
Senior attorney?
1
stenographer GS-(5
Do GS- 5
Clerk/stenographer (457- 5
GS- 4
Fiscal year 1974:
Assistant Gewral
1
1
1
1
Enforcement GS-14
1
Counsel for Political
Senior attorney?
Information GS-14
1
Activity GS-15
Senior attorney--en-
1
Trial attorney GS 13
2
forcement _ GS-14
1
do GS-12
3
Trial attorney GS-14
1
do GS-11
Do GS-13
1
Legal Clerk Trainee__ GS- 9
1
Do GS-12
1
Staff assistant GS- 7
1
Do _ _______ GS-11
1
Secretary/
Stenographer GS- 6
1
Legal clerk trainee__ GS-17
Staff assistant GS-10
2
1
Do GS-5
1
Secretary/Stenograph-
Clerk/stenographer GS- 5
er GS-6
1
__
Do CS -3
1
Do GS-5
9
Clerk/typist GS- 3
1
Present:
Fiscal year 1972:
Acting Assistant Gen-
eral Counsel for
Assistant General
Political Activity
Counsel for Enforce-
and Litigation 2____ GS-1.G
1
ment GS-15
1
I)eputy assistant Gen-
Senior . attorney?en-
eral Counsel GS-15
1
forcement G 5-14
1
Senior attorney GS-14
1
Senior attorney?infor-
Trial attorney GS-13
1
mation G 5-14
1
Do GS-12
1
Trial attorney GS-13
3
Secretary/stenogra-
Do GS-12
2
pher GS- 6
1
Do GS-11
2
Do GS-5
'Incumbent served in the position at GS-14 level.
Incumbent detailed to position at the GS-15 level.
In addition to the above-listed personnel, the following also spend significant
proportions of time with political activity cases:
Administrative law
judge GS-16 1
Secreta ry/stem gra-
grapher GS- 5 1
Of course, because of their delegated authorities, the General Counsel (GS-1s)
and the Deputy General Counsel review Hatch Act cases, reports of investiga-
tion, and sign "close-out" letters, and the General Counsel must approve and
sign all letters of charges.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :19,1A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Also, as noted in Enclosure 1, cases are occasionally referred to the field for
investigation by personnel of the Commission's Bureau of Personnel Investiga-
tions. These investigators are generally classified at the GS-11 or GS-12 level,
and the time spent on the investigation, as well as related travel and other
expenses, is charged to the political activity budget.
7. MONEY AUTHORIZED, REQUESTED, AND ACTUALLY EXPENDED FOR ENFORCEMEENT
ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION IN PROCESSING COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED HATCH
Ac r VIOLATION'S ON THE PACT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Funds were first provided for enforcement of prohibitions against pernicious
political activities at the time of approval of the amended Hatch Act on July
19, 1940. For the 1941 fiscal year, which was the first year appropriations were
specifically provided, the Congress prescribed a maximum appropriation of $100,-
000. Against this amount, the Bureau of the Budget set up a reserve of $60,000,
leaving available for expenditure $40,000 during the 1941 fiscal year. Actual ex-
penditures during the fiscal year were $34,357.39. (This figure represents ex-
penditures for processing all Hatch Act cases?Federal, State, and local?since
the accounting procedures did not separate expenditures for Federal eases). Thus,
information regarding eXpenditures for only Federal cases is not available for
the requested years 1941, 1946, and 1951. For fiscal year 1945, the requested
limitation was $90,000; it was $50,000 for fiscal year 1951. We have, as of this
time, been unable to obtain the figures for actual expenditures in those two
years. The information with respect to the other designated years is as follows:
Fiscal year-
1956
1961
1966
Limitation requested
$65, 000
$77, 000
$95, 000
Personnel costs
28, 757
41, 558
35, 492
Travel 1
4, 506
7,641
9, 089
Advisory services I
7,558
11,138
19, 558
Other'
177
5,025
7,890
Total expenditure
40, 998
65, 362
72, 029
I The designated items include costs of travel, advisory and informational services, fringe benefits, printing, reporting
service, etc., in connection with State and local, as well as Federal enforcement, information, and advisory opinions.
Fiscal year-
1971
1972
1973
1974
Budget and appropriation I
$292, 000
$262, 600
$321, 000
$325,400
Expenditure:
Federal cases 2
72, 800
65,300
71,000
63,700
Political activity advisory and information services
(Federal, State, and local)
144, 500
129, 400
77, 800
84,300
I The budget and appropriation figure includes funds budgeted for processing State and local cases also.
2 Federal case expenditures includes a proportional percentage of travel costs. An exact accounting of the cost of travel
for processing Federal cases is not available, since they have frequently been processed on itineraries with State and local
cases.
8. ADDITIONAL STATUTORY AUTHORITY, IF ANY, WHICH WOULD ASSIST THE
COMMISSION IN FACILITATING TIIE PROCESSING OF HATCH ACT CASES
At the present time the Commission does not have subpoena power in Federal
cases, although Civil Service Rule 5.3 requires that employees furnish informa-
tion and testimony to the Commission upon request in cases pending before the
Commission. }however, election records and other documentation, and the testi-
mony of individuals not themselves Federal employees cannot be required. The
Commission does have statutory subpoena power in cases involving Hatch Act
52-137-75 ? 2
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
14
violations on the part of State and local employees. The lack of subpoena power
in Federal cases has not been a significant burden in most instances, but it is an
item which deserves consideration.
With respect to other possible statutory authorities, we would desire additional
time for giving the matter careful thought. The draft legislation which we are
preparing will undoubtedly contain items which we deem significant in facilitating
the processing of cases.
CODE OF FEDERAL REGT_TLATIONS
TITLE 5-ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
PART 733-POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
SUBPART A--THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE
PROCEDURE
? 733.131 Investigation.
An agency shall promptly inform the Commission of any instance of prohibited
political activity on the part of an employee in the competitive service. The Com-
mission will determine whether to investigate an allegation of prohibited activity
that it receives from an agency or from any other source. The employing agency
will be notified before the investigation is started.
? 733.132 Charges.
After review of the report of investigation, the General Counsel of the Com-
mission may close the case or issue charges. The charges shall set forth the alleged
political activity specifically and in detail. The charges shall be served on the
employee at least 30 days before the date of the adverse action that is proposed.
The employee may be represented by counsel at this and every other stage of the
proceedings. The employee is entitled to be retained in an active-duty status until
a final decision is made by the Commission.
? 733.133 Answer.
(a) The employee may answer the charges within 15 days from the day he re-
ceives them. He may answer personally, in writing, or both personally and in
writing, and may furnish affidavits in support of his answer. ,
(b) After review of the answer or after the time for answering has expired,
the General Counsel may close the case or refer it to an examiner of the Com-
mission for further proceedings.
? 733.134 Motions.
An application or request for an order or ruling not otherwise specifically pro-
vided for in this subpart shall be made by motion addressed to the Commission
or the examiner. The motion and supporting reasons shall be served on the
parties. Objections to a motion shall be submitted within 10 days after the
motion is served, except that a motion for continuance or extension of the time
may be ruled upon ex parte.
? 733.135 Hearings.
(a) Unless the employee and the General Counsel agree to waive a hearing, the
examiner shall schedule a hearing considering the convenience of the parties as
to time and place. The hearing examiner shall notify the paraes of the date and
place of the hearing at least 10 days in advance.
(b) Testimony is under oath or affirmation. Witnesses who testify are subject
to cross-examination. Each party is responsible for securing the attendance of his
witnesses. The examiner may allow the introduction of affidavits.
(c) The hearing is recorded by a reporter designated by the Commission. The
Commission furnishes a copy of the transcript to the employee without charge.
? 733.136 Powers of the examiner.
The examiner may:
(a) Administer oaths and affirmations;
(b) Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;
(c) Fix the time and place of hearing;
(d) Regulate the course of the hearing;
(e) Exclude any person from the hearing for contumacious conduct or mis-
behavior that obstructs the hearing;
(f) Hold conferences for simplification of the issues, or for any other _purpose ;
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : SIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
(g) Dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;
(h) Authorize, and set the time for, the filing of briefs, memorandums of
law, or other documents as may be required in the proceedings;
(i) Grant continuances and extensions of time; and
(j) Take any other action in the course of the proceedings consistent with the
purpose of this subpart.
? 733.137 Decision.
Following the hearing, or the receipt of the file when hearing is waived, the
examiner shall prepare and forward to the Commission his recommended decision
and the record on which it is based. The Commission makes its decision on this
record and notifies the employee and the employing agency. If the Commission's
decision is that the employee engaged in prohibited political activity, the penalty
is removal from the service, unless the Commission unanimously agrees that a
less severe penalty is justified. Suspension without pay for 30 days is the minimum
penalty.
SUBPART B--THE EXCEPTED SERVICE
? 733.202 Agency procedure.
(a) An agency shall process cases of alleged political activity by an employee in
the excepted service under procedures like those in ?? 733.132 and 733.133.
(b) After review of the answer or after the time for answering has expired,
the agency makes its decision and notifies the employee. If the agency's decision
is that the employee engaged in prohibited political activity the penalty is re-
moval from the service. The agency shall inform the employee of his right to
appeal to the Commission.
? 733.203 Appeal to the Commission.
When the agency decision is to remove an employee in the excepted service, the
employee may appeal to the Commission. The time limit for filing an appeal is 15
days from the date of receipt of the notice of the agency decision.
? 733.204 Commission procedure.
In adjudicating an appeal under this subpart, the Commission follows the pro-
cedures set out in ?? 733.134-733.137.
SUBPART C--TUE JOB CORPS
? 733.302 Procedure.
An action against an individual covered by this subpart is processed by the
Commission under the procedures set out in ?? 733.131-733.137.
SUBPART D--THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
? 733.402 Procedure.
The procedures of section 733.131-733.137 apply to an action taken by the Civil
Service Commission against an employee over whom it has jurisdiction under
this subpart.
10. METROPOLITAN AREAS IN WHICH EMPLOYEES OF FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
ARE SITUATED, AND THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES LOCATED IN EACH OF THESE
AREAS
Following is a list of the cities and metropolitan areas which had the high-
est concentrations of Federal employees as of December 31, 1973.
Albany- Schenectady-Troy,
Biloxi-Gulfport, Miss
5,
972
N.Y
9,510
Birmingham, Ala
8,
499
Albuquerque, N. Mex
11,
625
Boston, Mass
36,
903
Anaheim-S. An-Gar Gr Calif__
8,
518
Buffalo, N.Y
10,
145
Anchorage, Alaska
7,
264
Champaign-Urbana, Ill
2,
913
Atlanta, Ga
30,
376
Charleston, S.0
14,
022
Atlantic City, N.J
3,
094
Charlotte, N.0
3,
071
Augusta, Ga.-South Carolina_
5,664
Chattanooga, Tenn.-Georgia
7,
178
Austin, Tex
6,436
Chicago, Ill
71,
477
Bakersfield, Calif
9,
013
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-
Baltimore, Md
54,
571
Indiana
13,
683
Battle Creek, Mich
3,
474
Cleveland, Ohio
20,
861
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1 ?6: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Colorado Springs, Colo
7.
253
Columbia, S.0
6,
175
Columbus, Ga.-Alabama
5,
093
Columbus, Ohio
12,
444
Corpus Christi, Tex_ _.1._
6,
705
Dallas, Tex.-Fort Worth
27,
265
Davnspt-R Is-Mol Iowa-Illi-
nois
8,
801
Dayton, Ohio
25,
090
Denver, Colo
28,
792
Des Moines, Iowa
4,
533
Detroit, Mich
29,
958
El Paso, Tex
7,
059
Fayetteville, N.0
5,
635
Florence, Ala
2,
947
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood,
Fla
3,
178
Fresno, Calif
6,
648
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-
High Point, N.0
4.
140
Harrisburg, Pa
12,
369
Hartford, Conn
6,
017
Honolulu, Hawaii
24,
940
Houston, Tex
18,
742
Huntsville, Ala
16,
250
Indianapolis, Ind
16,
906
Jackson, Miss
3,
879
Jacksonville, Fla
11,
243
Jersey City, NJ
8,
606
Kansas City, Mo-Kansas
22,
727
Killeen-Temple, Tex
5,
508
Knoxville, Tenn
6,
779
Las Vegas, Nev
3,
714
Lawrence-Haven, Mass-New
Hampshire
5,
351
Lawton, Okla
4,
124
Lexington, Ky
7,
177
Little Rock-North Little Rock,
Ark .
7,
074
Long Branch Asbury Park, N.J
9,
284
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif__
65,
867
Louisville, Ky-Indiana
10,
373
Macon, Ga
17,
267
Madison, Wis
3,
606
Melb-Titus-Cocoa, Fla
5,
411
Memphis, Tenn-Arkansas
14,
852
Miami Fla
13,
301
Milwaukee, Wis
8,
335
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_
18,
318
Montgomery, Ala
5,
540
Nashville, Tenn
7,
496
Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y
19,
201
New Haven, Conn
4,
312
New London-Norwich, Conn.-
Rhode Island
3,
873
New Orleans, La
12,
873
New York, N.Y
106,
329
Newark, N.J
23,
790
Newport News-Hampton, Va
14,
457
Norfolk-Va., Beach-Ports, Va
31,
948
Northeast, Pennsylvania '
0,
447
Oklahoma City, Okla
31,
829
Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa.
8,
084
Orlando, Fla
3.
142
Ox=Simi Val-Ventura, Calif
10,
314
Pensacola, Fla_
8,
383
Petersburg-Col Hts-Hope, Va
3,
719
Philadelphia, Pa.-New Jersey_
76,
735
Phoenix, Ariz
11,
003
Pittsburgh, Pa
19,
208
Portland, Ore.-Was)ington
14,
874
Prov-Warwick-Paw RI-Massa-
chusetts
8,
034
Pueblo, Colo
3,
339
Raleigh, N.0
5,
957
Richmond, Va
9,
360
River-San Bern-Oat, Calif
12,
652
Roanoke, Va
3,
108
Rochester, N.Y
5,
567
Sacramento, Cal if_
26,
533
Salinas-Sea-Mont, Calif
5,
263
St. Louis, Mo.-Illinois
35.
432
Salt Lake City, Ub: h
33,
585
San Antonio, Tex_
38,
388
San Diego, Calif_
33,
213
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif_
69,
417
San Jose, Calif_
9,
579
San Juan, Puerto Rico
3,
735
San liar-San Mar-Loin, Calif
3,
318
Seattle-Everett, Wash
Shreveport, La_
Sprng-Ch-Holy Mass.-Connecti-
cut
17,131
3, 568
4,244
Stockton, Calif_
6,
306
Syracuse, N.Y
4,
920
Tacoma, Wash_.,
8,
156
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla
9,
778
Texarkana, Tex.-Arkansas__
5,
707
Toledo, Ohio-Michigan
3,
348
Topeka, Kans
3,
300
Trenton, N.J
2,
056
Tucson, Ariz
5,
515
Tulsa, Okla
4,
042
Utica-Rome, N.Y
4,
957
Val-Fairf.-Napa, CeliL
11
445
Wash., D.C.-Maryland-Virginia 316,
017
District of Columbia
192,
849
Charles County, Md
-,
575
Montgomery County, Md
36,
796
Prince Georges County,
Md
22,
288
Alexandria City, Va
6,
750
Fairfax City, Va
422
Falls Church City, Va
520
Arlington County, Va.
37,
514
Fairfax County, Va
13,
107
Loudoun County, Va
1,
230
Prince William County,
Va
1,
966
Wichita, Kans.
3,
871
Wilmington, Del.-New Jersey-
Maryland
5,
312
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/11 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
11. METROPOLITAN AREAS WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DESIGNATED AS FEDERALLY
PRIVILEGED UNDER 5 U.S.C. ? 7327 AND 5 CFR ? 733.124, WITH VOTING PER-
CENTAGES
Pursuant to a discussion between Lloyd A. Johnson, the Subcommittee Staff
Director, and Ralph B. Eddy of the General Counsel's Staff, the statistics cited
below indicate the percentage of the total electorate in the privileged localities
which is Federally connected, i.e., employees plus spouses. These figures are,
at best, close approximations based on information obtained from the America
Votes series printed by Congressional Quarterly, Annual 1?,eports of Federal
Civilian Employment by Geographic Area as compiled by the U.S. Civil Service
Commission, and certain on-site inquiries conducted by Attorneys from the Gen-
eral Counsel's Office of the Commission. No meaningful statistics are available for
the municipalities for 1964, in that employee statistics prior to 1968 were kept
on a "county" basis rather than a "city" basis. Further, as to those localities in
the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area the Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) provides the most useful and meaningful figures. The SMSA has
therefore been utilized for the D.C. area figures.
(a) Those areas which the Commission has designated as privileged localities
are as follows:
In Maryland: Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Berwyn Heights, Bethesda,
Bladensburg, Bowie, Brentwood, Capitol Heights, Cheverly, Chevy Chase, sec-
tions 1 and 2, Chevy Chase, section 3, Chevy Chase, section 4, Martin's Addi-
tions, 1, 2, 3, 4 to Chevy Chase, Chevy Chase View, College Park, Cottage City,
District Heights, Edmonston, Fairmont Heights, Forest Heights, Garrett Park,
Glenarden, Glen Echo, Greenbelt, Howard County, IIyattsville, Kensington, Land-
over Hills, Montgomery County, Morningside, Mount Rainier, North Beach,
North Brentwood, North Chevy Chase, Northwest Park, Prince Georges County,
Riverdale, Rockville, Seat Pleasant, Somerset, Takoma Park, University Park,
Washington Grove,
In Virginia: Alexandria, Arlington County, Clifton, Fairfax County, Town of
Fairfax, Falls Church, IIerndon, Loudoun County, Portsmouth, Prince William
County, Vienna.
Other Municipalities: Anchorage, Alaska; Benicia, Calif. ; Bremerton, Wash. ;
Centerville, Ga. ; Crane, Indiana; District of Columbia ; Elmer City, Wash.;
Huachuca City, Ariz.; New Johnsonville, Tenn. ; Norris, Tenn.
(b) (1) The percentage of Federal employees in the Washington, D.C., Md.,
Va., Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area total electorate is as follows: 1964,
40%; 1968, 38.7% ; 1972, 33.7%.
(b) (2) The approximate percentage of the total electorate which is Federally
connected in the "Other Municipalities" category is as follows:
Other municipalities
Date
privilege
granted
1968
(percent)
1972
(percent)
Anchorage, Alaska
Dec. 29,1947
18
38
Benicia, Calif
Feb. 20,1948
68
64
Bremerton, Wash
Feb. 27,1946
60
66
Centerville, Ga
Sept. 16, 1971
75
51
Crane, Ind
Aug. 3,1967
79
75
District of Columbia
May 16,1974
60
Elmer City, Wash
Oct. 28,1947
55
53
Huachuca City, Ariz
Apr. 9,1959
50
50
New Johnsonville, Ind
Apr, 26,1956
80
51
Norris, Tenn
May 6,1959
48
51
Port Orchard, Wash
Feb. 27, 1946
53
68
Shrewsbury Township, N.1
July 2,1960
70
70
Sierra Vista, Ariz
Oct. 5,1955
75
53
Warner Robins, Ga
Mar 19,1948
60
60
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Sol arz, do you have any comments or opening state-
ment ?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 ifIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. SOLARZ. I would only point out, Mr. Chairman, that I think
these hearings are the beginning of whet I hope will be a historic proc-
ess in this Congress. We are considering in this legislation moving
toward the enactment of new laws which will at the same time provide
needed protections to the members of the civil service and the Federal
Government and at the same time give them an opportunity to more
fully and meaningfully and effectively participate in the political proc-
esses by which our country is governed, and I want t o commend you for
your initiative not only in drafting the legislation Which our committee
will be considering, but also for arranging for these hearings to be
held in Washington and around the country so that we can in the most
meaningful way possible make, a reasonable, responsible judgment
about the best way to proceed in this matter.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson ?
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the significant thing we have
to keep in mind is that the legislation being proposed is not a repeal of
the Hatch Act. Constantly I read in the press that We propose to repeal
the Hatch Act. As you stated in your opening statement, we are trying
to bring it up to date and make it more in line with what the times
demand. -
Then the only other thing is that I want to know where is River-
side. Md.?
Mr. CLAY. It's in Prince Georges County.
Mr. WILSON. I have no other comments. I appreciate the way that
you're handling these hearings.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. T-Tarris
? Mr. Mums. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add. my comments with
respect to the method by which you're proceeding on this. I know in
mv district and in northern Virginia. we have a great number of indi-
viduals. men and women, directly affected by this legislation, many of
whom I have, worked with end participated with in community and
civic activities in the past. I think it's good government and an impres-
sive demonstration of good government to have bearings out where
the people are, and I support very much having the. hearings in. beauti-
ful Annandale. I know you all will enjoy the festivities out there but
we expect
Mr. CLAY. Is that a junket we're. going ?
Mr. HAPRIS 1continiming. Yes, it is. We'll have a bus that leaves from
the horseshoe here and you will never forget it, Mr. Chairman. You
will remember your evening in Annandale, I'm sure, for a long time.
But I do think it's important to get the reaction of the civil servants
on this. There. can be a misconception of how easy it is to neuterize
a Federal employee. I don't think it's that easy. T think this person
out there who deals in the. matters of the Federal Government in his
daily life doesn't stop being that type of person when he goes home
and his activities in the community are usually very consistent. The
notion that this is the type, of person who somehow can foreclose him-
self in the. interest, of his local government, his communi ty -activities,
and the State and Federal processes going on around him that in-
fluence his life so very intimately I think is a misconception of the
type of individual we're dealing with.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
19
I hope this record will demonstrate this concept as it relates to the
many Federal employees that I have worked with over the years
through many community and civic activities.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly are happy to have you as our first wit-
ness this morning and if you will identify those accompanying you--
and I see you have a prepared statement. You may either read it or
proceed as you see fit.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. HAMPTON, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY ANTHONY L. MON-
DELLO, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND LYNN R. COLLINS, ASSISTANT
GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. Hiuurrrow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate
having this opportunity to present our views that the proposed legis-
lation, H.R. 3000, would have serious adverse effects on our ability
to maintain a merit system, and would go far to destroy valuable
employee protections which result from current restrictions on the
political activity of Government. employees. With me today are
Anthony L. 'Mandell?, General Counsel of the Commission, who is
charged with the overall enforcement and interpretation of the Hatch
Act; and Lynn R. Collins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, who
is in charge .of the day-to-day operational aspects of the Hatch Act
enforcement and information programs. Mr. Mondello and Mr. Collins
are here to assist in answering specific questions in the areas of their
experience.
First, I--would like to put the existing political activity laws into
perspective. More specifically, I would like to state clearly what the
Hatch Act does not do, what it does, and what its principal objectives
and purposes are. I think that the law is sometimes misunderstood
and that there is a tendency to ascribe characteristics to it which it
simply does not have. So let me try to be clear on a few points.
First, in limiting the partisan political activities of Federal workers,
the law- does not single out persons who advocate particular political
viewpoints. Rather, the Hatch Act applies exactly the same Way re-
gardless of the political viewpoint being advocated. The Hatch Act
ideal is nonpartisan.
Second, the Hatch Act is not a sweeping prohibition of all political
activities; most importantly, it does not prohibit or inhibit the adher-
ence to or the expression of, any individual beliefs or opinions on
politica). subjects or candidates. Not one employee's vote goes uneast
because of the Thatch Act, nor one idea unexpressed.
Indeed, it is fair to say that the act in its present form is actually
designed to protect, and we think it clearly has the effect of protecting,
these important values. For by limiting the Government employee's
involvement in partisan political activities the Hatch Act serves to
assure that employees will not be compelled, or feel themselves com-
pelled, to engage in unwanted partisan political activities in order to
curry political favor with their superiors and thereby enhance their
prospects for continued employment or for advancement. Pressures of
this sort can be brought to bear on employees in extremely subtle ways
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
20
beyond the reach of any anticoereion regulation, no matter how tightly
drawn it may be. In many instances. the employae may feel that his
prospects for job advancement would be enhanced by political activity
alingned with the partisan views of his superiors, even though his
superiors may have done nothing or said nothing to provide an objec-
tive basis for such feelings. The Hatch Act insures that the employee
will not feel these pressures?real or imagined?by removing his ca-
pacity to respond to them by working for what he perceives to be his
superior's partisan political interests.
The. point is that in a very real sense the Hatch Act provisions serve
to protect employees by immunizing them from pressures that might
otherwise cause them to engage in political activities not of their own
choosing. This is an important consideration, in my judgment, since I
think the, act is too frequently viewed solely as a restrictive measure
without full understanding of its protective features.
Of course, the Hatch Ac7t, is principally designed to serve the objec-
tive of an impartial and efficient civil service?a goal which I am sure
we all embrace. The act. achieves this purpose in a variety of ways. For
example, by limiting the Government employee's involvement in par-
tisan politics, the Hatch Act reduces the likelihood that the employee
will allow partisan political views to interfere with the impartial
execution of the Government's business in accordance with the policies
mandated by Congress.
Also, by precluding active partisan activity, such as in _party man-
agement or political campaigns, the act makes it impossible for the
party in power to turn the Federal work force into an organized in-
strument for affecting the outcome of elections. This concern figured
importantly in the enactment of the Hatch Act in 1939 because such
abuses had in fact been widespread in the 1936 and 1938 elections.
Finally, equally important with the concern that partisan political
activity may detract from the impartiality of the. performance, of Gov-
ernment. employees is the concern that such activities, being observed
by the public. will erode public confidence in the impartial adminis-
tration of the Federal Government. The problem, of course, is that
when the. public sees a Federal employee who is prominently identi-
fied with partisan politics, and at the same time charged with respons-
ibility for the impartial, nonpartisan execution of public duties, it will
inevitably have doubts about that employee's impartiality. It seems
clear to me. that anything which undermines the publie's confidence in
the impartiality and efficiency of the civil service should be of para-
mount concern to the Congress.
\\T cannot say with total certainty that the consequences which
Congress feared when it enacted the Hatch Act will result if the act
is now repealed. We do think, however, that all of the evidence points
clearly in the direction that the act has been a success and has done
much to preserve the integrity of the civil. service. The Hatch Act ex-
presses an idea fundamental to the public service, which is quite simi-
lar to the anticorruptive aims of the bribery and conflict of interest
statutes. If repeal of those statutes were proposed, we could not say.
with any greater certainty than we do here, that the ills they are de-
signed to protect against would reappear. But we are just as confi-
dent that the evidence clearly indicates that they have worked well in
protecting the integrity of the public service. The fundamental idea
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
9
behind both sets of statutes is that an employee cannot, and should
not, serve two masters?and the idea holds true even if one of those
masters is a partisan political party.
It should be clear that legislation such as 11.11. 3000 very definitely
involves a gamble that greater freedom to engage in partisan politics
will not result in the undermining of the civil service system's in-
tegrity. Your former colleague, Aneher Nelsen, saw this very clearly,
and it is worth quoting his view that the gamble was too great. Writ-
ing in the Report of the Commission on Political Activity of Govern-
ment Personnel, he said:
The possible benefits to be gained by allowing a desirous few to participate in
partisan political candidacy and political management activity, when weighed
against the dangers that such activity poses to an impartial, efficient public
service and the hundreds of thousands of employees in it, is simply not worth
the inherent risk in such action. The benefits of the impartial public service,
whether they he of tenure, job assignments, and promotions on merit, or simply
freedom from the many insidious types of pressures present in partisan opera-
tions, compensates the employee many times over in return for the relatively few
restrictions placed on his action.
LI any case, in considering whether Congressman Nelsen's admoni-
tion should be heeded, it should be borne in mind that from the earliest
days of our Republic the threat of partisan politics improperly affect-
ing government administration has been met through regulations, in
various forms, limiting the. political activities of Federal employees.
President George Washington observed a "fitness test" in his selec-
tion of. the higher officers of his-administration which leaned on com-
petence and ability, and ignored selection on the basis of political af-
filiation. By the time the two-party System took root,, stronger meas-
ures Were required. Accordingly, in 1802, President Jefferson issued
instructions to have his Federal department heads proclaim to their
personnel the President's dissatisfaction with their participation in
electioneering, which he, one Of the authors of the Constitution, viewed
as inconsistent with their constitutional duties.
These admonishments were for the most part ignored during that
60-year slice of American history (from the 1820's to the 1880's and
known as the spoils era) during Which virtually the entire Govern-
ment was turned out of office upon each change of administration.
Partisan politics had such a stranglehold on Government offices, that
it is not at all stranffe to note that the era culminated in the assassina-
tion of President Garfield by a disappointed officeseeker. It was these
events which gave brith to the Pendleton Act?the Civil Service Act
of 1883?which created the Civil Service Commission and charged
it with the responsibility for making merit the order of the day, and
ridding the public service of partisanship.
From that time on, as had been true since President Washington's
time, restrictions on political activity by Federal employees were
imposed by executive branch action almost, exclusively?either through
Presidential Executive order or by civil service rules and regulations
covering competitive service employees.
During the 1930's, principally as a result of Government expansion
to Combat the depression, there existed in the Federal Government, side
by side with employees in the competitive service who were subject to
political activity restrictions, a group approximating 40 percent of all
employees who were in the excepted service and who were not, subject
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
22
to restrictions. The congressional reaction to the widely publicized in-
jection of these excepted Federal employees into partisan political
activities in the elections of 1936 and 1938 was passage of the FIatch Act
in 1939. The act placed upon virtually all employees the precise restric-
tions which a series of Presidents had formerly placed on competitive
service employees alone.
II.R. 3000 would have Congress turn its back on these significant
developments in our country's history of politics and the civil service.
In 1940, the act was amended to extend its provisions to State and
local employees whose principal employment is in connection with
federally financed activities. The provisions applicable to State and
local employees were recently amended by section 401 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 in such a way that the
prior prohibitions against political management and political cam-
paigning were deleted. Inserted in their stead was a prohibition
against candidacy for elective office. This recent change in the law, as
applied to State and local employees, was enacted without public hear-
ings of any kind.
You cannot have worked in the Federal Government for as long as
I have without having some views which result from personal observa-
tions of political matters as they affect the personnel management
system. My experience suggests that partisan political activity holds
a special place in American society. Except for relatively few activities,
which are regarded as corrupt practices, there is hardly any form of
political activity which is not regarded as legitimate and respected.
I have also noticed that if the opportunity to assert partisan political
influence or power is available, it will be exercised. This seems to be
the one void that someone is always willing to fill. Application of these
observations to the public employment sector?whether you accept
them as my observations or the observations anyone can make from
the American history that I have sketched above?makes very plain
that whatever political activity is permitted to Federal employees will
quickly become that which is required of them. And it is my opinion
that this is true even of the most enlightened administrations and even
under the most stringent provisions prohibiting coercion or arm
twisting. There may always be those political appointees or adminis-
trators who, for one reason or another, believe that either their per-
sonal interest, or their -philosophical interests, will be served by working
for partisan political candidates representing the party in power.
While such persons may not coerce their subordinates, they will make
it well known where they stand on this issue. For a subordinate to
actively support the opposition candidate under such circumstances
would require unusual courage. It is equally true that for a subordinate
under such circumstances to refrain from supporting his superior's
choice of candidate will also require courage. And I am not talking
about a superior who is an arm twister, just are who proudly wears
his partisan political label and makes it easy for his subordinates to
loin his partisan political efforts.
Indeed, there is a more subtle form of coercion which only pro-
hibitory legislation like the Hatch A ct can deal with. This is the in-
ternal pressure which is applied by the civil servant to himself in the
hope of advancing his or her career. Knowing the partisan political
views of the people who must make promotion decisions, and facing
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
23
a vacancy for which the employee is in competition at the time of a po-
litical election and believing that others in competition may be en-
gaging in partisan political activity for the same party as that of the
selecting officer, the employee will be under great pressure both to
refrain from supporting candidates of the opposition and to actively
support candidates favored by his superior. And what of the employee
caught in the switches because he believes administrations may change
and is uncertain whether the promotion action will occur prior to
election day in November or after Inauguration Day in January? Can
we safely say that even the most enlightened administrator, faced with
last minute promotion decisions before leaving office will not consider
the partisan political activities of the employee which either sought
to keep him in Washington or assisted in sending him home? History
tells us we cannot. And my 25 years in Goyernment which includes
H i
service in the White
ouse, n agencies, and in the Civil Service Com-
mission and which spans administrations of both major political par-
ties, tells me that we must not.
I suggested before that it is an empty hope that provisions against
coeroion can alone protect the merit system against political invasion.
The fact is that it is the prohibition against active participation in
partisan political management and partisan political campaigns which
constitute the most significant safeguard against coercion?whether
from superiors in the civil service or from outsiders. Actually, the
prohibition against coercion has seen little use, and would be very diffi-
cult to apply. .Almost without exception, those who use undue political
pressure do so in ways which, though very effective, fall far short of
violating the seemingly stiff prohibitions against coercion. And again,
virtually without exception, those same pressure tactics constitute
violation of the prohibitions against party management and cam-
paigning. In one such case supervisors without language of coercion
or encouragement, let their subordinates know of an opportunity to
contribute to a political party by attending a widely advertised politi-
cal dinner. Some of these subordinates in turn, passed the word along
to their own subordinates. Some did not. Some of them made contribu-
tions, and some did not. No subordinate was willing to testify that he
had been coerced or pressured in any way. No retaliatory 'action was
provable against those who failed to take advantage of the opportunity
offered. While use of the anticaercion provisions of the statute would
have been unavailing, those involved were disciplined for haying taken
part in party fund management.
The validity of this perspective can be seen from examination of
part 733 of the Commission's regulations. For your convenience we
have appended a copy of that part to this Statement and I invite
your attention specifically to section 733.122. That section contains
a list of 13 forms of political activity which violate the Hatch Act.
These are a distillation of the Commission's major determinations in
cases arising under the Hatch Act and the civil service rules. All of
them constitute violations of the prohibitions against active participa-
tion in partisan political management and campaigning. None of them
are, or need be, stated in terms of coercion. The simple fact is that
we seldom see cases of coercion being brought before the Commission.
Only one such case has occurred in recent years, and it involved mili-
tary personnel in the excepted service where a general gave flat
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
24
orders?coercive declarations?about who would contribute and how
much to what. party or candidate.
It has been our experience that what really limits the exercise of
political influence in the civil service is the fact that employees realize
that partisan political activity will subject them to removal. The
person who wishes an employee to do his political bidding has no
greater threat than that. Employees, thus, have a real incentive to
disclose unlawful activity. Moreover, through the years it has become,
widely accepted that it is unfair to employees for a superior to seek
their political assistance, and thereby expose them to the risk of dis-
missal. So that currently, and only because the Hatch Act is law,
most employees know that they need not respond to political requests
or suggestions, and most superiors. whether or not they are subject to
the Hatch Act, know that. it is indefensible conduct even to raise 'the
question.
This entire fabric, which has been largely successful in keeping
undue political influence from affecting Government programs or
Government personnel management, would be destroyed if the prohibi-
tions against political management, and campaigning were removed.
We have emphasized the protection the Ifatch Act affords Federal
employees in part, because we regard as exaggerated the claims that
most employees want the restrictions removed. When this matter was
last surveyed by the Commission on Political Activity about 19.67,,the
result was the other way around. Generally, more than 60 percent or
those surveyed reported that, they Would not perform any additional
political activity if the restrictions were removed and generally les:R
than 10 percent reported that, 'they would be come "a lot more active."
We suggest. that to whatever extent the proposed bill is designed to
give Federal employees what they want, it would be well to conduct
a current survey to Town if this view has changed and, if so, in what
direction. T suggest to you that most Federal employees wish to retaht
the protections Hatch Act affords them.
You no longer have the concern whether Congress should act in
order to protect the constitutional rights of employees with respect. to
the Hatch Act. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its constitutionality in
a decision (U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National, .tssociation of
Letter Carriers, AFL?CIO, 1073) the court characterized as a con-
firmation of the judgment of history. T close this portion of my
remarks with quotations from that decision which seem particularly
relevant this morning.
Such decision on our part (i.e., affirming the constitutionality of the Hatch
Act) would no more than confirm the judgment of history, a judgment made by
this country over the last century that it is in the best interest of the country,
indeed essential, that Federal service should depend upon meritorious perform-
ance rather than political service, and that the political influence of Federal
employees on others and on the electoral process should be limited.
It seems fundamental in the first place that employees in the Executive Branch
of the government, or those working for any of its agencies should administer
the law in accordance with the will of Congress, rather than in accordance
with their own will or the will of a political party. They are expected to enforce
the law and execute the programs of the government without bias or favoritism
for or against any political party or group or the members thereof. A major
thesis of time Hatch Act is that to serve this great end of government?the im-
partial execution of the laws?it is essential that Federal employees not, for
example, take formal positions in political pariles, not undertoke to play sub-
stantial roles in partisan political tickets. Forbidding activities like these will
reduce the hazards to fair and effective government.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CM-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Because of the stronc, views we hold on the need for retaining the
basic Hatch Act restrictions against participation in party manage-
ment and political campaigns, we are opposed to the key operative
provisions of H.R. 3000.
We will be happy to try to answer any questions you have.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are you familiar with an organization called Federal Executives
League?
Nft. HAMPTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAY. Can. you tell us a little bit about that organization?
Mr. HAMPTON. WS a new organization that is just in the process
of being formed. They are having, I think, their first constitutional
meeting in April.
Mr. CLAY. What's the composition of the group in terms of, say,
the grade levels?
Mr. HikatrToN. I believe that most of them are probably super-
grade.
Mr. CLAY. Supergrades?
Mr. HANtrroN. Yes. SI do not know how many members there are.
They haven't adopted a constitution yet. They have had some resolu-
tions, but it's a brandnew organization.
Mr. CLAY. Well, the reason for my asking is that they wrote a
letter that strongly disagreed with the position that you have taken
in terms of revision of the Hatch Act. In fact, they refer to it as the
"hatchet" act.
Mr. HAmFroN. Yes, I saw that.
Mr. CLAY. And they cite a point which I would like you to com-
ment on. They say that the 40-year history of the National Labor
Relations Act proves quite conclusively that a law can be framed
and enforced to catch in the net those, no matter how subtle or schem-
ing, who interfere with employees' statutory rights.
What's your comment in regards to the history of the National
Labor Relations Act in dealing with those kinds of. subtle things that
occur, et cetera?
Mr. TIA-mrToisT. Well, I think you're dealing?the National Labor
Relations affairs are dealing with an employer-employee relation-
ship in which there's a collective bargaining agreement. Many of
the cases at issue probably come up in relationship to the enforce-
ment of that agreement.
That statement wasn't specific enough and I'm not that expert
enough ,on the affairs of the NLRB to get the nexus of the relation-
ship between the Hatch Act and the labor relations. aspeeta'before
the Board.
Mr. CLAY. But you are familiar with a bill sponsored by Repre-
sentative Thompson of New Jersey that proposes to put all public
employees under the National Labor Relations Act, aren't you?.
Mr. -IIA-mrToist. I'm not familiar with all of the provisions of it.
I'm aware of a number of them.
Mr: 'CLAY. You're aware that there's a substantial amount ofsup-
port in this Congress and in all possibility that may become ,law this
. .
year?
Mr. HAInrroN. I know that we will be baying continuing discus-
sions on the labor relations law affecting the Federal employees.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/0M3 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. You speak of all these subtleties that could be used in
terms of coercion to force people to participate in politics against
their will. Two weeks ago when you were here I think it was you
explained?not to this committee but another committee which I sat
on?some quite elaborate plans that have been developed in the civil
service system that tends to deal with and eliminate kinds of subtle
pressures and coercion in terms of eliminating sex and race discrimi-
nation.
Do you think that you could be successful in eliminating those kinds
of coercion and those kinds of attitudes and at the same time not be
successful if you put your mind to it to develop a plan that would
eliminate and protect against those subtle coercions in the area of
political activities?
Mr. IIAmrTox. Well, in the 'field of discrimination, I think that we
only eliminate the need for what protections the law gives us by con-
stant education and being sure that every manager recognizes his
responsibility. One of the things we do in the Hatch Act is that we
felt from everything that we heard back in the 1960's that there
was a great misunderstanding and that a lot of people had far more
freedoms to participate in political activities than they had
recognized.
So we did embark on the same kind of an educational program so.
that employees would have a better understanding.
I'm not sure that, as I say, it's a risk. I don't know how far people
will go if these restrictions on the Federal employees are lifted, but
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are going to try to see that if
they are lifted that they are going to be the requirements and that
they are going to, one way or another?and it doesn't have to be the
spoken word?that is, in the sense that it can be construed as being
coercive?will try to use that power.
Mr. MONDELLO. May I add a comment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. CLAY. Yes.
Mr. MONDELLO. There are differences between the EEO area and this
area of political activities that to me are very sharp and clear. For
example, discrimination is not only prohibited by statutory law, but
in the ways in which it applies in the Federal service probably dis-
crimination is also a denial of constitutional right of equal protection_
Mr. CLAY. Those are the same two contentions that we are making.
One, we basically feel it's a denial of constitutional rights.
Mr. MONDELLO. Well, the Supreme Court has answered that
question.
Mr. CLAY. And the second is that it ought to be made illegal through
the legislative process.
Mr. MONDELLO. I think, first of all, the Supreme Court has made
very clear that the Hatch Act as it currently exists is not a constitu-
tional denial of anybody's right.
Mr. CLAY. In the opinion that was cited. I think what was said is
it was not illegal in itself. The law that was passed was based on
legitimate reasons, but it didn't say we didn't have the power to revise
or repeal that act.
Mr. MONDELLO. Absolutely. Congress has the power to change that.
Mr. CLAY. So we're not dealing with whether or not there's a con-
stitutional right of persons to participate in the electoral process.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIX7RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. MONDELLO. I think what the Supreme Court said was that if
Congress chooses to deny to Federal employees the right to conduct
themselves with regard to certain political activities they will not vio-
late the constitution.
Mr. CLAY. Now the record is straight. Let's don't say that the
Supreme Court said that there is no constitutional right for public
employees to participate in the electoral process, so the record is
straight now with that explanation.
Mr. MONDELLO. But the point I was trying to make was this: Dis-
crimination is lousy and everybody knows it, but if you take off the
one bar that exists in the statutes about political activity, political ac-
tivity is favored in this country and everybody knows that, too. So
the only real mechanism for a controlling anticoercion statute is these
very provisions that prohibit particular forms of political activity.
So if you're comparing. the EEO area and this area, they are really
startling different areas in this regard.
Another thing is the civil rights community is unhappy about the
single complaint involving discrimination because sometimes you
simply cannot prove, although you have very strong suspicions, that
a given individual is a discriminator. Now to assist in that area, in
?the EEO area, we have a number of legitimate techniques to deal
with this. One is the patterns and practices of discrimination, when
you notice that a black or a catholic or whatever has never been
promoted in a particular organizational area, you can take that into
account. Moreover, you can keep statistics on results and everybody
knows now that if you can show disparate results you can get into
court with a discrimination case and your burden then is not to prove
the kind of coercion that we have to prove here. It's to merely prove
pattern and practices and other events of that character and you can
win your discrimination case far short of the kind of proof that we
would require in an anticoercion case under the Hatch Act.
So I think the example is not apt and for us, coercion, whether it
occurs or not, is a question of fact and we have to prove it. You take
the laid off on these variety of descriptions of activities that are
currently prohibited by the Hatch Act and you may not be able to
prove any coercion.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Realizing your strong opposition to H.R. 3000 and the proposed
revisions eliminating prohibition against political activities and also
realizing your many years of dedicated service nad your expertise
in this area, assuming that the will of this Congress is to enact H.R.
3000, what would be your recommendations in terms of strengthening
the penalty provisions in here to prevent precisely the kind of coercion
that you spoke so eloquently of this morning ?
Mr. MONDELLO. I have had the task within the Commission of
making recommendations to the Commission about precisely what-
ever changes we come up with with regard to the Hatch Act; and
we are yet to discover a foolproof way of fastening onto or being
able to control coercion.
One of the things that Mr. Collins and I have been kicking around
is to raise certain presumptions, which is a possibility. So you can
say whenever a superior talks to a subordinate about a given subject
matter, including political activity, that a presumption will be made
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/CQE/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
that he was trying to coerce him. Now you can't make that irrebuttable
assumption. The people will have an opportunity to present proof
about that. But it might be that you could work out Classes of pre-
sun iptions of this character to, in effect, take the place of proof .and
really what they do is they shift the burden to the supervisor or
superior to show that he had other intent rather than the coercion of a
person to do political activity.
But again, if political activity is not prohibited in any way, you are
looking toward coercion to do something that everybody agrees is right
to do then, and it makes for a more difficult case. We have not so far?
and I have seen nobody else yet with whom I have discussed these out-
side of the Commission?who have come up with any thing that you
could regard as adequate to handle political activity restrictions only
through anticoercion provisions.
Mr. CLAY. Do you have any specific recommendations as to what we
can do to discourage the kind of coercion that we are speaking of?
Mr. MONDELLO. Well, I suppose we could generate some. I can assist,
your staff in knowinc, just what my office has come up with. But I don't
regard them as satisfactory and I don't know anybody el.se who has.
It's a. very difficult problem. The really nice thing about the current
Hatch Act is that Congress saw that the only way to prevent the kinds
of things that really gall you and do permit people to become some-
thing less than impartial was to place a flat prohibition.
Now, they were careful to leave certain things untouched and we in
our regulations have a roster of some 13 items that everybody is free
to do, including voting and carrying on and doing a variety of things,
but what Congress made the. difference -was you can do anything non-
partisan; you could do anything civic; you could vote, register; sign
petitions, do things like that; but you had to act as an individual and
not do them in concert with others because the moment you're acting
together with others and identifying yourself as a proponent of party
success, then the public could look at you and say, "Oh, he's that Demo-
crat or that Republican that was running for high office or party man-
ager or what have you," and then when he goes into his job where he's
dishing out contracts for the Federal Establishment people won't for-
get that he ran for this office or that office ; and the confusion in the
public mind, the threat of loss of impartiality, is very strong.
Mr. CLAY. Is there any prohibition against. ex-elected officials being
hired, in the civil service system?
Mr. MONDELLO. No.
Mr. Cry. Are there many in the civil service-system?
Mr. MONDELLO. I'm sure there are.
Mr. CLAY. Doesn't the public get the same impression that that's the
guy that was a Democratic Congressman or a Democratic member of
the board of aldermen?
Mr. MONDELLO. These are people who have been elected through?
two-thirds or more of all elections in the United States are nonpartisan
and Many of these people
M1'. CLAY. That's unfortunate, isn't it?
Mr. MONDELLO. It depends on where you sit, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WthsoN. Are military personnel under your jurisdiction as far
as political activities are. concerned?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. HAmPToic. No, sir. These particular military personnel that I
referred to in my statement were National Guard which are in the
excepted service by act of Congress and they are subject to the Hatch
Act restrictions.
Mr. WnsoN. Military personnel on active duty are not under your
jurisdiction?
MT. HAMPTON. No, sir.
Mr. WILSON. Who controls their political activity, the Department
of Defense?
Mr. MONDELLO. Yes; the Department of Defense and the military
departments all have their own regulations concerning these.
Mr. WrisoN. The reason I mentioned it is that during the past elec-
tion there were several prisoners of war, former POW's, that were
running for office and some of them were still on active duty, appar-
ently violating the law.
In 1967, this Commission on Political Activity of Government Per-
sonnel?I think you made reference. to it in your statement, made
eight recommendations which in its judgment would have permitted
greater political activity of Federal personnel while preserving the
merit system. The Civil Service Commission was intimately involved
in its work.
Which of these eight recommendations has the Commission imple-
mented?
Mr. MONDELLO. I've got the volume I of the findings and recom-
mendations of that Commission report. The only way I know is to
tick them off and I'll tell you what the Commission, s reaction was.
Mr. WILSON. Did you accept any recommendations or implement
any of them?
Mr. 1VIormni,Lo. We accepted a number of them and we have drafted
legislation on occasions that would have the point of complying, so to
speak, with some of them and ignoring others. But twice that legisla-
tion has gone through the legislative process in the executive branch
and has not achieved consensus. As a matter of fact, the two times it
went through and was commented on by agencies, there were very
strong areas of opposition to one or another provision. So that this
pot has been boiling in my office now for almost 5 years and we have
written at least two, and I think three, different revisions, but they
haven't brought consensus yet.
Mr. WILSON. Well, you apparently use the report of the Commission
when it's convenient to use it but ignore those parts that you disagree
with.
Mr. MONDELLO. Mr. Wilson, I think the parts we disagree with of that
Commission's report are the parts where there was the greatest dis-
agreement within the Commission itself and with respect to which?
in fact, on one thing they split 50-50, six members each?and they
describe that in the course of their report.
The question was whether there should be candidacy for local office
and holding political office, and that's what split them six to six.
Another one where they split almost just one apart, 7 to 5 or
some such figure, was on the extent to which you should allow Federal
empolyees or State and local employees to become lower level party
officials, such as holding a post in the ward or precinct committeeman.
But those splits in the Commission were talked about in the minority
52-187-75------3
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
30
.reports from Mr. Ramspect and Mr. .Ancher Nelsen, and the Com-
mission up to this point hadn't accepted the ones that would permit
them to be political party officers.
WiusoN. Now you quoted Congressman Nelsen; a 'former Con-
gressman, Ancher Nelsen, in your statement, Mr. Hampton, but you
didn't quote Arnold Olson or any of those who have a different view.
Mr. 11Ampr0x. No, sir. I was just pointing out those that we agreed
with.
Mr. Wit.soN. I see.
Mr. MUNDELL?. Also, I think we wanted to point out that Congress-
man Nelson, as distinguished from all of his other colleagues, was
I think the only one who stated what you Would be doing in any major
modification of the Hatch Act as a gamble, which is What we think it
really is, and he was the only one who said that; .and that's why we
had to quote him and nobody else on that one..
Mr. WILSON. I think this same Commission recommended that the
Civil Service. Commission study the potential of establishing an office.
of employee's counsel. Presumably such an office would have (riven
Federal employees assistance when they had a complaint with the
Commission. Was such a study undertaken ?
Mr. HAMPTON. Not in that exact ,sense. The Office of .the General
Counsel serves as the principal advisor to all employees and Govern-
ment agencies on the Hatch Act matters.. We did open the. complaints
office where. people could raise complaints, but it wasn't limited to
Hatch Act questions alone.
Mr. WILSON. Would it be more fair to the employers if they had
their own counsel rather than the Commission counsel since obviously
your counsel is biased?
Mr. MONDELLO. May I answer that.?
Mr. WiLsox. Certainly.
Mr. MoNDELLo. The function of the Office of General Counsel is to
be helpful in the sense that if someone comes to us and writes us and
says, "I. want to run for .a particular office in a particular locale," we
respond very quickly to him and tell him?and I think this is helpful
to him?whether if he did what he expresses a desire to do we would
regard it as a violation of the Hatch Act.
There are many people around this country who have received let-
ters of that kind from us who we have told, "No, this would not be a
violation of the Hatch Act," and they have proudly displayed it
wherever the question has arisen.
The Supreme Court commended the practice because, while I sup-
pose you might say I have biases about how I think the. Hatch Act is
violated or not violated given a particular set of facts, that doesn't
strap the individual. It's just an advisory to him. But if it helps him,
he certainly mn use it. And we thought' that because of some of. the
ambiguities of the statute it would be wise for us to furnish such a
service to the American public and we answer letters ..of that kind to
an vbodv \VII? writes them.
Mr. WiLsoN. Well, the Commission conducted the: survey, didn't
:hey, to try to determine what Federal employees knew about the
Hatch Act. uid so forth?
Mr. MoxnEm.o. Yes, the Political Activities Commission.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
31
Mr; WILSON. The purpose was to show that there was a very large
percentage of :Federal employees who don't understand what their
rights are under. the Hatch Act and what they were prohibited from
doing
Mr. MONDELLO. Yes, sir. At the time the survey was conducted we
didn't have these lists of do's and don'ts which we put out, I guess,
about 1970 or 1971 in the regulations, and actually we felt that what-
ever your committee or the Congress decides, if there are still some
don'ts that they ought to be spelled out right in the statutes rather
than the rather broad expression that was used in 1939.
Mr. WinsoN. I was surprised in reading your statement that you
have geographical areas that arc exempted rom certain provisions of
the Hatch Act. There's a large number in Maryland and not as large
a number in Virginia, and then you have a few others in given parts
of the country.
Doesn't this give these employees a rather unfair advantage over
other Federal employees insofar as political activities are concerned?
Mr. MoNnEtno. Well, there is a difference certainly between them
and. other Federal employees, but this is brought about specifically
as a result of the provisions of section 7327 of title 5.
Mr. 'WILSON. Why do you have any exemptions at all?
? Mr. MoNnuf,Lo. Well., apparently, as a matter of history, I, forget
which President it was back in the early 1900's?ene of theni decided?
President Wilson decided that the area called Somerset just. outside
of town here ought to have such a privilege and he created. it, by
Executive order, and a variety of other Presidents thereafter have
kept adding communities to that and finally, as part of the Hatch
Act amendments, the Congress itself thought that was a useful idea
and put it in the statute, and we haVe been acting under it ever since.
I think the defense of that really is that there are communities
throughout the United States where, because of say a large Navy
installation in the town, you either work for the Navy or you don't
work at all. It's the biggest business in town and the result is that
Federal employees, if they weren't allowed this additional facility
for becoming politically active and locally wouldn't have any say in
the local government and you would have a majority of the people
in the vicinity being pushed around by a very small minority, and
I think it was to redress that imbalance, that the Congress passed it..
Mr. WinsoN. Getting back to Mr. Clay's bill, have you reported to
the committee specifically those parts of the bill which you are opposed
to, or are you opposed to everything in it? Of course, we are trying
to refine it. There may he parts in it that are not perfect yet, but
that's the purpose of holding these hearings. We'd like your assistance
in trying to write a bill, unless you think everything is perfect the
way it is now.
Mr. HAMPTON. We don't think everything is perfect and in our
comments We commented on a number of bills?H.R. 3000, 1306, 1675
and some other particular bills?but I don't think that we have made
a section by section analysis.
Mr. "WinsoN. Don't you think that would be more helpful if you
went through the bill and made a section by section analysis and told
us what specifically you were in opposition to? You have given us a
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
32
lot of theory and talked about the protections that are guaranteed
to employees, but you could be more helpful to the committee I think
if .you were to go right through the bill and tell us what is wrong. I
think that is a goal that you should assume.
Mr. HAMPTON. We will be glad to do that, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. WIUSON. That's all I have at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cy. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Rousselot ?
Mr. RoussErm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I regret that I'm shuttling again between Banking and Currency
and here, but I appreciate the chance to discuss this issue because at
one time I was a civil servant in the Federal Government and I do
think that there are some points to be made.
Mr. Hampton, on page 2 of your statement, you speak to pressures
which can be brought to bear on Federal employees in extremely subtle
ways beyond the reach of any anticoercion regulation.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, what we have found in looking at the Hatch
Act particularly?and I used a case illustration later on in my text?
is that you don't really have to do a lot of arm-twisting in terms of say-
ino., "I want you to do this or I don't want you to do that," and that in
this particular case it was a question of letting people know that there
was going to be a political dinner and that they would have an oppor-
tunity to buy chances on a ticket because I think it was a $500-a-plate
dinner and they would raffle off this particular ticket or tickets, how-
ever many they sold.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. So if your boss is selling those, you want to learn to
get along with your boss and it's not always easy even in private busi-
ness to withstand that type of subtle pressure. Is that what you're
saving?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, in this particular case, their opportunity to
participate was brought to their attention and when we started investi-
gating the case and in trying to build a ease on the question of coercion,
no one would testify that they were coerced or arm twisted. So the
only way that we could enforce the Hatch Act was to use the restric-
tions that were on the activities of the individual who made available
these opportunities and by applying that the employees who did that
were disciplined. But if you take away the?
Mr. Rotrssnum The employees were disciplined?
Mr. HAMPTON. The employees not who bought the tickets, but those
who took a part in the activities of bringing it to their attention and
taking the money, and that is one of the restricted activities.
The point we're trying to make there is that anticoereion provisions
alone do not provide any protections to the employee, but that what
stops this practice is that the indiyidnals who made the solicitation
were disciplined under the restrictions on activities.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Have you got many examples of this type of thing
to provide us with for the record at this point?
Mr. HAMPTON. Do we have a number of examples? That's the most
recent one.
Mr. MONDELLO. We Mild furnish that.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Are you concerned that this law would open up
Federal employees for that kind of subtle practice?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 8cIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. IIAmrToN. The point we were trying to make is that the restric-
tions on activities serve as a protection to the individuals. Now you
take away those restrictions and
Mr. ROUSSELOT. So this law does remove those restrictions?
Mr. IIAmrToN. On what we principally use to enforce the Hatch Act.
Mr. Roussr,LoT. So let us say if an honest civil servant, didn't want
to join the CREEP, for instance, you're just trying to prevent that
kind of thing from happening?
Mr. MONDELLO. Mr. Rousselot, there--
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I just use that because that's a current example.
Mr. MONDELLO. There are a good many Federal employees who read
very broadly what the Hatch Act is all about, so that if somebody asks
them to perform some kind of activity and. it is remotely possibly
included under the Hatch Act they simply say, "I'm hatched,' and it's
kind of a shorthand way, as used by a lot of employees to say, "Leave
me alone. I'll do what I want to do that's either political or close to it,
and I just don't want your weight on me." So you simply say, "I'm
hatched," and everybody leaves you alone, and perhaps it's overused,
but that's the way it goes.
Mr. ThAmpToN. Despite the restrictions that are in the present law,
we still have violations of the Thatch Act. The question in my mind is
that. even under the kinds of restrictions that we now have, what.
happens when you remove those restrictions? How is an enforcement
agency?are we. going to be able to allow people to exercise this freely
without coercion beingapplied?
MT. ROUSSELOT. OK.
Mr. HAMPTON. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Roussimom. When you submit those other examples, can you
show how removal of some of those restrictions might just open this.
kind of thing up? If you could, I'd appreciate it.
? Mr. MONDELLO. Yes, I think we can do that.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Hampton, has the administration or the Civil
'Service Commission received any subtle suggestions or pressure from
any group of employees of the Federal Government to amend the
Hatch Act? In other words, have the employees come to you and said,
"Gee, we really need greater freedom?"
Mr. MONDELLO. We have received some mail in which individuals
will say that the Hatch Act is making me a second-class citizen and let's
do away with it. There were about 8 or 10 plaintiffs that brought the
case to the Supreme Court that said the same thing,.
But no, sir, I don't think there's a groundswell of opinion, if that's
what you're getting at.
Mr. RoussmoT. If a lot of civil servants came to you and said, We're
really being denied our basic rights of participation in Federal elec-
tions because it's been shown they can participate in local elections?
has there been a groundswell of that kind of thing?
Mr. MONDELLO. No, sir
Mr. WILSON. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I would be delighted to.
? Mr. WILSON. Don't you consider the members of the employee unions
to be representative, of a 'fairly significant number of employees, and
haven't they passed resolutions at their conventions to ask for revision
of the Hatch Act?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13m CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. HimeroN. Well, the major unions with the exception of one,
-stand on the position of amending the Hatch Act.
Mr. WILSON. Well, then, your answer to Mr. ROUSSekt would be,
yes. that there is a great groundswell?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Assuming that's been accompanied by various plebi-
scites to back that up. Has the membership been polled or is it just the
idea of the very capable and effective lobbyists in Washington for that
organization who feel they can utilize their ability to get more action?
Mr. Wirso-N. If the gentleman has attended one of these union meet-
ings he found democracy in action.
Mr. RoussFoor. Yes, I have, as a matter of fact. I have been to a
couple of elections and I'd be glad to discuss that with you another
time if you want to talk about elections.
Then, to the best of your knowledge, other than the letters from the
various union leaders here in Washington who represent various
groups, there hasn't been a substantial groundswell from individual
civil servants who have said, "Gee, we've just got to have the lifting
of the Hatch Act?"
Mr. HAMPTON. That's right.
Mr, ROT'SSF,TOT. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Tf the Hatch Act is amended as suggested in H.R. 3000, do you think
it's possible that the party in power at the White House could turn the
Federal work force into an organized instrument for affecting the out-
come of an election?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, before the Hatch Act restrictions, that was what
was done.
Mr. Roussimor. In other words, we have history to prove that that
was in fact the case prior to the Hatch Act?
Mr. HAMPTON. That's correct.
Mr. Rotrssimor. Now obviously the argument will be raised, bid now
we have additional protections in the law to prevent the firing of people
as the final discipline if they don't respond to persuasion or whatever
you want to call it. Is it possible that there are enough protections
against the ultimate discipline of dismissal to protect the individual
who doesn't want to participate?
Mr. HAMPTON. I'm not sure bow this would manifest itself, whether
it would be. if an individual became prominently identified and was
anathema to the political management, how that, would -be treated;
whether he would be denied a promotion that would be due him,
whether he would he isolated in a sense.
ROITSSELOT. Set. aside?
Mr. HAMPTON. Set aside. Whether his job would be. abolished or what.
I mean, there are many legitimate activities that manfteement can
take in managing the work force that could be. turned to serve another
purpose, and that is one of the things that we found in our investiga-
tions of agencies.
Mr. RoussErnr. Do you think of the most current example that we
have been given?because there were tremendous concerns about the
abuse of power from the White ITouse under former President Nixon?
that had the Hatch Act been amended as it is here that that abuse of
power could have been ntili zed to persuade more civil servants to engage
in political action in the direction that President Nixon wanted them
to, but the fact of the matter is, the Hatch Act prevented that from
happening?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. HAMPTON. I think that's one of the risks. I can't say, you know,
100 percent that that's what would happen.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, the only reason I bring that up is because there
was a tremendous amount of discussion, and I think correctly so, and a
great concern that there was a tremendous network of power being .
established -within the White House. That network might have been
established if this bill had been in effect that is before us. It might
have further enhanced the ability of that power to be distributed from
the White House, had this Hatch Act not been in effect. Is that
possible?
, Mr. HAmrroN. I think it would be possible, yes.
Mr. RoussmoT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. .CLAY. Thank you.
- Mr. Harris?
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hampton, I went over your statement and I was really trying:,
to put it in the context of the real world here and I wasn't able to
do it.
You make the statement on page 2 that whereby limiting Govern-
ment empolyees' involvement in partisan political activity, the Hatch
Act serves to assure that employees will not be compelled or feel them-
selves compelled to engage in unwanted partisan political activities
in order to curry political favor with their superiors and thereby
enhance their prospects for continued employment or for advancement.
- Do you feel that the Hatch Act has assured this?
MT. HAMPTON. Yes, I do.
Mr. HArairs. These comments which have been made with regard to
contributions and activities and what have you, have all been wrong?
They just haven't happened?
Mr. HAmyroN. I didn't understand you.
Mr. HARRIS. You don't feel like any Federal employees have been
compelled by these subtle pressures to make contributions or to
participate
- Mr. HAMPTON. I think some have.
Mr. HAunis. Well, then, the act hasn't, assured this at all then,
has it?
Mr. HAmrTort. The act has assured it in the sense that we are able
to ?prove that the individuals who made the solicitation have violated.
the act because there's a restriction on raising funds and receiving
them in a Government building, and that's how you enforce that.
But we couldn't use the coercion aspects of the Hatch Act.
Mr. HARRIS. Let me phrase that statement in the context of the
Federal regulations. If I may read your Federal regulations to you,
it says:
All employees are free to engage in political activities to the widest extent
consistent with the restrictions imposed by law in this subpart. Each employee
retains the right to register, vote, express his opinion as an individual privately
and publicly on political subjects and candidates. He may exhibit a political
picture, sticker, badge, or button and participate in nonpartisan activities, be
a member of a political party or other political organization, to participate in
its activities to the extent that it's consistent with the law, attend political
conventions, make a financial contribution to a political party or organization,
etc.
In your regulations, a Federal employee can do all these things
under the existing law; is that correct?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
ae
Mr. HAlkiPTON. That's correct.
Mr. HARRIS. Then how does the Hatch Act prevent these subtle pres-
sures from being exercised with respect to all these activities?
Mr. HAMPTON. Because it says that the person who would be the
trigger, in a sense, cannot do certain things to compel them to do those
things.
1117. HAnnis. I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly the
point. So why, then, do we draw the line and say if in fact he holds
an office in a partisan committee that somehow these same laws that
protect him from being compelled to do that wouldn't operate just
exactly the same? I'm asking the difference: what is the difference
between his being a member of a committee and making a financial
contribution to a political party or taking an active role as a candidate?
Mr. HAmproN. Well, I think the difference?and I'd like for Mr.
Mondello to expand on this because he sees many oases that I never
see?is that the restrictions apply to people within the Federal com-
munity, and from an enforcement point of view, if someone in a sense
participates in these kinds of activities you can get to that someone.
That someone is usually the leader in the activity.
I mean, I use the case of the supervisors who made it known to
their subordinates that they could attend this dinner and they could
do that, but we couldn't get them on a coercion situation because there
was not coercion, at least that we could prove, but we could penalize
those people because it says they are restricted from doing these
activities and that activity was the participation in the fumrraising
of the party which was what they did.
You might want to elaborate.
Mr. MONDELLO. Yes. We took our cue in drawing up these regula-
tions from the Supreme Court's decision in the Mitchell case in 1947
which was the first one that upheld the constitutionality of the act.
The Court made it plain that what the Hatch Act. tries to get at is
the avoidance of prominent identification with party success.
If you look through this roster of the 13 or so items that you were
reading from and compare them with those things that are prohibited,
you find a number of ingredients running, through here. For the most
part, those that are permitted are permitted for an individual as an
individual. Those that are prohibited are generally those that he
would do in concert with others with the design to achieve party
success.
Although prominent identification isn't mentioned, it's implicit in
the way these things are drawn up. You can, for example, attend a
political convention, rally or fund-raising function. You can just be
there. But you cannot be a delegate at such convention. It's the dele-
gates who rise up to speak and get on public TV and become prom-
inently identified. Spectators don't. You can be clown there and be
a spectator but?if you participate further, then you're acting in con-
cert with your partisan fellows.
Mr. HAants. I understand the division of the regulations. This isn't
what I'm asking you. The main objection that you have articulated
here to the amendments to the Hatch Act as being proposed is that
somehow this opens the employee up to subtle pressures to do those
things that the amendments would permit him to do, yet under the
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
37
existing law he is permitted to do a number of things in the political
affairs and he can be subjected to the same subtle pressures to do
those things as he could do these things. I just don't see how that situ-
ation is changed. ?
Mr. Mowunixo. Well, if the pressures, however subtle, are those that
he can talk about to somebody like the Civil Service Commission,
maybe we could do something about that. If he wishes to contribute as
an individual he can do that. If somebody tries to put the arm on him
and he comes to us and can point out who that somebody is and we can
generate enough evidence, we can make a case against him because
then even if it's just been discussed and talked about and nobody uses
language of coercion, direction and ordering, we can do something be-
cause the very activity then becomes one in concert, and is a form of
campaigning or aiding the party coffers. You really have a different
kind of case when you have these restrictions than if you take them
off. Then there's nothing illegal about anything in the political activ-
ity area.
Mr. HARRIS. You're talking about the eompellor as distinguished
from the compellee ?
Mr. MoNnELLo. Yes; he's the one that we would want to go against.
Mr. HARRIS. This law in no way, as it's proposed_ here before us,
changes the responsibilities or the restrictions on the Assistant Secre-
tary; does it?
Mr. MONDELLO. Some Assistant Secretaries are outside the area of
the Hatch Act. Others are not.
Mr. HARRIS. Well, the direct Assistant Secretaries?Pm talking
:about the non-civil-service appointees. His responsibilities are not
changed under this act, are they, his requirements, his restrictions,
under the proposed legislation?
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Harris, if I understand your question, are you
-saying that these people who are political appointees who are serving
in high level Government positions would not be affected if this amend-
ment to the Hatch Act were enacted?
Mr. Mums. Well, this doesn't change any restrictions on them.
. Mr. COLLINS. These people are in the excepted service and except
for those that are the Presidential appointees who have the advice and
consent of the Senate they are subject to the restrictions of the Hatch
Act as are the Federal employees. If this amendment were to be en-
acted and these activities were then permitted, such as taking an active
part in campaigning and management and fund raising, then these
people would be affected because they would no longer be subject to
those same restrictions as the competitive Federal employees would no
longer be -subject to those restrictions. So it would affect them.
Mr. HARRIS. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, he is prohibited
from engaging in partisan political activities?
Mr. MoNnr-Li,e. Yes, ordinarily, unless he's one of the exceptions
which are very narrow. He's hi the excepted service but he's covered by
the act.
Mr. HARRIS. How aboutthe Secretary of Agriculture?
Mr. Mom:au-Lc). No; he would not be covered.
Mr. T-TAtuns. Well, the enactment of this legislation does not change
his status in any way; does it?
Mr. MONDELT.O. NO.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 p1A-RDP 7 7 M001 4 4R001100120002-8
Mr. HARRIS. It does not lessen or impose any 'additional require-
ments on him? -
Mr. MONDELLO. No.
Mr. HAMPTON. In the coerciion area, I think, it does.
Mr. MoIN-DELLo. You're assuming that the coercion remains about ithe
same as it is. -
Mr. HArans. I think our act makes the requirements on the coercion
even stiffer.
Mr. CLAY. Will you yield on that?
-Mr. HARRIS. Yes. ,
.Mr. CLAY. In other -words, the Secretary of -Agriculture when be
wears a big button for Nixon or whoever he's Wearing it for, isn't that
a little subtle implication to all of the people who work under him,
all the way down to the lower secretary and custodian?
Mr. HAMPTON. Could be.
-Mr, CLAY.. The same thing you have been saying all day about why
we have to keep the Hatch Act as it is you are now saying that the
top man in the department can campaign for and wear batons, and
can do all these things, and it ,has no effect on all: the other- people
working there?
Mr. MoicriEtto. We're not saying it has no effect. We are saying that
Congress told us We have no jurisdiction over such people. It excluded
them from the Hatch Act.
Mr. CLAY. But Congress, I assume, is getting ready to tell you that
we are going to change this Hatch Act. Now what we're trying to get
from you is how should we change it.. What kinds of things should
we put into this .proposed bill that would even inake it stronger in
terms of preventing the Coercion?
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I don't want, to lose :this point hecauSe
it's one that we can fuzz up here. In fact, if the Secretary of Agricul-
ture has a political leaning or a political bias of some kind; perish the
thought, but if that be the case, might this employee then think it
would he a good idea to sign a political petition as an individual;
might he think it would be a good idea through a subtle act of some
kind to make a financial contribution to a political party; might he
think it would be a good idea to display a political sticker, picture, or
badge or button? And these are all things under the existing act you
permit him to do.
I don't understand the subtle distinction between what he could be
suddenly coerced to do and all these things that he's ,now permitted to.
do under the Hatch Act. Yet the minute we amend the Hatch Act to
allow him participation in a more visible way, that somehow makes
him more susceptible to coercion.
Mr. MONDELLO. Absolutely. It makes it all legal. It means that the
very activity that he's
Mr. Mums. Wearing a political button is-already legal.
Mr. Moxnriririo. I understand that, but that's a matter of individual
choice. -Right now the employee can say no, if anybody wants him
to do any of those things that he can do. We assume that lie's doing
these things as an individual, which the Constitution gives him the
right to do and nobody has interfered with that.
Mr. HARRIS. The only question is, the things we could permit him to
do under this bill, why is he not able to say no to those exactly the
same way?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : W-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. MONDELLO. I think he loses the capacity to say no because what
is ,asked of him is 'something that's perfectly permissible.
Mums. So are these. These are perfectly permissible for him
to do and he could be subjected to the same subtle coercion to these -
as to those things permitted under the law.
Mr. MONDELLO. Not without the - counter-foil of the restrictions,.
because they do. permit him to say no. You, .would leave him with.
nothing that would permit him to say no.
Mr, HARRIS.,Nothing ?
Mr. M-oN-oEt,Lo. Virtually. He's Standing alone. Here he has a lot
ofthings he can do if he wishes to do them, and many de.: I couldn't-
. tell you right now, for example, whether any of the subtle pressures
are effective now to Make people contribute. I don't know the motiva-
tions of Federal employees who do indeed contribute to political
parties. But you take away the other restrictions and you make it
almost impossible for them to resist.
- Mr. HAmus. Why does it make them impossible to resist?
Why is it impossible for him to say, no, I will not be an elected
Member of the Republican committee, and it is possible for him to
say no, I will not put a bumper sticker on that says "Elect Ford."
Why isth a one thing-possible for him to do and the other thing impos-
sible for him to do?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, the person who. puts this pressure 011 him is
taking -part in concert in a political campaign and he is subject to
restrictions.
? Mr. HARRIS. Unless he's the Secretary of Agriculture.
- Mr. IIAMETON. The other thing is that many p6ople well know about
these. restrictions so they don't ask, but you remove the restrictions
and it's an open season and they will be asked.
Mr. HAmns. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other questions.-
. Mt. CLAY. Go ahead.
Mr. HAnms. When you speak of the area of coercion with respect
to political activity by Federal employees, now in my area I have had.
Independent candidates endorsed by the Republican Party run against
me and I have had Independent candidates endorsed bythe Democratic
Party run with me which, as I understand it, is permissible under the
Hatch Act.
Mr. MONDELLO. That's correct. They are running as Independents.
Mr. Mums. Now I want to understand the great big change that
this bill would bring about which says that instead of running as an
independent endorsed by the Democratic Party or an independent en-
dorsed by the Republican Party, .now he can run as a Democratic
candidate or a Republican candidate. Now that has a certain basic
attraction to him because it sounds more honest, but I ;lust wondered
what is the fundamental change that would occur by doing this and
bow all of a sudden that then makes him subject to subtle coercion
when it didn't before.
Mr. MONDELLO. Well, on the. subtle coercion point. I think all I can
say to you is I have been unable to articulate any reason that sounds
very good even to me, and I have undertaken with Mr. Wilson to com-
ment on the precise sections of all of your bill and we will try to
articulate and describe those effects. With respect to running as inde-
pendents in partisan elections, the closer you get to anybody to run in ?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
40
partisan elections, the less fundamental will be the capacity to pro-
tect him under this bill, but that special area was carved out as a re-
sult of what happened under section 7327. That was Congress will
and we follow it and we have allowed it to go as far as we can let it
go. If you run as a nonpartisan you can run as an independent.
Mr. HARRIS. But the party can endorse you?
Mr. MONDELLO. Yes.
Mr. HARRIS. Has the Commission any recommendations with respect
to changes in the Hatch Act?
Mr. FLUIPPON. Well, as I say, we have a number of different things
that we haven't achieved an consensus of. One of the things is deal-
ing with the question that we were just discussing, the anticoercion
-type, of things, and hearing what you have had to say gives me some
ideas of what you might put in there. It could be not just say you can't
be coerced, but these kinds of activities on the part of people holding
i
supervisory jobs are not permissible, and instead of saying n coercion
these, kinds of things make up coercion, but anyway, that's just an idea
and a thought. That's one of the things we're considering.
Another thing is to clarify some of the substantive provisions of
the law by setting forth the kinds of activities that are permitted and
prohibited, some of those that are currently incorporated in our regu-
lations.
In defining the law's coverage, we had suggestions before to in-
clude the members of the Civil Service Commission who, fortunately,
in the 14 years I have been there have never gotten themselves involved
in campaigns anyway, but that the members of the Postal Board of
Governors were to be included among those people that would be cov-
ered by whatever Hatch Act comes forth. We had other people in
certain other independent agencies covered, but there was no con-
sensus on that.
Providing a greater range of uniform penalties in the Federal,
State and local'' cases. We also were thinking about reducing the
minimum penalty to 5 days suspension without pay rather than 30
days, which is the present one. Also, establishing an intermediate
penalty in State and local cases. In the State and local cases the only
penalty is either removal or no penalty at all. We were also think-
ing about eliminating indefinite bar for employment and substituting
a 3-year bar in the Federal cases.
Certain applications of procedural aspects?the Commission hag
no subpena power in Federal cases, which we do have in State and
local cases.
These are just some of the things that we were thinking about and,
as I say, we are in our third draft. This has been going on for 5 years.
We have never been able to get any draft cleared or any consensus
which I think goes to looking, you know, at 100 years of history and
the risk factor, and that's Ay we are not able to?I mean, we are
speculating on what might happen if these changes are made and we
are not rally sure what will happen. We go back in history to what
happened when they weren't there, and we see activities and many
uses of the Federal work force that wouldn't be countenanced today
at all.
So I think what Mr. Wilson said is in getting on with this in terms
,of ascertaining what the situation is today and working with the
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :4lA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
committee and coming up With something constructive that meets
the need, because actually the thing that concerns me the most about
the Hatch Act is prominent identification and what happens to the
individual who becomes prominently identified. I personally feel that
an individual should be free to do everything that he possibly wants
to do, but I think that the one thing?when this comes to the question
of prominent identification, that he loses something because he can be
compelled or he can be affected in a way that is involuntary, and I
think that's a real thing that I have seen over many years in the
political arena.
Mr. Timms. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Hampton, but as of
this time, you have no recommendations. Is that right?
Mr. HAMPTON. I have no recommendations to present to the Con-
gress. I have a third draft that is in process of being considered and
I think the best way to get to some of these things would be to com-
ment specifically on the provisions of the bill as suggested by Mr.
Wilson.
Mr. HARRIS. I hope then, in some small way, my comments and
questions today might prod you to start doing that.
Mr. HAMPTON. I think you had some good ideas.
Mr. HAmus. You referred to the Commission on Political Activity
of Government Personnel and I'd like to quote to you from volume
II of that which says: "Fears are often expressed about federal super-
visors putting the touch on subordinates for political contributions
and campaign help to try to persuade them how to vote. Virtually no
evidence of this arises in the study." Did you note this comment in
their report?
Mr. HAMPTON. I haven't read the report in question.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mrs. Schroeder?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a real problem with what you're saying because I hear
you saying that what we need for Federal employees are spine' trans.-
plants. In other words, they just can't hold up under this pressure'.
I don't see why you think civil servants would be different than people
who are working for North American, Lockheed, or Penn Central
Railroad or Boeing or McGraw-Hill. There's so many private com-
panies that aro engaged very heavily in Federal money or Federal
grants or getting money that way.
Why would Federal employees be different than the almost quasi-
public corporation employees?
Mr. HAMPTON. I think most Federal employees have a public trust,
an obligation to the implementation of laws, the administration of
laws. I think impartiality in that process is important. I think it's a
very difficult role many times in administering a law to separate your
personal feelings or your sense of justice in being objective and you
wish you could change the law because you think the' decision ulti-
mately isn't what it should be.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. But I don't think you can do that now. I don't
think the Hatch Act makes people objective.
Mr. HAMPTON. No, but I think the visibility of having the person
involved in the administration of the program and the general feeling
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1i CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
that exists that he wouldn't be impartial, that he would be treating.
someone favorable because that person shares his political philosophy
is a real one.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. And you don't think that there's any way to insure
against that kind of thing?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, all I can say is I think that the Hatch Act
has been very successful.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Could you tell me how many supervisors have.
been disciplined under the Hatch Act for compelling people in, say,
the last 5 years?
Mr. HAMPTON. Early in my testimony, one of the things that I
laid out was that the coercion aspects or the armtwisting thing very
seldom is before the Commission because of the difficulty of being able
. to prove it.
.Mrs. SCHROEDER. And how many
3fr. HAMPTON. But we have used the restriction type of situation
to get at the compellor. We do have a lot of facts and figures of these
cases that were provided to the committee and it breaks down those
cases to types of cases and what they were.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. And how were they disciplined? How big a
dis-
cipline? What kind of discipline procedure would you have?
Mr. HAMPTON. Removal and in some cases suspension.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. But you can remember exactly how many removals
or suspensions there's been in the last 5 years?
Mr, HAMPTON. It's in that data. We have all of that in our data that
we made available to the committee. I don't have the-:, figure in my head.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. How do you think this is different from asking
employees to buy Government bonds, the coercion put upon employees
to buy Government bonds and participate in those kind of Govern-
ment programs? .
Mr. HAMPTON. They are. not supposed to coerce them to buy bonds.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think an awful lot of employees would find that?
? have you had any cases of: that type of thing in front of the Commis-
sion, that kind of coercion?
Mr. Iliati-ro*. :Not .in any 'recent years. I mean, we have issued a
certain nuiriber of rules and regulations on bonds and combined fund
campaigns and so forth where we have had complaints about this,
and we did re,eralate in that particular area.
But in testifying before the Ervin committee and here, we did not
have any significant, number of grievances or complaints in that area,
and I'm speaking now of testimony that was given some years ago.
Mvs. Scum-a:DER. It seems to me that it should be very possible to
fashion a bill that would be. Much better than where we are because,
to be very honest. I'm not very impressed that there's -beCn any very
active. cohesing of this kind of compelling activity by supervisors by
the Commission. It seems to me: new legislation might really helNif we
- came up with amending the Hatch Act, to make it like an employees'
bill -of political rights and then have very specific caveats against
supervisors, that violated this, very similar to what you have against
supervisors under the NI,1113--L-that type of thing, whether it be fines
or suspensions, et cetera?and a procedure for carrying it Out. .I think
you would really be better off than you are now.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/134CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. HAmrroN. That was one of the things that occurred to me when
Mr. Harris was talking, that in terms of coercive things?and I think
Mr. Mondello mentioned it earlier?what kinds of activities can be
construed as coercive or subtle pressure. He may want to comment on
that further because we have been kicking that idea around.
Mr. MONDELLO. We were thinking of creating presumptions that
would lie against the supervisor if he simply raised the topic with the
subordinate about the things. It's possible, of course, to trim up the
anticoercive language so it would reach out farther and do that con-
sistent with the ordinary due process rights of those who are sus-
pected-because they have a right to appeal from any discipline, but it's
a difficult area.
Mrs. Salmon)Ett. But it's not that difficult, though, because having
practiced under the. NLRB for years I know full well if a supervisor
even calls an employee to his office that's supposed to be a traumatic
experience and from then on anything that he says changes entirely
the burden of proof because what he says in his office with the em-
ployee alone?the employee is supposedly under a different kind of
pressure than if the guy just walks by him on the floor and says,
"Hey, Charlie, what are you doing with a button," or some joke.
There are all sorts of those kinds of standards that have been set
out in employee/employer relations under the NLRB that spell out
what coercion is and how it is different in different scenarios and
under different_ types of instances, and I think it would be very easy
to transpose that and have that as a protection. So you allow people
full i)articipation as a citizen and say that anyone who interferes with
this economically?that is, any supervisor who has some kind of au-
thOritY over him: or interferes with this:can be punishedI think you
have the best of both possible worlds.
Mr. MONDELLO. If that could be done. I remind you that thePolitieal
Activities Commission wanted to . do it. They discussed doing it and
never Came up With- a strengthened anticoercion provision. They dis-
cussed it for a long time. Maybe they didn't know the NLRB ex-
perience. It's a very difficult job.. . ? ' = ? - ? ? ? ? - ?
The whole purpose of the presumption, of Conrse, is to-do just
'what you were-suggesting it is wise to do; namely, to shift the burden
of proof and put it on' the supervisor so that certain conduct -takes
'place. If he sees the employee alone in the -room and italks about a
certain matter, then he has to 'collie up With' a good bona fide reason
:why, other than politics, he 'broUght the man into the ,roOm. And I
appreciate that, but nobody has ever yet sat down and Written a-de-
cent anticoereion provision of that character :or any other that would
profitably take the place of -What's on the books now. Now You're sug-
gesting we ought to try that. I'm perfectly happY to try it and we will
discuss it with your staff.
Mrs: SCHUOEDEll. I'm Suggesting that you just look - tit; the NLRB
Act, The 8A1 provisions are very simple. I think it's about three -sen.
tences, _and out of that this whole body_ was developed. It isn't- corn-
1-)lex. You are not to call an employee in and specifically recommend
or?it's - not just coerce--they have also -got all sorts of things in there.
It recognizes that when your boss speaks to you; which is not exactly
one-to-one, 'chummy relationship?so it's put hi -there, but; :within
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 .? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
44
a matter of a couple sentences we have really created a tremendous
body of law and I think it's working very, very effectively.
I would hope that they would look at that because I think that's
probably the way it will go.
Mr. Mom)Ezzo. We certainly will. Even these bills haven't done that.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, that's precisely why I haven't cosponsored it
because I really feel the 881 provision should be incorporated into this.
with that kind of safety valve.
Mr. MoNDELLo. We will certainly look at that.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. aux. Thank you.
Mr. Hampton, did I hear you correctly when you responded to Mr.
Harris and said that you had not read the report of the Commission
on Political Activity of Government Personnel?
Mr. HAMPTON. I haven't read it recently.
Mr. CLAY. You haven't read it recently. You referred to it con-
stantly in your remarks this morning. Perhaps we ought to give a
brief review of some of the things that that report actually said so that
we can refresh your mind and maybe ask you what your opinion is on it.
First, it says in the opinion of the Commission, the best protec-
tion the Government can provide for its personnel is to prohibit those
activities that impede the role of the career system based on merit. This
requires strong sanctions against coercion. It also requires some limits
on the role of the Government employee in politics. It was the unani-
mous view of the Commission's members, however, that these limits
should be clearly and specifically expressed and beyond those limits
political participation should be permitted as fully as for all other
citizens.
Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. HAMPTON. I would agree with that.
Mr. CLAY. Their rights should be permitted as fully as all other
citizens.
Mr. MONDELLO. Within those limits.
Mr. HAarrroisr. Within those limits.
Mr. CLAY. But the limits that they are referring to, as I understand
the report as I have read it, is that a Federal employee should not be
able to seek public office where it requires his full-time efforts. All
through the report it talks about the right of public employees to seek
public office except at the Federal level, which was what they were
dealing with. It says?and particularly on the basis that Mr. Harris
was speaking of, it says under the present Hatch Act the Civil Serv-
ice Commission establishes different rules for political participation
by Government employees in areas of concentrated Federal Govern-
ment employee employment. It also draws the distinction between
partisan and nonpartisan candidates and elections. This Commission
was in substantial agreement that the rights of government employees
should not be determined on a geographical basis.
ment employee employment. It also draws the distinction between
partisan and nonpartisan elections was often illusory, tended to pro-
mote so-called nopartisan slates which in reality were partisan, there-
by contributing to a political fragmentation which might threaten the
two-party system.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/134p1A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
As a substitute for these tests, this Commission suggests that with
the approval of the agency head a Federal employee be permitted to
hold any local office which is not full time and the compensation for
which is nominal. That's what they were referring to in terms of
limitations.
Would you care to comment on the Commission's substantial agree-
ment that there ought to be no prohibition against employee's partici-
pation in politics?
Mr. HAMPTON. As I said, I haven't read that whole report and T
would be hesitant to comment on something that's taken out of a por-
tion of it without having looked at the whole thing.
Mr. CLAY. Would you care to comment on another recommendation
of that Commission which says public employees should be permitted to
express their opinions freely in private and public on any politica/
subject or candidate?
Mr. HAMPTON. I agree with that.
Mr. CLAY. But they can't do that now.
Mr. HAMPTON. Yes; they can.
Mr. CLAY. You mean publicly at a meeting of a ward organization
a Federal employee can get up and express his opinion on a candidate?
Mr. MONDELLO. Yes, Sir.
Mr. CLAY. But he can't recommend that someone else vote for that
candidate; is that correct?
Mr. Mori-DELLO. He can't as part of a campaign; no, sir.
Mr. CLAY. Well, at a ward meeting I assume it would be part of a
campaign.
Mr. MoNnErmo. He can attend a political party meeting. He can
address the group. He can tell them which candidate he prefers and
which he doesn't prefer. He can vote on that candidate. But when he
steps outside that meeting and begins soliciting votes on a concerted
basis, that's campaigning and that's prohibited.
Mr. CLAY. If he steps outside that meeting and expresses his opinion?
Mr. MONDELLO. He, can express his individual opinion to his neigh-
bors, his friends, publicly.
Mr. CLAY. All right. Let me ask you?
Mr. 1VioNDELLo. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on your earlier
qlieion?
Mr. CLAY. Yes.
Mr. MONDELLO. The portion you were reading from at that last bit,,
this Commission was in substantial agreement as to Government em-
ployees' rights should not be determined on a geographical basis, that
came after the 10th recommendation we were talking about, candidacy
for local office and holding a political office, and they went on there-
after and described the nature, of the split amongst them. But that
came after this second recommendation which says that the law re-
latinf, to political activity of Government personnel to specified and
read i bl v understandable terms, those political activities which are
prohibited, and specifically permit all others. I think there they're
'not talking of the anticoercive provision alone. They were thinking
that they were going to make more liberal, in favor of employee's
participation in politics, the running for local office. They were not
going to kiss off all of the prohibitions of the Hatch Act. They were
simply going to open them up in particular areas.
52-137--75----4
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/134.6CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
So that their second recommendation was their feeling of umbrage
at the idea that you simply had a simple, little expression in the statute
that said no participation in political management or campaigns, and
that didn't tell employees anything. So the second recommendation was
one which said to whatever extent you keep these prohibitions, spell
them out in the statute so that everybody knows what the rules of the
game are.
So they really did intend to retain prohibitions of specific political
activity and at the same time allow people to run for what they
call local offices where the compensation was nominal. So they were
doing both at once.
Mr. CLAY. Yes. You have leaned quite heavily on recommendations
of this Commission where it tends to support your. position, but they
made a number of recommendations in 1967. Have you implemented
any of those recommendations?
Mr. MoNnEni,o. Certainly not through legislation. ,
Mr. CLAY. Have you attempted to through legislation?
Mr. MONDELLO. Yes, sir. In the bills that we drew -up, the two earlier
provisions that went the full. course through all the agencies with all
the comments coming back we picked up out of these 10 recommenda-
tions about 6 of them, and the question wasn't whether the recom-
mendations coincided with the Commission's position. Our people testi-
fied and presented lots of evidence. They took?our office before I was
there got all of the case histories on the books so the Political Activ-
ities Commission could deal with it. We didn't have any firm position.
When they came out with theirs, our Commission in the process of
passing on -these provisions?we had to .make decisions whether we
would buy their recommendations or whether we wouldn't, and a
changing body of Commissioners over the course of these years has sev-
eral times looked at these recommendations - in the eye and bought
some and not bought others.
Now, as I suggested before, the ones we did not buy were?as a
i
matter of fact,. n the .first- revision, we .did buy one that the later
Commission changed by the time of the second revision. That was the
one about running for local.office. Our feeling about that was simply,
okay, let's open it up; let Congress experiment with this. If it''
:croes
too far, we'll get the scandals we had in 1938 all over again and we
will run back to Congress and say, "Please close it down."
? Mr. 'CLAY. Or 1972. -
Let me ask you about another recommendation. They said up ,to
million dollars should be appropriated annually for the enforcement
of . the law, in contrast to the $100,000, or less, appropriated annually
since 1939.
The question is: Iii view of the fact that you have only filed one
Violation of the Hatch- Act,: in recent years, as stated earlier, in terms
of coercion, do you think that there's a possibility that you don't have
enough funds or investigators, and so forth, to find More examples of
coercion?
Mr. IIAmprox. Well, usually those are brought to our attention by
the individuals. I don't think it's a question of sending out investi-
gators looking for them. Our appropriation, I think, has tripled in
this area. I'm not sure, but I think we provided to ti ie committee our
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : Qyk-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
appropriation.- But Mr. Collins, who deals with this on a clay-to-day
basis, may want to add further to that.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations which we received,
as Chairman Hampton pointed out, have been set forth in the material
:furnished to you with our letter of February 28, and the expenditure
of funds in connection with those appropriations for processing of
cases involving Federal employees,
We act on a complaint basis. We don't have the manpower, nor have
we ever thought it necessary to have the manpower, to have people
going throughout the country inquiring of employees whether they
have been subjected to activities whichi. would be violations of the
Hatch Act that they wished to,report.
- Since 1968, after the Commission on Political Activity of Govern-
ment Personnel's recommendation that employees should be made
more aware, not only of what was prohibited to them, but, particularly,
what -was permitted to them, we established in the Office of the General
Counsel?that was prior to my being there?an information program
where our office did attempt to address Federal groups, personnel
associations, and so forth, and explain the ,purpose of the Hatch Act,
the implications of it, the restrictions, and the permitted activities by
the Federal employees; and we do receive complaints and we act on
them.
-Mr. CLAY. You mentioned the informational aspect of this. How
'many people have full-time responsibility for disseminating what the
rules and regulations are for the 214 million Federal employees?
Mr. COLLINS. At the present-time?
Mr. CLAY. Yes.
Conuxs. At the present lime, the General ,Counsel's office,
we have- four.
Mr. CrAy. Four people full time.?
Mr. COLLINS.: Right. - But: we .alsO__ utitlize our regional offices for
dissemination of much of our published material., .
--. Mr.: 0,4x. M9)-k- m any people would ,yon estimate- :in- the, regional
offices have this full-time responsibility?
o Mr, COLLIINS. It ANTOlidn't be. full-time responsibility. They would
do it in the course of their business M. dealing with other Federal
,- agencies and .State and local :agencies. ? ? .
Mr Ci-y. DQyouthinit,that 's adequate?
? Mr. CoT,nrxs It's difficult for me t-c) assess what the effectiveness of
the information program has been. We have done what we, felt .we
could do. What we- ha-re done is attempt- to acquaint those- in,respon-
, sib-ie positions in Federal; State, and local ,ageocies -with the provisions
of the law and :request that - they - assure that this information is
--- filtered down to the rank .and.fil p employees. .? .
We receive questions daily from employees who want to know if a
proposed activity, would. be a violation of the- Hatch , Act , and, as
Mr. Monde-Ho pointed out to .yon, we dorespond .to those and I had
. an, occasion last year to have the: attorney_ general of -the- State of
South Carolina say to me that he wmipleasea to note in his dealings
with, vs that we were. the only Federal, agency he had ever dealt with
that gave. an advisory opinion as. to whether or not something would
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/V : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
be a violation of the law which they administer, and he felt that
was very helpful, and lye do that scores of times daily either by
telephone or by letter.
Mr. Moiv-limo. Mr. Chairman, part of the information program we
get out is either 100,000 or 00,000 posters?I guess 100,000'
of each--State and local and Federal?these are sent out through
the attorneys general of the State and the Governors of the State
for the State and local people who are federally funded, so to speak.
In the Federal Government wQ send them out to all the agencies and
they have to be posted prominently.
We also put out political fact sheets, the kind of thing you fold
up and put in your pocket. It is pocket sized by design, which gives
the general rundown of all the do's and don'ts. Federal agencies
piggyback these with GAO fact sheets and distribute them to their
employees that way.
So a good deal of information gets out. The unions are knowledge-
able about the Hatch Act and they dosome of this also.
But to answer your first question more directly, if we go from a
complaint system which we currently have and which, for the most
part, is effective because when two people are running against each
other for office and one of them accuses the other of violating the
Hatch Act he's not at all fearful of coming to us and telling us so,
and then we have the investigation. If we go to a policing mode where
you have only anticoercion provisions of whatever character, and
you want us to go out and find the cases because of the fear that
people won't speak up against their superiors, that would be a much
more costly effort.
I don't know how many people it would take, but there are any
variety of similar police programs in the government that we could
use as examples and try to come up with some figures.
Mr. CLAY. I have one last question. Mr. Wilson asked if it had not
been for the Hatch Act President Nixon possibly would have turned
the civil service system into a spoils system and your response was
yes it was possible.
Are you saying that the Hatch Act prevented Mr. Nixon from
using the system as a spoils system?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, the way he asked the question was that would
it have been possible. That's the way I understood the question; that
if there had been no Hatch Act, to force Federal employees to partici-
pate more in the election?and that is a possibility and that is the
risk factor.
Mr. CLAY. But the inference there is that the Hatch Act prevented
that precise thing from taking place, and I would like to ask
Mr. HAmpToN. I'm not even sure they had the inclination. I'm just
saying?
Mr. CLAY. You mean with him going into the CIA and encouraging
people to burglarize the offices of the opposition party, in using all the
top level civil servants in this country to campaign for him, you don't
think that he had that inclination?
Mr. HAMPTON. I said I don't know whether he had it or not.
Mr. CLAY. Well, my question to you is: Do you know of any
instance where anybody was approached by the White House or Mr.
Nixon himself in the Civil Service who resisted?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 41A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. HAMPTON. I don't know of anybody that was particularly?no
one came to me and said that they were approached and resisted.
Mr. CLAY. Then how can you imply that the Hatch Act protected
the civil servants from that kind of pressure?
Mr. HAMPTON. Because I think the Hatch Act is protecting because
when we did not have the Hatch Act that's what happened.
Mr. CLAY. Well, we had a lot of other factors, too, that went into
it -prior to 1939. You didn't have the kind of labor organization in
the Federal employees that you have now and that's an opposite kind
of resistance to the kinds of coercion that supervisors would imply
-because these people now have something to fall back on in terms of
legal representation, in terms of people who know what the laws are
and know what their rights are and are willing and prepared to pro-
-tect them in that instance. So I don't think we can equate 1939 with
-1975.
Are there any more questions? Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. As A followup to the last question asked, how long was
the Malek manual in effect before you became aware of it?
Mr. HAMPTON. Well, as far as I know, the Malek manual was never
in effect. I think it was a draft document and I don't think it was
,ever?
Mr. WiLsoN. It was never distributed?
Mr. HAMPTON. To my knowledge, it was never a document put in
final form and circulated.
Mr. MONDELLO. Mr. Wilson, maybe I know more than the Chairman
about this because there are some things?he hasn't been as close
to these investigations as I have.
We looked for the Malek manual when the select committee, the
Ervin committee, first informed me that they had it. They had been
reading parts of it and commenting on it. I wanted a copy and we had
a devil of a time getting it because they had a special rule about who
they could share documents with.
But knowing that there was such a document, I then told the people
-who were investigating in the agencies to go look for it and we didn't
find it. On occasion we had some people who were very cooperative with
us, including some we charged, and we drilled them about, did you
sever see the manual and was it used and was it there, and the answer
was no.
Now it's true it looks like it's in draft form. Nobody has ever Seen a
completed copy of it. We have never been able to discover that it was
used as the Bible that it was apparently designed for. So it may be that
the intervention came at just the right time and it never did get
effected.
ME. WILSON. Well, the very fact that there WaS a print showed there
was an inclination by Mr. Nixon or his people to turn the Federal
Government into a spoils system.
Mr. MONDELLO. It was a Xerox typed copy. I don't think -anybody
ever physically printed it. But as I say' we just never discovered it and
the first we heard about it was from the select committee.
Mr. WILSON. But Malek was the top personnel manager of the
administration.
Mr. MONDELLO. I don't know what .his -role was with the White
House. He became Deputy Director for OMB.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
50
Mr. WILSON. He was a political appointee.
You Mentioned, Mr. Hampton, that you have beei on the Commis-
sion 14 years
Mr. HAMPTON. That's ,correCt.
'-Mr WILsoN. And that you weren't aware of any politiCal activity
by members of the Commission itself. This IS very possible'. I suspect
When people become members of the Goinmission they are like judges
and leave polities behind them. Doesn't the law- req ire that there be
no more than two Commissioners of any one political party?
, MT. HAMPTON,. That's Correct.
Mr WILsON. So people are appointed because f their political
affiliation.' You're a Repobliean,.I assume,- 9'(l l Andolsek is 'a
DeMoCrat and MIs. Spain is a Republican. T ,.lon't kliow nbont
Your partieular ease, but in the case of Mr': AndolSek fe NvfM appointed
because he was an active Democrat. He had worked for a Democratic
Congressman and it was 'pretty Much of a partisan appointMent,
'weSii't it?
Mr. HA:UPTON% He had had Ittally yen experierwe in the ex-cm-ION:re
lwanh as a career' civil servant and lit served its en edroinist rative
assistant to a Member of the Congress end he serYel, as a counsel on
one of the committees.
Mr. WELsoN. Mrs. Spa in. what was her background?, She WftS a
'politica 1- appointee, wasn't 'she ?
Mr, TIAArgrox. She came out of the business conummity. She was
pre,..ident of a ma nufe cturi ng companyIn eincinn:ati. Ohio.
Mr.' Wt-LsoN. But had she been active in the Republican Party in
ejnpinn9ti ?
Mr. ITA-kgroNJ don't realiV think so. To fact, t ion 't think ren,lly
many people ever appointed to the'Commiasion have had a kit of politi-
cal activity.
Mr. WrLsON. Actually, you and Mr. A ndolsek both have been on the
Commission for a considerable time: Has there been more than one
Change since 1967?
Mr. HAMPTON. I think there haVe been four others.
- Mr. WILsoN. Four different ones?
Mr. HAMPTON. Yes.
Mr. 'WILSON. Mrs. Spain replaced a Democrat., n't. she?
Mr. HAMPTON. She replaced Mr. Johnson.
Mr. MONDELLO. He Was from California.
Mr. HAMPTON. Mr. Johnson replaced Mr. Macy for his term and
Commissioner Andolsek replaced Mr. Roth.
Mr. WILSON. Thank vnu, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Harris?
Mr. HAants. Thank you, Mr, Chairman.
With respect to the regulations, the section on permissible activities.
you have a subsection A in which apparently the attempt is to make
it clear to the Federal employee what he can dn. Then you have the
subparagraph B which says that paragraph A of this section does not
authorize an employee to engage in political activities in violation of
the law while on duty or while in the uniform that identi Res him as a
Federal employee.
Now previously I have had problems understanding what that
sentence meant. Paragraph A does not authorize en employee to engage
in political activity in violation of the law, period, does it?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 ;5?IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. MoNiTri,o. Yes.
' Mr. HARRIS. It doesn't just limit him to political activity in violation
of the law while he's on duty or while in uniform?
Mr. MONDELLO. I have an idea that the necessity for the first sentence
of paragraph B is that if while on duty . he did some of these things
you might indeed be violating the law? .
Mr. H4mus. Certainly it is not what it says.
Mr. COLLINS. to comment on that; Mr. IIarris. I think what
subparagraph rB says is that paragraph A of the section does. not
authorize an employee to engage in political activity in Violation of
the law or while on duty or while in uniform that identifies him .as
an employee. So if there are any of these things that the Hatch Act
would permit - Which might be 'somehow in violation of any other
Jaw, the Hatch Act would not permit that activity. If there is another
law, that would prohibit it.
Mr. Ithuns. In all seriousness now, the Commission apparently has
told Federal employees in paragraph A what they can do and that
next section in paragraph B says, "Don't trust us. There may be some
of these activities that are in violation of the law." Is that what it
'says?
Mr. MONDELLO. I would be perfectly happy to answer that question,
but not sitting here just taking a quick look at it now.
' HARRIS. Let me go to the next sentence because this is one that
bothers me. The next sentence then.says : .
The head of an agency may prohibit or limit the participation of an employee
or class of employees of his agency: in an activity permitted by of
A of
this section ig participation in the activitY Would interfere with the efficient per-
formance of official duties or create a conflict or apparent conflict of iutereSt.
Now does that sentence then say that anything that's permitted in
paragraph A can be prohibited by an agency head with respect to his
agency if he thinks this might create an apparent conflict?
MoNDELT,o.-Yes. Let me give you an example of how that oc-
curred once. Everybody can wear bumper stickers on their car and this
kind of thing,' political buttons on their uniform or dress, so long as
they don't deal with' the public directly. There was an occasion in one
of the border States where there had been ? a murder that developed
from some political activity?bad blood of this kincl?trulyand--
Mr: Manus. Political activity is already prohibited in the Govern-
ment.
Mr, MONDELLO. This was at a military post in a machine shop where
there were 40 employees. It got to be a series of arguments and it
turned out that those who were in favor of Mr. Wallace had a sticker
that they used to put on their lunch pail or something and others wore
a Humphrey tie or something of this character, and it got to the point
where the bickering in this one unit was so great that the work wasn't
being done. The machines would be standing there turning but the
worker wouldn't be at the machines and they would be fussing with
each other about politics. And finally, it got to the point where fights
began to break out.
L'At that time the head of the local installation said, `'INI-o more. Take
off those bumper stickers that you put on your lunch boxes and stop
wearing the ties," and he just stepped in in order to see if they could
turn out widgets rather than have this kind of fuss.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/11, CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. HARRIS. It sounds a little bit like an anti-Humphrey man.
Mr. MONDELLO. But that's the kind of thing that this would permit
an agency head to do and that was incorporated also in the Commis-
sion's recommendations, that he be permitted to do this.
Mr. Rums. I wonder what good paragraph A is to the average
Federal employee if in fact the head of any agency can say that, in
his opinion, a political activity would interfere with the efficient per-
formance of official duties.
Mr. Mowouzo. I don't think we leave it to his opinion.
Mr. HARRIS. Well, it says so.
Mr. Mowonzo. No, it doesn't. In my judgment?.----
Mr. HARRIS. It says if participation in the activity would inter-
fere with the efficient performance of official duties or create a con-
flict or apparent conflict of interest.
Mr. MONDELLO. Not if he thinks it would, but if it did; and on that
he has to deal with us, and I don't think we will have any trouble
with any agency head who has
Mr. CLAY. Could we have them put a more detailed explanation
in writing?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see we have a quorum
call.
Mr. CLAY. The members of the minority have left several questions
here they would like you to respond to in writing, so we will get those
to you.
We want to thank you for coming out this morning and being as
helpful as you were.
The subcommittee will adjourn until April 8.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The letter which follows was received for inclusion in the record,
subsequent to the appearance of the Civil Service Commission wit-
nesses.]
U.S. Crvm. Saavfol COMMISSION,
WashingtOn, D.C., April 15, 1975.
Hon. WILLIAM L. CLAY,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Employee Political Rights and Intergovernmental
Programs, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Represent-
atives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CLAY: This is in response to the questions submitted by the minority
members of the Subcommittee on Employee Political Rights and Intergovern-
mental Programs, as set forth in your letter of April 1, 1975.
Question 1. Please comment on the view shared by some that because of what
has happened recently in the Federal government, i.e., improper hirings in the
General Services Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, that an effort should be made to strengthen the "Hatch Act"
rather than the opposite.
Answer. We would point out first, that the Hatch Act does not reach those
individuals who engage in improper hiring practices, since such activity does
not fall within the category of either misuse of official authority or influence to
affect the result of an election, [5 U.S.C. 7324(a) (1)], or taking an active part
in political management or campaigns [5 P.S.C. 7324(a) (2)]. However, such
activity is, in our view, symptomatic of the influence of partisan politics en-
croaching on the merit system. It evidences the tendency which can exist to ele-
vate political affiliation and activity to a position of primary, consideration in
the process of selecting individuals for the Federal service. Therefore, we do
not consider it unrealistic to assume that should Federal employees be per-
mitted unrestricted participation in the areas of partisan political manage-
ment and campaigning, such participation, or lack of it, on behalf of or in op-
position to a particular political party or candidate, would soon become a pri-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
m:ary consideration not only in the hiring of applicants, but also in the assign-
ment, promotion, and treatment of those who are already employees. As I stated
to the Members of the Subcommittee in my testimony of March 25, 1975, we are
conylaced that whatever degree of participation is permitted to Federal em-
ployees Will soon become that which is required of them, even in the most en-
lightened administrations and under the most rigid anti-coercion provisions.
Of course, there is another, possibly equally important, consideration which
intiSt be dealt with. That consideration is the maintenance of public confidence
in the impartiality of the Federal service. We view this as a particularly sig-
'nificant. concern in light of the revelations in the recent past concerning the
activities of those charged with administering Federal agencies and programs.
It seems inconsistent to us that on the one hand efforts are made to strengthen
protections against politically motivated abuses of authority, and on the other
hand Federal .employees are to be permitted to freely participate in all aspects.
of partisan political management and campaigning, thereby increasing oppor-
tunities for abuse.
Question 2. Now that State and local employees are no longer prohibited
from political management and campaigning, what do you expect to happen?
What are the reports to date on these employees?
Answer. At this point in time, it is difficult for us to assess what the impact
of section 401 of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, will
be. We would, of course, expect that in States which have political activity laws
more restrictive than the amended Hatch Act, there will be a trend toward
easing the restrictions, consistent with the recent Hatch Act amendments. In
those States which have limited or no restrictions on the political activity of
employees, we would expect more partisan activity on the part of employees
working in Federally funded programs, though we cannot predict to what ex-
tent such activity will be increased. We also anticipate that, to some extent,
employees who openly engage in campaign activities will be more subjected to:
subtle forms of political discrimination by managers who support another party
or candidate. We also believe that employees are more likely to be "pressured"
by supervisors to engage in campaign activities in support of particular candi-
dates.
Our assumptions as to what likely will occur are based on the knowledge we
have gained through our experiences with State and local government agencies
where there have been few or no political activity limitations. Our experience
has taught us that employees can be a powerful political tool in the hands of an,
incumbent State or local administration, and there is frequently no hesitation
to use them as such.
Because, as we explained in our earlier testimony, there are pressures which'
can be brought to bear on employees outside the reach of the coercion prohibi-
tion, their only real protection against involuntary tarticipation has been the
management and campaigning provision. We expect, therefore, that even more
subtle demands will be placed upon employees to participate, similar to those
which have frequently been placed on them in some States and local units of
goverinnent to make financial contributions. The management and campaigning
provision was not a deterrent with respect to the latter, since employees have
never been prohibited from making such contributions. And, in several instances,
States have been sophisticated enough in the operation of their solicitation and
collection system to insure that those charged with the responsibility to solicit
or collect contributions from employees are not themselves employed in Fed-
erally funded activities and are therefore not within the jurisdiction of the
Hatch Act. It is not unreasonable for us to anticipate, therefore, that similar
systems will be organized to insure participation of employees in campaign
activities now that such participation is no longer restricted.
Because section 401 has only been in effect since January 1, 1975, and because
this is not an active election year in many jurisdictions, we have no specific
-
reports to date on the impact which the amendments have had on State and local
employees.
Questior, S. How do we protect the public when a Federal emnloyee who is a:
contracting officer is nrominently identified with partisan politics?
Answer. This question raises once ART ill the issue of the public's perception
of the impartiality of those who administer Federal programs. While employees
charged with such responsibility, including contracting officers, might make
decisions which are politically motivated, such fact does not always become
public knowledge. In those instances, even restrictions on the employee's politi-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1h: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
cal participation have not protected the public against the employee's political
biases.
The biggest threat, as we see it, is the undermining of public confidence
which will occur if employees are free to actively participate in partisan activi-
ties. An employee, particularly a contracting officer or one charged with admin-
istering a particular government prograin in a given locality, who becomes
prominently identified with a political party through his participation in party
management, or campaigns and elections, will not be able to make any significant
program decisions without members of the public questioning his or her impar-
tiality.
While it is sometimes overlooked today, the desire to create and maintain
an image of impartiality for the Federal Civil Service was a motivating factor
in the passage of the Hatch Act and in the promulgation of the Civil Service
Rule restricting the political activities of government employees.
I appreciate your giving me this opportunity to express my views on the
questions presented.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON,
Chairman.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
ACT OF 1975
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1975
U.S. HOUSE Or REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON POST OITICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE POLITICAL RIGHTS AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS,
TV ashing ton, D .0 .
The subcommittee met at 9 :30 ana., in room 311 of the Cannon House
Office Building, Hon. William Clay (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Mr. CLAY. The Subcommittee on Employee Political Rights and In-
tergovernmental Programs will come to order.
The first -witness this morning is Hon. Edward I. Koch, Member
of Congress, from the State of New York.
Goa. morning, Mr. Koch.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD I. KOCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Komi. Members of the comthittee?
Mr. CLAY. I understand you have a prepared statement. Without
objections, it -will be included in the record at this point, and you may
proceed as you see fit.
[The complete statement follows:]
? PlIEPATED, STATEMENT OF FpwARD T. Koon
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to. testify today on the need to
remove political restrictions against federal emploYees under the Hatch Act.
In January, 1973, I introduced legislation to restore the political rights of fed-
eral, state, and local employees while still protecting them at work from financial
solicitation and other political harassment. A prevision of last year's campaign
reform bill (The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-
443) removes most Hatch Act restrictions against state and local employees. As
of January 1, 1975. the nearly three million state and local governnient employ-
ees can serve as officers of political Parties and as delegates to the national con-
ventions, can solicit votes on behalf of candidates, and so on down the long list
of previously prohibited endeavors under the Hatch Act's dictum of "no active
participation in political Management or in political campaigns." The restrictions
against coercion of fellow employees, solicitation of funds MI-the-job, or any other
abuse of official authority te influence elections remain in force, as they should. -
As a member of the House Administration Committee last Year, which drafted
the campaign reform bill, I was pleased to support and assist in the adoption
of this provision. I withheld from offering an amendment to include federal
employees as well in order -to assure the adoption of the state' and local provi-
sion. It was then and is now my hope that the Congress will also restore the po-
litical rights Of federal employees. -
(55)
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1id CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
According to the Library of Congress and Joint Committee on Reduction of
Federal Expenditures, there are approximately 2.8 million federal civil servants,
and postal employees in the United States today. The District of Columbia ami
seven states?California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania. Texas,
and Virginia?each have more than 100.000 federal employees. New York City
alone has over 98,000. Since 1939, these government employees have been largely
prohibited from participating actively in partisan political activities by the
Hatch Act.
' These 2,800,000 federal employees are no less deserving of equal rights under
the law than are state, local, and private sector employees. Congress simuld
clear up the obvious discrimination and inconsistency in the law.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that you have introduced H.lt. 3000. the Federal
Employees Political Activities Act of 1975, and that you are holding these hear-
ings on your bill and related Hatch Act reform legislation. I am a co-snonsor
of your bill, as you know, and I have also reintroduced ray own similar bill from
the last Congress. H.R. 1326.
It is high time that federal employees are considered old enough and intel-
ligent enough to participate fully in the process of election.. This country has.
no right to make its public employees seeond class citizens. But the Habit Act,
by limiting their political activities, has effectively put them into that ea tegory.
The nature and scope of activities prohibited. as well as the sheer numbers of
persons affected by these restrictions, have led various commentators to crit-
icize the Hatch Act as being at variance with the First Amendment guarantee
of freedom of political expression and the American commitment to participatory
democracy.
The constitutionality of the Hatch Act has been ehallenged in the judicial
arena. In July, 1972. the U.S,. District Court for the District of Columbia (Na-
tional Association of Letter Carriers v. U.S. Civil Service f 'ommission ruled'
that the Hatch Act is "constitutionally vague" and has a "chilling effect", be-
cause many civil employees do not know either if they are covered or what they
are prohibited from doing. According to the Court, many pen. ons did not engage.
in any political activity out of fear rather than because they had to.
This decision, if left, would have repealed the Hatch Act.
However. the Supreme Court. in June, 1973, reversed the derision by a 6-3
margin. But the Court still emphasized that "Congress is tree to strike a dif-
ferent balance if it chooses."
In 1966, Congress created the Commission on Political Activity of Government
Personnel, known as the Hatch Act Commission, to study all federal laws re-
stricting political participation by government employees. In its final report. in
December, 1967, the Commission noted the need for substantial reform of the.
Hatch Act, particularly in the areas of clarifying its vagueness and reducing
Its application to the fewest employees. As the Commission noted, most govern-
ment employees are so confused by the more than 3,000 specific prohibitions is-
sued over the years by the executive branch and have so little idea what they
are permitted to do that they tend to avoid taking part in any political activity
at all. Congress has taken the initiative in recent years in expanding other
groups' opportunities for political activity through its civil rights legislation
and the 18-year-old vote. It is time that Congress restores to federal government
employees their right to free political expression and acts on the recommenda-
tions made by the Commission that it created.
The Chairman's bill, H.R. 3000, and my bill. H.R. 1326, would amend Title 5
of the United States Code so as to permit federal officers and employees to
take an active part in political management and in political campaigns. We
would retain the very important prohibition against the Ilse of official au-
thority to influence elections, while extending to the government emnloyees their
full rights to participate actively in politics as private citizens. The hills list
nine specific activities included under "an active part in NAV leal management
or political campaigns." in addition to the right to vote or to express an opinion
orally on political subjects, which even the existing provisions allow. The
nine new rights can be summarized as follows:
1. Unrestricted participation in political conventions, including service
as a delegate or officer:
2. Unrestricted participation in the deliberations of any primary meet-
ing or caucus;
3. Unrestricted onrfirinntion in a political meeting or rally, including
preliminary arrangements ?
4. Unrestricted membership in political clubs, including Initial organizing;
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :hIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
5. Unrestricted wearing of campaign badges and distributing of campaign
literature;
6. Unrestricted written expression or association with any publication,
except that no letter, editorial, or article shall mention the writer's offi-
cial employment;
7. Unrestricted organization or participation in a political parade;
S. Unrestricted initiating or signing of nomination petitions, including
canvassing for signatures of others; and
9. Unrestricted candidacy for nomination or election to any political
office?National, State, county, or municipal.
My bill, H.R. 1326, is largely similar to H.R. 3000, introduced by Chairman
'Clay. Section 3 of H.R. 3000 is comparable to ?Section 1 of my bill; the respec-
tive listings of nine items incorporated under "an active part in political
management or in political campaigns," enumerated above, are virtually iden-
tical. H.R. 1326 would retain the existing provisions of the U.S. Code (Sections
7323 and 7325) which already cover prohibited solicitations and penalties.
However, I am very concerned that we retain effective safeguards against the
politicization of the bureaucracy while at the same time giving public em-
ployees full political rights as private citizens. I support the additional sec-
tions in H.R. 3000, not included in my bill, which strengthen further the ability
?of the Civil Service Commission and the Attorney General to deal with viola-
tions.
For over 35 years we have relegated our public servants to being "second
class citizens." Existing restrictions on the political activities of federal em-
ployees are, in my judgment, unfair and long overdue for revision. But at the
same time, we must protect the neutrality of the government bureaucracy.
We must also guard against possible coercion directed against public em-
:Ployecs to participate involuntarily in politics. The solution is to replace the
Batch Act with legislation that contains adequate safeguards against abuses
while granting federal employees their rights to participate as private citizens
in American political life.
The Committee has before it bills that seek to accomplish this purpose. I
. am hopeful that you will favorably report out such legislation.
Mr. Kocii. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I especially want to express
my appreciation for your permitting me to testify at the opening of
the session, so that I can attend the Appropriations Committee hear-
ing as well. I am very obliged to you.
Mr. Chairman, I served on the House Administration Committee
last year before going to the Appropriations Committee, and we had
drafted a campaign reform bill. In that bill we placed a provision
which removed State and local employees from coverage under the
Hatch Act. It was my intention at that time to have an amendment
prepared to include Federal employees in that provision, but at the
importuning of those who wanted to make certain that the State and
local employees now barred under the Hatch Act would be given this
first class citizenship again, and because there was a greater disagree-
ment with respect to its application to Federal employees, I withheld
my amendment.
But it is inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, for this Congress to permit
. State and municipal employees, who were barred under the Hatch
Act, because they received in some part Federal moneys, to now be-
come first class citizens which obviously we would all applaud, and
at the same time, maintain second class citizenship for the employees
over which we have a direct responsibility, Federal employees.
That is why I am so pleased to be a cosponsor of II.R. 3000, which is
the legislation . that you have introduced with members of the com-
mittee. As you know, the Supreme Court not very long ago determined
. that the Hatch Act's limitations on Federal, State and municipal em-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
58
ployees, was Constitutional, and that if there were to be a change, it
would have to come as a result of congressional legislation, legislation
that is long overdue. ? ;
I am particularly pleased, Mr. Chairman that your bill really speci-
fies the nine major activities which would l?oe returned as a matter of
right to Federal employees. I would just like to briefly comment on.
them and summarize them. .
Your bill, as well as the measure I introduced back in 1973, provides
for the following_ rights:
1. Unrestricted participation in political conventions, including
service as a delegate or officer;
2. Unrestricted participation in the deliberations of any primary
meeting or caucus;
3. Unrestricted participation in a political meeting or rally, induct-
ing preliminary arrangements;
4. Unrestricted membership in political clubs, including initial
organizing; :
5. Unrestricted wearing of campaign badges and distributing of
campaign literature.;
6. Unrestricted writen expression or association w.ith any publica-
tion, except that no letter, editorial, or article shall mention the writer's.
official employment;
7. Unrestricted organization or participation in a yolitical parade;
8. Unrestricted initiating or signing of nominating petitions, in--
eluding canvassing for signatures of others; and '
9. Unrestricted candidacy for nomination or election to any political
officenational, State, county, or municipal.
Now, while these rights are those that should without hesitation
be given to employees, there is one area that we cannot overlook, which
the Hatch Act 'intentionally and originally covered, fiat ? is, employees
should be protected from solicitations by those who possibly could
impact them in an adverse way.
And therefore, those sections of the Hatch Act whicli would prevent.
and prohibit solicitations from the Federal employees, would be kept.
in full force and effect.
Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that every piece
of legislation, if it is good leoislation, reaches a point in time when
there is :Just no stopping it, and I believe that that point in time has.
come for several reasons.- One, it is good legislation; two, the country,.
in my judgment, supports it; and three, liker. Chairman, I believe, that
the changes in the various ' committee structures of this Congress,.
with new and younger Members?not necessarily in terms of years,
because you and I, came about the same time?indicate that the Con-
gress has opened its doors and it is about time that we let the Federal
employees enter those doors. It is a special pleasure for me, I must
say, to appear before a committee chaired by someone who came to,
Congress when I did.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Koch.
I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that the Con-
gress which we both came to at the same time, perhaps brought the
most gifted Members ever to come into the House.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :59 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. Koch, on page 6 of your Statement, you say, "We must also
guard against possible coercion directed against public employees to
participate involuntarily in politics."
How would .yOu see us providing stronger protection for Federal
employees against improper influence and coercion by unscrupulous
supervisors?
Mr. Nom,. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there should not be any
knowing Solicitation of a Federal employee by anyone in Government.
The legislation should contain penalties. In all candor, I believe that
penalties, wherever possible, Should be of a civil nature. I am not one
of those who believes that every transgression should carry a criminal
prison sanction.-
-
There are people who believe that no matter what transgression
occurs, somehow or another, you have to have one year in jail. I just
don't believe that. I think there are situations where you have inten-
tional wrongdoing where that might be necessary.
But the kind of sanction that I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, in the
ordinary case, where it is not willful, would be a civil sanction of a
penalty, involving, a money fine.
Mr. CLAY. SO, in other words, what you are saying is the penalties.
don't have to be that harsh. You think the Federal employee today is
intelligent enough to protect himself against coercion?
-Mr. KOCH. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the days are over when
.Federal. employees eOuld be pushed around and coerced in to support
ing someone simply because they are worried about their job, or their-
appointment.
Notwithstanding that, there have to be sanctions in the law, but
again, it is no longer a question of a Federal Government being in the-
.position of a father to people in Government Service. It is an employer.
Our employees are full grown. They know their rights and while sanc-
tions should be there the best sanction is that the Federal employee .is
going to stand outside and scream when somebody tries to put the arm
on him.
Mr. CLAY. In effect, what you are saying is that conditions today are
not precisely the same as they were in 1939 when the Hatch Act was
put in. .
Mr. Kocit. They are much different, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I realize that the gentleman has to get to another meeting. We won't
. keep you too long. There are a couple of things I would like to ask
you about.
First, may I commend the gentleman who has sponsored nothing but
good legislation which I generally coauthor without studying the bill
too closely; because your legislation is always good, particularly good
for people.
We have had opposition, strong opposition to 11.11. 3000 by the Civil
Service Commission. They now administer the Hatch Act.
Would you feel we should probably .have some other organization,
some other commission, or body administer it rather than the Civil
Service Commission?
Mr. KOCH. I don't believe I am qualified to pass. on that. My initial
reaction, though, without any expertise on that aspect of this legisla-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1UCIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
tion is that there are many times when an agency, is reluctant to ac-
quiesce to change.
If you have to change, then the Commission has to read the new law,
and it has to become acquainted with a program that is different than
that which it has been administering over the years. But I believe that
all Government employees will do that which is correct under the law.
So, if the law makes it clear that sanctions under the Hatch Act are
removed and participation in political activity is permitted, I believe,
that law will be executed by the Civil Service Commission.
Again, I don't have any expertise, but I am reluctant to remove au-
thority from a commission, simply because it expresses a contrary
point of view. If it doesn't carry out the law, then there would be time
to change that.
Mr. WILSON. They are pretty much recognized as a management
body, however, and they could be rather one-sided in the interpretatiOn
or the administration of the law. Mr. Clay and I, and Mr. Gilman
were in Europe during the recess in connection with postal matters
and we asked about the Government employees that participate in
politics.
In Germany, I had, say, about 40 members of the Bundestag are
public employees
Mr. CLAY. 60 percent.
Mr. WiLsoN. A large percentage of them are teachers. Apparently
teachers get in and pass laws for better retirement for themselves, so
that when they do return to the teaching profession, why, they haven't
lost anything during the time they served in the government.
The only requirement the law makes, is the public employees must
support the constitution of the country. That seems to me a very rea-
sonable requirement. It is strange that we have this feeling in this
country, in some circles, that public employees shouldn't have the
right to participate in politics.
Mr. Kocll. I am in total accord with you.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Koch, I too want to thank you for your testimony this morning
and for highlighting some of the important aspects of this legislation
now before us.
As you know, there has been a great deal of criticism . about allowing
public employees to become too powerful by granting them the author-
ity to participate in politics. Is there any danger to the separation of
powers within the governmental structure by allowing people who are
working within agencies to freely participate and to undertake a poli-
tical lobby for a particular issue?
Mr. KOCH. Well, if we carry that the full range, then we should
deprive them of the vote so as to make certain they have no impact on
the political process andnobody. would suggest that we do that.
I, for one, believe that a concerned citizen should participate at
every level of the political process so as to make it larger and more
responsive, and to impact upon government itself. Having participated
in the political life of my city since 1952, I never could understand
why it was a sin for someone who happened to be a Government ern-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 6FIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
ployee to carry a petition, to knock on somebody's door and say, "We
want you to sign a petition to put Mr. X on the ballot." And they
couldn't do it,.
The fact is that most employees covered under the Hatch Act didn't
know what they could or could not do, so they didn't do anything.
That was the other aspect of it. They were never sure what would
send them to jail. I wouldn't blame someone in public service from
saying, "I can't do anything."
I think that was wrong. I think this legislation would correct that
and I think it is low). overdue.
Mr. Gniau4kN. It has been pointed out to me there is some authority
for members of the public sector to individually or collectively peti-
tion Congress, also to sign nominating petitions i.n behalf of the---
Mr. Kocit. But not to carry them. You can sign a nominating peti-
tion, but I don't believe you can go out and carry, as you know, Mr.
Gilman, we come from the same State. In order to get on the ballot,
you have to have certain number, generally 5 percent of the registered
voters to sign your petition to get you on the ballot.
It is my understanding that those who are "hatched" cannot take,
that petition and knock on it door to secure the 5 percent. That would
be one illustration of the limitation. They, themselves, might sign
the petition, sure.
Mr. GILMAN. Have you found a great deal of expressed need for this
- legislation from the rank and file, or is this primarily coming from
organizational requests?
Mr. Komi. No, no, I discuss lots of things with people in my dis-
trict, as we all do, and everybody has his or her own particular area
of interest. For. people who are public employees, this ranks as No. 1.
In New York City alone, there are 98,000 Federal employees. So,
based on just the few that I have spoken with, postal people particu-
larly, and others, this is a No. 1 priority for them.
This is not legislation that has been dreamed up by legislators, the
chairman of this committee, members of the committee who have co-
sponsored it and myself. This measure comes in response to a need
expressed by those who are now in the unenviable position of being
second-class citizens.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Koch, do you feel the enactment of this legislation
would erode, in any manner, the Federal merit system?
Mr. Komi I don't see how, Mr. Chairman, You would have to really
illustrate for me how permitting someone to engage in the political
process could possibly erode the merit system I don't see how.
- Mr. GILMAN. This has been a criticism that has been voiced on many
occasions, that there is a danger that by allowing members to become
involved politically that it would have an effect on the merit system.
Mr. KOCH. My own feeling is when this legislation is passed and we
look back a year later, we are going to say, 'Why did we wait from
1939 to 1975, why didn't we do this in 1940?
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Koch, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Koch. I know that this committee will be
in your area, in New York City on May 2 and 3, and I am quite pleased
- Co find out you are going to participate with us at that time at the
hearings.
Mr. Komi. Thank you. I thank you for extending the invitation.
52-137-75--5
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Solarz is here.
Mr. SoLAuz. That's OK, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to ask questions even though I arrived late.
- This is the first time I have had an opportunity to confront my dis-
tinguished colleague from New York as a member of the committee be-
fore which he testified. I have only heard him speak eloquently on other
occasions, but never in this particular setting.
I wonder if I could ask you, Congressman, a few questions which
seem to me to go to the heart of the case which has been made against
the kind of legislation we are considering this morning.
I think one of the unfortunate characteristics in the debate which is
developing over this bill, is that neither side tends to address its argu-
ments to the objections raised by the other, so they are sort of like
two strangers passing in the night and not coming to grips with the
substance of the different arguments, some of which on both sides
seem to me to have some merit. I believe, therefore, We have to make an
effort to reconcile conflicting considerations.
What is your view of the objection which has been raised, that in
the event that we permit the wide variety of political activity which
this legislation would authorize on the part of Federal employees, that
inevitably, despite the restrictions in the legislation on the ability of
Federal managers to willfully force their employees into political ef-
forts on behalf of the parties or candidates that they support, that in
a variety of subtle ways, Federal managers, by somehow communi-
cating their own preferences, will put such substantial pressure on
Federal employees whn hope for promotion or better job assignments
or any of the other privileges and prerogatives available under Fed-
eral employment, that they will, in effect, feel obligated in order to
protect themselves, to engage in political activity which, left to their
own choice, they would avoid?
Do you think there is any merit to that?
Mr. KOCH. Those situations will occur, surely. But will those situa-
tions prevail? In my judgment, no.
We have in Government today Republicans and Democrats, as well
as those that are not affiliated with either of the two major parties.
would suspect that if in a. Republican administration or a Democratic
administration, administrators in some way or another sought to im-
press their will in a particular direction, the people from the other
party will be aware of it.
It is not something that is going to be conceivable. If it is going to
be done in any extensive way, people are going to be out there. yelling
and screaming and all you would have to do then is make an example
of such an official who engaged in that type of coercion and take the
appropriate punitive action. Am I not addressing myself to the point?
Mr, SOLAPZ. I understand your point. That is to the extent that
any Federal manager violates the prohibitions in the legislation, an
opnortitnity for an exemplary dismissal
Mr. KOCH. Not only that?the point I am hoping to make is that there
are the watchdogs, namely the Federal employees: themselves, who
are not going to benefit as a result of having someone from another
party increase their vote, and they are the ones who are going to be
safeguarding the process.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
63
' Mr. SOLARZ'. The point has been :raised in some of, the previous testi-
mony we had tO the effect that it 1,Volild be :.poSsible for Federal
rnanaers iia variety of subtle ways which deny legislative prescrip-
tion,to communicate to their employees their own political preferences.
They might, for instance, simply indicate they are attending a dinner
on behalf of a candidate or a party. Then that employee under their
jurisdiction, - hoping to secure a measure of preference or influence,
might feel obligated to purchase tickets to the dinner, -even though no
direct request was made, let along a specific: directive that they pur-
chase tickets.
Given the nature of the manager-employee relationship, you open
? up:a Pandora's box here which would put Federal employees in a very
difficult_ position,: and: which this legislation, given the varieties which
human behavior can take, can't really prescribe.
Mr. IKOcu. My response to that is this: Some of that will occur' may
occur; sure.. On balance, it will be infinitesimal compared to the bene-
fits-this country will receive by opening up the political process to the
largest number of people who should already have been part of that
process. '
-Mr. SOLARZ. Let me go to that point. I gathered from the testimony I
heard when I came in, it was your feelinc, this was aright that Federal
employees not only ought to have, but that they would very much like
to have.
My information is that based on actual surveys of Federal employees
that were taken in 1967 by the Commission on Political Activity of
Government Personnel and in 1972 by the National Federation of
Federal Employees, that a substantial majority of Federal employees
indicated they preferred the restrictions on political activity in the
Hatch Act out of fear of what might happen if they -wer6 lifted.
.. :Do You have any view of that?
Mr. Keen. Yes, I do. My April 4, 1975, survey disputes those earlier
surveys. I believe that the Federal employees today want in, in a
total way, into, the political process.
Mr. SOLARI,. Where was your survey conducted?
Mr. Keen. At East 72d Street and Lexington Avenue at the subway
station.
Mr. SOLARZ. Was this limited to Federal employees or passersby who
couldn't avoid'your incessant questions!
?
Mr. KOCH. I promised them all anonymity, so I am not at liberty
to discuss the sample.
Mr. SOLARZ. I must say the Congressman is noted for going in sub-
ways, although I didn't know he also took public polls On that occasion.
In my own experience in the subways in New York, I can only say
that people rush by in such a hurry to get on the train, I hardly have
time to tell them who I am, let alone to ask them questions.
One more question, Congressman. One of the objections we beard
to this legislation, which seems to me to have at least some theoretical
merit, was that one of our objectives in the Congress ought to be to
promote .a Federal civil service which will appear truly nonpartisan
and impartial to the American people, that in terms of the faith which
the American people have in the impartiality of the civil service, it
is very important, the argument went, to prohibit political activities on
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
64
the part of Federal employees, because to the extent that the American
people. see theoretically impartial Federal personnel actively partici-
pating in the political process on behalf of Democrats or Republicans;
one candidate, rather than another, will unquestionably call into ques7
tion the impartiality of the Federal civil service.
There is here a counterbalance to the theoretical right of the Federal
employees to participate in the process, overriding the sense of con-
fidence on the part of the American public in the civil service which
could be impaired if we permitted political activity and participation.
What is your view on that?
Mr. Komi. Well, if we extended that argument, we might take in
Congressmen as well, and have them appointed and have unlimited
tenure, so as to remove the partisan political aspect.
I happen to believe that employees, whether they be in the Federal
Government or the city or State government, in terms of dealing
with the public, will not impair public confidence in the cure service.
Obviously, even among Federal employees there are a couple of nuts,
but generally speaking, ? all these employees reflect the American
population, a certain decency, a certain courtesy, a certain obligation
of office which, in applying to Federal employees ?and Members of
i
?Congress as well, demands that they perform n a. nonpartisan way.
I don't for a minute believe that a postal employee is going to stop
delivering mail to Republican households if he happens to be a Demo-
crat and wants to 'support the Democratic ticket. It just is inconceiva-
ble to me that their political partisanship off the job is going to impact
on them on the job. I just don't accept that. .
Mr: SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Congressman, for your replies.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
I think we will have to impose the 5-minute rule on questioning, so
we can get in all the witnesses that we have today.
Mr. Harris, do you have any questions?
Mr. HARRIS. Excuse me. I was at another subcommittee hearing.
Excuse me for being late.
I heard your last comment, and I would tend to agree with it.
As in past hearings, I can't quite understand the distinction, where
the line is drawn now vis-a-vis political activity, some sort of a sacred
demarcation line, over which a person's activity can interfere with
his 'lob, or subject him to what one witness called subtle coercion.
Above the line, this would happen. There is nothing- in the law now,
as I understand it, that makes a letter carrier vote independent. I
mean, he can still he a Republican or Democrat. Tie can still, as I
understand it, go to a mass meeting of the Democrats or Republicans,
he can still run as a candidate as long as he runs as an independent,
but as an independent, he can be endorsed by the Republicans or
Democrats, so I really wonder if the question that we are debating
here is such a fundamental one as far as how this is going te affect
his job.
Mr. KOCH. I agree with the implication of your statement, Mr.
Harris, and believe that-the hodgepodge of regulations now applicable -
to Federal employees makes no sense at all. We have remove it in the
last Congress as it affects city and State, employees covered by the
Hatch Alt, because they received some Federal payment, and why
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : 8A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
we. should maintain it against those with whom we have the direct
relationship, Makes no sense at all.
Mr. I-Imams. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
MT. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Mrs. SPELL-ALAN. Congressman Koch, I agree with you. Judging from
your record of the, past and the things that I have known about you
before I came on board and since.; I would almost go out on a
without reading your testimony, and say : "Right on."
- Mr. Komi. Thank you very much. .
Mr. Cdr?4-Y. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. .
The next witness this morning is Mr. Patrick Nilan., legislative di-
rector, American Postal Workers Union.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. NILAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION (AFL?CIO)
Mr. /Sim:kw. Thank von. I would like to have Mrs. Reimann and our
counsel, Frank Cafferky, ioin me at the witness table.
Mn. CLAY. Thank you. Do you have a prepared text, Mr. Man?
Mr. NITAN. We have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman and what
I would like to do in an effort to cooperate with the other oreanizat ions
that are going to appear, is to have our complete statement and
exhibits as well as a summary, which I gave Mr. Johnson, your staff
counsel, this. morning, concerning some suggested amendments, and
also a current, case on the T.Iatch .A.Tet. dated Anril. 7, from our counsel,
included in the record and then T will refer only to the most important
aspects of our statement and be. available for questions.
Mr. CLAY. YrvIl prweed as von see fit,
mr. NTLA N. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, :members of the committee, .again for the record, to
my right is Mr. Prank Cafferky, conusel for tl,e merioan Postal
"Workers Union. To my immediate left is Mr. Edward L. Rowley,
our legislative aide, and to his left, Mrs. Victor Reimann who is the
national president Of the auxiliary to the American Postal Workers
Union from Evansville, Ind. Mrs. Reimann ,also serves as the chairper-
son of the Board of the auxiliary to the. AFL?CIO.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the sponsorship of H.R. 3000 by
by yourself and more than 50 of your colleagues in the Congress.
I would also like to say our president, Francis S. racy, regrets he
cannot be with us this morning as he is in Geneva, Switzerland, as a
worker representative of the U.S. Government to the .International
Labor Organization. This Conference is very important to all working
people in the TTnited States and is concerned with the rights, of work-
ers in the public sector.
Mr. Chairman, in our statement, we make every effort to Point out
that we, as national officers representing the, American Postal Workers
Union and some 300,000 members nationally honestly believe that our
membership is not. only mature enough and intelligent enough to
participate in the democratic processes of this great country of ours,
but deserve amendment of the Hatch Act which has been long overdue.
We Point out on pages 2 and 3. as our good friend Congressman
Koch did, the provisions of Your bill in general .terms, We, also sup.-
gest on page 3 that we have believed for a long time ,that the present
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/R : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Hatch Act is an outstanding example of legislative overkill. Some
alleged evils years back before any e of us were employees of the
Government saw in 1939 the enactment of legislation to correct the
evils at that time. As a result, some of the most'-basiceend fundamental
constitutional rights of all postal and Federal workers haye been
denied to them for 35 years.
We recommend strongly, Mr. Chairman, that once age, residence,
and registration qualifications have been met, the same rstrictions as
on any other citizen in this great country of ours,. then all Federal
and postal. workers should have the right to participate openly in the
democratic process. We mention on page 4 that Our immediate past
and deceased former president, E. C. Hallbeck, was. fond of pointing
out that postal and Federal employees have been singled out not to
participate in the. political process but in the town neer-do-well has
the opportunity if he or she should desire.
I hope we would agree. that all Federal and postal employees are
respected members of their communities and should have the right
to participate openly in all of the political processes of this. great
country of ours.
One of the dangers in the present Hatch Act, is that hundreds of
thousands of postal and Federal employees don't really understand
the Hatch Act., despite our effort to inform them and they don't
participate because of this concern. I received a letter a few days ago
from the president of one of our large local unions stating he was
going to have to ask members of the auxiliary to write letters to
Congress, because i.f any of his members did it they would be in vio-
lation of the Hatch Act. We point out on page 7 a number of refer-
ences, including a decision by the, California Supreme Court, finding
the Hatch Act in California unconstitutional. We provided for the
committee the main arguments in that favorable decision. In the
middle of page 7, we. state:
The National Convention of the American Postal Workers Union has repeat-
edly over the years, adopted resolutions similar to the one that follows:
"Whereas the. Hatch Act makes a federal employee only, a second-class citi-
zen. be it therefore
Resolved, that our ? national offleers seek legislation to 'amend those portions
of the Hatch Act to guarantee us first-class citizenship."
Mr. Chairman, I can't 'help but. respond also to the questions Mr.
Gilman has raised and I believe Mr. Solarz concerning the attitude of
the average postal or Federal employee. I can only speak on behalf
of our 200,000 postal worker members. We have no problem as. far
as attitudes on wanting the Hatch Act amended. I have been legislative
director of our union for. almost 12 years, during which time I have
tried to do -everything possible to oppose, the Hateli..Act and to have
remedial legislation enacted. My membership is well aware, of my activ-
ities and this is_consistent with numerous national convention resolue
tions by 2,000 delegates for more years than T like to remember. I have
been fortunate that even though standing, for .election every 2 years,
I have never been opposed for election Since 1964 in my nnion. I am
confident that if T was not reflecting the overwhelming opinion, of
our members I would have had opposition, and e6tild have been de-
feated. When we have organizations like my own nnion, the American
Postal 1Vorkers Union, and our sister organizations being questioned
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/136 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
77
as to our reflecting our -Membership desires, I find very few tittles in
the Halls of Congress when the president of the chamber of commerce
or the president of, for example, the so-called Americans Against
Unions' boss in government, or whatever it is, being questioned whether
or not they reflect the feelings of people they represent.
I would suggest that we as elected representatives be given the same
recognition that we do speak on behalf of our people. I know of no
member of my union and no member has ever suggested to me that
he is not in sympathy with amending the Hatch Act, or that he would
oppose it being changed, as long as they are protected by built-in
statutory protections against harassment, coercion, and any other form
of political reprisals.
We believe., Mr. Chairman, your bill along with the existing pro-
tections in the Hatch Act, would take, care of most of those protectionS
which our people are concerned about.
- On page 8 we refer, for example, to exhibit 1. That exhibit is con-
cerned with two articles which are published in the Washington Star.
Our good friend, Mr. Joseph Young, whom we have a great deal of
respect for, in a very emphatic article on March 4, suggested he Only
met one Federal employee in the. many years he has been a columnist
that wanted the Hatch Act amended. In my reply of March 16, I
replied to our good friend Mr. Young, that he was at our recent con-
vention in Miami in August 1974 when 2,300 plus delegates unani-
mously approved a. resolution to amend the Hatch Act. Certainly they
are all postal workers and if they didn't believe in it, I'm sure at least
one of them would have objected.
Exhibit ,2 is a reprint of the July 1972 article which commented
on the three judge panel here in Washington ruling the Hatch Act
unconstitutional. While it's true. the Supreme Court did subsequently
rule it was, we believe the news report fairly reflected the reasoning
behind the decision of the three judge panel in a 2 to 1 majority vote
to declare it unconstitutional.
. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we submitted exhibit 3 for the record, a
very timely article in our opinion, by one of our members up in
Highland; N.Y., who is a college student. He prepared his thesis on
the basis of "The Hatch Act. Political Restraint of Government Em-
ployees, A Time For Change." It's a very articulate and, in our opinion,
well-documented article, as it particularly addresses itself to the fal-
lacies of section-9A of the present act. We appreciate our entire state-
ment and these exhibits being included in the record.
Then we have offered, Mr. Chairman, and I am not going to refer
to all of these amendments which are on 11 pages, double spaced, a
number of changes in H.R. 3000. The first reference is a summary and
analysis of II.R. 2000, providing for right of Federal employees to
participate in Political (partisan and nonpartisan) activities. These
amendments, Mr. Chairman, in our opinion, would strengthen your
bill, and would further protect postal and Federal workers from any
possibility of political harassment or coercion.
The approach we have used, is to provide the committee with the
provisions of the current law .as on page 1, for example, 5 U.S.C. section
23, section 25. On page 1 of this, we present the law as it is. On page
2 of this summary, we analyze the proposed changes by your legislation
H.R. 3000, and on the bottom of page 2 we suggest some changes. We
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
68
suggest that you add to line 4, page 2, after the words "political pur-
poses," the phrase "on Federal property." This would allow any
Federal employee to solocit or receive funds or other valuable material
as the act refers to from another Federal employee. Member of Con-
gress or the military while off duty off Federal property.
In other words, we don't want him getting involved on Federal
property or when he is employed by the Government or Postal Service,
but we believe he or she should have the right when they are off Federal
property to function as any other citizen. Also, Mr. Chairman, we
suggest on line 5, page 4 of your bill that after the phrase "to any
candidate," the phrase "or his authorized representative." The present
language provides the employee can only contribute directly to the,
candidate itself. The language doesn't appear clear. Our proposal
would allow any authorized representative of any candidate to re-
ceive contributions again off Federal property.
Then we suggest changes to section 2B, again giving you the current
law and also the proposed changes by your legislation. If I may refer
in the middle of page 4, to our suggested changes, in title 5, CRT', so
on and so forth, provides among other things that the Civil Service
Commission will investigate violations of the Hath Act. It sets up,
procedures for investigation, bearings and adjudications, of responsi-
bility or guilt and penalties. These procedures satisfy us.
In addition, CSC regulation so on and so forth, specifically apply
their jurisdiction and procedures to members of the Postal. Service.
We suggest the following language be substituted for the present sec-
tion 2B, lines 12R9 and 12. On the top of page 5, we suggest the Civil
Service Commission pursuant to its regulations contained in, and
then the citation, "investigate and conduct hearings on all violations of
this Act." This then would make it abundantly clear that die present
wording of processing complaints in section 2B and upon a finding,
contained in section 2C, that a complete investigation, and in our
opinion, very important adversary hearing would7be conducted.
Mr. Chairman, the only other reference I want to make is strength-
ening the language against political reprisals and h nt
arassme and
coercion which has been a subject of concern to this committee. We
refer then to section 2(d) in current law, and your :proposed changes.
and then on page 6 we suggest some changes in regard to your bill,
IT.R. 3000.
Your bill subjects the Presidential appointee to possible criminal
penalties only for solicitation, . receiving, or giving contributions to
another Federal employee and so forth for political purposes. It does?
not subject him to criminal penalties for using his political influence or
official authority to interfere with or affect the outcome of an election.
Nor does MR. 3000 prevent an executive employee from impeding
or coercing another Federal employee in the proper exercise of his.
rights under H.R. 3000.
To remedy this, Mr. Chairman, we would suggest that you add time
phrase, "for any violations of this Act as amended." Mr. Chairman, we
could go on, but as I. say again, we are trying to cooperate with you
and the committee. We will appreciate, when you sit down to mark
up the legislation, if you will consider each of the ainendments which
we have offered in our testimony here this morning.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :041A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
The other item I want to refer to briefly is the April 7 statement
by our counsel, Mr. Anthony F. Cafferky. This gives you a very brief
insight as to what can happen when a member of our organization
becomes concerned with community problems and tries to exercise his
rights as a citizen. As a result he is separated completely from his
employthent, and also has to suffer immeasurable harm because of the
present Hatch Act.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the president of our
Washington, D.C., local, Mr. Sidney Brooks, if we might also request
that at this point we introduce a brief statement which he has offered
for the record in support of your legislation.
Mr. CLAY. Without objection, the prepared statement which you
have furnished the subcommittee, along with the exhibits you referred
to, will be made a part of the record at this point.
TREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. NIEAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
POSTAI. WORKERS 'UNION (AFL?CIO)
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very pleased to appear
-before the Committee this morning with our Legislative Aide, Edward L.
Bowley and our Counsel, Anthony F. Cafferky in support of your bill, H.R. 3000
to grant "Political Freedom" to postal and federal workers by amending the
Hatch Act.
Our General President Francis S. Filbey regrets that he cannot be with us
this morning as he is in Geneva, Switzerland, as a worker representative of
the United States Government to the International Labor Organization. This
Conference is concerned with the rights of workers in the public sector.
We are deeply grateful to you, Mr. Chairman for the introduction of H.R.
8000 which would grant "political freedom" to all postal federal workers. We
are also appreciative of the more than 55 co-sponsors to your bill as well as
other sponsors of similar legislation.
First, Mr. Chairman we believe that after more than thirty-five years of
-.flagrant and arbitrary Prohibitions against political action and involvement by
postal and federal workers in this great country of ours that such loyal employees
are mature enough, intelligent enough and long suffering enough to have this
linconsciOnable Flateh Act removed from their backs, once and for all.
Postal workers in addition to the H.R. 3000 and remaining Hatch Act
protections against reprisals. harassment and coercion for political
inVolvement have an excellent National Contract grievance procedure to protect
thein against any such negating influence. Postal workers and their unions
are ready, .willing and able to participate fully in all respects of American
political life and have absolutely no fear or even concern that this involvement
could in any way compromise their employment or opportunities for advance-
ment within tile U.S. Postal Service.
HR. 3000 and companion bills would not only retain existing protective shield
.against management or other reprisals for political action but would further
strengthen penalties and punitive action againstanyone who may consider any
such ill advised coercion or harassment. The Clay Bill would provide the follow-
ing political rights to postal and government workers and restore these rights
denied theth for thirty-five years to Participate as private citizens in the political
life of our Nation.
First: It permits employees to contribute Voluntarily to candidates for public
,office.
Seeqii(T: ,it perrnits. employees to express their views and to participate in
olitiutl Management of campaigns, as private citizens, without the involvement
?of their- official .authority or influence.
Third: it specifically. defines the meaning of political management and cam-
paigns, to include : Candidacy for service in political conventions ; Participation
in political meetings, caucuses, and primaries; Preparing for, organizing or
,conducting a political meeting or rally; Membership in politieal -chibS ; Distribu-
ting campaign literature and distributing' or wearing campaign badges and
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1i,6 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
buttons; Having a publishing, editorial, or managerial connection with political
publications; Participating in a political parade; Circulating nomination peti-
tions; and Candidacy for any public office.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DEMAND FIRST-CLASS CITIZENSHIP
"Mr. Chairman, once again, attention is focused upon a law which is almost
universally condemned. Except for the Civil Service Commission, everyone knowl-
edgeable on the subject recognizes that the Hatch Act constitutes an outstanding
example of legislative overkill. To correct some alleged evils, many of the most
fundamental constitutional rights of all postal and federal employees are denied
to them.
To say that the Hatch Act clearly constitutes an unreasonable restriction of
the political activities of government employees is an understatement. As a matter
of fact, once age, reidence and registration qualifications have been met, any
restriction on the right of any citizen to participate freely and voluntarily in
all the processes of government, including elections, would appear to be unrea-
sonable. Some considerable credence has recently given further impetus to this
point of view by recent court decisions invalidating unreasonable residence and
other requirements. Having met reasonable qualifications, there would appear
to be no good reason for denying an employee of the Federal Government any
of the rights enjoyed by other citizens to participate in elections by taking part
in whatever partisan political activity that he or she chooses.
The people represented by the American Postal Workers Uniem are informed,
intelligent citizens who, given the opportunity, might reai-onahly be expected
to show excellent judgment in selection of political candidates for office in this
country and in participating in activities in support of them. Under the Hatch
Act, these members do not have this opportunity. But, as our deceased former
President, B. C. Hallbeck, was fond of pointing out, strangely enough, the town
ner-do-well does.
Aside from the question of infringement upon a basic right of an employee
to be politically active, the Hatch Act as it is presently interpreted by the Civil
Service Commission, has created a climate of doubt and uncertainty that alto-
gether too often resulted in Government employees failing to even exercise their
right to a ballot. Seemingly, they reason that the best way to stay out of trouble
is to stay completely free from elections. The suspicion arises that this same
attitude on the part of others accounts for the fact that all elected public
officials are not always what they should be.
Certainly, no one in this day and age would advocate a return to a "Spoils
System." No one is advocating that Government employees should be subjected
to the requirement that they make political contributions to any political party
or candidate. It is not suggested that Government officials or employees should be
permitted to use their official positions to promote the political ends of any party
or candidate. Neither is it suggested that any post office or other Government
agency should become a political stomping ground, or that any employee should
be able to coerce, or be subject to coercion, on behalf of any party or candidate.
All of these things either have been, or can he, covered by statute but it is not
necessary to make political hybrids out of employees of the Federal government
in order to prevent such occurrences.
Good government results from the largest possible participation in political
life. It seems we have experienced a tendency over the years to drift away from
such participation. As a matter of fact, barely half of the electorate even goes
to the polls in the average election and a 65 percent vote in a presidential election
is something to shout about. In contrast to this, participation in elections in na-
tions of the British Commonwealth and Western Europe runs considerably higher.
A lot of other countries, such as Canada, when they first established Civil
Service systems, had very broad bans on the political activity of Civil Service.
But as the years have passed in most western countries, there has been a
realization that it is no longer necessary to emasculate government employees
politically in order to protect the Civil Service or the general public. This is
true in Sweden, Canada, Germany, and Great Britain, just to cite a few.
Great Britain. for example, enacted a law in 1953 under which blue collar employ-
ees and all of the lower grades of white collar Civil Service are exempted from
any restraint on political activity. They can even run for the House of Commons.
Of course, while running they have to take leave of absence?but the govern-
ment is required to give it to them. If they are elected they then resign. If
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
71
they are defeated they can go back to Work- as 'a postal 'clerk Or to Whatever
other job they do.
What earthly reason is there for saying that a postal employee should be
barred from political activity. There might- be some reason. for barring some of
the higher grades, people who are in a position to effect .and Implement policy.
But many Of these are exempted from the Hatch Act at the present time.
Persons exempt from the Hatch Act are: 1. President and Vice President. 2. Em-
ployees of the President's office, 3. Heads and Assistant Heads of the Executive
Department, 4. Appointed officers by the President. Hatch Act restrictions on
political management and -political campaigning are all inclusive and the only
undisputed right of government employees is the right to yote.
Many difficulties arise in ccinducting normal day-t01-clay - union business be--
cause of the Hatch Act. The American Postal Workers Union represents approxi-
Mately 350,000 employees, all of whom hive a direct interest, particularly in.
electing officials sympathetic to their causes. They would like very much to
start a voluntary political fund in order to assist In accomplishing this end.
However, can the local union officers who are also employees of the Postal
Service solicit contributions from their members, even during a union meeting?
Myself and other elected national officers of APWU are on leave of absence
without pay from the Postal Service and have been for as many as 15 or more
years. Civil Service Interpretations (contained in their Pamphlet No. 20 on
page 8) deem me still subject to the Hatch Act even though our legal counsel
points-Out that this is .an. erroneous interpretation. .
Perhaps the best statement in favor of lifting these restrictive measures was
set out by the California Supreme Court in declaring a little Hatch Act of
California unconstitutional.
"As the number of persons employed by government and governmental-
assisted institutions continues to grow the necessity of preserving for them
the maximum practicable right to participate in the political life of the repub-
lic grows with it."
"Restrictions on public employees, which, in some or all of their applications,
advance no compelling public interest commensurate with the waiver of con-
stitutional rights which they require imperil the continued operation of our
institutions of representative government."
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the active interest you have taken in this
cause and we support your entire effort. -
The National Convention of the American Postal Workers Union has repeatedly
over the years, adopted resolutions similar to the one that follows:
"Whereas the Hatch Act makes a federal employee only a second-class citizen,
be it therefore
Rescitv'ed, that our national offleers seek legislation to amend those portions
of the Hatch Act to guarantee us first-class citizenship."
For as long as I can remember, similar resolutions have been adopted by each
convention of other employee unions without dissent.
The APWU's most recent convention had nearly 2,500 delegates. Other govern-
ment unions had a similar number of delegates and yet, writers of the govern-
Ment column in the Washington Star recently indicated that they had not wit-
nessed any real desire on the part of the rank-and-file to amend the Hatch Act.
I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that those same writers sat in on those
conventions as observers.
Before we conclude this presentation Mr. Chairman, we would like to have
three exhibits included as a part of this statement for the record. We believe these
Exhibits will be helpful to the Committee in your deliberations on a final version
of 11.R:'3600 which hopefully will be favorably reported and enacted into law.
"Exhibit No. 1" contains two reprints of articles from the Washington Star
newspapers of March 4, 1075 and March 18, 1975. The pros and Cons regarding
revision of the Hatch Act were published in these Washington Spotlight coltunns
by Mr. Joseph Young, a staff writer for the STAR. The March 10 column reports
our answer in opposition to present Hatch Act restrictions and Mr. Young's
March 4 column opposes Hatch Act changes. We believe our statements effec-
tively respond to those opposed to anyliberalization of the existing statute.
"Exhibit No. 2" is a reprint of a front page story in the July 31, 1972 Washing-
ton Star & Daily News entitled "Hatch Act Political Ban Ruled Illegal". Even
though the Supreme Court subsequently overruled the three-judge federal panel
and decided the Hatch Act was constitutional, the July 31, 1972 news report does
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
72
-explain the reasoning used by a majority of the Federal District Court panel in
declaring the Act Unconstitutional.
Finally Mr. Chairman, we are submitting "Exhibit No, 3" which we believe
will be a great asset in your consideration of the pending legislation. This is,
in our opinion an outstanding and in-depth documented analysis of the Hatch
Act with emphasis on the statutory and judicial constrUction and history of
the Act.
This excellent commentary entitled. "The Hatch Act, Political Restraint of
Govennitent Employees?A Tinte for Change" was prepared by a member of
our own American Postal Workers Union, Mr. Frank E. Giordano of Highland,
New York who is a college student. The thesis is very timely as it was submitted
by Mr. Giordatio less than a year ago on April 30, 1974.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for scheduling this
hearing on H.R. 3000 and permitting us to express the views of the American
Postal Workers Union (AFL-CIO) in support of this legislation and long over-
due revision of the Hatch Act.
Myself, Mr. Howley and Mr. Cafforky will be very happy to respond to ary
questions you may have concerning our testimony.
, THE HATCH ACT
POLITICAL RESTRAINT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES?A. TIME FOR CHANGE!
(Submitted by Frank Giordano, Apr. 30, 1974)
THE ACT
The most controversial and disputed section of the Hatch Act, Section On, will
be the subject of this paper. Other sections o ill be discussed. The major emphasis,
however, will be the constitutionality of Section 9a.
The Act was promulgated in an attempt to reform the Civil Service. It states,
"It. liull be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the
federal government, or any agency or department thereof to use his official
authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or effecting
the results thereof. No officer or employee in tin' executive branch of the federal
government or any agency thereof shall take an active part in political manage-
ment or in political campaigns." This includes:
1. State or local agency: The executive branch of any state or municipality
or other political sub-division or agency or department thereof.
2. Federal agency:- Any executive department, independent establishment or
other agencies of United States; except the federal reserve system.
t This section of the Act is deceptively brief. Nevertheless, the number of people
it youche,s is vast in number. All employees of federal agencies and state agencies
subsidized by federal funds come under its jurisdiction, .
. Persons exempt. from the Hatch Act are: 1. lesideitt and Vice President. 2.
Employees of the President's office. 3. Heads and assistant heath- of the executive
department. .4.; Appointed officers by the Preeidene
; Hatch Act restrictions on political management and Political campaigning are
all inclusive and the only undisputed right of government employees is the right
to vote,
Programs preventing government employees trent political activism are sup-
ported by these who,believe political neutrality will help to create a more efficient
Civil Service. GeYertunent. employees have hen looked upon as :a separate group
and subjected to restrictions which rarely. apply to the rest of the body politic.
Tim movement toward requiring neutrality on the part of government de-
s-eloped for several . reasons, the most prominent :of which SV;i8' the "spoils
system-. The spoils system was a disturbing element in :the American ..method
of administering .public employment, public enmphyinoimt in exchange for work
in party organization and earmasignipg was a common ceeurreuee,', .
Supporters of political neutrality also argue that it prevents; 1. Competition
between, the party and the department head for the employee's:, loyalty. 2. Em-
ployee demoralization which results feete rewards based on polities rather than
r S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 54, Part I.
2 rn ri ca r! Political Science Journal. 1941. p. 447.
z Est/Ian, The Hatch Act?A Reappraisal, (JO Yale L.S. 995 (1951).
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
73
merit. 3. And it prevents the bureaucracy from becoming an internal political
power: bl6c.4
The Hater& Political Activities Act was passed in 1939. Incorporated into the
aet Were Civil Service restrietions passed under the Executive Order Of
Prior to and after 18S2'several Executive Orders were passed focusing on political
activity by government employees.'
? The first constitutional elm 'lenge in reference to political neutrality of Civil
Service employees came in Expartee Curtis."
:A shipyard employee was charged with violating the Act of 1887 C. 287 forbid-
ding employees not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate i'rom
receiving or giving money fer political purposes. The Supreme Court's deeisiiti
upheld the right of Congress to regulate tire political conduct of its employees.
Justice Waite, author of the Court's opinion, charged :that forcibly exacting
contribution for political purposes would damage the overall operations oi gov-
erning-M. He stated that Congress is within bounds to prevent the possible
destruction of government.' IL is Congress's duty said Justice Waite to maintaii
of citizens, in .this particular case, insuring an efficient Civil Service. The Court
felt that the Act; I. Protected government employees from being forced to make
political contributions. 2. Prevent inferior employees from making liberal con-
tributions that would help to keep them on the rolls, this downgrading the
Civil Service.
Close extunination of the Court's decision reveals the Court's failure to deal
with the respondent's charge that his constitutional rights were violated. The
major thrust of the Court's decision was that Congress had the right to infringe
on constitutional guarantees, if, the subsequent results protected the mai )1.ity
of citizens, in this particular case, insuring an efficient Civil Service.' The Court
stated it could not overrule a legislative act unless it was an excessive violation
of constitutional freedoths. The difficult question to consider is what did the
Court think was exceSsIVe. Moreover, one could clea.rly see that'reMoving first
amendment tights of government employees because campaign funds may be
forcibly solicited is abusive,.
In addition there liaS -been no establishment of a clear and present. danger..
The doctrine set down by Curtis is later utilized in United Public Worlecr. v.
Mitchell.
The appellant in this case declared 'Section Pa of the Hatch Act unconstitu-
tional, violating the appellant's first, ninth and tenth amendment rights. George
Poole had his job in the United States Mint terminated because of his political
activity." Minding to EXpartee Curtis the Court ruled that Congress had the
pewer to protect a free society from the evils of political partisanship on the
part. of Civil Service employees." The Court did accept, however, the charge that
Poole's rights had been violated. Nevertheless, they cbidinued, no rights are
absolute and the protection of the people in general take precedence over indi-
vidual rights.' The Mitchell opinion also focuses on the need for order Out-
weighing the rights of Civil Service employees.' Political contributions of energy
to Campaigns are .disapproved by Congress and the president. Since they are
responsible for the efficiency of the Civil Service and in their judgment restric-
tion of political activity is in the best interest of democracy, the Court felt it
could not object."
In conclusion the Court argued that the sovereignty of the Federal govern-
ment over the states SuPports 'Congress in the legislation of the Hatch Act. The
federal government is sovereign because its powers are granted by the states and
any infringement of conktitutional rights is based on the power of the Union
over the states to prefect the national interests.'
4 Madman, The Hatch Act?A unconstitutional Restraint, Albany L.J. 346 (19 -).
5 Irwin, Hatch Act decisions, 20.
5 U.S. 106. 373.
'U.S. 106, 374.
3 U.S. 106, 375.
10 Eleven other Mint employees claimed they desired to participate In political activity
and demanded a declaratory judgment. The Court refused stating they could not grant a
judgment until an employee was actually threatened with loss of his job.
11 Cushman, Leading Constitutional Decisions, p. 99.
"Constitutionality of the Hatch Act," Albany Law Journal, p. 349.
13 U. S. 330, p. 98.
14 U.S. 330, p. 96.
11 Oklahoma v. United. 5tatcs COO' Service Commission was heard at the some time as
UP IV V. Mitchell. Here France Paris was a State employee, he was removed because .uf
political activity. But, the State charged the Hatch Act was attemptinr to r4,11',,tf? tbe
internal affairs of the State. The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government could
do so by indirectly fixing the terms and conditions by which Federal money could be spent.
U.S. 330.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1,34: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
The opinions, stated by the Court in Expartee Curtis and UPW v Mitchell
vigorously supPort Congress's right to maintain an effective Civil Service. They
fail however, to seriously speak to the constitutional violations charged by the
appellants. The dissenting opinicns of Justice Bradley in Curtis and Justices
Black and Douglas in Mitchell deal extensively with the procedural and sub-
stantive violations of the Constitution.
JUSTICE BRADLEY-EXPARTE CURTIS DISSENT
Justice Bradley understood that all available offices for candidate are open to
all Americans and Congress cannot prohibit qualified candidates from seeking
office. To prohibit by law active participation of citizens is according to Bradley
a violation of their fundamental rights. Discouraging active participation by all
-citizens, he continued, because of a few is usurping the rights, of citizens in a
free society to express their own ideas.
Ideas and opinions are transmitted through the news media and in order to
-disseminate information, financial contributions are necessary. Taking away a
man's right to associate with people in a political venture or contribute jointly
with their associates is usurping this fundamental freedom.'
Bradley was cognizant of the possible evils in allowing partisan political par-
-ticipation. It Was abundantly clear to him that violating the rights of a majority
i-for a few was repugnant to the Constitution. Bradley stated that attempting to
,do good by evil means is unlawful."
JUSTICE BLACK UNITED PUUBLIC WORKERS V MITCHELL-DISSENT
Government employees are paid through the public treasury, therefore they
are to be without the political process, a vital necessity in a democratic ,system.
Mr. Justice Black expertly pointed out that the Hatch Act is vague and broad
in its prohibitions, namely Section 15 which lends support to 9a.16 Section 15
includes into the Act Civil Service Commission rulings pertaining to the political
activity of Civil Service employees."
The Hatch Act allows public employees to express their opinions on all political
candidates, unfortunately many of the decisions incorporated into the Act
through Section 15 contradict that provision.' Publicly expressing political views
at a party caucus or political gathering for a candidate, participating in a political
parade, writing or publishing a letter signed or unsigned are prohibited!'
Prior to the passage of the Hatch Act Senator Brown challenged the validity of
Section 15, The Senator doubted whether the vagueness and complexity of the
act could be accepted into statute law. The Senate majority leader attempting to
force legislation said that Senator Hatch had assured him that Sect 15 was not
contrary to constitutional guarantees, thus the act was passed and along with it
3,000 cases ruled on by the Civil Service Commission establishing stare decisis.22
Pamphlet 20 is the main source of information on the Act and is distributed
to all Civil Service employees. The information enclosed summarizes Hatch Act
prohibitions in 7 pages and can hardly be considered a valid document.' More-
over, the, contents of pamphlet 20 is the only information made available for the
defense in eases charging hatch Act violations.
The legislature deemed it necessary to impose restrictions on political activism.
In addition, the Court admits certain constitutional guarantees of government
employees are being violated. Therefore, it is incumbent upon these branches, if
they are determined to keep government employees neutral to establish the least
evil method. The Hatch Act as it stands is broadly vague and fails to hit the mark.
Implanting fear into government employees who will alway, doubt what is or
is net a violation of the Act is a subtle form of censorship. The Civil Service Com-
mission also holds employees responsible for actions taken by their families
concerning political activity leaving the employee with the right to vote in silence.
V.S., 100, 370.
17 'U.S., 100, 375.
U.S., 330, 99.
" Political Activity of Federal Officers and Employees. Pamphlet 20.
2" Rose, A Critical Loo4 at The Hatch Act, Harvard L.R. (1961) 520.
2' Ibid., 521.
22 Harvard Lit. 517.
Ibid., 510,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :791A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Justice Black argued that the purpose of government is, to encourage partici-
pation in the political process. To disallow certain Americans from speaking out is
repugnant to republican form of government. Censorship of millions of people not
only harms the people themselves but the body politic in general. Federal and
State employees are like other citizens in every other way, how can one justify
taking away their rights to participate in a free society.? Mr. Justice Douglas
dissented in part devoting much of this attention to Court decisions concerning
first amendment rights.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS UPW V MITCHELL?DISSENTING IN PART
Justice Douglas argues that Poole was involved in manual labor as a roller in
the U.S. Mint and it would be unlikely for an individual at that level of em-
ployment to affect political decisions.? Prohibiting all employees in the Civil
Service from political activity based upon the possibility of improper behavior
Was unnecessary and extreme. Douglas's views are similar to the British system of
Civil Service. In Britain manual laborers are allowed to campaign and run for of-
fice. Those employees in high administrative positions which require a certain
amount of discretionary power are prohibited from active politics."
Justice Douglas believed that federal employees have the same rights as other
citizens and should not be treated as second-class citizens. Government employees
have the right to join together as free citizens for a common purpose; which is
what any group in a society would do to advance their own ideas.
Justice Douglas noted that when controversy developed concerning individual
liberty and community protectionrthe abridgement of constitutional rights would
have to be justified by a clear and present danger.
In Cantwell v. Connecticut it stated that authorization of previous restraint
upon individual rights of free speech and free press are not admissable under the
Constitution.? In addition the state may not unduly suppress free communication
of views under the guise of conserving desirable conditions. Since Cantwell, a
Jehovah witness, going door to door preaching, did not pose a clear and present
danger, the Court ruled that he could not be convicted of the offense.?
The case of Cantwell v. Ct. was ignored by the Court when considering the
constitutionality of the Hatch Act. In several cases following the Hatch Act
decision the Court forced the State to show more reasons why they needed to
inhibit freedom of speech. Speiser v. Randall.' Moreover, in Sheldon v. Tucker
the. Court recognizing the government's purpose as being legitimate ruled that
regardless of the desires of government, it cannot suppress personal liberties
when an end can be more narrowly achieved."
In view of these past developments the constitutionality of the Hatch Act is
vulnerable to attack. The government in the future will have the burden of proof
to show a less drastic means in which to provide an efficient Civil Service.
Government violations of fourteenth amendment rights were not discussed in
any of the cases concerning the Hatch Act. The Act limiting political activism of
Federal employees establishes categories and affords different treatment to those
employees within these categories. For example, not all employees are pre-
vented from actively participating in politics. Certain classifications are accept-
able of the class specified is that from which "the evil to be feared." ? Hatch Act
provisions are in conflict with the "evil to be feared" doctrine since employees
involved in the highest operation of government are exempt from the act. These
employees are more in a position to cause harm if they were inclined to do so.
CONCLUSION
Congress has a duty to protect the public from an inefficient bureaucracy and
to insure that government employees servo the public rather than their own
interests. Although this is an awesome responsibility it does not give Congress
the freedom to abridge first amendment rights in the name of democracy.
26 U.S. 330, 110.
28 U.S. 330, 101,
27 Yale Law Review, 1937.
29J5 31.0, 308.
'8 Ibid.311.
81 U.S. '357, 513, 527,
82 U.S. 364, 479.
23 Albany L.R. 355.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/136: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Other alternatives are available that can accomplish the aims of the Hatch
Act. If employees are advanced based on merit and efficiency, employee morale
will be boosted, Non-partisan eximis and competitive hiring reduce the threat
of political favoritism.
While less evil alternative solutions curbing pernicious politbi,al activity are
available, it is the duty of Congress to implement measures consonant with the
American traditions of political activism.
Section 15 of the Hatch Act incorporating all previous Civil Service Com-
mission decisions into the Act creates more evil than the good intended. The
case of J. Cole can be used as an example of resultant evil from good intentions.
Cole was a rural letter carrier and Jehovah Witness. He was fired because he
subscribed to the Watchtower publication which advocated "anti-war" policies,
a clear violation of first amendment rights.' In Harper V. Poard of _Education
the Court declared that it had a higher duty to protect fundamental freedoms
from violations of equal protection. "Classification which might invade or re-
strain fundamental freedoms must be colsely scrutinized and carefully con-
fined. It is beyond dispute that first amendment rights must be considered funda-
mental freedoms."
Good government results from the largest possible participation in political
life. The Hatch Act usurps this fundamental liberty. Permitting government
employees to become involved in the political process will help to create a
healthier United States.
TABLE OF CASES
Cantwell v. Connecticut, U.S. 310
Expartec Curtis, U.S. 106
Harper v. Board of Education, U.S. 383
Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, U.S.. 330
Sheldon v. Tucker, U.S. 364
Speiser v. Randall, U.S. 357
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, U.S. 330
BIBLIOGRAPHY
'Cushman, Robert E. Leading Constitutional Decisions, Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc., 1958.
Heady, Ferrel. "American Government and Politics: The Hatch Act De-
cisions," The American Political Science Review, 1947.
Howard, L. V. "Government and Politics: Federal Restrictions on the Political
Activity of Government Employees," The American Political Science Review,
1941.
Irwin, James W. "Hatch Act Decisions: Political Activit Cases of the U.S.
Civil Service Commission," U.S. Government Printing Office. 1949.
Laski, Harold J. "The British Civil Service." Yale Law Review 26, 1937.
"Political Activity of Federal Officers 'and Employees," Pamphlet 20.
Rose, Henry. "A Critical Look at the Hatch Act," Harvard Law Review, 1961,
1962.
U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 54, Part I.
WASHINGTON, D.C. LOCAL, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL?CIO
- Congressman Clay, members of the subcommittee on employees political rights
and intergovernmental programs of the Commit tee on Post Office and Civil
Service.
My name is Sidney Brooks, president of the American Postal Workers Union.
AFL?CIO, Washington, D.C. local. On behalf of the over niue thousand Postal
employees in the D.C. Post Office, including Maryland and Virginia, we wish
to commend this committee for conducting hearings of this antiquated law that
enslaves workers in the public sector.
Employees working for private hospitals may engage in political activities;
public hospitals may be restricted. Clericals hired by private firm with public.
contracts may engage in political activity; postal clericals. likewise may be
restricted. Teachers and school board personnel may engage in political activity;
3 4 U.S. 383. 663 (1966).
25 Albany Lit., 355.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
77
Personnel in most other public institutions may be "hatched", yet all of these,
employees are paid from public tax revenues.
Between 1946 and 1966 alone, State and local government employment in-
creased by 5.4 million. It is now over 9 million, well beyond the number content-
Plated by Congress in 1940. Since :1940, public employees have increased their
organizational and political maturity at the State and local levels. Further,
unionization, collective bargaining agreements, merits system ruler, election
reform legislation, an alert press and increased public scrutiny, limit patronage
adequately Protest the public employee from the political pressures which ex-
isted in 1940 when Congress first extended the. Hatch Act to cover State nicE
local employees.
Public employees, are a part of American rociety, which entails paying Federal
and State taxes, waiting for those who must determine their salaries, wages
and the conditions under which they m.ust work. It is preposterous then that
Public employees are prohibited from exercising the basic rights of other
American citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. If
States and city personnel systems are permitted to improve local Hatch Act
restraints on the public worker, then elected official must initiate legislation
to prohibit jurisdiction from imposing State taxes, local taxes anti Federal
taxes on the public employees.
[Prom the Washington Star of mar. 16, 1975, Federal Spotlight]
OPPONENT OF HATCH ACT SPEAKS OCT
(By Joseph Young)
In a recent column we expressed the view that pending legislation to overhaul
the Hatch Act would have a disastrous effect on federal career employees and
the merit system, jeopardizing jobs and careers.
The column drew a lot of reaction, both pro and con. While we haven't chamTd
our views, we feel it. is only lair to give equal space to those who favor giving,
freedom of political action to government workers.
Expressing the viewpoint of those favoring overhaul of the Thatch Act is a
letter from Patrick J. Mao, legislative director of the AFL-CIO American
Postal Workers Union (APWU) and one of the ablest lobbyists in town.
Nilan writes: "As old friends and admirers we are astonished and saddened
by your recent defense of the Hatch Act. The views you expressed repudiate
the very concept of fundamental liberties on which our form of government is.
based. They also reflect a dismal judgment of federal employes generally.
"What's more you have tried to buttress your argument with personal ob-
servations that are demonstrably wrong. -
"You say that in more titan 25 years of covering the government beat, with
the exception of one individual in Virginia, you have never encountered a govern-
ment worker who wanted the Hatch Act meaningfully changed.
"Yet only last August, Joe, while covering the APWU national convention at
Miami Beach, you personally saw 2,325 union delegates?government workers
all?vote unanimously for repeal of the Hatch Act. Not a single voice was raised
in its defense from the floor. Indeed, you have been a personal witness to similar
unanimity at earlier conventions, ours and others.
"Surely you are familiar with the tough penalty provisions written into
H.R. 3000 by its sponsor, Rep. William Clay, D-Mo. Political firings, forced
fund-raising, even arm-twisting by the boss all are punishable by asserted de-
grees of chastisement ranging from a minimum 30-day suspension without pay
to full federal prosecution in the courts.
"To suggest, as you do. that whenever a new administration takes over with
a change in political parties that politically-active employees would 'face the ax'
is to suggest that the rule of law does not exist and that the lessons of Watergate
will have no future impact on the body politic. That kind of scare talk is pure
rubbish.
"But there is an even more grievous element In your rationale: inherent
throughout your column is the clear implication that the overwhelming majority
of federal workers are politically gutless drudges, timid and enfeebled, con-
demned in your own words to lack-luster careers by a fear of their bosses, and
eager to avoid exercising the most precious civil right ever devised by a free
society?the right, to participate in the action and passion of their times.
52-137-75---6
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1,3s: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
"The Hatch Act as it now stands not only abridges those rights, it flouts the
deepest traditions of political activism in America. It is a form of repressive
overkill. It has no compelling interest commensurate with the waiver of con-
stitutional rights involved in its continuing application. As federal employes we
resent our second-class status as citizens and we are not afraid to pursue our
rights to political action or to exercise it regardless of what party may be in
power.
"Joe, we still love you, but it strikes us as ironic that a Union of federal em-
ployes should have to make these arguments to, of all people, a Washington
journalist I"
[From the Washington Star, Mar. 4, 1073]
HATCH ACT CHANGES ARE A BAD IDEA
(By Joseph Young)
Their intentions undoubtedly are the best. But the three Washington-area mem-
bers of Congress who have co-sponsored legislation to overhaul the Hatch Act
to give federal employes wide freedom of political activities may be doing the
employes a grave disservice.
With one exception, in our more than 25 years of covering the government
beat, we have never encountered a government worker who wanted the Hatch
Act meaningfully changed. The one exception was an employe who was active in
politics in a southern Virginia community before he came to Washington to get
a federal job.
Federal and postal employe union leaders are all in favor of overhauling the
law restricting the political activities of government workers, but it's doubtful
that most employes are.
The unions favor overhaul because it would increase their clout with Congress
and the political party in power in the White House.
But it would mean the end of the merit system as we know it today.
The attacks on the merit system that occurred during the Nixon administra-
tion would be mere child's play compared to what would happen if the Hatch
Act were radically changed.
Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., chairman of the House Civil Service subcommittee
on the Hatch Act, has sponsored legislation that would drastically revise the law
in order to permit government workers to participate actively in politics.
Among those co-sponsoring the bill are Democratic Reps. Herbert Harris and
Joseph Fisher of Northern Virginia and Gladys Spellman of Prince Georges
County.
They are trying to be as fair as possible on the legislation and have arranged
special night hearings of the subcommittee on April 14 to hear from federal em-
ployes who live in Northern Virginia and April 15 for workers in nearby Mary
land.
The bill, while giving employes wide freedom of political activity, also has
provisions to protect them from being forced to engage in polities if they don't
want to.
However, as Chairman Robert Hampton of the Civil Serviee Commission has
pointed out, this is a contradiction in terms. If federal employes were given the
right to freely engage in politics, they would be on shaky grcmnd indeed if they
refused their bosses' orders to engage in political activities.
Actually, as Hampton notes, these would not have to be overt orders, but merely
subtle ones. ?
In other words, employes hoping for meaningful careers and promotions would
know-that they would have to play the political game to get ohead.
But even then their careers would be jeopardized. For whet-lever a new admin-
istration took over with a change in political parties, these employes would face
the ax.
As for those employes who refused to get involved in polities, their jobs prob-
ably would be safe enough, but they would have to resign themselves to run-of-
the-mill jobs and lacklustre careers.
So no one would win but the politicians, who would use government workers
to help perpetuate themselves in office.
Government workers should make their views known to their representatives
in Congress, who will be glad to hear them.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1319 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
[From the Evening Star and the Washington Daily News, July 31, 1072J
HATCH ACT POLITICAL BAN RULED ILLEGAL
(By Barry Kalb)
A three-judge federal panel today ruled, 2-1, that the Civil Service Commission
has been acting unconstitutionally in forbidding federal employees from engaging
in certain types of political activity.
The judges concluded that provisions of the Hatch Act prohibiting federal em-
ployees from taking "an active part in political management or in political cam-
paigns," are "impermissibly vague and over-broad," and ordered the commission
to stop enforcing these provisions.
However, implementation of today's ruling, which potentially affects millions
of federal employees over the country, was stayed pending an expected appeal to
the Supreme Court.
- The Justice Department had no immediate comment on whether such an appeal
would be made, although it seems likely. The high court is currently in recess and
would have to hold a special session if it decides to tackle such a sweeping ques-
tion before the upcoming national elections.
The Hatch Act generally prohibits federal and postal employees from actively
engaging in partisan politics. This prohibition includes serving as officers of -any
political organization or being candidates for most 'offices, serving as precinct
captains or in any Other political capacity.
Employees are also prevented from working actively for any political candi-
date, distributing campaign literature or making speeches on behalf of candidates.
Today's ruling did not state specifically what types of activity should be
allowed. it left open the question of whether federal employees can run for
elective office.
Presumably, if the ruling is upheld by the 'Supreme Court, Congress would
have to enact new legislation stating permissible areas of political activity.
The snit was filed by the National Association of Letter Carriers, a union of
postal employees with about 200,000 members, several county Democratic and
Republican central committees in the Washington area, plus five individuals, all
of whom stated that they were affected by the provisions of the act.
The U.S. Civil Service Commission and its three commissioners, chairman Rob-
ert E. Hampton, James E. Johnson and Ludwig J. Aridolsek, were all named as
defendants.
When the suit challenging the act was filed in March 1971, it asked that state
employees covered by the Hatch Act also be included in any final decision.
FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES AFFECTED
But today's decision, written by U.S. District Court Judge Gerhard A. Gesell,
with District Court Judge Barrington D. Parker concurring and U.S. Court of
Appeals Judge George E. Mae Kinnon dissenting, set _aside the question of state
employees and affects only federal employees. .
Gesell, while upholding the need for sonic kind of check on political activity by
federal civil servants, stated that the prohibitions in the Hatch Act provisions
in question "are Worded in generalities that lack precision."
"There is no standard," Gesell wrote. "No one can read the act and ascertain
what it prohibits."
Ho ealled the issue "a classic case of a statute which hi its application has
'chilling effect' unacceptable under the First Amendment."
? He said the Civil Service Commission. "has acted responsibly in attempting to
apply the provisions of the act fairly, but that its efforts were thwarted because
the commission "was given rio authority tinder the net to accommodate rigidly
incorporated prinr fillings to the rapidly evolving court interpretations of the
First Amendment."
Gesell col-winded that because of the statute's vagueness, federal employees
could never be sure when they were violating its provisions, and stated :
"Ours is not a form of 'government that will prosper if citizens, particularly
federal government servants, must live by the mottos 'Better be safe than sorry,
and 'Don't stick your neck our "
Gesell suggested, but did not order, that the solution to the -problem would. be
for Congress to state "with utmost clarity" which areas Of. political activity are
impermissible.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
80
ACT NOT VAGUE
MacKinnon, in a 20-page dissent, said he felt that the act was not overly vague?
and that "the reasonable federal employee is provided an aseertainable standard
of conduct that does not impermissibly infringe on hi--4 First Amendment
freedoms."
He said he would merely order the commission to clarify its rulings on the
subject.
Parker reserved the right to file a separate concurring opinion in the case,
although his office said it is not known at this time whethe. he wUl do so.
The suit was one part of a two-pronged attack on the Hatch Act by employee
groups. Unions also have been seeking legislation in Congress to give govern-
ment workers more political freedom, but no bills have emerged from com-
mittee in this session?partly because of concern on the part of sonic legislators
about voter reaction, and partly because the lawmakers wanted to see What the
court would do.
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF IT.R. 3000 PROVIDING FOR RIGHT OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL ( l'ARTISAN AND NON -
PARTISAN ) ACTIVITIES
H.R. 3000 (Cong. Clay Bill) is a bona fide attempt to effer'tively give all Fed-
eral workers, including Postal Service employees, the full and complete political
rights enjoyed by every American citizen since the very foundation of our ?
Republic approximately two hundred years ago but denied lo them for the past
thirty-six years merely because they work for the Federal government or for
a state government or agency which receives federal funds. It is a sincere at-
tempt to restore to federal and postal employees their rights under the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
SECTION 2(a)
Current law (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7323)
The present law prohibits any Federal employee from solicitation, receiving
(with or without solicitation) or giving anything (money" or other things) of
value to or from another 1) federal employee, 2) member of Congress, 3) a mem?
ber of the Armed Forces. Violations of this Section results in automatic dis-
charge. Unlike violations of Sec. 7324 (taking an active part in partisan political'
campaign) the CSC has no discretion to impose a lesser penalty. Presidential'
appointees are exempt from this provision.
Proposed changes?H.R. 3000 ,
H.R. 3000 would also prevent a federal employee, including Postal employees,
from soliciting, receiving (with or without solicitation) or giving anything of
value to 1) another federal employee, 2) members of Congress. or 3) member of
the Armed Forces, for political purposes. This proposal also includes presidential
appointees (excluded by the current Act). However, it specifically allows a fed--
eral employee to voluntarily make, a contribution (money or otherwise to ally
candidate for public office". This is a major substantive change. Another major
change is that whereas the present Act makes a violation subject to automatic
expulsion. H.R. 3000 provides for a minimum of 30 days suspension and expulsion
only if all CSC members unanimously agree.
Suggested changes: APITTU
1. Add to Line 4 (p 2) after the words "political purposes" the phrase "on
federal property". This would allow any federal employee to solicit or receive
funds or other valuable material from another federal employee, member of -
Congress, or the military while off-duty off federal property.
2. Add to Line 5 (p. 4) after the phrase "to any candidate" the phrase "or
his authorized representative". As the present language is drawn an employee'
may only contribute directly to the candidate himself. Though this certainly is
not the intention, the language is clear. Our proposals would allow any authorized'
representative of any candidate to receive contributions off federal property..
SECTION 2 ( b )
Current law
As mentioned above, the present law provides that any federal employee who
solicits, receives or gives anything of value to or from another Federal employee,.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : 9fk-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Member of Congress or member of the military is subject to automatic expulsion:
the CSC has no other choice after a finding of guilt.
Proposed changes?H.R. 3000
This gives the CSC the responsibility to enforce violations of the no solicitation,
receiving or contribution provisions of Sec. 2(a). It provides that they shall
investigate (when a complaint is made) and "upon a finding" that Sec. 2(a)
provisions are violated by federal employees they shall impose a penalty of no
less than 90 days suspension up to expulsion. In the case of presidential appointees
they must notify the agency head and President, recommend a penalty, and refer
the case to the Attorney General for possible prosecution.
Suggested changes?APWU
Title 5 CFR Part 733-101,-402 provides that, among other things, the CSC will
investigate violations of the Hatch Act. It sets up procedures for Investigation,
Notice, Hearings, and Adjudications of responsibility or guilt and penalties. These
procedures satisfy us. In addition CSC Regs., Sec. 733-401 and 402 specifically
apply this jurisdiction and procedures to members of the Postal Service. With an
abundance of caution and without raising anyone's feathers I suggest that the
following language be substituted for the present Sec. 2(b), Lines 9-12. The re-
maining sections 2e (1) (2) (31 are acceptable.
"The ? Civil Service Commission pursuant to its regulations contained in 5
CFR See. 733, 131-137 shall investigate and conduct hearings on all alleged
violations of this Act."
This makes abundantly clear that the present wording of "processing com-
plaints" in See. 2(b) and "upon a finding" contained in Sec. 2(e) means a
complete investigation and adversary hearing as is contained in the present
'CSC regulations.
SE'CTION 2(d)
? Current law
The Hatch Act presently contains no criminal penalties for its wilfull violations,
'only removal for solicitation, receiving or giving contributions (Sec. 7323) or
suspension or removal for actively participating in partisan politics (Sec. 7324).
Proposed change?H.R. 3000
This change proposes to subject a presidential appointee who solicits, receives
or contributes to or from another federal employee, member of Congress or the
armed forces, not only to whatever penalty (suspension or expulsion) the CSC
recommends but also to criminal penalties if the Attorney General chooses to
prosecute. (The criminal penalties of this section (18 USC '602) apply to members
?of and candidates for Congress as well as to federal employees. 'IR 3000, however,
applied only to federal and presidential employees. Therefore, the criminal
penalties in HR 3000 apply only to the former who violate the solicitation,
receiving provisions of 1111 3000.) These Criminal penalties are felonies and
Include a maximum fine of $5,000 and/or three years imprisonment (18 -CSC 602).
(Under Sec. (6) 7325 of ER $000 the Attorney General does net have to prosecute
if 1) he determines no factual basis exists, or 2) that "the cause of justice will
not be served." The latter will be most widely used when the occasion arises.)
Suggested ehanges?APWU
HR 3000 subjects a presidential appointee to possible criminal penalties only
for solicitation, receiving or giving contributions to another federal employee,
etc., for political purposes. It does not subject him to criminal penalties for using
his political influence or official authority to interfere with or effect the outcome
of an election. Nor does IIR 3000 prevent an executive employee from impeding
or coercing another federal employee in the proper exercise Of his rights un-ler
HP, P,000. To remedy this I would suggest that we add the phrase "for any
violation ,of this Act as amended" at the ern' of line 2, page 3.
SECTION 3(a)
Current law
The present law as stated and interpreted by the CSC in a myriad of cases
over the years prevents any federal or D.C. employee from 1) using his influence
to interfere with or effect the outcome of an election. or 2) take any active part
4n a Partisan camnaign, management or otherwise: The CSC has inter-
preted this section to prohibit virtually every act from obtaining signatures on a
petition to passing out partisan literature at the polls. More than not the 'violator
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
was subject to expulsion unless all members of the CSC agreed to a lesser penalty..
(HR 3000 reverses this and requires that all members must agree to expel?one
dissenting member can prevent expulsion?not so under the present Act.)
Proposed changes?H.R. 8000
Sec. 3(a) of 11.11. 3000 is identical with the current law, See. 7324(a) (1) in all
respects. However, the following language should be inserted as an additional
sentence after the word "Selection" in line 1.7:
"Nor shall such employee interfere with, restrain, impede or coerce, in any
way, any other employee covered by the provisions of this Act in the proper
exercise of any right guaranteed under this Act, including- denying or interfering
with such employee's right or opportunity for job advancement, because of such
political activity or the lack thereof."
Sec. 3(b) virtually repeals all prohibitions on active, rtie; pat ion. in "political
campaigns by federal-Postal employees which were specifically prevented by the
Hatch Act or by the CSC interpretation. It gives a carte bla oche to all lawful
Political activities as the phiaSe "active part in politiCal cu topaigns" only at-
tempts to delineate the most obvious acts using the word "nicht; les".
SECTION 3(c)
This is the very essence of the bill and is eminently satis;actory to us. This
subsection allows all of the major political activities which ore currently pro-
scribed for federal employees. However. I would add the following language as
part of Sec. 3 (c) 9 (1), after the word "office" on pager). line8:
"Provided, that such employee who is elected or a ppoinfad, to a full time, full
salaried national, state, county or municipal utile shall take a. continuous leave
of absence, without pay, during this term of office."
SECTION 4
Current law
The present law provides (Sec. 7325) that anyone who 11 uses his official
position or authority to influence or interfere with an election er 2) takes an active
part in a political campaign shall be removed from his job -iinless all members.
vote for a lesser penalty. Sec. 7323 of the current law requires : -intomatic removal,.
upon conviction, of an employee (except presidential fippoiLIOeS ) who solicits,
receives or gives:contributions to or from another employee, f.ainber of Congress
or the armed forces. These are stringent provisions.
Proposed changes?H.R. 3000
The Clay bill provide that any Federal employee who solicits, receives, etc.,
contributions or uses his influence or authority to influence an election must
receive at least a thirty day suspension up to expulsion. However, in this bill
one dissenting CSC member can block expulsion?unitize the present Act. As to the
.presidential appointees the CSC can only recommend a penalty to the employee's
agency head and the President and refer the ease to the Attorney General for
possible criminal prosecution.
Suggested changes?APTVU
We suggest no changes in this section.
SECTION 5
Current law
See. 7326.?This section allows 1) active participation including candidacy
In political activity in non-partisan- elections .and 21 active support of an issue
not SpeCifically identified' With either political party and 8 support of local
referendums, ordinances and constitutional amendments.
Section 7327.?This section allows active participation, ineltaling candidacy,
in political campaigns of independent candidates in Maryland, Virginia. or D.C.,
and any political sub-division or municipality where the majority of the voters
are government employees.
I can not see any real difference between these two sections.
Proposed changes?HR 3000
The Clay bill repeals these sections and effectively allows, (in other sections)
any federal employee to take an active part in any state, local, municipal or
- Federal campaign involving any office or issue of either party.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : 9ek-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Suggested ehangcs?APTVU
We support it in toto.
SECTION 6
Current Law
As previously mentioned, Title 18 USC Sec. 602 provides criminal penalties
.($5,000 fine and/or three years imprisonment) for a member. or candidate for
Congress, etc., or federal einployee who directly or indirectly solicits, receives,
etc., political contributions from any other member Or eniPloyee Of Congress
or federal employee for political purposes.
Proposed changes?RR 3000
This section is clearly ambiguous as it applies the criminal penalties of 18,
USC Sec. 602. Sec. 602 clearly states that any individual holding or aspiring
to any named position (Congress, delegate, etc.) including federal employees
who violates the solicitation provision is subject to criminal penalties without
exception. The Clay provisions here amend this section by adding to Title-
18 not repealing it. The added language of Sec. 6 here merely states that if a
federal employee, including a presidential appointee, violates the no 'solicitation
provisions the Attorney General may prosecute unless he determines (1) the
facts will not support a conviction (a power he has always had in every criminal
prosecution) or (2) that prosecution will not serve the ends of justice. This
amendment clearly appears to effectively repeal Title 18, Sec. 602.
Suggested changes?APTVU
We should seek to clarify what Sec. 6 amendment seeks to do (1) repeal
Title 18, Sec. 602 or (2) modify it and if so hi what way.
PATRICK J. NILAN,
_Legislative Director, American Postal Workers Union.
MT. NILAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Nilan. I think it was an excellent state-
ment you gave and you made some very good recommendations for
change in the proposed bill, which this committee will take under
advisement. On page 6 of your printed statement, you say there might
be some reason for barring some of the higher grades, people who
are in a position to affect and implement policy. Many of them are
exempted from the Hatch Act at the present time. Could you elaborate
on that for us? Are you suggesting that some persons in the Federal
Government ought to be prohibited from participating in political
? activities?
Mr. NILAN. I believe what we are trying to say there in so many
words, Mr. Chairman?and we did prepare the amendment after we
prepared the statement?we are suggesting there may be some of those
on the higher levels that could exert influence down the pipeline on the
worker without political restrictions or restraining action against
them. Those in the so-called Presidential appointee class should have
somewhat more severe penalties for violations that could occur under
the act. We are not suggesting any of them be excluded as long as there
is penalties on those who may permit this harassment, but the state-
ment was prepared prior to the amendment. That's why there may
appear to be an inconsistency.
Mr. CLAY. Some individuals suggest the passage of this legislation
is simply a device for the unions, in order to enlarge their power base.
What are your views on this matter ?
Mr. NILAN. I don't know how it would enlarge our power base Mr.
Chairman. We are now and would continue to work on the Hill try-
ing to do our legislative thing with Members of the Congress. We are
asking that you give our people a little opportunity to do the same Olt
the rank and file level. I don't see any argument with that. If that
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/AR : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
argument is going to be used, for example., that 600,000 postal workers
are going to become overnight a devastating political influence on the
Congress or the administration, as the ease may be, you could say the
same thing about the autoworkers or the steelworkers or any group
of workers. But I see no reason. We have got Republicans as well as
we have Democrats in our membership, and I'm sure that they would
function in their own area of political activity, and certainly would
not enhance the power base as I understand it. I would hope, of
course, that they might assist us in having more influence on the enact-
ment of our legislative program, regardless of whom they may support.
Mr. CLAY. Would enactrment of this legislation tend to erode the
Federal merit system?
Mr..NILAN. It wouldn't, certainly wouldn't., as far as postal workers
are concerned. One of the main reasons that we have no such fear or
any problem is that when our people are given politica], freedom, and
are given equality, freedom and justice then we also have a national
contract with the U.S. Postal Service and if there is any harassment
or coercion of any kind, under the definition of a grievance in our na-
tional contract, we have additional opportunities to take care of such
problems within our organization, and through our contractual rela-
tionship with the Postal Service. So we have no great concern in any
areas, insofar as such activities would be concerned.
And in doing that, we would certainly be able to protect our people
for merit, as far as opportunities for advancement to better jobs are
concerned. If it becomes obvious that an employee is being held back
,or being discouraged from taking a better position, we take, the postal
official through the grievance procedure starting at 'step 1 and right
up the line, ending at arbitration. We see no problem on it. I see no
problem either in the Federal service. Actually, I think it. would en-
hance, the opportunity for all to be more active. The merit system is
.an aside, in this issue. I don't see any conflict between the two.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Mrs. Spellman.
Mrs. SPELLMAN. Do you think there ought, to be a statement in-
cluded to prevent the, employer from making inquiry as to the voter
registration of the employee?
Mr. NYLAN. Making inquiry as to the registration of a postal worker,
for example, by somebody further up the line? I don't think it's any
of their business. Frankly, if one of our people were involved, we
could consider it as a. possible violation of our employee rights section
in our national agreement. We. would Want, an explanation from him
such an inquiry. However, it may be desirable to restrict this sort
of inquiry.
Mrs. SPELLMAN. I was interested in the reprint, the large reprint of
the article in the Evening Star-News. cm the Hatch Act's political. bans
having been ruled illegal for a period of time. I know there was dis-
auSsion about the fact that the act was vague. Do you feel it is less
vague. as we. have it here presently?
Arr. Nri,Ax. Do I fee] the legislation--
Mrs. SPELLMAN. The proposed legislation is less vague than the
'Hatch Act.
Mr. NtLA-Nr. Well, I would certainly concur in that. ITV the Hatch
Act, one of the big problems is as I tried to mention earlier, our peo-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 .8FIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
pie simply don't understand it and it's difficult to explain possible vio-
lations to them. As a result they prefer not to do anything, or to take
any chances with it. We believe the legislation as drafted and our
counsel here I'm sure would verify it that as written and with some
of the amendments we suggest, which we believe would tighten it up
to the point where we would, I say again, have no fear of political
reprisals, coercion, or anything else.
Mrs. SPELL1VIAN. I'm hearing from people who are concerned that,
perhaps, we, are opening up a Pandora's box. There, are other cases.
where it is a comfort for people to be able to say, "We can be involved,"
and they then take a good look to see how far they can go. Even my
own husband, when I used to run for office in the past, couldn't wear
one of my buttons or have a bumper sticker on his car. Now he is
retired. and he has no excuses. There are those who feel that maybe
we ought to move more slowly. I have heard Federal employees say
that they would be willing to have the legisl at-ion open to enable them
to participate. in local and State political matters. but they are. con-
cerned about opening it up at the Federal level, where they are now
working.
How would you feel about. that?
Mr. NTL AN. 'Well, Mrs. Spellman, we appreciate the concern and
also your question. We honestly believe that after some 35 years of
having this yoke on our back, even though perhaps in the 1930's, there
was some basis for it, but now our labor organizations in both the
Federal and the Postal Service-, have matured, we have contracts,
we have grievance, procedures, to protect our members in addition to
ihe law. There is nothing in this act that would in any way require a
Federal or postal. employee to participate in politics. They don't have.
to get involved if they don't want to. We are proposing all of the
needed -protections for .that individual who may not want to get
involved and to give him the right not to get involved, but. at the
same time guaranteeing the right of those who do want to get involved.
to have that opportunity.
This is the American system. You are. freeing some. million cit-
izens that, I say again, are usually well respected in their communities,
who help out in community drives and narticinate. and nermit them
to get involved all the way if they like to. I think that after the mess
down hero in WaShillpt0n the last couple of years, we ought to do
everything possible to get more people involved in the. political system,
particularly those that are known to . be responsible. We would do
-
everything we could, through our contract, through our general coun-
sel's office, and in every other way, to protect a member of our organi-
zation or any employee who came to us and said, "I don't want to?
participate," we would really go to bat for him all the way, regardless
of Democrat, Republican, or independent.
Mrs. SPELLMAN. Just one more. artestion._ Do you feel that a Federal
employee running for Federal office should take a leave of absence.?
Mr. NILAN. It would appear that most would prefer to be in a non-
Pay status and continue on that basis until such time as he or she
is defeated or elected.
Mrs. SPELLMAN. Do you feel a Governor, who is running for officer
should ta.ke leave of his office? Do You feel a Member of Congress who.
is running for the Senate should take a leave of absence?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For .Release 2005/04/1gd CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. NILAN. I would say in my 'opinion any candidate running for
full-time office should take a leave of absence.
Mrs. SPELLMAN Thank you.
Mr. CLAY'. Thank you, Mrs. Spellman. Mr. Solarz.
Mr. SorAizz. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could give
us your view about the extent to which if this legislation were enacted,
it would be possible for managers in the Federal civil service to,
through a variety of subtle ways, to put substantial pressure on Fed-
eral employees, to participate against their will in political activities.
Mr. NILAN. We have suggested, Mr. Solarz, on page 7 of our amend-
ments which I don't believe we got to, Proposed. changes to II.R.
3000, section 3(al of H.R. 3000, identical with the, current law, sec-
tion 7324A1 in all respects. However, the following language should
be inserted, there is an additional sentence after the word "selection,"
in line 17, "nor were such employee interferred with, restrained, im-
peded, or coerced in any way, any other employee covered by the pro-
visions of this Act, in the proper exercise of any right guaranteed
under this Act, including denying or interferring with such employee's
rights or opportunities for job advancement because of such political
activity or lack thereof."
-We suggest this additional language to be even further protection
to avoid any such problem." say again we in the Postal Service should
have no problem, because of the law and our contracts, we should have
no problem. If some supervisor tried to lay it on a postal worker, I can
assure you we would get him one way or the other.
Mr. SorArtz. Let me say, I'm sympathetic to what this bill is trying to
accomplish, but it seems to me, it's important to try to come to grips
with some of the objections that have been raised to it. I understand
that ease to be not so much that you can't prescribe, direct interference
in the lives of Federal employees with respect to their political activi-
ties; surely you can prohibit a Federal manager from ordering one
of his employees to work for a candidate or to contribute, but how do
You deal with the situation where an employee knows his possibilities
'for advancement, promotion, preference, depends upon goodwill of
a. particular manager of the. Federal civil service who himself is ac-
tively supporting a particular candidate or party and who in an effort
to generate as much goodwill as possible for himself, feels obligated
to participate in political activities designed to impress his manager.
Were it not for this consideration he wouldn't want to have anything
to do with this.
Is there any way to deal with the problem? Is it a serious problem?
Is it an imaginable question?
Mr. NILAN. I think it's a matter of legitimate concern. We are,
after all, talking about freeing people who for 35 years have had no
opportunity to function. It's going to be a new experience for most
of them, but I don't believe it's a serious problem, because of not only
the language of H.R. 1000 but also some of the amendments we have
offered. We have a way, in that, a lot of times we win grievances based
primarily on a pattern of how a supervisor operates. If he is doing it
in one instance he certainly isn't. going to stop there, and usually it's
fairly easy to develop a pattern of it.
Our guys wouldn't sit still for it. We are a little different breed of
cat than others. They wouldn't take it. We have no problem with it.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : RA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. SOTARZ. I have One last question. What is your view of the
argument that if this legislation is enacted, and Federal employees do
begin to actively participate in the political process in our country,
that this will somehow impair the faith which the American people,
the confidence the people have in the impartiality of the system, once
they see- Federal employees ringing doorbells, making speeches, and
what have you, for particular parties and candidates. They will lose
what now may be a sense of confidence on the part of the _American
people, that the Federal administration is impartial and nonpartisan.
Mr, NILAN. Let me put it another way. I -don't believe that if you
had a doctor out ringing doorbells and getting petitions signed, that a
person whose door he. came to would question his ethics or ability to
perform, just because he is supporting a Democrat or Republican. This
would not bother me as far as his medical service. I think the same
applies to a postal clerk, special delivery messenger or the letter car-
rier; I don't believe there would be any problem in this area. After all, I
haven't noticed the Congress and the American people screaming to
.change the elective process of the. President of the United States or to
change our way of handling elections in the last couple of years. I be-
lieve people would like to have their neighbor, Federal employee,
postal worker, letter carrier, contribute. I think they would have con-
fidence in him.
I think they would appreciate getting suggestions which they pres-
ently don't receive.
Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you very much.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Winsow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nilan, you commented
about it in your statement, but I wanted to emphasize again who is
supporting H.R. 3000 and who isn't. The 'Civil Service Commission
said that the only employees supporting it are young, and the rest of
the people are against it.
Now, I have been to your conventions. I had the feeling that in your
conventions the people run the conventions. I have never seen your
leaders put anything over on 'them Or tell thein what. to do. In fact,
they tell you what to do pretty much, What percentage_ of the clerks
in the Postal Service are members of your union?
Mr. NILAN. I would say on the clerical side, somewhere around 85,
87 percent are organized.
Mr. WILSON. You haven't found any dissension amoung your mein-
bership insofar as their opinions about the Thatch Act, have you?
Mr. NILAN. No, Mr. Wilson, as you know, you were at both, I believe,,
our 1972 convention in New Orleans, and our 1974 Miami convention.
The New Orleans convention was a real swinging affair, they really
took us on?as a matter of fact., as I recall it, the only resolutions the
2,300 delegates did net start raising the roof about on the convention
floor was the legislative program. The on1T argument was many of
our delegates--you may recall this?wanted to make the amendment
to the Hatch Act the No. 1 paramount issue in lieu of the right to
strike. This is certainly an example of how strongly our people feel.
Many delegates took the. floor at that convention and stated that they
wanted amendments to the ITatch Act to be made the No. 1 paramount
issue even above and beyond the so-called right-to-strike legislation.
This was a perfect example of how strong our people feel about it.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/Ag : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. WILSON-. That was the impression I had and have had. I'm sure
we will learn .the same things from the other unions when te4ify.
Would you feel comfortable if the Civil Service Commission con-
tinned to administer the Hatch Act or would you prefer seeing some
other body administer it?
Mr. NILAN. Well, we have thought about this. I. would like to be4
lieve that when H.R. 3000 becomes law and particularly with some of
our suggested amendments that the Civil Service Commission, in
spite of the fact that the three Commissioners reflect the divisionsi
within the political system, would do an acceptable job of administer-
ing the law. I would say this: The Congress should monitor how the,
Commission implements the act and of course we Would monitor it
also, and if we found because of political or other considerations the
Civil Service Commission appeared not to be rigidly enforcing it that
we would be the .first ones up here asking Congress to establish some
sort of ex parte board or some kind of judicial revic a7 board in lieu
of the Commission.
Mr. WILSON. You have more confidence in them han I do. As a
matter of fact, I'm researching legislation to abolish the Civil Service.
Commission's appeal procedures. Let some other group handle griev-
ances when it gets to the appeal stage.
Mr. NILAN. I said I would like to believe and I would hope. but
again, our organization woud certainly monitor the activities of the
Commission.
Mr. WILSON. One other question, Mr. 'Minn. I don't know whether
I understood your answer to Mrs. Spellman's iltie4iOn, when she
asked if you thought the Members of Congress should go on leave, of
absence when they rim for reelection. I. may have misonderstood. You
said you thought everybody should go on a leave of: absence?
Mr. NILAN. If Mrs. Spellman asked the question that way. I'm a?Craiii
I missed it. We certainly have no objection to our friends on Congress:
staying on payroll when they run for reelection.
Mr. WILSON. No more than you remaining on yours- ?
Mr. NILAN. Right. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. WILSON, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Harris.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I wonder if you would
describe for me in a little bit further detail how you vote policy in
your union, what is your Policy development program and the process
you use for participation?
Mr. NILAN. We have?as a matter of fact, I have no compunction
about stating we probably have the most democratic type of labor
-union among those that I am familiar with. All of our decisions are
made, for example on legislative activity by 'being initiated at the
grassroots level. They come out of the local unions -where the member-
ships develop resolutions or programs. which from -there usually go,
to our State organizations we they are approved or disapproved.
After that resolutions are forwarded to our national conventions
which meet every 2 years and at that time the delegates to the con-
vention, through committee recommendations come on the convention
floor. The convention works its will and determines the final proomm.
of our union. We have national conventions every 2 years. Each of our
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :89IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
national Officers stand for reelection. By referendum, not by delegates
and we are elected every 2 years.
I'm convinced between that this is an excellent method of bringing
leadership decisions to the top from the bottom as well as referendum
elections every 2 years, on one hand the membership is dictating
to us what they want done; and on the other hand we better deliver
the way they want things done, because if we don't in the referen-
dum election we will be out of business,
Mr. HARRIS. I really don't. think this has been discussed in the hear-
ing too -much, but it has occurred to me and I was wondering if you
gave it any thought, with regard to recruitment of Federal employees.
Not only the young employees but. the other person that is going from
private industry to Federal employment. Is the Hatch Act as it cur-
renly exists a hurdle for the recruitment of competent, active em-
ploye,es, the Federal service should be seeking? Have you considered
that angle?
Mr. NILAN. We have not considered it, other than to tell you in
recent yearS, particularly since the Postal Reorganization Act, we
have been getting a lot of younger people into the Postal Service as
,employees. I- know I was just this past weekend at a legislative semi-
nar in Kansas City and we had two or three young women there and
O couple of young men that had come from the private sector and
industrial unions. When we got around to H.R. 3000, one man, one
gal got up end stated that. when they came into the Postal Service
they didn't. realize the. prohibitions that there were upon their political
activities. One woman particularly, said she had been active in some
political action committee in the automobile plant she was in, and she
said, "I didn't realize until the .first election. came around a year ago
I was prohibited from actively getting involved anymore.
They also got into the question of union security, and she said:
T Aidn't realize this either. You see, when you come in now into the Postal
Service, while Pm sure they give you some information, but until you actually
get involved you don't really understand how many things you're prohibited
from and what you are giving up to be a postal employee. By that time it's too
late usually.
I think your point is well-taken. I don't know how it would affect
them being recruited, but I do know for a fact once they get in, par-
ticularly some of the younger people, they are amazed at the things
they have to live under in order to continue to be employees of the
Postal Service.
Mr. Minns. I have some personal experience with it. It seems to
buttress the argument. I remember there was a good deal of recruit-
ment. going on around town, back in 1961, there had been a change in
administration and what have you, and I know a number of young
lawyers that were being recruited, trying to be recruited and bring
? some new blood into some of the departments.
They just simply wouldn't do it because it meant they would have
to give up too many of the rights they had enjoyed and experienced
a great deal where they lived. I feel that this is one of the real adverse
? things about the Hatch Act, it does put an extra hurdle on recruiting,
especially the bright, active type of person, into the Federal service.
And the Postal Service, too.
Thank you?Mr. Chairman.
MT. CLAY. Thank you. Mr. Collins?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/9d CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. COLLINS. Nilan, do you know of many peopie that have been
fired or terminated in service because of political activity while the
Hatch Act has been in operation? n
Mr.- NILAN. There have been some very glaring examples of it.
Mr. COLLINS. It's a very rare occasion, isn't it? It's a very, very
rare occasion?
Mr. ILAN. No. No. I don't agree with that. Sometimes rather than
getting fired an employee will quit. We had a lady last year, president
of our Motor Vehicle Craft out in Las' Vegas, had no problems and.
was a fine employee. Apparently she wanted to test the Hatch Act,
and she participated in what she considered her pellitiCal rights. She
happened to be a delegate to the Democratic. convention in Miami
which triggered an immediate investigation. She was under orders to
be fired Out she resigned. Frequently people resign rather than go
through the final act of being separated. We gave you One example Of
a recent action_here, of a special delivery messenger. Perhaps counsel
here can tell us others.
I know of numerous instances of suspensions?my office back in Min-
neapolis before I came to Washington, had 20 or 25' people -ander
Hatch Act investigation?bc,Tanse they were veterans and the Postal
Service didn't follow correct procedures, they all were excused, but it's
not a situation where it's! unusual. Even if it were, there again would
be reasons to relax the act So our people could legally participate in
politics.
Mr. COLLINS. You would say maybe there might have been as many
as a hundred that would be involved out of your 350,000 'employees,
members?
Mr. NILAN. I wouldn't.
Mr, COLLINS. I think Henry Jackson once said to the victor belongs
the stioils. There are some politicians that still believe that. If they got
involved in politics, don't you think it's possible that 100,000 of them
could be terminated instead of 100?
Mr. NILAN. Not in my opinion. We wouldn't permit it to happen.
Mr. Comms. You wouldn't? The Government? Right now this syss
tern_is different.
- Mr. NiLAN.Before you came in, Mr. Collins, we talked not only about
the law but our national contract. with the Postal Service in which we
have a grievance procedure and one definition of a grievance is protec-
tion of employee rights. If this law would be amended and we, had any
problems with it, our members could grieve under the law or our
contract. We could initiate charges against postal officials through our
grievance procedure route and, take care of them in! those ways. We
would have no problem, once the law is relaxed. Just give us the
freedom, just give us the right. We will go from there.
Mr. Cor.uNs. You don't have, any problem right now?
Mr. NitAN. We have a problem now. The problem is weave restricted,
our people are restricted, they are afraid of getting "hatched," they're
afraid of participatiflg. on either the Republican or Democratic side,
the fear of the Good Lord is thrust, into them on the basis of being"
"hatched."
We do have a big problem now.
Mr. ComiNs. You talk about their business. I have always heard it
called the Postal Service. In that service you have a responsibility...
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 6FIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
If You want to get into politics, you can do like I did; I resigned from
my job, sold my stock, got completely out of the company, and went
into politics. Would that be a good way for postal people to go into
politics, too?
Mr. NILAN. No. 1. I doubt if they have any stock to sell. All they have
is a little bread. They make one paycheck every other week. They.
don't have stock or bond problems as other people do. If they want
to get involved, they don't have to give up nothing, because they don't.
have a great deal to start with.
Mr. COLLINS. What does the rverage postal worker make now?
- Mr. NILAN. I -would say $10,500 to $11,000 and I certainly suggest
that is nominal.
MI'. COLLINS. Your opinion is it would be a great thing to have all
of them actively participate in grass roots political campaigns?
Mr. Nn,Aw. Mr. Collins, I would like to see every citizen of this
country involved in the political process. Every single one of them,
mothers, fathers, sisters, daughters, brothers, I think it. a crying shame,
in this country when you get something like if I recall correctly 35
to 38 percent of those eligible to vote in t11;election and what'll apnened
here in 2 years and then only 3 percent voted? I would like to see
every eligible person be given the opportunity to vote. Including
postal an Federal employees.
Mr. COLLINS. You didn't &IN they are not eligible to vote.
Mr. NILAN. I mean to participate in the political process and vote
in Larger numbers.
Mr. COLLINS. I think they ought to vote, too. Should they be work-
ing on the grass roots and working in political campaigns.
Mr. NILAN. Some of them might-be,. campaigning for you.
Mr. COLLINS. Most of them are free men there, but on the other
hand I would hate to see any of them involved in politics. -
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, We thank you for presenting testimony. The
next witness is Mr. James Rademacher, president of the National
Association of Letter Carriers.
Mr. CLAY. Will you identify yourself for the record, and your
associates?
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. RADEMACHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL?CIO, ACCOMPANIED
BY JOSEPH VACCA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT. ; AUSTIN B.
CARLSON, VICE PRESIDENT; AND JOSEPH H. JOHNSON, NATIONAL
BUSINESS AGENT
Mr. RADEMACHER. . My name is James IL Rademacher, president of
the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL?CIO.
On my right is our executive vice president, Mr. Joseph Vacca. On
my immediate left is Mr. Austin B. Carlson, our Vice president, and
to the extreme left, national business agent, Joseph H. Johnson, who
is the regional director for this particular region.
We had hoped that this morning our newly appointed assistant for
legislative affairs, Jerry Waldie, could he with us, but he is teaching
a political seminar in Chicago and could not join us.
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, we are greatly disturbed
by the sudden emotion that has been expressed by representatives of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/132CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
the U.S. Civil Service Commission, a newspaper columnist and at least
one union leader, all of whom seem to be more concerned over an issue
far less important than the issue of freedom of speech.
Our union would anticipate that representatives of the Commission
would have the authority and actually would enforce the law and
prevent what is now the fear of the opponents of . I LB. 3000?reduc-
tion .in the protections which exist in the Hatch Act. We must not
permit the smokescreen of fear to hide the real issue involved in the
restrictions contained in the Hatch Act.
It must be remembered that our union, joined by other interested
parties, pursued our strong belief that the Hatch -.Act was unconsti-
tutional into the U.S. District Court?District of Columbia?in 1972.
It was then, and is now, the opinion of the NALC that the Hatch Act
bars millions of Federal employees from engaging in a wide and ill-
defined range of public affair activities.
We were pleased when the three-member court, by vote of 2 to 1,
held the political activity portion of the act to be both vague and over-
broad. Declaring the act unconstitutional, the district court found
that a single sentence of the Hatch Act which prohibits Federal em-
ployees from taking "an active part in political management or in po-
litical campaigns," is so vague as to be unconstitutional on its face.
The district court found that "no one can read the Act- and ascertain
what it prohibits."
This is not the first time that such an argument had been set forth,
for more than a. quarter century earlier, Mr. Justice Black made this
observation in the case of United Public IVories v. Mitchell:
What federal employees can or cannot do, consistently with the various Civil
Service regulations, rules, warnings, etc.. is a matter of so .great uncertainty that
no person can even make an intelligent guess, This was -demonstrated by the
government's briefs and oral arguments in this case.
Unfortunately, on June 25, 1973, the Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the district court by a 6 to 3 margin.
To historians who have studied the background of enactment of
the Hatch Act, political pressures resulting allegedly from use of
Federal emergency relief funds for political purposes in the 1938
congressional elections brought severe pressure for further regulation
- of the political activities of Government employees.
The main thrust of the legislation was to protect Government
workers from pressures to participate against their will in political
activity and from the threat of discrimination on the, basis of political
affiliation.
Members of this subcommittee may be surprised to learn that the
NALC believes that the Hatch Act, by and large, is an admirable
piece of legislation. There are widespread misunderstandings as to
the genuine purposes of the Hatch Act. That act w4s intended to pre-
vent coercion or intimidation by Government officials of employees
or recipients of Government grants to change party affiliation or to
support political party interest. Without the prevention of such mis-
use of official authority, our fundamental democratic political proc-
esses can become corrupted.
Accordingly the NAM unreservedly endorses the objectives of the
Hatch Act and urges that its prohibitions against these evils be
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 b1A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Tevievved and strengthened where necessary, with a particular view to
making their enforcement more effective and less cumbersome.
The provisions of the Hatch Act which our union challenges are
sections 9 and 15, and we declare that these restraints upon volun-
tary, partisan political activity by millions of public servants are
unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional. Once the act's independent
prohibitions against coercion, intimidation, and misuse of official au-
thority, are effectively enforced, there should be no further need to
stifle the fundamental freedoms of millions of public servants as the
Hatch Act currently does.
Although the legislative history of the Hatch Act cast doubt on
whether the 1940 Congress realized it or not, the Civil Service Com-
mission had made some 3,000 determinations under the Civil Service
rules between 1886 and 1940. Congress in section 15 of the act, incorpo-
rated all of these determinations and forged them into the inflexible
steel of statutory law. In effect, the Hatch Act, since 1940, has consisted
of the thousands of incorporated determinations which have never been
published or otherwise blear' made readily available to the millions
,of, affected Government employees.
One would actually have to be closely associated with the affected
Government worker to truly understand the chilling effect the lan-
guage of the Hatch Act has upon the Federal worker.
For example, our union is currently initiating a nonpartisan politi-
cal action fund. It has been in existence for the past 6 months. We
have realized contributions which as of this date, average a nickel
per member.
There is no question but what resistance comes about because of
the fear inherent in the minds of our members that they are subject
to the Hatch Act with its unreasonable provisions and penalties.
Despite the propaganda, which is periodically issued by the Civil
Service Commission and some agency heads, advising employees of
permissible activities under the act, there remains the fear of viola-
tion by publication of item 13(b) of section 733.11.
The first paragraph of this section states:,
All employees are free to engage in political activity to the widest extent con-
sistent with the restriction imposed by law and this subpart..
Thereafter, item 13(b) concludes the information concerning per-
missible activity with these words:
If participation in the activity would interfere with the efficient performance
of official duty, or create a conflict or apparent conffit of interest.
The head of an agency may prohibit or limit the participation in the
activities otherwise declared permissible. Absolute double-talk.
In short, the old shell game is being resorted to by this language;
namely, the agency head can always subtly or overtly coerce an em-
ployee, when he seeks to engage in even a limited political activity.
Accordingly, there simply is no validity to the argument that the
Ha tch Act presently provides any real political liberties to employees.
One of the failings of the act, perhaps not intended by the Congress,
is the way in which the provisions of it are brought to the attention
,of those covered by the Hatch Act.
52-137-75---7
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13)4 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
For example, the U.S. Postal Service on September 19, 1974, pub-
lished in its weekly Postal Bulletin an item entitled, "Political Activ-
ity Restrictions." The announcement began with these words:
This announcement is intended to instruct and guide Postal Service employees
as to the applicability to them of the provisions of the Federal law, commonly
known as the Hatch Act, which prohibits Federal emplO'yees from taking an
active part in political campaigns.
Immediately, employees detect (1) legal restrictions 'concerning
their political activities; (2) the employer's attitude, completely nega-
tive, concerning the Hatch Act. While the act remains in existence,
there should be an unbiased presentation of information concerning
political activities of Federal workers by, first of all, informing em-
ployees of their rights as well as restrictions.
In addition to the positive amendments which are contained in
the "Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1975," we are
asking for a further amendment which strikes from section 7325, the
authority for the Civil Service Commission to impose a penalty of
not less than 30 days' suspension for violation of whatever remains of
the Hatch Act.
It has proven to be very unfair, when assessing discipline, to in-
sist that irrespective of the degree of violation, an employee must suf-
fer no less than 30 days' suspension without pay. We feel certain there
have been many instances where through innocence of the act em-
ployees have been fined 30 days' pay for violation of the Hatch Act,
where a mere warning would have been sufficient.
I would like to clarify our position in this matter. If there is any-
thing that remains of the Hatch Act, which relates to the rights of em-
ployees or to permissive activity of employees, then we would urge
the elimination of the 30-day mandatory suspension. If this bill,
as amended, is adopted by the Congress, we would urge stronger
discipline.
I have heard the question this morning., should the Civil Service
Commission continue to be the agency to enforce the act?
I say, no. I say the Department of justice should be the one to en-
force this act, and there should be severe penalties up to removal, if
all that remains of the act is the prohibition against coercing or in-
timidating, employees.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I want to
reiterate the objections of our union to the Hatch Act.
Briefly stated, the act inhibits an individual Govermnent employee
from full participation in our democratic process and further, inhibits
trade union members from playing an appropriate role in shaping
policy and endorsing candidates. In many cases, restrictive provisions
of the act deprive political parties of the wisdom and advice of knowl-
edgeable and highly skilled public servants who know the workings of
their Government more intimately than ordinary citizens because they
are a living part of that Government.
I must confess that the Hatch Act, as it is interpreted today, serves
as a convenient shield behind which the apathetic citizen in the Federal
service can hide himself. Thousands of Federal and postal employees
use the Hatch Act as an excuse for doing nothing whatsoever at elec-
tion time.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : gyk-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
. A story of the late and greatly-loved Speaker of the House, Mr.
Sam Rayburn, makes the point of this contention. A newly-elected
postmaster in Mr. Rayburirs district told him he could no longer help
him at election because of the laws against political activity. "Young
man," the Speaker growled, "as postmaster, you can get into a lot more
trouble by politicalmactivity."
I feel this example is applicable to the Nation as a whole. Our
country could get into serious trouble because of the political inactivity
of its citizens. Our record of participation in elections is the worst of
any first-class democracy in the world. Even in Presidential election
years, less than 60 percent of our eligible citizens bother to vote, as
opposed to an average 88 percent in West Germany, 83 percent in
France and 79 percent in England.
In quoting Chairman William Clay on the subject of the Hatch Act,
when he declared: ". . for too long Federal civilian and postal
employees have been denied meaningful political participation," we
have one comment?too long is long enough.
Let the amendments be now.
We appreciate this opportunity to express ourselves in behalf of
our 235,000 members, all of whom are entitled to equality and the
right to participate in all activities of their free government.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Rademacher, do you agree with the statement made by Mr.
Nilan, who testified just before you, when he said that there were
sufficient protections under the grievance procedures to protect Fed-
eral or postal employees from improper coercion?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I would like to amend that thought, having been
closer to the scene of our grievance procedure. I wouldn't want to
rely solely on the grievance procedure. I would like to see some en-
forcement through an official law.
Mr. CLAY. When you talk of the Justice Department being the en-
forcement agency, are you saying they should go out and do all the
investigation administrative investigations, or should this informa-
tion be turned over to them after all that has been compiled?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I think you make a good point, Mr. Chairman.
Certainly, the Justice Department is extremely tied up today, and the
information could be developed for it, but I think to keep the matter
out of the hands of the employing agency, as Congressman Wilson has
so named them, that the Justice Department ought to be in the posi-
tion to make the final decision and not the employing agency.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Mrs. Spelhnan ?
Mrs. SPELLMAN. Thank you, very much. I don't have any questions.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Collins?
Mr. CoLuNs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You made reference to Mr. Sam. I think he was probably the great-
est Speaker we ever had in the House, but I want to go back to that
situation. At the time that man was named postmaster, he was named
at the recommendation of the Congress, which was the old system.
Today we, as Congressmen, have absolutely no input at all into naming
a postmaster. Which system do you think is preferable?
Mr. RADEMA CHER. The current system.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04613 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CoLurts. Your illustration, like the one where Mr. Sam named
him and then resented the fact he was no longer in politics. What was
the intent there?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I was trying to make the point how serious in-
activity can be. I know_ prior to the enactment of the Postal Reor-
ganization Act, many Congressmen informed me of their concern
over the appointment of rural letter carriers and postmasters, and
then comes election time and they run and hide, because they were
using the excuse of the Hatch Act. They just can be helpful. It proved
that theydidn't even know what rates that they did have.
You can't ever turn a Congressman down or any other person in-
terested in your assistance by saying the Hatch Act prevents me from
doing something. That exactly makes the point that Federal employ-
ees are so uninformed and misinformed, there is such a child-like
effect of this law that the employees just don't know what they can
do and what they can't do, nor the postmaster in Sam Rayburn's dis-
trict. He was using that where he could have helped Sam.
Mr. COLLINS. I think it was a good thing that we took the post-
mastership out of the congressional consideration the way it used to
be. I wonder if we are not going to change the whole thin?. now.
As I understand it, there are several things a man can do, a woman
can do, if she is working for the Government service. If I am wrong
on these, would you correct me? First, is she can register and vote in
all elections. That is right, isn't it?
Mr. RADEMACHER. Yes, Sir.
Mr. COLLINS. Second, they can make a voluntary contribution to a
political party?
Mr. RADE1VIACHER. Correct.
Mr. COLLINS. They can express a private political opinion?
Mr. RADEMACHER. That is true.
Mr. COLLINS. That is going pretty far. They can wear a political
badge or button, I understand, everywhere but in the Congressional
Library?
Mr. RADEMACHER. No further than any other citizen of our coun-
try can g,o.
Mr. Comrics. That is more than 991A percent of the people in my
district do during the campaign. They can put on a political bumper
sticker on the automobile. You are going through the things that the
average campaign does. They put a bumper sticker on, they wear a
button, they might give you $10, and they will expresE; a private opin-
ion. That is about as far as most of them go.
What you really want is for them to go take over the political con-
vention. Is that what you have in mind?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I am not the least argumentative or concerned
about the permissive. activities. I am here to protest and ask a change
and elimination of the prohibited activities.
Mr. COLLINS. Do you believe that everybody should have a fair and
equal voice in every institution?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I certainly do.
Mr. CoLums. Let me ask you why you wrote this in your paper here.
In January of 1975, you said:
We will not publish any statements which undermine union negotiators or in
which in any way subvert the adopted position of the unions, and the voice of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :1A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
the diversionists must be stilled for the preservation of democracy into it, in
spite of it.
This is January 1975, on page 5. That doesn't look like to me you
are encouraging negative reaction within your own union.
Mr. RADEmAMER. So all the members of the committee might know
what you are referring to, that is the "Postal Record," the official
publication of our union. I am the editor. That was an editorial. The
background is known by our members. When we mandate a specific
action, we are obligated to take that action and there can be nointer-
ference until the action is taken.
None ()f my members have objected. But this is the second time
I have had to respond to Congress. I didn't mind. I am glad to defend
our position here, which is not a violation of free speech. It is very
evident it isn't, because of the very next issue, a few of my members
asked for my scalp and we printed that request.
Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Mr. Solarz ?
? Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Rademacher, what is your view of the extent to
%vhich Federal employees genuinely favor the repeal of the Hatch
Act or at least the repeal of the restrictions on political activity pres-
ently contained in the Hatch Act? I ask that question because it had
been my assumption that most Federal employes would obviously
seek to have maximum opportunities which were available to every
other citizen in the country, to participate in the political process,
even if they didn't choose to avail themselves of the opportunities.
Yet, I notice here a memorandum prepared by the Library of Con-
gress on the arguments for an against the Hatch Act. In surveys
which were taken, one by the National Federation of Federal Em-
ployees in 1972 and another by the Commission on Political Activity
of Government Personnel in 1967, a majority of those Federal em-
ployees surveyed appeared to fear the kind of subtle pressures which
could be put on them if the restrictions on political activity in the
Hatch Act were removed.
Do you have any basis for offering this committee a judgment as
to what the personal preference of Federal employees would be in
this regard?
Mr. -RADE1VEACIIER. It all depends on the type of union, militancy
of it, the education of that union, to its membership, and I am not here
to quarrel with any other union. I know that if I asked the right kind
of questions, I will get the right kind of answers. I agree with Mr.
Nilan. The demand that we make here today is a mandate of our con-
vention. There were 5,000 delegates that voiced overwhelmin,.g ap-
proval, in fact, it was unanimous and the record will so indicate,
of the unions objective being to eliminate the restrictive provisions.
I was in the chair. I took the vote. I didn't even comment on it. The
members commented to me. 'We have had letter carriers fired. It is
not a question of how many have been fired or how many have been
dismissed. How many Ivould have been, if they had exercised their
rights.
These are questions that one can't just answey on the basis of facts
and figures. You have got to know in each instance for instance, what
was the question that was asked in a survey, of Federal employees?
Was it, "Do you want to be coerced or intimidated ?" "Of course not."
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
98
"Do you want to eliminate the flag and motherhood?" "Of course
not."
It all depends what the question is.
In our union, our people have been taught that the Congress is
sensitive to the needs of the people. Our members serve the American
people just as the Congress does. And we do not want our voice stilled.
We have been aggressive. Whether it is the right to strike, the union
shop or this particular movement here, we have sounded off, because
we believe that our members should not be denied inalienable rights
that were granted by our forefathers, just because something happened
in 1938 where Congress had to take some kind of immediate action.
And now as the time goes on more and more people are finding that
action isn't necessary in the 1970's.
Mr. SOLARZ. I think you make a very good point about how the kind
of questions which one asks can determine the kinds of answers one
gets, and I will make an effort to find out what the precise phraseology
of the questions were, because I would think it would be unfortunate
for this to pass in the record of the debates of the Congress, as an
unquestioned fact without a real understanding of what precisely the
questions were.
Mr. COLLINS. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. SOLARZ. Certainly.
Mr. COLLINS. A question on the committee of activities of Govern-
ment personnel was whether or not you wanted to eliminate the Hatch
Act in its entirety. When they say a majority, the survey revealed
that 48 percent were in favor of keeping the Hatch Act. but 47 percent
answered that question in terms of wanting to eliminate it.
Further down in the survey they said over 60 percent wanted to
change some provision of the Hatch Act and particularly some that
prohibited their participation in political activities.
Mr. SOLARZ. And presumably if one put to them a question in which
they were asked, whether they would like the right to participate in
political activities, if there were clear restrictions a.ainst efforts to
coerce them into participating, you might have a different result.
I thank the Chairman for pointing that out. One Of the arguments
I have head made against the Hatch Act is that it is inherently
ambiguous and Federal employees are unclear as to what their rights
are in terms of political activity.
Now,
I really understand the thrust of the argument against the
Hatch Act,, in terms of the extent to which it restricts the right to
participate. It is a fundamental question of principle here. I under-
stand that argument very clearly. I am not sure that I fully understand
the argument about ambiguity. As I look at the Code of Federal
Regulations, where what is permissible and what is prohibited seem
to be set out fairly straightforward, I am not clear where the am-
biguity comes in. I would appreciate it, Mr. Rademacher, if you could
perhaps give us some examples of the kind of ambiguous situations
that have developed where Federal employees have been confused
by virtue of the ambiguities in the regulations or the legislation.
Mr. RADEMACHER. When we presented our case, Mr. Congressman,
to the Supreme Court, our counsel had to review 3,000 decisions. He
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
99
found in there, where a letter carrier had been fired in the 1940's, be-
cause his wife was working for a political party during the day of
elections, and brought his lunch out to his route, and he was fired. I
would like to just read a very brief statement which was made by
, Mr. So"Am. He was fired for what ?
Mr. RADEMACHER. For political activity.
Mr. SOLARZ. Because his wife brought him lunch?
Mr. RADEMACHER. Yes. And she was working that day for a political
party at the polls. That is a matter of record. Judge Gerhard A. Gesell
said
Mr. SOLAN.Z. It must have been quite a lunch.
MR. RADEMACHER,. If I may just read this into the record. In his
affirmative decision in the District court:
The arguments advanced by the dissentor are not persuasive. In the delicate,
precious area of free speech, the obligation of the courts to seek all possible,
even if somewhat tortured, means to uphold admittedly fuzzy Congressional
action must give way to other considerations. If the Congress undertakes to
circumscribe speech, it cannot pass an act which, like this one, talks in riddles,
prohibiting in one breath what it maybe argued to allow in another, leaving
the citizen unguided, but at hazard for his job.
That is Judge Gesell's affirmative opinion in our court case.
Mr. SoLAuz. I gathered that in the briefs that your attorneys sub-
mitted to the court there was probably a detailed examination of the
kind of incongruities and contradictory rulings that have been handed
down by the Commission with respect to prescribed political activity.
I wonder whether or not it would be possible to make those briefs
or that analysis available to the committee., because I think it would
be very helpful in giving us a sense of the kind of problems which you
refer to in that regard.
Mr., RADEMACHER. I would be very happy, Mr. Chairman, if you so
desire, to provide this committee with our brief in the district court
and subsequently in the Supreme Court., if that would be helpful.
Mr. CLAY. We would appreciate that. Have you concluded, Mr.
Solarz ?
Mr. SOLARZ. Yes. I think in addition, if you have any analysis of
these 3,000 rulings that have. been handed down, as a way of giving us a
sense of the scope, I think that would be helpful, too. If it is in the
brief, then there would be no necessity for such analysis, as well.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rademacher, have you had an opportunity to study the recom-
mendations that have been made by the APWIT for changes in H.R.
3000?
Mr. RADEMACHER. No I haven't Congressman Wilson.
Mr. WILSON. You couldn't comment upon those recommendations
at this time, then?
Mr. RADEMACHER. NO, I do not have them.
Mr. WILSON. I would appreciate if if you would, it would be good
if we can get from those supporting H.R. 3000, a. common feeling to-
wards the bill. If you do have any differences of opinion, then we
would like to know about it. It would be helpful to us.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 1&IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. RADEMACHER. We will be happy to send that to you promptly..
Mr. Wu,soN. Mr. Collins said you didn't think that, or he didn't
think that the employee organizations or Federal employees should',
take over the national political conventions. Didn't you say that, Mr.
Collins?
Mr. COLLINS. I think this is a very big thing under the Hatch Act,
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson, Is it your feeling, Mr. Rademacher, that Federal em-
ployees should have the same rights at the political conventions of the
Democrats and Republicans, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the
oil companies?
That seems reasonable, doesn't it?
Mr. RA_DEMACHER. It wouldn't be any thing new to have any group.
take over a convention. It's been done in the past, in most recent years.
Some of the groups you mentioned are in the background at the con-
ventions. I see nothing wrong, if democracy prevailed and our union
was in the forefront of the political convention, I see nothing wrong.
with that.
Our members are all American citizens, and I think they have
equal rights. I don't anticipate that happening, though. We are too
busy solving other problems, like Kokomo and other things.
Mr. WILSON. It has been brought to my attention that George
Meany wasn't able to take over the last Democratic Convention. I
just can't believe that these very modest changes that are being sug-
gested in the Hatch Act would result in Federal employees taking
over the national conventions.
Mr. Solarz has asked about ambiguities in the present law. I think
the survey that was made by the Commission on Political Activity
of Government Personnel shows there is considerable confusion in the
minds of Federal employees insofar as what they can and cannot do,
under the Hatch Act.
For example' making a speech at a rally held by a political party
is prohibited; 16 percent thought they could; 69 percent said they
could not. There was 141/i) percent who didn't know for sure. So there.
is almost 30 percent who either didn't know or thought they could
do it, even though that is one of the prohibited activities. Obviously,
information on the Hatch Act is not gotten out and there is consider-
able confusion. That is what we are trying to clarify by the changes
that are being suggested in the Hatch Act. Another example is driving
people to the polls on election day, which is prohibited: 45 percent
thought they could And 40 percent said they could not and 14 percent
were confused as to what they could do. So, again, there are several
examples of where there is complete confusion among the Federal em-
ployees on what they can and cannot do.
Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. I think Mr. Rademacher
has made a fine statement, along with the other fine organizations, I
think they have contributed greatly to the hearings today.
Thank you.
Mr. RADEMACHER. Thank you. One last point on Mr. Wilson's ex-
cellent observation itself, the regulations sometimes are worse than
the law itself. As I pointed out, on page 5, all employees are told in
bulletins by the Civil Service Commission, "employees are free to.
engage in political activity, to the widest extent consistent with the
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13thFIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
restrictions imposed by law, and this subpart." Then they go on to
say, "The head of an agency may prohibit the participation, if the
participation would interfere with the efficient performance." A mat-
ter of judgment, not law. Interpretation. One person's interpretatiton
of whether or not an employee can be free to engage, becomes a mat-
ter of interpretation by an official.
This is wrong. This is worse than the law itself, the authority of the
Commission to determine whether or not the conflict of interest, or
inefficiency in performance is related to the engaging in political
activity.
So the whole thing needs cleaning up. It is a violation of rights all
over the place.
Mr. CLAY. I tend to agree.
Mr. Harris?
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You just used my question. It is strange to me, and I questioned the
:Civil Service Commission with respect to this regulation, which after
it lists 15 permitted activities, proceeded to say that?which is para-
graph A, paragraph B proceeded to say that paragraph A of this
section does not authorize the employee to engage in political ac-
tivities in violation of the law. It seems to say "don't believe what
you read in paragraph A, because we may not know."
Then it goes on to say that a.n agency can restrict further those ac-
tivities that are permitted, if it determins there is an apparent con-
flict of interest.
I would like to ask you straight-off, pursuant to the line of question-
ing we have engaged in here, how many Federal employees do you
think know what they can do and cannot do under the Hatch Act,
just as a matter of overall statement. I am not going to ask you how
many members of this subcommittee know or elon't know what they
can do?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I would say, Mr. Congressman, it would be a
i
very small percentage, whether it s 5 or 10. That would be probably
union leaders, shop stewards and others.
I have a question in my mind about them as you had about your
colleagues.
Mr.ILIARRIS. I didn't say I had any. I would like to correct the record
right there, Mr. Chairman. I said I wasn't going to ask. Let me first
ask as an example now, suppose I am a Federal worker and the Re-
publican Party is having a mass meeting to select a candidate' and
m order for me to go to that mass meeting I have got to slot]. a little
thing, saying I am a member of the Republican Party and f intend to
vote for the candidate of the Republican Party. Can I go into that
meeting and sign that thing, go into that meeting and speak at that
meeting and vote for the candidate?
Mr. RADEMACHER. Yes. However, that "yes" can be contradicted
because of one of the 3,000 interpretations that have been made, or be-
cause of regulations which say there might have been a conflict of
interest.
Mr. HARR-rs. Let me say, in my opinion, your answer is correct.
Mr. RADEMACHER. All Of my answers?
Mr. HARRIS. Now, let me say, let me ask you, if the Democratic
Party decided, instead of having that mass meeting, they would have
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
102
a local convention, in which people can go ahead and elect delegates
to go to the convention and select a candidate, and I am still in the
community and I want to go and speak in favor of my candidate and
vote for him. Can I go ahead and attempt to be a delegate to that
convention?
Mr. RADEMACHER. No. You cannot. Not in my opinion.
Mr. HARRIS. In my opinion' you are correct on that answer, too.
I am doing fundamentally the same thing. Suppose I am an inde-
pendent candidate. I am an independent candidate under the Hatch
Act and the Democrats are having a mass meeting, at which they are
going to nominate a candidate, can I go to the mass meeting and ask
them to endorse me as an independent candidate?
Mr. RADEMACHER. I would say that the law itself might protect you
in that regard. But the regulations would prohibit you from doing so.
Mr. HARRIS. I just wondered, is there any question in anybody's
mind why the Federal employee is confused as to what he can or can't
do with regard to the situation? I doubt if there is anyone on the Com-
mission that isn't confused too.
Thank you.
Mr. CLAY. I want to thank you, Mr. Rademacher, and your asso-
ciates for your testimony.
Mr. RADEMACHER. Thank you. Without belaboring the point, your
already having extended yourself to us, can I add a very significant
paragraph, which quotes an outstanding Federal employee, a quote
used in our court case. because I think it is related.
May I present that?
Mr. CLAY. Go right ahead.
Mr. RADEMACHER. Given by Roger W. Jones, who was a trusted
adviser on Government personnel management policy to all Presi-
dents of the United States since Franklin Roosevelt. He has been
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Deputy Undersecretary
of State, Deputy Director of the Budget, and a member of the Hatch
Act Commission which will show you now the attitude after a man no
longer had that job, and he is free to speak out. He said this at the
District of Columbia court case of the NALC on the Hatch Act:
Modern communications have wrought massive changes in political organiza-
tional tactics and activities. Not only political parties, but also all citizens live
and operate in an open arena of information about local, State. and national
matters and political debate upon them. The conditions of political participa-
tion have changed, the prohibitions of the Hatch Act have not. I believe that
Government involvement in the lives of the American people has reached the
point where too large a percentage of them is being restricted in the free
exercise of political rights.
May I conclude, in *behalf of my colleagues arid our whole union,
by making an observation that I have never made before. I have ap-
peared for 20 years as a witness for our union, appeared before many
subcommittees and many full committees, but I never have appeared
before a committee or a subcommittee where there has been the maxi-
MUM number participating as we see here this morning.
And I congratulate the committee.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Robert White, president of the National
Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees.
Mr. ROBERT WurrE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
103
Mr. CLAY. Will you identify your association for the record, please?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. My name is Robert L. White. I am the national
president of the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees.
Mr. CLAY. You have a written statement?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. Yes. My statement will be very, very brief. If
you have no objection, I will just read it.
Mr. CLAY. No objection.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WHITE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLI-
ANCE OF POSTAL AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY
WESLEY YOUNG AND JOHN W. WHITE
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are pleased
to have this opportunity to present our views on the proposed legis-
lation, H.R. 3000.
With me today is national vice president Wesley Young, and legis-
lative director John W. White.
Our presentation will be very brief, because frankly, deciding what
We feel to be the proper position on H.R. 3000 has caused us some
concern. We can certainly appreciate one of the apparent intents be-
hind the introducing of this bill, such as endeavoring to elevate Fed-
eral employees from the ranks of second-class citizens in the political
arena of our country.
As members of a minority group that has been subjected to second-
class citizenship in every category for too many years, we are un-
usually sensitive to, and aware of the adverse effects of being in the
role of second-class citizens, so much so that sometimes we unwittingly
develop opinions, or make decisions based strictly on an emotional
reaction that erupts whenever second-class citizenship is remotely re-
lated to any area in which we may find ourselves.
We have attempted, however, not to become the victims of such
emotionalism in analyzing the position that we should take on
H.R. 3000. Except we cannot ignore some basic facts of life that his-
tory has taught us as members of a minority group.
If we are to survive in a society where laws, regardless as to how
they are worded or as to the intent of the legislative body, can be
interpreted by those in power to the detriment of those out of power
for an indeterminable time, we must always attempt to take positions
that recognize curves in the road, and what may be around such
curves.
Mr. Chairman, speaking for the National Alliance of Postal and
Federal Employees, I do not feel that we can support II.R. 3000 in its
present form. We recognize the need for changes in the present Hatch
Act, mostly in the area of greater clarification as to what can and can-
not be done legally by Government employees.
To a certain extent, we feel that the present law, which admittedly
does place some restrictions on Government employees, still provides
such employees with a great deal of freedom to participate in the
political arena. Perhaps many employees are not educated as to what
they can legally do, while we know that many others are fully aware as
to what they can do, but choose to exercise their freedom of choice as to
whether or not to participate in public politics.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/4 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
And I might add, Mr. Chairman, this is as we feel it should be.
Again referring to our status as members of a minority group who
inevitably bear the brunt of any adverse effects of many well-intended
laws, we must recognize how the present law on political activity of
Federal employees basically protects us in our positions as Federal
employees, to the same extent that it does all other Federal employees.
In this country where racism is as prevalent, or more prevalent in
the Federal Government than it is in the private employment sector,
this is an additional, much needed safeguard for our people.
We fully support the basic principle of a complete merit system for
all employment in the United States. Ilut without a doubt, our civil
service system should be totally free, of any form of coercion or favor-
itism, from any person or group. It is inconceivable that employees
would not be subjected to undue and coercive political pressures that
could not or would not be proven as such at any time during their
career in the Government service. Human nature being what it is,
wherever power is available it will be exercised.
As members of a minority group, we feel that our best chance for
achievement is in a free society. This means that we must carefully
analyze any proposals that could at any time provide an individual or
group of individuals with a legal right to stifle or eliminate human
freedoms. This could happen hi the Federal service, should complete
political freedom, as designated in H.R. 3000, become law.
The National Alliance feels that some changes could be made to
the Hatch Act which would remove some of the restrictions against in-
dividual participation in certain areas of partisan political activities.
For example, in our opinion, there should be no restriction against
any American citizen ecoming a partisan candidate for an elective
public office because such person happens to be an employee of the
Federal Government.
Certainly such person would be granted a leave of absence for such
purpose. Also, we can see no harm in any American citizen serving as
a delegate, alternate, or proxy to a political party convention, or initi-
ating or circulating a partisan nominating petition.
The examples that I have just given are areas in which we feel some
adjustments in the Hatch Act could be made and should be promptly
legislatively corrected. Perhaps all of the restrictions should be re-
moved.
However, we feel that such action should be taken with a degree of
caution, because as was stated earlier, we cannot completely ignore
the events of history if we are to exercise any degree of wisdom as we
plan and anticipate a future.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank you and the committee for this op-
portunity to present the views of our union on this proposed legisla-
tion.
We will be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. White.
On page 2 you say you do not feel you can support II.R. 3000 in its
present form.
Then further in the statement, you state as your opinion "there
should be no restrictions against any American citizen being a parti-
san candidate for an elective public office."
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 Ig*-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Further, you say that you can see "no harm in any American citizen
serving as a delegate, alternate, or proxy to a political party conven-
tion, or initiating or circulating a partisan nominating petition."
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. That's right.
311% CLAY. This in our opinion is precisely what H.R. 3000 would
tend to do.
I would like to know where your views disagree with the provisions
of H.R. 3000.
MT. ROBERT WHITE. Well, it goes a little further.
From the way I understand H.R. 3000, it goes a little further than
the exceptions which we have made there, Mr. Chairman. Without
trying to go into the code completely, certainly it does not involve the
area of canvassing.
Once a person initiates a petition, that is one thing. Once that has
been done, that merely provides for a person to be placed on a ballot
perhaps, lout when you get into the other area perhaps of the canvass-
ing of neighborhoods and other parts of the political process that take
place, then we feel perhaps there should be some restriction in that
area. ?
Also, I don't see where there is any harm if a person acts as a dele-
gate to say, a national convention. I don't see where that can provide
any real harm to a person as such.
Again, when a person finds himself in the area, though, of maybe
being forced into actively taking h position for a candidate, that is
when a person may subject himself to some coercive pressure from a
person they may be working for. There are a few differences in what
we are discussing, in what we think should be done, the way we inter,
pret 3000, which would make it more open.
Mr. CLAY. In your statement you have eloquently pointed out you
represent a unique group in this country's makeup, one of the minori-
ties that has been discriminated against in our country.
Yet at the same time what I understand you to be saying is, if a
member of a legislative body, either a local group, city council, or
Member of this CongresS, would get up and work against and vote
against civil rights legislation, and other legislation that would be
definitely in your interest, that even under those circumstances, you
don't think that Federal employees whose rights are being neglected
or abridged by elected officials ought to have the right to go out and
eanipaign against the elected official who has voted against the best
interest of minorities who happen to be working for Federal Govern-
ment?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. That could be offset, Mr. Chairman, by some Of
the other evils that we feel opening up the political activities could
bring about. There is nothing that prohibits any employee, the way I
interpret the Hatch Act, from actually voting and, going to a certain
point in supporting any candidates of their choice.
In fact, when you look at the permissible activities on which I beard
some of the discussion earlier, it's hard to determine just what is actu-
ally prohibited, what would really be a violation of the law, if one
wanted to participate actively in politics, being a Federal employee,
and we know many of them are doing it even today.
There are very, very few instances where anybody has been prose-
cuted-to the full extent because of any political activities. Only rarely
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/16 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
is this ever done. So we are not saying that we do not feel that we
should have the right to campaign through proper actions and proper
groups that we may be alined with, to support or not support any
candidate that we feel is not legislating to our best advantage, but we
do have to watch other ills that might develop out of some legislation
which is coming up. In trying to correct one evil, we might create
another, basically is what I am trying to say.
Mr. CLAY. I will repeat myself. As I interpret it, you don't believe it
should be permissible for Federal employees to go out and actively
participate for a candidate, hi terms of taking people to the polls, for
example? Is that correct?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. I did not go into the details of what should be
done. I did state there should be a clarification in what can and can-
not be done. We merely took the position of saying that based on the
way I have interpreted 3000 here, it would open up the political
process broadly.
Mr. CLAY. That is a proper interpretation.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. And we feel maybe it should not be completely
opened at this particular time.
Mr. CLAY. I hope you recognize that voting is just a minute part
of the political process. Unless you go out and educate people?in
order to educate them you have to go out and canvass and talk to
them?unless you go out and encourage them to vote on election day,
actually take them to the polls in some examples, we are going to have
the 35 percent of the people eligible to vote in this country casting
their vote in national elections and probably a lower percent in local
elections.
I would think and would hope that you would reconsider your
position as president of the organization, and would come back to this
committee with some firm recommendation as to how we can protect
the Federal employees against possible coercion that you see now has
a possibility of developing, if we open up the political process.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. I am not too sure, Mr. Chairman, that there is
any real way in which we can prevent coercion of employees. Having
been an employee for some 38 years now, many things take place,
many actions are done which are illegal, which are improper, and
sometimes they can be straightened out, but coercion, all types of
pressures of that nature?there is no way of legislating, I don't be-
lieve, against those types of things.
We have to try to, as I have tried to point out in my statement, just
provide for an area where, speaking again as a minority, where we
will not become the victims of some type of pressures which could
be exerted based on some activities that we may say, the same pressure
would not be exerted against, say, a person of another ethnic group.
This is done regardless of any laws we have on the books now or
anything I can see you can put on the books.
Mr. White wanted to say something, if you don't mind.
Mr. CLAY. Yes.
Mr. JoHN WHITE. Thank 3-ou, President White.
Mr. Chairman, certainly I appreciate this opportunity to attempt
to express some of the fears which concern our national president's
position today. Having been in the audience I could not help but hear
our good friend from California, when you were discussing Mr.
Meany, and this gets into the area of some of our fears.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 a4)A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
I will speak quite frankly. Sometimes I say the wrong thing, but
Mr. Meany took a walk in the elections, he took a walk and yet he
is representing the AFL-CIO, and generally the black people in
America stood there, based. on what Mr. Nixon--
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. Yes.
Mr. WILsoN. I think, Mr. White, you are misusing the comment I
made, you are paraphrasing me incorrectly. I was just using an exam-
ple of how Mr. Meany did not take over the Democratic Convention.
I did not discuss my philosophy as concerns Mr. Meany and his
support of Mr. Nixon.
I don't think it's appropriate-4f you want to make a comment
about your feelings toward Mr. Meany, that's one thing, but don't
relate it to what I said, please.
Mr. JOIN WHITE. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I don't want to get in
trouble, and we are talking about the freedom of speech here today,
are we not?
Mr. CLAY. Also, we have to recognize we are going to confine our-
selves to H.R. 3000, and there is nothing in H.R. 3000 that makes it
compulsory to support a candidate. Mr. Meany exercised one of his
fundamental rights that said you can support or not, and I would
hope we can keep our remarks limited to H.R. 3000 and what impact
it would have on Federal employees.
Mr. JOHN WHITE. I was attempting to make a comparison; Mr.
Meany did leave the convention in Kansas City, Mo., as I recall it. He
left it on the question of attempting to have fuller minority participa-
tion in the Democratic Party. That is why he left. This was the area
of concern, the reason that he left.
He did not take over the party. I am happy because of it. But that
is the reason he left. I am happy he left.
Thank you.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. I wanted to clear up the position we have
taken, Mr. Chairman. I heard one of the former speakers mention
how long they had been representing groups of employees, and I
can speak in terms of myself. I have been a president for 22 years, and
I have been elected on a 2-year basis for this 22 years.
I have been opposed some 3 times, so I am also speaking representing
a point of view of a certain segment of people that I represent.
I think it's much broader than maybe the actual membership, but
there are views, there are concerns of our people which we have to
bring to the light in instances like this, and when I say that we are
not too much in opposition to some amendments to the Hatch Act, we
are merely trying to point out some of the other things that may
develop which may adversely affect us as a minority group, as an
outgrowth of removal of all political activities against Federal
employees.
I think the proper position for us to take
Mr. CLAY. Yes, we agree with that, too.
Mrs. Spellman?
Mrs. SPELLMAN. I can fully understand your concerns. On the other
hand, I note that you are concerned because you are members of a
minority group and feel our best chance for achievement is in a free
society.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1ag CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
I am quoting here. What better way to work for that free society
than through the political process? That is, having people free to get
out and work through the political process and their vote at the polls,
voting for the rights that should be theirs.
I find that is a little bit difficult to understand in view of the testi-
mony that I heard from Mr. White this morning at another subcom-
mittee meeting before I came here.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. The area we are still talking about, Madam
Congresswoman, is this: I believe that the permissible activities under
the present apt, Hatch Act, are very, very?express quite a bit of limi-
tation on the part of Federal employees.
I think some of them are using it, as a skirt to hide behind. There is
really not too much a Federal employee cannot do except perhaps get
up in a public place and say, "I am a member of the Federal Govern-
ment; I work in such and such an area and my position on this candi-
date is thus and so."
But nothing prohibits that employee from speaking as an individual.
Many persons will know that person works for the Government and
they still can express their opinion on a candidate, according to the
Hatch Act, or on the issues. But the area that we have to watch against
is the area whereby pressures from those who may be in power, to keep
themselves in power, or their party in power, would exert pressures on
Federal employees, which will be detrimental to the best interest of
not only the merit system but certainly as far as minority employees
are concerned.
We find ourselves in the position of not, wanting to support a candi-
date who may be a member of a certain party, and my boss may be a
part of this certain party; we may find ourselves in some hot water.
Mrs. SPELLMAN. If you were a public employee, a civil service em-
ployee, and I were standing on a platform saying "If I am reelected I
will do this and I will do that," wouldn't you really want to stand up
in that group of your peers and say, "She isn't doing anything of the
sort, because we know what she will do from her past performance.
We have watched her in office and she has produced none of those
things nor is she inclined to go in that direction."
Wouldn't you want to be able to get up and say that?
ME. ROBERT WHITE. Very true.
Perhaps we could do it through some other sources without subject-
ing ourselves to some repercussions that we might get, if this person
should win. We have taken this kind of position. That is where you
get your repercussion.
There are methods where we can express ourselves and our posi-
tions under the law.
M. SPELLMAN. Mr. Nilan, in testifying earlier during the discus-
sion period, said over and over again, "they wouldn't be able to do
that to our people; we would see. to it that they couldn't; we would
take care of that."
Is your situation in your organization different ; would you not be
able to take care of members in your organization in the same way?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. I don't. think Mr. Nilan actually believes what
he. said. I think you will remember Mr. Rademacher came up a little
later on and said he would rather have seine other law to take care of
it other than the grievance procedure.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :igb4-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
We know how the grievance procedure works. We didn't negoti-
ate it, but we know how it works.
I would say for my members I wouldn't want to depend on the
grievance procedure to get them off of something like that.
MPS. SPELLMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. CLAY. MT. Solarz.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. White, I hope you will forgive my naivete, but
I wonder if you can let us know how many members you represent,
and which Federal employees you do represent
Mr. ROBERT WIIITE. We are an industrial union_, and we represent
all postal and Federal employees; we have a membership in the area
of some 25,000.
Mr. SOLARZ. I see.
Did I understand you to be saying in your testimony that enactment
of this legislation by virtue of its repeal of the present restriction
which exists on the right of Federal employees to participate in politi-
cal process would create special problems for minority employees
in the Federal Government?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. I stated that it could, not that it would. It
could. I state that about so many pieces of legislation which are
passed, which are seemingly well-intended, but the persons who are in
i
a position to enforce or nterpretate such laws, are the ones who per-
haps can bring about the adverse effects, say, on not only blacks, but
on other minorities or any particular group of persons.
Mr. SOLARZ. Do you by any chance know offhand what percentage
of the Federal civil service is composed of blacks, and Spanish-speak-
ing Americans?
ifr. ROBERT WHITE. The total Federal service?
Mr. SOLARZ. Right.
MT. ROBERT WHITE. Not, offhand.
I believe it's in the area of 15 to 16 percent, I believe. I am trying to
remember off the top of my head the last figures I saw. This total
Federal and Postal Service you are speaking of?
Mr. SOLARZ. Yes.
Are you talking about the percentage black, or black and
Spanish
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. Total minorities.
Mr. SOLARZ. About 15 or 16 percent?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. That's correct-.
Mr. SOLARZ. I understand the theoretical distinction about some-
thing that would be a problem or could be a problem. I wonder if you
could tell us in what way this might create a problem for minorities
without at the same time creating a problem for other employees?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. The same basic problems that we have today
in trying to get promotions in the service, being last hired, first fired;
these types of things.
If you are, say, a known supporter of some candidates who may
be in the opposing party, the person lost, what would stop, say, the
head of the agencies from taking certain action.
You could say, "Well, you have laws that say it cannot be done or
should not be done," better put it that way, and in the meantime the
action would have been taken against you and you find yourself on the
outside trying to get it straightened out.
52-137-75? 8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1o: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. SOLARZ. Do you think it's conceivable that in the Federal civil
service today that political pressures might be brought to bear on
other employees?
In other words, if there is a problem of potential coercion of Fed-
eral employees, can you really envision a set of circumstances in which
those problems would exist essentially for minority employees and
not for others?
MT. ROBERT WHITE. I wouldn't say only for any minority employ-
ees, but they would take the brunt of it. Certainly in answer to your
question, do I feel that could actually happen in the Federal service
today, yes, by all means; definitely.
We have a good example of it, plenty of examples of it right now
in the Postal Service where many employees, black employees, are the
subject of discrimination to the extent of being removed from service.
This is going on right today. The. Postal Service is supposed to be
in a better position than some of the other Federal agencies. I know it's
going on in the other agencies.
We can speak in terms, of trying to think and decide in the area of
making sure that we do not become the victims of some type of Sup-
pressive action, then we have to govern?we have to think about all
these possibilities.
Mr. SOLARZ. I realize, of course, you have to strike a balance. I
think you ought to take into consideration the fact that if this legis-
lation is enacted, it might very well enhance the capacity of your
people, by permitting them to participate in the political process, to
get through the Congress the kind of legislation which would deal
with the very problems to which you point.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. It could very easily happen.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. White, what we are trying to do in H.R. 3000, as far as I can
see, is exactly the very thing that you claim that you are supporting.
The objections you_ found to it are based on your interpretations which
are different than what is the purpose of the bill.
I find it difficult to understand any of your opposition. You seem
to be in support of the principle thrust of this bill. Than in response
to a question of Mr. Clay or Mrs. Spellman, one or the other, you said
you just didn't. think it was appropriate to make changes in the Hatch
Act at this time.
When is the appropriate time to correct abuses?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. We are speaking again, Mr. Wilson, of com-
pletely opening up the political process. T have stated that I think in
the final paragraph. I think it should bet aken with caution.
There certainly are some amendments that we could agree on at
least that need to be brought about to the Hatch Act. I think we men-
tioned a couple of them here. But there are some limitations which I
still am not too sure-should be removed at this particular time.
That is the only area of concern. Maybe I am not fully cognizant
of what H.R. 3000 states, but if it opens up the political process corn-
pletely, then I_ think there are some areas of concern which we ought
to look at carefully before- we are fully and totally hi. accord with it.
Mr. WILSON. Would it be possible, Mr. White, for you, with your
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1311FIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
attorney and with your officers, to completely study H.R. 3000 and
make those recommendations to us that you think should be made for
changes?
Let us know where we have gone too far. Let us know how we are
hurting the merit system.
Incidentally, are you satisfied with the merit system now?
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. Am I satisfied with it?
Mr. WiLsoN. Yes.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. No, not completely. I like the basic philosophy
behind a merit system, but when you ask me if I am satisfied with
it?
Mr. WiLsoN. You said one of your basic objections to the bill is it
will destroy the merit system. I gather from your comments you are
not too happy with the merit system.
Mr. ROBERT WiirrE. The idea behind the system is wonderful.
Mr. WiLsoN. Let's talk about the way it works.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. It's like a lot of other things, it doesn't work
always the way it is on paper or sounds like it should, Mr. Chairman.
You are very, very familiar with the fact that under the merit
system?a person is supposed to be dealt with based on their abilities,
education, all these other factors.
As far as being hired, being promoted, whatever it comes to, we
know this doesn't work as far as minorities are concerned. You are
aware of this.
So we say, yes. The philosophy behind the merit system is good if it's
applied properly, but we are not going to have it applied properly as
long as we have human beings and human nature as it is. We recog-
nize this.
Mr. WILSON. I dislike getting into an argument with you, Mr.
White' but I talk to black leaders of the two major postal organiza-
tions, APW and the Letter Carriers, and I find that they are in com-
plete disagreement with the philosophy you come forward with not
;just on this bill, but on so many other things we have discussed. Have
they sold out, or are they irresponsible people?
Mr. ROBERT NITRITE. I am certainly not going to speak for any
other persons who call themselves, or you referred to them as "black
leaders." I didn't even say necessarily I was a black leader. Certainly
I am not going to call a person who is serving in less than a national
position in another organization a. black leader. I am not going to try
to get into any area of trying to decide why they think they are deal-
ing in the way they are dealing or thinking.
I can only speak for myself and the membership which I represent.
As I stated earlier, I don't come here either as a person talking off the
top of my bead. I have been in this position for a long time. I (Yet
certain mandates from my membership, the same as the others. 'When
I speak on this position I speak from the position of the people I
represent.
Mr. "WILSON. Mr. White, I think finally you can be extremely help-
ful to us if you would go over the bill, section by section, and present
to the committee the recommendations of your organization. Let us
know where you think that the bill is bad. That is the purpose of these
hearings.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/11ifIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
We don't say that the bill is perfect. We are holding hearings to try
to correct it, improve it, and get it into the shape that we can try to
sell to the 'Congress. There is going to be a bill come out of the com-
mittee and we would like to have your backing and your support, and
it would help us if you could let us know what your organization
supports, what they can support and what they cannot support in
the present bill.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. We will be glad to do that.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Harris?'
Mr. HAmus. Actually, I think this point is important. I join with.
Mr. Wilson in asking you for the specific recommendations, if you
can provide it, to the subcommittee.
I, myself, am very sensitive to the problems which you have ex-
pressed. A lot of times a person may appear to do one thing and may
actually do something else, either one in the law now or one proposed.
I think it should be put to the test to make sure we are not losing
any protections and, No. 2, we are not losing anything. I think those
comments are relevant. I will be looking forward with special interest
to the recommendations you will be making on it. I think we better
make sure it meets that test legislation we pass.
Thank you.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
I want to thank you, Mr. White, and your association for bringing
forth your testimony this morning.
I am hopeful that you will follow the recoromendat ions of Cono,ress-
man Wilson and give us your analysis of the bill and what you think
ought to be done.
Mr. ROBERT WHITE. We will do that.
Mr. CLAY. The last witness this morning is Mr. Don Ledbetter,
president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors.
STATEMENT OF DONALD N. LEDBETTER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS, ACCOMPANIED BY JO-
SEPH J. MEUSE, ADMINISTRATIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AND BRUCE
W. STERLING, NATIONAL SECRETARY
Mr. LEDBETTER. Mr. Chairman, with 110 reflection on the previous
witness, my good friend, Bob White of the National Alliance, I want
to say my colleagues and I are also here representing a minority group
this morning, the postal supervisors.
My name is Donald Ledbetter. I am the president of the National
Association of Postal Supervisors, composed of more than 34,000 of
the approximately 28,000 supervisors in the postal field service, with
members in all 50 States. Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Our members are employed in post offices, branches, stations, motor
vehicle facilities, maintenance units, air mail facilities, bulk mail
centers, and in all other mail handling installations in the field service.
I am accompanied by our administrative vice president, Joseph J.
Meuse, and our national secretary, Bruce W. Sterling.
I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 3000. introduced by
von, Mr. Chairman, together with a number of other Members of the
Congress.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1316
: cIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
1
As the president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors,
I am particularly pleased that this legislation has been introduced.
It has long been a goal of the postal supervisors to bring about changes
in the Hatch Act which would allow employees of Federal agencies
greater political freedom. The latest expression of our association on
this issue was adopted as a resolution during our last national conven-
tion, which was last August, in Atlanta.
That resolution was stated as follows:
Whereas postal employees' political activity is now restricted, be it resolved
that NAPS take the necessary action to cause the revision of the Hatch Act
In order to provide postal employees with the right of political freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that your bill does provide the free-
dom to engage in political activities which has been endorsed as a goal
of the NAPS. Many of our members have desired to participate more
fully in the political process than has been possible under the laws
as they now exist.
H.R. 3000, if enacted into law, would grant to the large number
of employees of the Federal agencies, the right to participate in poli-
tics to the extent they so choose. For that reason, I applaud the bill
and I applaud you and the other members who have introduced this
bill for your continuing concern for the well-being of Federal
employees.
While endorsing the freedom of Federal employees to express them-
selves and work within the political process to the extent that they
deem to be appropriate, I also want to urge that this committee give
careful consideration to insuring that any such freedom is not abused.
Although we believe that the Hatch Act is too restrictive and has
unnecessarily prevented a large number of people from exercising
their full rights of citizenship, I think we must also recognize that
it was enacted into law in response to very real and troublesome abuses.
I am concerned that a relaxation of the prohibitions upon political
activities is accomplished in a manner that does not invite the reap-
pearance of such abuses.
I am just as concerned that no postal supervisors be pressured to
take part in the political process to an extent greater than such super-
visors may desire as I am about the current restrictions which pre-
vent members from taking part in that process to the extent that they
desire.
To avoid such a problem, it may be appropriate to add to the pend-
ing legislation some form of overview and oversight responsibility,
perhaps by the Congress itself.
The wrongful exertion of political pressure in order to obtain either
campaign donations or campaign assistance can often be a very subtle
process in which an employee may, rightly or wrongly, feel under an
obligation to support a particular candidate. Such perception does
interfere with the freedom of that employee's conscience.
I urge this committee to concern itself with such possibilities so
that this legislation, rightfully designed to give freedom to employees,
does not become a means of depriving employees of the freedom to not
support any candidate except to the extent that such employees, as
a matter of their own conscience, choose to do so.
That concludes our statement, Mr. Chairman.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : 14CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
1
Once again, let me express my appreciation for the concern which
you have shown by the introduction of this legislation. I urge that it
be enacted, subject to the reservations which I have expressed above.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and the mem-
bers of the subcommittee, and will be glad to respond to any questions,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
In your statement you refer to the campaign donations and subtle
process in which these donations are usually contained.
I assume that there are methods now that are very subtle in obtain-
ing campaign donations from people, top-rank employees of the
Federal Government.
Mr. LEDBETTER. There is not as much of this as there used to be.
In fact, one of the reasons we are in favor of amending the act is
because of the changes in the system of selection and promotion in
the Postal Service that have taken place in the last 5 or 6 years.
Prior to the change in the selection of postmasters, for example,
which was a part of the process in which Congress expressed its will
and selected postmasters, there was a tremendous pressure within the
post office to support candidates or certain parties. This is now
diminished almost completely because the selection process has been
changed completely, as you and the other members of the subcommittee
know.
But, prior to that time, the pressure for contributions and for sup-
port had to be endured if you aspired to be postmaster in a post office.
Of course, every employee or supOrvisor has the ambition, at least 99?
percent do, to some day become postmaster of their particular office.
Mr. CLAY. Do you feel the provisions of this bill against coercion
are adequate, or do you think we ought to even make them stronger?
Mr. LEDBETTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the bill is all right like it
is. We are not really suggesting any amendment.
We just want to ask if the law is amended, that the Congress not
turn its back then to any abuses that migl it occur.
Mr. CLAY. I assure you that this committee will maintain an over-
sight responsibility.
Mr. LEDBETTER. That is our feeling, Mr. Chairman, and we have
confidence that the committee would do that.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mrs. Spellman?
Mrs. SPELLMAN. I think the quorum call will force me to pass up
any questions.
The statement is very clear.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Harris?
Mr. HARRIS. I would like to thank you for your testimony.
I think it is very relevant.
I appreciate the fact as we go on to a little bit of unchartered
ground, which may not be as unchartered as much as we think, I
think this is an excellent area for this committee to keep in mind.
Mr. CLAY. I would also like to compliment you and commend you
for your testimony today. The committee stands adjourned until 9 :30
tomorrow morning, in this room.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the hearing was adjourned, to resume
at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 9, 1975, in the same room.]
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
ACT OF 1975
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1975
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVLL SERVICE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE POLITICAL RIGHTS AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS'
Washington,D.C.
The subcommittee was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 :30
a.m., in room 311 of the Cannon House Office Building, Hon. William
Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. CLAy. The hearing will come to order.
Our first witness this morning is lion. Walter E. Fauntroy of the
District of Columbia, who cosponsored H.R. 3931, which is identical
to the bill that we have introduced in this committee, H.R. 3000.
Mr. Fauntroy, we are happy to have you with us this morning. You
may proceed as you see fit.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER E. FAUNTROY, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today to
testify on this important issue.
I congratulate you and this committee for your willingness to finally
begin to deal seriously with this most complex subject of the Hatch
Act. As you know, you have a? most difficult task of sorting through a
longstanding troubled issue, keeping the good, discarding the bad and
chancing the obscure. That is quite a task.
Updating and clarifying of the hatch Act is one of the more com-
plex issues that must be dealt with. One which has been the center of
controversy for the 35 years of its existence.
I commend you ana the subcommittee for your holding hearings
around the country to hear the views of some of the millions of Amer-
icans affected by this legislation.
Certainly, there is no :greater concentration of citizens affected by
this legislation than here in our Nation's Capital.
This year, the citizens of the District of Columbia began for the
first time in over 100 years, to exercise a basic democratic right taken
for granted by all others, the right to elect our own city officials.
Unlike other cities, we began the exercise of that right with a handi-
cap. Nearly 30 percent of our voting age citizens are forbidden from
taking a meaningful part in the process.
(115)
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
116
Out of a voting age population of approximately 500,000 people,
134,000 Federal employees and 40,000 District employees are covered
by the Hatch Act prohibitions.
The Hatch Act, in my judgment, is an unreasonable infringement
upon the right of Government employees to participate in democratic
government.
In addition to the specific prohibitions in the law itself, a maze of
rules and regulations have sprung up governing the political be-
havior of most Federal employees and those working in local and
State government programs which are partially or totally funded
from Washington.
It has also led to supplemental regulation by individual Government
departments, and the passage of "little Hatch Acts" by State legis-
latures over the years.
Iii the 35 years since the passage of the Hatch Act, the overly broad
and vague language of the act, as interpreted by the Civil Service Com-
mission, has prohibited affected employees from running in local elec-
tions, writing letters on political subjects to newspapers, becoming a
delegate to a political convention, or running for office within a po-
litical party.
What was originally intended to protect Government employees
from political coercion has turned into a dead hand, prohibiting them
from voluntarily engaging in political activites clearly protected by
the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Given the general vagueness of the law in several areas, the civil
service and departmental regulations can be end often are deliberate-
ly confusing to the employee. The Code of Federal Regulations, for
instance, tinder the section titled "Prohibited Activities"?section
733.122 (b)?states : "Activities prohibited by paragraph (a) of this
section include, but are not limited to?"
Then it goes on to list 13 items. The public employee must govern
his conduct with reference to at least three authoritative sources of
law?the act itself, the regulations, and informal rulings?all of
which are ambiguously worded. Often the sources would appear to con-
flict with one another.
Coupled with the vagueness of the current law and its attendant
regulations is the selective enforcement of the act. These have, as you
earlier noted, led most Federal and District employees to feel con-
strained to play it safe by not becoming politically involved at any
level, even in approved political activity.
In its overall effect, the act infringes on the right to freedom of
speech and action for approximately 175,000 of my constituents and
more than 330,000 Federal employees living in the Washington metro-
politan area.
It has, as can plainly be seen here in the District of Columbia, created
a category of second-class citizens in partisan campaigns, relegating
"hatched" employees to minor or politically sterile roles_
At this time in our history when citizen involvement in the political
process is so sorely needed, the current Hatch Act systematically ex-
cludes millions of responsible and politically knowledgeable citizens
from participation.
The legislation before you, H.R. 3934. which I have cosponsored,
recognizes the basic value of the original act, and addresses itself to
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 i9A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
the abuses and vagueness of the act. It reflects the needs and realities
of contemporary public service and balances those needs with the
basic right of all Americans to participate in the partisan electoral
process.
H.R, 3934 would not weaken those provisions of the Hatch Act
which prohibit coercion of Government employees for political con-
tributions or activities and political interference with the merit sys-
tem in the civil service.
What is at issue in this legislation are the broad-ranging proscrip-
tions against political management and campaigning in any form,
in any partisan connection by any Federal employee. This bill would
eliminate much of the vagueness of the act, defining permissible po-
litical activities.
Precision of regulations must be the touchstone in an area so closely
touching our most precious freedom.
H.R. 3934 corrects these defects in the law. Government employees
would be restored the right to participate in our political system in
a meaningful way. This vagueness would be removed because the
right of the employee to participate would be spelled out.
Specifically, this bill would enable Federal and District of Columbia
government civilian and postal employees to participate in the work-
ings of our political processes. First, it permits employees to con-
tribute voluntarily to candidates for public office. Second, it permits
employees to express their views and to participate in political man-
agement of campaigns, as private citizens without the involvement
of their official authority or influence. Third, it specifically defines
the meaning of political management and campaigns to include:
First, candidacy for service in political conventions;
Second, participation in political meetings, caucuses and pri-
maries;
Third, preparing for, organizing or conducting a political
meeting or rally;
Fourth, membership in political clubs;
Fifth, distributing campaign literature and distributing or
wearing campaign badges and buttons;
Sixth, having a publishing, editorial, or managerial connec-
tion with political publications;
Seventh, participating in a political parade;
Eighth, circulating nominating petitions; and
Ninth, candidacy for any public office.
It is, as can plainly be seen, our intention to insure that while Fed-
eral and District employees are needfully and rightfully free from
unwarranted political pressure and coercion, they are at the same
time rightfully free to participate in the full political process, if they
so choose.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to ap-
pear and to testify on what is a very important issue for particularly
your people in the Nation's Capital and the surrounding jurisdictions.
Mr. CLAY. We thank you for that excellent statement, and we appre-
ciate the fact that you have taken your time to come here this morning
to confer with this committee.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
118
In view of the fact that you are one of the four or five members of
this Congress whose constituency is made up to a great extent of public
employees, of Federal employees, we feel that your knowledge and
information to this committee is very valuable and with that as a
background, I would like to ask you several questions in view of the
fact that you have so much at stake personally here.
I would like to ask your opinion on several matters that come before
this committee from other witnesses, primarily those who are opposed
to revision of the Hatch Act and I would like to know if your feelings
concur or agree with theirs.
Several witnesses have told us that they have found that a vast
majority of Federal employees are opposed to revisions that are being
proposed in your bill, and in the bill, H.R. 3000.
Do you concur with that?
Mr. FATJNTROY. I certainly do not.
The overwhelming complaint that I have from my constituents who
are employed by the Federal Government is that they are insulted
by the fact that with the opportunity to elect our own local officials,
for example, they are expressly prohibited from running for office
in the city in which they reside and from taking an active role in the
campaign of candidates whose judgments will very directly affect their
lives.
So that the persons who have made that accusation probably have
apparently not been talking to the people who live in -Washington,
D.C. The overwhelming majority of my constituents value the right
to participate in local government.
I must admit that fam not aware of many residents of the District
of Columbia who wish to seek Federal office, the Presidency, since we
don't have but one delegate elected, and I just hope that that many will
bother to run for that office.
I am hopeful, however, that this Congress, as I think it will in this
Bicentennial session the 94th Congress, will move to what I call,
mend the crack in die Liberty Bell. As you know, there is a bell in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pa., that was molded over 200
years ago to proclaim liberty, freedom from taxation without repre-
sentation.
That bell rang 200 years ago and signaled the freedom of American
citizens to elect their own local and national officials. Of course, there
is a crack in the bell, and through that crack falls some three-quarters
of 1 million citizens who have to live here, who pay nearly $1 million
in Federal taxes a year, but have no representation in either House.
Once the Congress acts responsibly and provides us that right to
elect our own voting representatives in the House and representa-
tion in the Senate; it will add insult to the injury now imposed on
the citizens, not to allow them to participate in both local and Fed-
eral elections.
Mr. CLAY. Some of the opponents of this bill have said in some
very vague language. and I haven't been able to determine exactly
how it would affect the merit system, but they have said that if this
legislation is passed, that it would erode the Federal merit system.
Do you agree with that assumption?
Mr. FAUNTROY. I certainly do not, and it is for that, reason that we
have included in our bill, the specific prohibition on activities on the ,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
119
part of Federal employees that affect the merit system, and the proc-
ess for judging such cases is very clearly laid out with the CSC taking
a very strong hand.
don't think on the one hand that employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment are disposed toward allowing that kind of thing to happen
and I take that view because of my experience in handling many com-
plaints of equal opportunity and merit promotion cases in the District
of Columbia.
am sure that with the mechanism that this bill provides, anyone
who has the audacity to affect the merit system under this law, would
be quickly judged, and would be certainly singled out and embarrassed.
Mr. CrAy. Are you satisfied with the penalty clauses of this provi-
sion, or do you feel that there is need for strengthening the penalty
clause as to make sure that there will be, no coercion?
Mr. FAUNTROY. I would certainly not object, Mr. Chairman to in-
'. creasing the penalties, if by doing so we could allay the fears Of some
Members of the Congress that perhaps the changing of the act would
-allow coercion.
I think that the stiffer penalty might serve as a more effective de-
terrent to that kind of action, because it is not our intent to eliminate
the initial purpose of the act, which was to protect Federal employees
from that kind of coercion.
Mr. CLAY. You have been instrumental in identifying with the
struggle for equal rights and civil rights in this community, and I am
sure that you are known throughout the country as one of the lead-
ers in the movement for equality of all people and especially the black
people.
Do you see any reason why people of minority groups should have
any fears or apprehensions about revising the Hatch Act to extend
the rights of political freedom to all people, including Federal em-
ployees?
Mr. FAITNTROY. I certainly think not.
I think, if anything, it would free those minority employees to ex-
ercise more leverage on the political process and. thus better protect
themselves from abuse.
I have the feeling that the Hatch Act, with its confusion and its
vagueness, has promoted more intimidation than obviously, I think, its
shapers had intended to the extent that in this area I find many people
? playing it safe on a political process while, for example, their lives
would be affected by who gets elected. They become so intimidated by
the Hatch Act question, and its vagueness, that they withdraw.
I think this act will call forth employees to improve the system.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is coercion, and there is coercion. The people who have opposed
this legislation say that it will open up to many opportunities for em-
ployees to be coerced for political purposes.
I am aware as a result of complaints that have come to me of coercion
that has been exerted upon employees for bond drives and the United
Givers Fund, both very worthy things, but they have contests between
the branches of government to see which department can sell the most
bonds and we have heard there has been considerable coercion there.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
120
So really, coercion has existed, possibly even political coercion, under
the Hatch Act. So the risk of coercion is not an argument that stands
up.
Mr. FAUNTROY. I think that the clarification of what is allowed and
what is not allowed, that the legislation before you offers, would make
it easier to identify unhealthy coercion.
For example, I think if we prohibited United Givers Fund drives
in Federal buildings, as we intend to prohibit solicitation of funds for
political campaigns as a function of one's work, that there would not
be that competition that develops.
I think, however, it is a healthy competition for the region, particu-
larly inasmuch as our area is so heavily impacted with. Federal em-
ployees. But, I think if it was clear to everyone, if any superior or
supervisor instructed or implied that if you do not contribute to his
candidate's campaign, that he will see you later after the campaign;
would be quickly judged and through the civil ..-ervice mechanism,
I think brought to light.
Mr. WILSON. Well, I certainly feel that the penalties we have in
here should be sufficient.
If they are not, we can strengthen that part of the bill to be sure
that absolute protection is afforded to Federal employees against po-
litical coercion. I can't believe that very many Federal employees of
any department are going to allow this to .happen when they know
there are protections through very stiff penalties to those who violate
the law.
I want to thank you very much. I regret that I was delayed coming
here. I made the mistake of reading in the newspaper what time the
meeting was starting this morning. Otherwise, I would have been here
at the beginning of your statement.
You are to be commended for the bill you have introduced and the
support you gave to this legislation.
Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. 'Wilson, you weren't the only one who got confused
this morning. The chairman did, too.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
The next witness is Mr. Dennis Garrison of the American Federation
of Government Employees. "Will you identify everyone for the record,
please ?
STATEMENT OF DENNIS GARRISON, EXECUTIVE .VICE PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL?
CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY L. M. PELLERZI, GENERAL COUNSEL,
AFGE; STEPHEN XOCZAK, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, AFGE; AND
CARL K. SADLER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AFGE
Mr. GARRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the com-
mittee staff, we are pleased to have the opportunity to appear before
this committee in behalf of our membership and to make our views
known on this very important bill, H.R. 3000, that provides the Fed-
eral workers freedom for political activities.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1312cIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
1 ?arn happy to have with me this morning our general counsel on my
ri ht, Mr. Lew Pellerzi ; and on my left the director of legislation,
M. Carl Sadler; and the director of research, Mr. Steve Koczak.
We are gratified to appear today and to express our pleasure that
Congressman Clay is the chairman of these hearings.
We can assure you that AFGE, representing over 650,000 employees
of the Federal Government, applauds this subcommittee's determina-
tion to bring about the political emancipation of a large segment of
the American public.
There are nearly 3 million Federal employees who suffer under the
discrimination and limitations of the Hatch Act. The direct burdens
resulting from this discrimination are apparent. But there are hidden
burdens as well for those employees who fear invoking their rights,
given them by the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, even to petition Con-
gress and its committees.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the Hatch Act is the impact it
has on the mentality and psychology of some Federal employees. This
is not, of course, a matter of law. It is a matter of an attitude which
has developed in Federal employees largely because they are constantly
warned not to violate the Hatch Act, either directly or indirectly. The
fear of reprisal for even speaking about legislation or for writing their
legislative representatives should be immediately removed.
Federal employees will not be first class citizens until they are
free to run for any public office and to participate fully in the
political activities which are lawful for other citizens. The legislation
which is needed is legislation which protects employees' right to free-
dom in the political area without fear of reprisal. The protection which
the public needs is legislation which prevents the establishment of a
spoils system built on political favoritism within the governmental
apparatus and trhich assures the American public that it will be served
impartially by its public employees regardless of differing political
views.
AFG-E has testified a number of times on proposed revisions of the
Hatch Act. We appeal to Congress to rectify the longstanding injus-
tices caused by that law. We believe H.R. 3000, which now has 54 co-
sponsors, is a great liberating piece of legislation. We request permis-
sion to insert into the record a brief historical paper describing the
different meanings given to the term "political activity" since the
creation of the Federal career merit system in 1883 under supervision
of the Civil Service Commission.
We would like to turn now to a discussion of this bill. In discussing
H.R. 3000, we will first outline our views on the issue of increased
political participation for employees, then we will turn to the subjects
of penalties for violations, enforcement, and protection of employees.
We support the provisions of H.R. 8000 which permit voluntary
personal participation of a Federal employee in political activities.
Section 3 of H.R. 3000 reiterates the present language of section 7324
of title 5, United States Code, under which an employee retains the
right to vote as he chooses, to express his opinion on political subjects
and candidates; it adds the important provision of asserting the right
of an employee to take an active part in political management or in
political campaigns in his role as a private citizen and without involv-
ing his official authority or influence.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1421A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
AFGE has strongly supported for many years the passage of legis-
lation which would permit the full participation of all Federal em-
ployees in political management and political campaigning. The sole
restriction might be the statutory prohibition of specific conflict-of-
interest situations which would interfere with a particular Federal
employee's ability to perform his particular official-duties with ef-
ficiency and integrity. For example, an employee clearly should not
remain in an active duty status while campaigning for elective office
if the clients of a Federal program he administers include many of the
voters whose support he is seeking.
The U.S. Civil Service Commission could be authorized to issue,
after consultation with employee unions, general regulations cover-
ing such conflicts of interest. Individual Federal agencies could be
authorized to negotiate more specific regulations With the unions re-
presenting employees in that agency.
In section 3(c) regarding political management end political cam-
paigns, we believe that if the right to run for public office is to have
any practical meaning, it would be helpful if H.R. 3000 would ex-
plicitly require the agency to give the employee leave to campaign. This
leave should take the form preferably of annual leave, if the em-
ployee desires, and in any case leave without pay if the employee does
not have sufficient accrued annual leave.
If H.R. 8000 is enacted, Federal employees will be granted full po-
litical activity. This means that they can join political parties; write
letters to political newspapers and formulate editorial and managerial
policies of such journals; distribute campaign literature, badges and
buttons, and manage such campaigns; solicit votes for candidates in
political primaries and elections; serve as delegates to political con-
ventions; and run for political offices.
We would like to turn now to our views on the subjetts of penalties
for 'violations of this law, enforcement, and protection of employees.
HR. 3000 contains two provisions that protect Federal employees
from coercion, although their full purpose is somewhat broader. These
provisions also servo to protect the public service, the elective political
process, and the general public against improper political activities on
the part of Federal Government employees.
First, section 2(a) provides that an employee in an executive agency,
including a Presidential appointee, may not request or receive from, or
give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uni-
formed service a thing of value for political purposes. An exception is
made for voluntary contributions to candidates for public office.
It provides for flexible administrative penalties for violations of this
provision, as found warranted by the Civil Service Commission, but
not less than 30 days suspension without pay.
The remainder of section 2 provides for enforcement of this pro-
vision by the Commission, including processing complaints, making
investigations, imposing appropriate administrative, penalties on em-
ployees in the competitive service, reporting violations by Presidential
appointees to the President. end others for action, and referring all
cases to the Attorney General for possible prosecution under the crimi-
nal code. Criminal penalties for prohibited solicitation of contribu-
tions may range up to a $5,000 fine or a prison term of 3 years, or both.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1312&IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Second, section 3(a) provides that an employee in an executive
agency or an individual employed by the government of the District
of Columbia may .not use his official authority or influence for the
purpose of interfering with or. affecting the results of an election.
However, unlike the earlier provision covering the solicitation of
political contributions, H.R. 3000 does not establish detailed pro-
cedures for enforcing this second provision covering interference in
elections.
- Section 4 doe's, indeed, authorize the Commission to make findings
of violations and to impose flexible administrative penalties in either
case, but in the case of the use of official authority to influence an
election no specific distinction is made between competitive and Presi-
dential appointees; there is no reference to processing complaints and
making investigations; and there is no provision for referral to Jus-
tice Department for criminal prosecution.
While we regard both as desirable provisions, we believe they could
each be made More effective in terms of protecting employees from
coercion in connection with political activities, if the following amend-
ments were made:
1. Section 2(a) should provide for Commission action in the case
of employees in the excepted service, other than Presidential appoint-
ees. We believe that there should be a uniform system of administra-
tion, enforcement, and penalties covering all employees in the execu-
tive branch.
Exempting excepted employees from the enforcement provisions
might also add to the pressures to except additional employees from
the competitive. service.
-2. The Civil Service Commission should be given express authority
to develop and issue, after consultation with employee unions such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the bill.
3. The section 3 (a) prohibition against the use of official authority
to interfere in elections should be expanded to include other parts
of the political process enumerated in the bill, in addition to elections.
It should expressly prohibit, for example, the use of official authority
to coerce any political actions of any employee in the Executive
branch.
4. The Commission should be directed to establish an adequate. or-
ganization and seek adequate appropriations and other resources to
effectively enforce the provisions of the bill. Such enforcement should
be positive in nature and made a part of regular Commission inspec-
tions of agency activities.
5. Criminal penalties should be provided for violations of the pro-
hibition against the use of official authority- to affect an election or
other parts of the political process, comparable to thosepenalties now
provided in the case of solicitation of political contributions, and all
such violations should be deferred to the Justice Department for possi-
ble criminal prosecution.
Appropriate amendments should, therefore; be made not only to
section 602 of title 18, -United States Code but also to such other sec-
tions of title 18 as 594, 505, 599, 600, and 606. The. purpose of such
amendments would be to provide comparable criminal penalties for
misuse of official authority as well as for solicitation of contributions.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1124CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
For example, intimidating or coercing an employee to support a can-
didate or to work in a political campaign should be subject to the same
administrative and criminal penalties, and the same enforcement pro-
cedures, as intimidating or coercing a employee to make a political
cotribution.
6. An employee should be guaranteed a hearing, if he so requests,
before removal from the service by the Commission because of viola-
tions of any of these provisions.
The General Counsel of the AFGE would be pleased to work closely
with this committee and its staff in developing these points in more
detail, and in drafting appropriate statutory language, so that the
provisions for administration, enforcement, violations, and penalties
are made as effective and uniform as may be needed to protect Federal
employees from coercion, as they exercise their long-sought rights to
participate in political activities like their fellow citizens.
We urge the prompt passage of MR. 3000 with amendments such
as those we propose. We appreciate this opportunity to make our
views known on this matter of vital concern to millions of Federal
employees.
The Watergate experience of recent history reveals that, the power
to abuse political office, as it did in 1883, exists primarily at the top
echelons of the executive branch.
[The brief historical paper follows:]
A BRIEF IIISTORY OF THE MEANING OF "POLITICAL ACTIVITY" (1883-1975) WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE HATCH ACT OF 1939
When the Civil Service Commission was established in 1883, the country was
preoccupied with the abuses of "political activity" such as it had experienced
under Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Rutherford Burchard Hayes. Popularly,
these abuses are known to history as the "Spoils System". The assassination
of President James Abram Garfield by a disgruntled and unbalanced office
seeker, Charles J. Guiteau, led to the national conclusion that the Federal Civil
Service should be rendered as immune as possible from the excesses of the
political system.
For this reason, immediately after its establishment in 1883, Civil Service -
Commission issued Rules I and II which reads as follows:
Rule I. No person in said service shall use his official authority or influ-
ence either to coerce the political action of any person or body or to inter-
fere with any election.
'Rule II. No person in the public service shall for that reason be under
any obligation to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political
service, and he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to
do so.
It is significant that these first Civil Service Commission Rules placed major
emphasis on the need for eliminating the type of political activity which had'
become the bane of the public service. It is also significant that these first two
Rules placed no limitation on the genuinely voluntary political activity of any
person, provided such activity did not involve coercion of any other person
either to participate or not to participate in the political forum.
Although the 1Thited States was confronted with many domestic and inter-
national crises in the next half century (1883 to 1933), no major changes took
place regarding the Congressional attitude toward "political activity". It is
true that the Executive Branch, including President Theodore Roosevelt, con-
strued strikes by postal employees as coming under the general concept of
political activity and he issued executive orders to dismiss any postal employee
with prejudice who participated in a strike. As a result of his action and actions
by postal officials seeking to discipline postal employees solely for their petition-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/135CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Ing Congress for legislation to protect their rights, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act
was passed asserting the right of every Federal employee to communicate
directly With Congress. The Lloyd-LaFollette Act,- therefore, construes such
"political activity" by Federal employees as both appropriate and legal
THE MATCH ACT (1939)
The Hatch Act became law on August 2, 1939. It was passed by a Congress
that was concerned by what it considered a dangerous growth in presidential
powers during the first two administrations of Franklin DelanO Roosevelt.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, upon election, found himself confronted
with a major depression at home with near bankruptcy of the entire banking
system and with a threat of the collapse, as he saw it, of the entire democratic
political structure of the United States. It is also not irrelevant to recall that,
Adolph Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power in the same month
in 1933. Consequently, President Roosevelt also saw in the international area:
the United States and the world democratic states confronted with the question
of survival.
Confronted with these powerful disruptive forces both at home and abroad,
Franklin Roosevelt resorted to a series of emergency actions, including the
National Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other measures.
These were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. As a reaction to
these judicial decisions, in 1937 Franklin Roosevelt sought to "pack the court".
Failing this, in 1938 he sought to use the vast resources and expanded bureauc-
racy and funds of the Federal government to "purge" his political Congressional
opponents in the primary and general elections. Following those elections, in
which he failed to achieve his electoral goals, reports circulated that Tran,klin
Roosevelt 'also intended to run for a third term to assure the continuance of his
program.
Concurrently, the international crisis both in Europe and ihAsia, (e.g, Spanish
Civil War, conquest of Ethiopia, Japanese invasion, of China; German
annexation of Austria, Nazi demilitarization of the Rhineland,) had led to a
divisive and intense debate within the United States itself as to the l`future
wave" of the new totalitarian doctrines.
The Congress, therefore, became preoccupied not only with President Roo-
sevelt's aims but also the "political activity" of adherents of totalitarianism.
Thus, "political activity" took on a radically different meaning than it took in
1883.
To meet these multiple new kinds of "political concerns", the Congress in
August 1939 passed the Hatch Act (we should remember that only a month later,
September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland ana World War II began). Conse-
quently, the Hatch Act defined "political activity" in the broadest terms possible
in a context of crisis. A careful reading of all its provisions demonstrates the
real rationale behind the drafters of this legislation. For example, Section 9A
states, as follows:
Sec. 9A. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any capacity
by any agency of the Federal Government, whose compensation, or any part
thereof, is paid from funds authorized or appropriated by any Act of Con-
gress, to have metabership in any political party or organiztion which advo-
cates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United
States.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be immedi-
ately removed from the position or office held by him, and thereafter no part
of the fund 4 appropriated by any Act of Congress for such position or office
shall be used to pay the compensation of such person.
TUE SITUATION IN 1975
Since the enactment of the Hatch Act, Congress and the Executive Branch have
taken specific actions to exclude from political life the greater part of the
"political activities" with which the authors of the Hatch Act were preoccupied.
For examPle, Article 22 of the Constitution now limits the terms of office of stny
President to two. Article 24 has abolished the poll tax. Article 20 has redneed the
voting age to eighteen. As for "national security", "conflict of interest", "conduct
52-137-75---9
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 1RA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
unbecoming a Federal official", "disclosure of financial assets", these have been
defined by statute and interpreted by the courts. Under these circumstances, it is
evident that specific, explicit legislation already exists to deal with subversion of
the public welfare either for ideological, political or economic reasons by officers
and career employees of the Federal service. The sole issue that remains, how-
ever, is the ability of the sole elected political officer, the President, and his
senior advisors, including members of the Cabinet and of the excepted service
personnel, to coerce subordinates to achieve political results.
Mr. CLAY. We certainly want to thank you for a comprehensive
review of provisions of H.R. 3000 and we certainly appreciate the
recommendations that you have made for improving the bill.
I am sure that the committee will seriously consider these recom-
mendations and in all probability will incorporate most of them into
the original bill.
On page 5 of your statement, where you speak of the bill provid-
ing flexible administrative penalties for violations as found warranted
by the CSC but not less than 30 days' suspension without pay, we have
had testimony from members of the Commission indicating that per-
haps in some instances 30 days' suspension without pay would be too
harsh for very minor violations.
Would you tend to agree with that, that they ought to be given
more flexibility in terms of penalties based on the seriousness of the
act?
Mr. GARRISON. Well, I would think so, but I would believe, in any
case, that it should not be less than 30 days.
Mr. CLAY. So you agree with the bill as it is presently written?
Mr. GARRISON. I do.
Mr. CLAY. We have also had criticisms from some opponents of this
bill and in view of the fact that you represent an organization com-
posed of some 650,000 Federal employees, I would like to have your
response to this criticism.
Some individuals suggest that passage of this legislation is simply
a device of unions in order to enlarge their power base.
What is your view on this matter?
Mr. GARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I think nothing could be further from
the truth.
We work with Federal employees in the union and some out of the
union and I cannot recall in the past several years that I have talked
to a single Federal employee that did not want the repeal of the Hatch
Act where they could act as any other citizen in the political arena.
Mr. CLAY. We are also hearing all kinds of figures of so-called facts
from surveys that are supposedly being made to reflect what the gen-
eral opinion is of Federal employees.
What assurance can you give us that your opinion accurately reflects
the opinion of the general membership of your organization.?
Mr. GARRISON. At our national convention where we represent, of
course, full membership, there was a resolution passed for revision of
the Hatch Act and it was a unanimous vote. We had not one vote
against it.
And Mr. Chairman, this was not only in 1974. It happened in 1972
and 1970 and as far back as 1968 as I can remember.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13127 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. So in effect what you are saying is that representatives
of your total membership at a convention have gone on record as
saying that there needs to be some revision of the Hatch Act?
MT. GARRISON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr: Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Garrison, what percentage of the Federal em-
ployees do you have in your organization, about 35 percent? Are there
about 3 million Federal employees?
Mr. GARRISON. Less than 2 million. We represent about one-third of
those. And about two-thirds of them are unionized, belong to some
union, and we represent about one-third,
Mr. WiLsoiv. I have been asking whether or not the organizations
felt that the Civil Service Commission was an appropriate body to
administer this act in the event we do amend the Hatch Act, as we
hope to. The Letter Carriers suggested the Justice Department should
administer the new law.
-Do you have any feelings on it one way or another? Do you trust
the Civil Service commission?
Mr. PF.LLERZI. Well, Mr. Wilson, as we indicated in our statement,
we think that the protections- in the statutes should be greatly
strengthened and, if I may allude to my personal experience, I en-
forced the Hatch Act for 3 years as General Counsel for the Civil
Service Commission, and we weren't too effective for a number of
reasons. One had to do with the le vel of appropriations.
The provisions in this bill providing for split enforcement in a
sense, administrative enforcement by the Civil Service Commission,
criminal enforcement by the Justice Department, in the real world
brings up a problem which I think interferes With enforcement in both
areas.
For instance, if you have a violation of the Hatch Act that could
constitute a criminal violation, the standing directive of the executive
branch is that that matter must first be referred to the Justice Depart-
ment for possible criminal violation.
In the meantime you are sitting on a clear violation for which you
could enforce an administrative penalty but you may wait a year or
18 months for the Justice Department to decide that that case is not
a criminal case and refer it back to you.
In the meantime your evidence and your witnesses are cold.
I would think that under the typc of procedures that we feel
should be in this statute that enforcement should be in the Justice
Department; or, if enforcement is left in an administrative area,
then there ought to be mandatory penalties of removal prescribed by
the Congress.
You find that?and I think the history of the Corrupt Practices Act
shows that there were not appropriate?not appropriate?prosecu-
- tionsunderthe Corrupt Practices Act prior to Watergate. I think here
that the greatest care and attention should be provided to where the
enforcement is and what the penalties are and. I think you ought to
look seriously- at mandatory penalties for removal and particularly
among the high level Federal employees.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
128
Coercion in a bureaucracy comes down from the top and I know
that when I first looked at the Hatch Act enforcements, 90 percent
of the cases involved the very lowest level of employees. The coercion
was coining down from above those levels and those people were
not being prosecuted.
Mr. WILSON. I am inclined to agree with you that the Civil Service
Commission should be administering this.
Just to get something straight, you said that all the people you
knew in your organization were for repeal of the Hatch Act. I don't
think we want to repeal the Hatch Act. We just want to amend it.
We are trying to amend it because there are many good parts of it.
So you don't want them to repeal it.
Mr. PELLEnzi. I think our position is we want to modify it to
strengthen the prohibitions, to liberalize the participation of employees
in the political process, and we don't want to do anything that is
going to weaken or detract from the merit system.
Mr. WILSON. I was a little surprised?here on page 8 you say the
General Counsel would be pleased to work closely with this committee
and staff in developing the suggestions you have previously made?
in drafting appropriate' statutory language.
I was under the impression that all of the employee organizations
have been invited to participate in the drafting of the original bill
and I was a little surprised that you are waiting until now to come
hi and make your recommendations in this respect. It seems kind.
of late.
You have made some recommendations and you will now work- with
the staff and the committee and try to develop these changes to a more
refined point?
Mr. PELLEnzi. That's right.
Mr. WILSON. We are, as you know, getting set, I believe, next week
to go out into the field and the first of these will be in Prince Georges
County and_ Fairfax County.
I have a feeling that there are going to be people come there who
are Federal employees who are going to be speaking against amending
the Hatch Act. It would be interesting to know if they are being
coerced into opposing H.R. 3000 by their supervisors. I don't know
whether we will be able to find this out or not.
That is why it is so important that we know that your resolutions
that you pass at your conventions actually are supported by your
membership, that there is no deviation.
Obviously you will always have some sinners in any organization,
but you can assure us, just as the postal organization, that when a
resolution is adopted it isn't shoved down anybody's throat at a con-
vention, it is the democratic process that is followed?
Mr. PRLLERZI. That's right.
Mr. WLsox. And you can assure us that of the 650,000 people you
represent at least 95 percent of them are in favor of your position?
Mr. PELLERZI. Overwhelming.
Mr. GARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you know that there is no
way we can rani_ something down their throats, if we wanted to.
Mr. WILSON. I know that there are pretty rough sessions, and very
democratic sessions.
Mr. GARRISON. I would like to give one illustration or example, if i
you please, where I think that it s so unfair and that is where we
have support type contracts in the Government and our employees are
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :191A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
working side by side with the contractor employee ma we are all being
paid out of the same kitty, just a different pocket, and the contractor
employee is allowed to participate in any manner that he wants to
where the Federal employee working side by side with him is not
allowed to get mixed up in the political activities.
And this is hundreds of thousands of employees that are allowed
to do this where the other Federal employees are unable to participate.
Mr. CLAY. It is 11/2 million employees under contract by the Federal
Government who receive more than 50 percent of their income from
the Government and are not prohibited from activities in politics.
Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate your comments on this important measure and it
should be extremely helpful to the committee to have the benefit of your
thinking.
The Civil Service Com:mission previously testified that it would be
most difficult to draft effective anticoercion regulations if the Hatch
Act were amended as suggested in H.R. 3000 that is now before us.
Could you comment on that statement ?
Mr. GARRISON. I believe I will let our General Counsel for Civil
Service Commission for several years, who worked with this prob-
lem?if he will comment.
Mr. PELLERZI. I look at that in this context: the original theory
of the original Hatch Act was that in the realities of political life the
only way you could insulate the career service and protect its integrity
from political coercion was to bar certain activities. That is the theory
of the Hatch Act, that you shall not do certain things if you are a
public employee.
It was the wisdom of the Congress at that time that that was the
only way you could be realistic about it.
We believe that the sophistication of the public and the media ex-
posure, the opening of government through the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act and the type of ethical and moral development in this Nation
with respect to political processes over the years has made that type of
theory no longer viable.
But in lieu of saying to the Federal employee "Thou shall not,"
what we are suggesting to this committee is that the committee say
with respect to the prohibitions against coercion and with respect to
? the penalties that the committee say "Thou shall not" in a criminal
law sense.
That leaves no doubt thou shall not coerce, thou shall not take repri-
sals, and I think if you use that fundamental focus on the approach,
? I see no reason at all why you can't construct regulations and criminal
penalties in an enforcement system that will protect the integrity of
the career service and prevent the manipulation of the bureaucracies
? to the advantage of the benefit of any political party or system. I think
it can be done; just as the Hatch Act initially said to the Federal em-
ployee thou shall not do certain political things, I think we can now
? say to the leaders of the bureaucracies and to the Members of Congress
and to whoever would be in a position to manipulate that bureaucracy
that you shall not manipulate it, that you shall not coerce it, and do
that in a way that would be effective.
I don't see that that is insurmountable at all.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1330 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
1
11tr. GILMAN-. We welcome having any suggestions or drafts in sup-
port of your recommendations.
Mr. PELLERZI. It is a very complicated subject and we will be glad -
and I will make myself available to your staff to give them whatever
assistance they would like to have. It is very complicated.
Mr. GILMAN. Based on your suggestions, if you could submit these
recommendations to the committee they would be extremely helpful
to us.
ME. PELLERZI. I would be glad to.
11r. GARRISON. Our research director has done a lot of research work
on this.
Mr. KOCZAK. I think that our attachment to this document goes into
some of the corrections that have already- taken place.
This act was passed in August of 1939 and it was a period of crisis
and the Congress was preoccupied with all the turmoil both in the
domestic American life and with the international situation.
World War IT was about to begin then.
Since the enactment of the. Hatch Act there has been a long series of
protections already enacted by the Congress which take care of the
specific fears which were then being covered by general legislation.
The. Hatch Act was a catch-all legislation to try to include all kinds
of specific activities for which there was no explicit legislation.
I believe that the Commission itself does have on the record, and
Congress has enacted, laws on a whole series of other regulations
which have addressed these problems which are covered generally
by the Hatch Act, so that. we no longer need the Hatch Act as a gen-
eral blanket to cover certain types of activities.
I think this is one of the elements that the Commission has not
kept in mind.
Conflict of interest has been rather clearly defined. We have a great
deal of experience in political decisions on this.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your comments.
Gentlemen, do you believe that the amendments t.(-) the Hatch Act
would result in a more willful participation or more forced partici-
pation in politics?
Mr. GARRISON. Much more.
Mr. CLAY. Could you explain that for us?
Mr. GARRISON. Well, my experience as a Federal employee and my
experience in representing Federal. employees for 16 or 17 years, some
Federal workers really are afraid to get, too mixed up in politics, and
some Federal employees really hide behind the Hatch Act as a way
to get out of participating or voting or any others which they say
well, they are prohibited to participate, so they have no voice in the
- political activities.
Mr. CLAY. Of course, in the latter category, then, you are going
to have, those who are going to be forced to participate because they
could no longer use it as a shield.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. PELLERZI. Not if we draft this bill properly, they shouldn't be
able to he forced to participate.
Mr. CLAY. On page 4, Mr. Garrison, you say you want H.R. 3000 to
grant leave for political purposes. Do you think there may be some
critical areas in government -where that could be a problem; for
example, the Justice Department or Defense or some of the other
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/131cIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
more critical areas where it could disrupt some important activity
by having a mandatory leave?
Mr. GARRISON. I really don't think it would disrupt any operations
or any of the Federal activities.
I think that you always may find some provisions for accepting a
position or to go on leave or to take leave without pay, whatever the
case may be.
Mr. CLAY. Who should be the final judge, then, of who could take
the leave?
Mr. GARRISON. Well, I would assume that it would be the agency
who would be the one who would make the first ruling and, assuming
it would be something in the bill that the Civil Service Commission
would have the final say.
Mr. WILSON. I wonder if you would reintroduce yourselves to us. A
couple of the members came in afterwards and do not realize you are
not Mr. Webber.
Mr. GARRISON. I am Dennis Garrison, the national executive vice
president.
Mr. Webber happened to be out of town, so I am filling in for him.
Mr. GrirmAN. Thank you. I appreciate your clarifying the record.
You suggest at the bottom of page 3 of your testimony that the
Civil Service Commission should consult with employees' unions over
the conflict of interest problems. Could you explain what sort of
consultation you are referring to, what sort of mechanism referred
to
Mr. GARRISON. Yes. Whatever regulation that was provided by the
Commission, that was allowed, I would say, by the bill?I certainly
think before the final regulation goes out by the Civil Service Com-
mission that they should consult with Government employees' unions.
Mr. GILMAN. Well, are you then implying that the unions should
have an opportunity to veto any proposed legislation, any proposed
regulation?
Mr. GARRISON. Absolutely not.
Mr. CLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
This is a standard procedure in Government. We put it in all types
of legislation giving those people affected by regulation the right to
comment in writing about the regulation that would affect them. It
doesn't ,ffive them any right to veto.
Mr. GIL1VIAN. Is that what you are implying in your testimony?
Mr. GARRISON. Mr. Chairman, we have national rights with about
34 different agencies in the department already, and on all of the
regulations that goes out the bulk of the Federal employees,
we do have a right to be consulted and to make our recommendations
known prior to the :finalizing of the regulation that affects the Federal
employees.
Mr. GILMAN. You have spent a considerable amount of time in
reviewing the, definition of political activity. Do you feel that the
terms political activity and merit principle are mutually exclusive?
MT. GARRISON. I don't think so, no.
Mr. GILMAN. Could you explain that for us?
Mr. PELLERZI. Yes, Mr. Gilman. The Hatch Act has permitted a
certain degree of political activity by Federal employees consistent
with merit principles. To look at the Federal bureaucracies today,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1ii,CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
having lived under the 'Hatch Act, and say that it :will be like that in
the future if you open it up without the kind of protections that we
are talking about may be questionable' however2 we see no incon-
sistency between merit principles and political activities.
Political activity is a constitutional right.
The present Hatch Act and its enforcement by the CSC and by
heads of agencies in the excepted service makes a distinction between
taking an active part in political campaigns and taking an active part
in political management and taking an active part as a candidate, and
those three levels of activity, political campaignim, on behalf of an
individual Federal employee to get out into the street with a leaflet Or
whatever, to go to a convention, to take a role in that convention, and
so on, is one type of activity; to manage a campaii-,!?n, to be an officer
of a political party, to be on a committee, to be a ).olitical manager,
is another type of activity; and to be a candidate is a third type of
activity.
It is obvious that the bill allows candidacy. The amendments to the
Federal Campaign Act with respect to State-funded activities did not
go that far.
But I would think that with appropriate safeguards built into the
bill that all three of these levels are consistent with merit principle
and indeed in the impacted areas in the District of Columbia here, and
a half dozen other places in the country, the Civil Service Commission
under the present act has authorized Federal employees to participate.
in political campaigns on a "nonpartisan basis" which is really not
nonpartisan.
So the answer to that quest ion is that you are not incompatible.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, MT. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Harris?
Mr. HARRIS. I just have a couple of quick-questions.
I appreciate your testimony; it is very much to this point.
As I was reflecting on this, it occurred to me that there are a number
of political activities that are permitted. to the Federal employee now;
is that correct? He can make contributions to a candidate, if I under-
stand it?
Mr. GARRISON. That's right. He can. And be can, of course, vote for
the candidate of his choice. And
Mr. HARRIS. He can speak at a meeting and that sort of thing.
My point is, as I reflect on it, it occurs to me that that type of activity.
is more susceptible to subtle coercion than the type of activity that is.
authorizedin addition by this bill, and _I would like to have your re-
action to it.
It seems to me it would be hard to use coercion to have a guy run as.
a candidate for office, and actually the area that Mr. Clay's bill pro-
poses to open up for the Federal employee actually says in the past you
have been authorized to be one of the troops, we are going to let you
assume some positions of leadership, and it seems to'ine-e-and I don't
know how you would react to this, and I would like to hear it?it is.
harder to use coercion by a supervisor to get them to de that than the
things he is already authorized to do.
Mr. PELLERZL Well, I believe Mr. Wilson, in a question and Con-
gressman Fauntroy said we know how subtle coercion can be and I
think, Mr. Harris, that is what you are aiming at.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/131WIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
I think you are?based on my experience your perception of the
problem is absolutely on target.
The kinds of things that are now permissible and the kinds of things
that would in political parlance translate into mass services, mass
participation, being down there at night stuffing the envelopes and
ringing the doorbells and hauling people around and patina out a
crowd at the rally, those things are subject to the type or subtle
coercion we are talking about.
But I would say that in order to free them up and to insulate
against the abuse of it, you have to deal with the bigger problem of
people relationships. In answer to Mr. Gilman, a bigger problem in-
volves employees at their level trying to distort this for purposes of
promotion or career movement rather than coercion.
You have the idea of using this outside the merit system to advance
their own interest.
Here again I think that the law has to be drawn so that you don't
gain merit advantage or merit system advantage by political activity.
So I would answer your question by saying in effect that there is
a certain degree of coercion that comes from just having that freed
up Within a hierarchal system and that is going to Come when a super-
visor's politic is known.
The people under him, just being human beings, are going to do
-certain things in his favor and if they can make some advancement
in the career as a result of it, they are undoubtedly going to do it.
The system then permits it and the system has to be designed to
stop that.
The type of coercion that you are talking about is the same type
of thing that occurs when a new Attorney General is appointed; for.
example, when Tom Clark was appointed Attorney General he wore
a bow tie and all of a sudden there were bow ties all over Justice.
Well, this kind of thing is going to take place.
When you have a supervisor who is known as a staunch Democrat
or Republican and everybody is free to participate, this thing is going
to happen.
But I think appropriate provisions of the law to make sure it doesn't
result in somebody getting the promotion outside the merit system or
it doesn't result in a reprisal against somebody who doesn't want to
take, part is what is going to have to be done at that very low level.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your excellent testimony this morning.
We will be getting in touch with your staff in terms of getting together
with what you think ought to be put into the bill.
? Mr. GARRISON. We would be happy to cooperate with you.
Resolution, obviously, can come only from the Congress. The Su-
preme Court, in its decision of June, 1973, in the case U.S. Civil Service
Conmission V. National Association of Letter Carriers, held that the
Hatch Act is constitutional, that the Congress is empowered to forbid
.employees from engaging in partisan political activity and that the
language of the act is not overbroad or vague.
Writing for the Court, Justice White said:
The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interest of the
-employee as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern, and the
-interest of the government, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
134
services it performs through its employees. Although Congress is free to strike
a different balance than It has if it so chooses.
Perhaps Congress at some time will come to a different view of the realities
of political life and government service.
It is our hope that the Congress has now come to that "different
view," and will act affirmatively to grant Federal Workers the right to
participate in the public affairs of their communities, their States and
the Nation.
Any attempt to analyze the impact of the Hatch Act must start with
a viewing of the law in relation to the historical period of its enactment.
In response to pressure to investigate alleged use of relief work
funds for political purposes, Congress established a bipartisan com-
mittee in 1938. The deliberation of the "Sheppherd committee" resulted
in 16 recommendations which formed the basis for the anticorruption
bill introduced by Senator Hatch.
Mr. CLAY. The next witness will be Mr. Kenneth Lyons.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH LYONS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPA-
NIED BY ALAN S. WHITNEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT;
MICHAEL RISELLI, GENERAL COUNSEL; AND GARY ALTMAN,
DIRECTOR, RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
Mr. LYONS, My name is Kenneth T. Lyons, national president of the
National Association of Government Employees.
To my right is Alan Whitney. executive vice president ; to my left
is Michael Riselli, general counsel; and at the end of my table, to my
left is Gary Altman, director of our research department.
Mr. Chairman, at the Outset, may I express the thanks of our orga-
nization to the subcommittee for its initiative in addressing the critical
question of the lack of political franchise of Federal employees.
Few subjects have generated more debate and less action than the
advisability of amending or eliminating the statutory restrictions on
Federal employee activity as set forth in the Hatch Act. Speaking for
the National Association of Government Employees, we are happy
indeed that this subcommittee has taken the all-important step of hold-
ing public hearings on this issue.
However, of these 16 proposals, only 8 related specifically to politi-
cal activity, and they dealth essentially with the appropriating of
funds for political purposes, the buying and selling of civil service
positions and the contribution of political donations by Federal em-
ployees.
Although these points addressed by the Sheppherd committee were
written into the Hatch Act, the law went further and restricted all
partisan political activities by Federal employees and other public
employees paid with federally administered funds. Initially, an em-
ployee found to have violated the act faced dismissal from his job, the
penalties, however, have been lessened by amendments over the years.
Section 9a of the original law (codified in chapter 72, U.S.C., title 5)
restricted political activity on the part of administrative or super-
visory personnel. This section generated much debate in the House
in 1939.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
135'
Congressman Hobbs, with only minor overstatement, warned:
If you do this thing, you not only violate the Constitution, you not only violate
every natural right of every citizen in the United States, but you divest him
of citizenship and you have set up the process of disintegration whereby the
government "of the people and for the people" will have begun to perish from
the earth.
And Congressman Kennedy added:
I think there should be another amendment to this bill, and that amendment
should provide a lawyer for every W.P.A. worker because I do not know how
any citizen can be xpected to know his rights if we pass this bill.
But the warnings of these perceptive individuals went unheeded,
and the result has been to deprive Federal workers for nearly 40 years
of one of the most basic and integral rights accompanying membership
in a Democratic society. And the effect of the inequity has grown
enormously: in 1939 the act appliedto about 500,000 e mploees ; to-
day, there are more than 21/2 million Federal workers.
From our analysis of the debates preceding passage of the Hatch
Act, it appears that only two extremes were considered: no restrictions
at all and complete restriction on partisan political activity. That Con-
gress responded to the clamor for reform by adopting the harshest
extreme is regrettable, but not surprising. Had Congress attention
been more appropriately focused on the corruption aspects of the
issue, we believe that it most likely would have enacted more moderate
legislation which would have done less damage to the important and.
sensitive first amendment rights of the individuals affected.
The decline of the so-called Little Hatch Act provides an mud-
ogous situation to the Federal statute, which exemplifies the grow-
ing public and legal sentiment against laws restricting the political
activities of public employees. Most States have on their books legis-
lation limiting political activity similar to the Hatch Act. However,
there is a growing tendency on the part of State courts to question
these statutes, with the central question being whether they strike
an appropriate balance between the public's right to a politically
untainted civil service and the individual's right to full citizenship.
A State has the authority, as does the Federal Government, to
restrict the activities of its employees in the political sphere if this
is done within reasonable bounds in accordance with the principles
set forth in 1947 by the Supreme Court in its noted Mitchell decision.
However, State courts have gone beyond the doctrine of Mitchell and
further required that any limitations of first amendment rights must
be justified by a clear public interest and directly threatened evils.
The California Supreme Court articulated this "rational relation-
ship" requirement as follows:
(1) That the political restraints rationally relate to the enhancement of
public service,
(2) That the benefits which the public gains by the restraints outweigh the
resulting impairment of constitutional rights and,
(3) That no alternative less subversive of constitutional rights are available.
State court decisions offer a variety of standards which Congress
may consider in reevaluating the desired extent of Federal legislation
in the area of ,political activity. More important, these standards
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
136
generally offer a different and more relevant rationale than that
enunciated sonic 28 years ago in the Mitchell decision.
These respective State court rulings have required that there be
a compelling: public interest, or a rational relationship between those'
standards adopted and the legislative goals sought. This is a major
step beyond the "reasonable limits" standard set forth in Mitchell.
In dealing with such sensitive issues as first amendment rights,
we believe that the statutory provisions must be clearly defined so that
there is no room for doubt or confusion. Also, the objective of efficiency
and integrity in civil service must be carefully balanced against those
negative effects which necessarily accompany the imposition of
restrictions on political activity.
In our view, the present law does not constitute a proper balance.
We concur with the Federal District Court in the case of Howse? v.
Taft, when it said:
Whatever the current status of Mitchell as law, it appear.; that the facts of
Mitchell's words are not the facts of life today.
In 1966, Congress established the Commission on Political Activity.
on Government Employees. The Commission was charged with the
responsibility of making a complete study of laws which limit or
discourage the participation of Federal employees in political
activities.
After nearly a full year's work, and hearings held in six cities, the
Commission offered 10 recommendations, which to this date have
not been adopted. H.R. 3000 incorporates those recommendations
which the Commission proposed. However, the bill also deals with
the dilemma which was not resolved by the Commission, that is,
whether Government employees Should be allowed to run for public
office. The National Association of Governm.ent Employees is in
complete agreement with section 7324, which would permit a Federal
employee to take an active part in political activity.
The State courts, in discussing the issue of candidacy for elected
public office, stated that precautions should be taken against situations
where a public service employee might run against his Superior. Other-
wise, they have not spoken authoritatively on the candidacy question.
It is conceivable that full-time candidacy could misdirect an em-
ployee's attention from his work and this should be prevented. The Na-
tional Association of Government Employees believes that leaves of
absence could be permitted to encourage political participation, as. is
done by some private employers.
'While we believe it would be beneficial to liberalize those provisions
restricting political activity, we also believe that the penalities for
coercion and solicitation of contributions for political purposes while
on duty are not strong enough and are in need of revision.
In the interest of achieving the objective enunciated by the Commis-
sion on political activity, that is, to enact narrow and specific legisla-
tion, we recommend that the subcommittee consider incorporating sec-
tion 1622 of the Commission's proposed bill into section 7323 of H.R.
3000. The Commission proposal cites specific examples ,.runder the gen-
eral heading of "Coercion, Solicitation, Illegal Payments, and Pro-
hibited Activities," and would provide a useful standard for the guid-
ance of employees.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :pltk-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
To restate, Mr. Chairman. some of the points which we made in our
1967 testimony before the Commission it is our positon that we are
dealing here not only with the right of employees to participate on a
partisan basis in the governmental affairs of their communities, but
also with the right of their communities to the full participation of
those individuals who can bring intelligence and dedication to bear on
the critical problems facing our local jurisdictions.
If the political structure of a community is alone' partisan lines, then
we feel that it works against good government tt7O force Federal em-
ployees to limit their participation to nonpartisan activities.
The implication also has been advanced that Federal employees
possess more political freedom under the existing law than many care
to exercise.
Regrettably, we must agree that this is so. However, it constitutes no
rationale for limiting anyone's political rights. We doubt that anyone
would seriously suggest that because a substantial percentage of the
eligible American electorate fails to vote in a general election it con-
stitutes justification for restricting the political rights of the general
In conclusion, we believe that the interests of both the individual
employee and of the public demand that Federal workers be accorded
the basic right to participate fully, in a partisan fashion if they desire,
in political activities.
With appropriate safegnards, there is little threat in this direction to
the principles of impartiality, efficiency and merit which are the basic
foundations of the career civil service.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
We have heard extensive testimony before this committee that in
some way RR 3000 would be enacted that it would tend to erode
the Federal merit system. Would you give us your opinion in regards to
this?
Mr. WrirrNEy. I would like to respond to that and also subscribe to a
response to that same question which has been offered in earlier testi-
mony.
We do not believe that this is an accurate assessment of the poten-
tial impact of the passage of this legislation. The merit system has
many deficiencies as it stands today and in many employees' opinions,
there is much to be desired and much progress must be made to achieve
what the Civil Service Commission would have us believe presently
exists, which is a merit system.
But nonetheless, with appropriate safeguards, there is little to fear,
in our opinion, from this area,.
Mr. CLAY. One of the greatest fears that has been expressed regard-
ing the enactment of this bill is that there would be coercion on the
part of supervisors toward personnel working under- them.
Do you feel. that if we took your recommendation of incorporating
section 1622 of the .Commission's- proposed bill into our section 5 that
this will be adequate protection against coercion?
Mr. LYONS. I think it would, and I further believe that you're bound
to have some coercion. I think that that goes on constantly in Our goy-,
ernment Service whether it would relate to violations of ,the Heal
Act the merit -system,: or anything else.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
But I do think you have enough safeguards here that certainly
unions would be able to step in and protect the rights of the
individuals.
Mr. ALTMAN. Looking back the last 3 or 4 years to the Commission's
experience, in fact, there weren't many examples of coercion being
brought before them. What the Commission says, "If new language
is introduced into the bill, this would encourage employees to bring
forth examples of coercion they think is being perpetrated against
them."
So, we feel that the new language might serve as an advantage and
that is why we recommend the examples in 1622 which, with one minor
addition to include sections A and B, but only after 3(c) we would in-
clude, because that, in fact, deals with political activity which our bill
does recommend.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
.Mr. Harris.
Mr. IlAanis. I have no additional questions, Mr. Chairman. I appre-
ciate the testimony very much.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
We certainly want to thank you for coming this morning and giv-
cr us your insight on this very controversial and very important area
and we will be contacting you in terms of modifying and revising the
proposed bill.
The next witness is Mr. Nathan Wolkomir, president of the National
Federation of Federal Employees.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPAKLED BY
GEORGE TILTON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. Womiumni. For the record I am Dr. Nathan Wolkomir, presi-
dent of the National Federation of Federal Employees, and with ma is
Mr. George Tilton, who is the deputy general counsel, of the national
federation.
The particular length of our statement today, of course, is because I
feel like the man who is wearing the left shoe on the tight foot today,
but after our many years of experience in the Government I believe
that our testimony or our statement if read in depth would give an in-
sight slightly different than some of that heard this morning. There is a
special significance in our appearance in these hearings in that we are
the pioneer union of the career Federal employees and the largest
independent union of such workers in the United States.
I say this, Mr. Chairman and members of the col-Jim ittee, because one
of the most constructive and essential objectives achieved by the
NFFE in our more than 58 years of service was to give our whole-
hearted support to those members of the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives who in the 1930's saw so clearly the need for the legis-
lation which had been introduced by Senator Carl Hatch and which
still bears his name.
Mr: Chairman, our support for that legislation then as now was
based upon long, intimate, and sometimes very harsh experience. In-
deed, the Hatch Act came into being because of an unqualified, demon-
strated, and urgent need for that measure which was designed both in
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/131A1A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
the national interest and to protect career employeeS from a whole
gamut of abuses to which they had been subjected despite enactment of
the first Federal civil service law, the Pendleton Act, in 1883.
We believe that Federal employees should have the same basic free-
doms accorded to all American citizens, modified only by reasonable
and acceptable conditions which experience has shown are in the mu-
tual interest of the employees, the Government, and the people they
serve. Determining the nature and extent of those conditions can be
and indeed is the subject of debate, and in effect is the subject of these
important hearings.
We wish to express our conviction, based on long experience antece-
dent to enactment of the Hatch Act, that a strong law soundly ad-
ministered is today more than ever essential. Graphic evidence to this
effect, which I will present in our testimony as only one example of
many, is available in events even now in todays' news spotlight.
At the same time, the NFFE not only recognizes but urges upon
Federal employees the fullest participation in our cherished political
process consonant with their role and special responsibilities as Fed-
eral employees. It is our understanding that it is the purpose of H.R.
3000 and the related bill to modify the present restrictions on Federal
and by example, State and local employee participation in the electoral
process. The extent to which present restrictions on such participation
cnn be relaxed, however, without seriously compromising the purposes
of the law, and indeed ultimately its employee proteCtions, is a matter
of concern to which the most careful consideration must be given.
There has come into circulation, repeatedly, a claim which we believe
to be without merit, that the Hatch Act makes "second class citizens"
of career Federal employees.
The NFFE does not share belief in the validity of this catch-phrase
which does indeed have a certain convincing sound to it. But an exam-
ination of the facts of the case, as in the facts of life, does not bear
out the charge that the Hatch Act places an unconscionable stigma
upon Federal employees. Rather, that law affords them ample oppor-
tunity to take a meaningful part in the political process and at the -
same time it provides them with protections against improper, inap-
propriate and sometimes extortionate demands upon them for partisan
political funds, campaign activities, and a. wide variety of related
chores.
I would call to the attention of this committee, the Hatch Act orig-
inally , Was sponsored by the NFFE in response to an imperative
demand from onr members and others who were witnesses to the
innumerable abuses widespread prior to the enactment of the law.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are told by some groups and by their spokes-
men in various forums, that it would be possible and indeed essential
to maintain those employee protections from politically motivated de-
mands while at the same time removing virtually all meaningful re-
strictions against all-out partisan political campaigning by Federal
civil service employees.
I speak for the scores of thousands of thoughtful public-spirited
members of the NFFE when I state to the committee that neither I
nor they believe that one can have his cake and eat it too.
All human experience, and certainly all experience in this area of
activity, proves beyond doubt that you simply can't have it both ways
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1hbCIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
in the real world. it is, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
an illusion to believe that with no holds barred, with Federal em-
ployees permitted to go all out, there would be no eventual fallout,
no quid pro quo demanded, and, I should emphasize, no reaction of
outrage from the taxpayers of this Nation.
The NFFE was cognizant from its inception in 1917 that the then
existing civil service law, the Pendleton Act of 1883 and certain regu-
lations restrictive of political activity which had been issued follow-
ing its enactment, were simply not adequate to provide careerFederal
employees and the Federal service as a whole with the protections
needed from improper partisan political pressures.
During the 1930's, the need for legislative action became impera-
tive?so apparent., in fact that, Congress acted. On August 2, 1939,
President Roosevelt signed the Hatch Act into law.
The National Federation of Federal Employees, which had mounted
a massive, nationwide campaign on behalf of the merit system and in
opposition to the extensive spoilsmanship of the times threw its sup-
port strongly behind Senator Carl Hatch's bill.
By and large, the evidence is persuasive that Federal employees
want the Hatch Act to remain in full force and effect. Although the
Hatch Act?as with any legislation on any problem?has not provided
all of the answers, nor the perfect solution, certainly there can be no
reasonable doubt that it has served an immensely important and in-
deed indispensable function in the three decades which have elapsed
since its enactment.
I might note here for the record, Mr. Chairman, that at NFFE na,
tional conventions since enactment of the Hatch Act?including our
most recent, namely, that of 1974?resolutions calling for strengthen-
ing of the protections of the law, and warning against its weakening,
have been adopted, and usually by unanimous action. Also, a question-
naire sent to ourlcicals on this issue several years ago elicited a similar
firm response. Further detailed reference is made to these results
elsewhere_ in. my testimony.
However, this is not to say that improvements cannot be made in. the
present law.
There may be need for legislation: The, only question?and I will
grant it, was not formerly and is not now one which lends itself to:
easy solution or glib catchwords?it is the form-the legislation should
take. There was to be a meeting of minds on how to best resolve tha
equities in the situation; how to permit Federal employees to take
part in the political process and at the same time to protect them from
the kind of demands to which as public employees, they would be most
acutely vulnerable.
The American people have become. disillusioned?fed up,----with the;
spectacle of public workers engaged in unlimited and uninhibited poli-
tical campaigning for special candidates and parties?or working
against them, mel tiding incumbents?for months and sometimes years
before national elections, The career Federal employees felt them-
selves "naked to the world". as they were urgently pressed for funds
and for services often by opposing candidates. There is no mistaking
the portents of these demands; either Come across,nr your job or your
promotion is in jeopardy depending tip the results of the election.
.? This was an .uncOnscionable situation: and it remains so because of
lax enforcement by the Civil Service Commission and, in the recent
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
141
past, by the unwillingness of the Department of Justice to act on par-
ticularly flagrant Hatch Act violations.
Over the years, Mr. Chairman, there have been modifications in the
Hatch Act which properly permit participation by Federal employees
in certain strictly local elections and in areas of heavy Federal worker
population.
Such modifications we have supported. But this, of course, is not
what the organizations and others sponsoring the present proposed
legislation have in mind. What they make plain is that they seek a
Situation in which virtually anything can go where participation is
concerned but, they hasten to add, they want this while not giving up
any of the protections now afforded by the Hatch Act to those who
believe in the spirit as well as the letter of the civil service merit
system.
If I may be permitted to say so, Mr. Chairman, they have the naive
belief that it is possible to be "a little bit pregnant." Our view is that
such a concept defies nature, it defies rationality, and it defies and
negates the special nature of public employment.
I
respectfully request the indulgence of the chairman and members
of this subcommittee while quoting from the recent "Background"
release issued by the subcommittee, as :
FI.R. 3000 would enable Federal civilian and postal employees to participate.
more actively in the democratic political process. It authorizes voluntary political
contributions by employees. It permits employees to express their views and
to participate in political management of campaigns without the involvement
of their authority or influence. It defines the meaning of political management
and campaigns to include the following activities: Candidacy for service in
political conventions; participation in political meetings, caucuses and primaries;
preparing for, organizing or conducting a political meeting or rally; member-
ship in political clubs ; distributing campaign literature and distributing or
wearing campaign badges and buttons; having a publishing, editorial or man-
agerial connection with political publications ; participating in a political parade;
circulating nominating petitions; and candidacy for any public office.
We call your attention to only three of the activities enumerated..
They are namely: Preparing for organizing or conducting a political
meeting or rally; having a publishing, editorial or managerial con-
nection with political publications; and candidacy for any public.
office.
Are we really naive enough to believe that sections 7323 and 73'25
of the proposed prohibitions' enforcement, and penalties will bear
any greater impact than similar controls have to date? We call the
attention of the committee to the report prepared by a panel of the
National Academy of Public Administration at the request of the
Senate select committee. It is dated March 1974 and termed "Water-
gate: Its Implications for Responsible Government,"
I quote from the epilog only, as follows:
Most of this report has concerned, directly or indirectly, the subject of ethics
of public service. So did most of the hearings before the Senate Select Committee..
The investigative power of the Congress is a more effective instrument than
the criminal procedures of the courts in exposing, and thereby protecting tho.
public from, ,unethieal behavior on the part of its officials.
Many of the actions associated with Watergate, the burglary of offices, the
forgery of a letter, the laundering of money through Mexico, etc., were clearly
criminal. But, in their relation to the national interest they were quite
What Was important was the attitudes of mind, the modes of conspiring, and.
the narrow "goals of those behind them. Most of these kinds of matters: lie
beyond the range of criminal law..
52--137---75 --10
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/131SA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Public officials are of course bound by the same criminal laws as apply to
other citizens. But their obligations to the public as a whole entail an additional
and more rigorous set of standards and constraints associated with the concept
of public trust. Many practices which are permissible, even normal, in the
private sector are, or should be, forbidden in government: the acceptance of
certain kinds of gifts, the discussion of appointments under certain circumstances,
the promise or threat of governmental action under some circumstances, the
carrying and secreting of large amounts of cash, the withholding of information
to which the public should be alerted, and, conversely, the leaking or other
disclosure of other kinds of information which should be private.
One of the characteristics of many of those implicated in Watergate was their
perception of the roles and responsibilities of government, a perception which
was at best simplistic, and at worst venal and dangerous. A democratic govern-
ment is not a family business, dominated by its patriarch; nor is it a military
battalion, or a political campaign headquarters. It is a producing organization
which belongs to its members; and it is the only such organization whose mem-
bers include all the citizens within its jurisdiction. Those who work for and
are paid by government are ultimately servants of the whole citizenry, which
owns and supports the government.
Complementary to the ingenuousness of the appreciation of the sense of the
word "public" in these recent developments was the army rent lack of under-
standing of "service." In a society in which sovereignty presumably rests in
the people, it is indispensable that its officials be regarded and regard them-
selves as servants, not masters, of the people. They must have and exercise
powers, but their powers are delegated, usually for temporary periods.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the three separated proposals are
particularly inopportune and untimely in view of the trauma through
which our country has passed. There was much more to the Watergate
syndrome than just that one break-in. It includes, for example, the
odious so-called Malek plan, a. detailed, specific, and almost incredibly
arrogant. program to subvert the civil service system. Moreover, we
have seen what failure to enforce the laws enacted by Congress with
respect to corporate and other political contributions as led to: a
sordid picture in our national life.
I ask the members of this committee whether in their considered
judgment this is the. time in the history of our country to open the
floodgates of all-out political campaigning and contributing by em-
ployees serving the whole. people and for the weakening of the pro-
visions of the Hatch Act from a return to the widespread abuses of
yesteryear; provisions which although less than adequate now, are
useful. Indeed., it is the confident belief of the NFFE that the kind of
results which would inevitably flow from the deep changes in the
Hatch Act called for would result in a strong and unfavorable reac-
tion from the American people, as it certainly would from all thought-
ful and pragmatic career employees. This reaction, of course, would
not. come from politically motivated lobbyists for special interests.
There are, we readily grant, some who sincerely believe that the
Hatch Act in some improper way makes them what. they insist on
calling themselves, namely, 'second class citizens."
But I can assure the committee that that is not the view of the
NFFE and in our judgment it would not be the view of the over-
whelming majority of all Federal employees who thought the issue
through and who have had some experience with the kind of abuses
which the Hatch Act seeks to curb and hopefully eliminate.
The Hatch Act, as I have indicated, did not get onto the statute
books because Congress just awakened one morning" and decided to
pass that law. Rather, enactment of the Hatch Act was the culmina-
tion of many long decades of harsh, deplorable experiences and its
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13141A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
passage was supported by a very representative range of the Amer-
ican people, in the press and in the Congress, and certainly among
employees, so many of whom had felt directly, and on the job, the
pressures which we have been discussing.
The NFFE as an organization of patriotic and concerned men and
women, and I as President of that union, yield to none, in our com-
mitment to the political process which undergirds our great American
democracy. But we also are only too keenly aware that that process
itself, which provides for a nonpartisan career service in behalf of
the whole people, can be and indeed all too frequently has been com-
promised by actions which violate the letter and the spirit of both
the Pendleton Act and the Hatch Act?the latter so vitally comple-
menting the former.
Moreover, the NFFE carries on a continuing campaign to urge all
of our members and their families to take the most important action
of all in the political process, namely, registering and voting in all
elections at whatever level of government.
It is ironical to note that some who are so eager to emasculate the
I-latch Act may be among the many millions of American citizens
who, tragically in our view, fail to exercise the basic, all-important
right of franchise.
I have reason to believe, Mr. Chairman, that while the overwhelm-
ing majority of members of the NFFE oppose tampering with the
Thatch Act, either with its restrictions or its protections, they are for,
the most part very mindful of the right, privilege, and duty to regis-
ter and vote.
To those who, for various reasons take the. position that Federal
employees cannot further their own special interests under the pres-
ent Hatch Act restrictions, I would reply on at least two counts. First,
when NFFE members og to the polls they do so as American citizens,
concerned above all with the best interests of our country, and if
read them correctly after many years of direct contact with these
employees, I can say without equivocation that they vote the national
interest above all else.
The NFFE exists for the purpose of -both bettering the lot of the
Federal employee and to improve the Federal Government in its pub-
lic service functions. We, therefore, feel any amendment to the Hatch
Act to allow partisan political activity should have included a prohibi-
tion against the use of Government time for their purpose. Federal
employees should not be barred from participating in political activi-
ties, whether they be the campaigning for partisan candidates, the
circulation of nominating petitions, or the distribution of campaign
material in elections. These activities, though, should not be permitted
while in the on-duty employ of the Federal Government.
It is our contention, Mr, Chairman, that Federal employees should
not be able to run for political office themselves. They should resign
employment if they are candidate minded.
In NFFE's opinion, the strength of the Hatch Act lies in its en-
joinment of any employee of the Federal service against using his
official authority or influence to coerce the political action of any
Person. Other sections proscribe requests by any Federal -employee of
another Federal employee for funds for political purposes.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/144pIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
These provisions buttress the merit system. Mr. Chairman, you
have sought. to strengthen other sections of the existing law by a
revision of the language used. We endorse the liberalization but other
changes are unquestionably a foreboding of evil.
The opportunity to exercise coercion or influence for political pur-
poses was demonstrated in recent months when officials in the Fed-
eral Supply Service of the General Services Administration were
found in voila:rim of the Hatch Act for having solicited contribu-
tions to a $500-a-plate "Salute to the President" dinner, by means:
of a lottery.
We believe this violation of the Hateh Act points up a deficiency
in the presently existing law. Six FSS officials were found by the
Civil Service Commission to have violated the Hatch. Act and, as a
result, received suspensions ranging.. from 30 days, the minimum, to.
ej0 days. While these penalties resulted in a loss of pay and a nota-
tion in their personnel files, we do not believe that proper instioe
was dispensed for a flagrant violation of title 18 of the United States
Code, where the facts are indisputable and un.a.ssailable.
We have contended that the Justice Department should conduct
its own investigation of the matter and bring indictments against
these officials if found warranted, as we believe they are. They are
playing hide and seek today.
We believe that where the Civil Service Commission has unani-
mously found that a violation of the Mitch Act has occurred, but
where dismissal of the employee is not ordered by the Commission,
the Attorney General should be required to prosecute these cases.
It. is crucial to the well being of our Government and all of its em-
ployees that there be an opportunity to investigate not solely those
officials named, but the political -fundraising, generally, in the agency
or building involved. As in the GSA instance, much of the money
raised is still not accounted for as to who purchased lottery tickets.
These. employees, too, are in violation of the Hatch Act. There is no
doubt that a Justice Department inquiry should have been of a wider
scone.
We believe that the injection of political influence into the merit
system. no matter what administration should be in office, should not.
take a back seat in the orderly drive for justice. Only mandating in
law for the Justice. Department to begin criminal proeeedings against
those found by the CSC to be violative of the Hatch Act will assure
that no white-wash can occur, and that all of the facts and truth will.
be ascertained.
In the main, the NFFF, finds that the. need for a strong statute, with
strong penalties for its violation, is certain to be even more urgent in
the future than it has been in the past:. The Hatch Act, by and large,
has -proved an indispensable adjunct of the whole merit concept in
public employment.
Mr. .Chairman, in the preceding portion of our testimony, I have
stated our views on the pending legislation and also have given special
attention to certain recent events violative of the Hatch Act, such
as the GSA cases, which we believe give graphic emphasis to the
need for maintaining and indeed .strengthening the legislative :pro-
tections and certainly the administration of the law.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/134IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
In the following portion of my testimony, I wish to develop some-
what more fully the background of our continuing support for a strong
Hatch Act soundly administered?why we were among the original
sponsors of the law and have supported it since its enactment--and why
we are convinced that a weakening of its protections would be con-
trary to the best interests of all; the people of our country, the Govern-
ment, and the employees directly concerned.
At the same time, the NFFE not only recognizes but urges upon
Federal employees the fullest participation in our priceless democratic
political procesS consonant with their role as Federal employees, serv-
ing all American citizens in so many ways from day to day and
-carrying on the vital business of Government from administration to
administrati on.
When, the NFFE was formed, a very large percentage of all Federal
'employees were still outside the civil service and their jobs were
.subject to patronage appointment and pressures.
Moreover, MI Federal employees, whether or not their jobs were
under civil service, were than and for many years thereafter subject
to politically motivated pressures and virtually outright assessments
for funds were the rule rather than the exception.
A first order of business for the newly organized NFFE in 1917
was to exert all influence end persuasiveness available to it, including
,a broad-scale national educational program which continues to the
present day, designed to bring about the extension of civil service to
,cover large numbers of then "excepted" positions.
I shall not burden the record with a review of the long. arduous
'effort in that direction to which our. union has devoted itself for the
past 58 ? years, and of the varying degrees of success attained.
The NFFE was cognizant, from the outset, that the civil service law,
the Pendleton Act of 1883, and certain regulations restrictive of polit-
? ical activity which had been issued following its enactment, were
? simply not adequate to provide career Federal employees and the
Federal service as a whole with the protections from partisan political
pressures which are so essential in the national and public interest.
This became especially urgent and insistently clear during the 1930's
when, in the words of Prof. Pat' P. Van Riper in his authoritative
"History - of the United. States Civil Service," we 'experienced a
.prolonged "patronage binge." in the widely quoted book "Spoils," that
period was referred to as "The New Gold Rush." -
The imperative need for legislative action then became so obvious, so
:apparent to the Nation generally, that Congress acted. First, the merit
Tsystem was broadly extended by legislative action to cover many
thousands of previously -"excepted" jobs and, in a concomitant step,
the Hatch. Political Activities Act Was passed. -
The NFFE, which had mounted a massive, nationwide campaign
in behalf of the merit system and in opposition of the rampant spoils-
-manship of the firnes---a campaign 'WhiCh drew alinost universal edi-
torial backing in the Nation's press?threw its support strongly
'behind Senator Carl Hatch's bill.
We reaffirm that unequivocal support. The NFFE views with grave
-concern violations of the spirit and/or letter of the Hatch Act as well
as persistent efforts to deprive career employees of the protections of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
146
the law and to throw the whole public, service open to unbridled politi-
cal activity.
At this point I repeat the record to again disclose that at successive
national conventions of the NFFE, resolutions in support of mainte-
nance of a strong and meaningful political activities law have been
adopted unanimously.
Moreover, in order to secure a timely reading Of the sentiment of
our union on this highly important issue, and in anticipation of the
then Commission on Political Activities of Government Employees
study, we sent to our locals a questionnaire devoted solely to the Hatch
Act.
An analysis of replies received reveals that a heavy 89 percent. of
the total expressed strong support for continuing the act "as is."
Approximately 10 percent would not, object to very careful and
minor modification of the act, principally to permit somewhat fuller
participation in strictly local elections and especially in those areas
with a substantial Federal employee population.
Only a scant 1 percent of those replying suggested that the act should
be repealed.
On the basis of our more than half century of experience, and our
daily close contacts with Federal employees at all levels and in virtu-
ally all Federal departments and agencies. it is our firm conviction
that this cross-section of opinion expressed. by Locals of the NFFF: is
equally representative, of the views of career employees generally.
IVe are quite aware, of course, as I am sure the committee is, that
while, those who seek to destroy the, Hatch Act. for all practical pur-
poses as a bulwark of the merit system, are, relatively few in number
they are very vocal and their arguments follow an ol.d and familiar
pattern.
Various propositions are put forward to support their contention
that the. Hatch .A et should be, repealed or emasculated beyond useful-
ness and viability, but they are almost, invariably summed up by the
cliche catchphrase that "the Hatch Act makes public employees second
class citizens." 'This almost always is supposed to be the devastating
clincher. But, like so many cliches, it has little genuine
The Hatch Act in fact. permits Federal employees about as much
political activity as the average citizen engages in generally. But. as
a quid pro quo for relinquishing the right to engage in completely
uninhibited political partisanship the public employee received in
return?or should?freedom from strong-arm pressures for special
favors, for heavy partisan political contributions, for a hundred and
one partisan election chores on demand. And the miblie is served by
employees who .are concerned first, last, and all, the time, with unbiased
service to them and not to a political party or to any particular can-
didate or candidates.
The record is clear, however, that. there are many situations in which
the spirit and/or letter of the Hatch Act provisions are even now
being violated.
Thus, we find career employees being pressured to buy tickets to
fundraising dinners. Those getting these "delicate" invitations are
by no means all top echelon "excepted" executives. The pressure. finds
its way far down the civil service line.. And there is ample evidence
for the conclusion that the well, publicized dinners represent. only the
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : wr-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
top of a very large iceberg, and one that has been growing bigger in
the past decade. We heartily endorse the conclusions of the Federal
Election Commission.
Although the Hatch Act has not provided all of the answers nor the
perfect solution, as we have indicated, certainly there can be no reason-
able doubt that it has served an immensely important function in the
three decades which have elapsed since its enactment, it would be im-
possible to find any period in all history more eventful and demanding
of our public service, and most especially the Federal service. We have
no doubt at all that the Hatch Act has played a singularly important
role in helping to maintain the high standards of the Federal service
during this critical period.
But demanding as have been those past decades, the years ahead are
sure to be even more so. At every level of government the responsibili-
ties devolving upon public employees will be large and of ever-iiiereas-
* ing complexity. It is unthinkable that, this inevitably being the ease,
the protections afforded by the Hatch Act against spoilsmanship
should be relaxed in any substantial degree or removed entirely, as some
have irresponsibly suggested.
Moreover, and this point is of crucial importance: Every sign points
to a continuing growth in the extent and scope of services rendered by
public employees. This indeed may vary in degree from time to time
and from administration to administration, but certainly all knowl-
edgeable observers agree that the number of public employee is vir-
tually bound to increase from decade to decade. The normal increase
in population in our dynamically expanding country alone would re-
quire that, quite apart from the addition of new programs in a wide
variety of fields. While the number of Federal employees has been gain-
ing at a modest rate, continued increases are almost inescapable. At
the same time, public employees at the city, county, and State level
have been increasing at a very large, rapid and even explosive rate,
and this trend shows no sign of leveling off and none at all of being
reversed in any significant degree.
What this means is that in the years immediately ahead and indeed
for the foreseeable future the total of all public employees will grow
successively larger. The impact of these unions of employees on the
course of political events, were those employees to be laid open to the
kind of involvement contemplated by some of those seeking to weaken
? or repeal the Hatch Act, can easily be forecast. The public would
quickly, and in our view properly, demand the enactment not only a
new Political Activities Act but one with much stronger teeth and
perhaps even a law which would in fact?as is not now the case?
deprive public employees of their basic civil rights.
Thus, it is our considered view, based on long past experience, that
the need for a law such as the Hatch Act?and energetic,_ fair, fearless,
and evenhanded enforcement of that law?is certain to be even greater
and more imperative in the future than it has been in the past.
In this whole connection we call attention to the incontrovertible fact
that the real thrust of many proponents of major, substantive changes
in the Hatch Act actually is, despite various attempts at rationaliza-
tion, to render the law impotent.
. The National Federation of Federal Employees does not believe
such a step to be in the national interest, in the interest of a sound
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
148
merit system, or in the interest of the Federal Government, and cer-
tainly it would be contrary to the best interests of American citizens
who are devoting their lives to effective public service.
We therefore urge maintenance of the strength and integrity of the
law and rejection of proposals which would or could have the effect of
weakening it.
We believe that the cause of good government would be served, also,
if the Civil Service Commission would face up forthrightly to those
actions, whether by groups or individuals, Which while they may be
just within the letter of the law are plainly-and-flagrantly in violation
of its spirit, purpose, and overall intent.
We believe that, for the most part. CSC has taken a reasonable atti-
tude with respect to participation by Federal employees in certain
elections wholly local community in character, and with special refer-
ence to areas of substantial Federal concentration. We do not believe
that the purposes of the Hatc.h Act would be compromised if CSC
continues this policy, within the careful geographic and demographic
limitations which have governed such actions in the past. Already mod-
ified have been some severe and probably overly rigid punitive provi-
sions which were a source of early administrative 'difficulties, and
hampered rather than aided enforcement. Expeditious action by the
CSC is needed, however, when alerted to violations.
In the main, therefore, the NFFE finds that the. need for a strong
statute is certain to be even more urgent in the future than it has been
in the past ; that the Hatch Act, by and large, has proved an indispen-
sable adjunct of the whole merit concept in public employment; that
is administration has been generally fair and has not worked an un,.
reasonable hardship on employees nor in fact unreasonably curtailed
their civil rights.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is our considered
judgment, based on experience and intimate daily contact with the
problem as a whole, that weakening of the provisions of the Hatch
Act would not in any way serve to aid in the long,. a.nd continuing
process of restoring faith and confidence in their Government by the
American people.
Rather, the spectacle of public workers in the Federal -departments
and agencies up to their eyebrows in partisan political campaigning
would tend to increase the criticism and the cynicism which now is so
endemic throughout our country. I am fully aware that the proposed
legislation would continue certain restrictions and protections. But in
this legislation as in so much other legislative and executive action,
it is necessary to look beyond the language of the law or the executive
order and to analyze how those actions will be perceived by the public,
by the public employees, and by those who will seek participation in
the political process to an extent which conflicts. with their primary
nonpartisan ditties and services to the Nation and all of its people.
We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that the position of the NFFE on
this crucial matter may be seized upon by some as being regressive. It
is always more popular, in some quarters at least, to take the position
that American citizens are being deprived of rights which should be
enjoyed without stint or let by all.
But now as in the past. the NFFE does. not flinch. from taking posi-
tions which lack demagogic appeal. It is our view that when an Ameri-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : gff-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
can citizen takes the oath of office he assumes, either by direct legisla-
tive or executive provision, some very special, vital responsibilities.
His work places him in a position of public trust, it _provides him with
an opportunity to serve his country and all of its people without strings
or outside obligations, and without compromise induced by fear or
'favor. His or her position should not be hostage to his political pre-
dilections and his advancement should be on the basis of merit alone,
untainted by politically inspired "recommendations" or "referrals."
So. long after the passage of the Pendleton Act of 1883 and the first
Hatch Act of 1939, we find our Government still in the throes of spoils-
manship with thousands of positions still in the so-called "expected"
service and presently confronted with proposals which surely would
worsen that situation if the Hatch Act were to become a dead letter,
as some would have it in a step by step campaign to eventually render
it impotent for all practical purposes. In this area, I suggest that we
can take a lesson from our British friends. For more than a century
career Government service in the United Kingdom has meant just
that. Efforts to strong-arm career employees for contributions or
partisan political campaigning would become a national cause celebre.
Any administration which sought to make Government positions the
subject of political booty, would be brought down and the press would
be diligent and persistent in its defense of the career service.
A point which should not be overlooked in consideration of the
pending legislation is the effect it would have in acting as a signal at
all levels of government that men and women serving all of the people
are to be given what in practical working effect, will be carte blanche
to politicize their activities and, in natural consequence the activities
of the public service departments and agencies in which they are em-
ployed. It cannot fail, in our judgment, to be regarded as a step back-
ward toward the conditions and abuses which prevailed before
enactment of the Pendleton and Hatch Acts. -
I would point out here also, that the action taken on this legislation
will be:watched with close and concerned interest by both the public
and the public employees in the many States, counties and municipali-
ties nationwide which, also previously suffering from the same abuses
which infected the Federal service, followed the example of the Con-
gress by enacting "little Hatch Acts" to curb those unfortunate condi-
tions at their levels of government. I am sure that members of the com-
mittee tire aware pf conditions which have prevailed recently in many
Cities and towns as their government institutions have .become increas-
ingly politicized. That this situation will worsen if the Hatch Act is
emasculated cannot be doubted.
? It will be but another step forward to further demands, such as the
right to strike. A heavy responsibility lies upon both the legislative
and the executive branches of the Federal Government to adopt pro-
gressive and equitable personnel policies and to actively seek and to
give implementing attention to the input on these .matters from the
employees, whether through their unions and organizations or as indi-
Viduals, For example, I regret to say that the present employee-man-
agement program which began With an Executive order in 1962 and
has continued wider Executive. orders since then, does.not provide the
Climate Or the conditions to meet the special problems of personnel
administration in the Federal sector. All of these conditionsare affect-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/130: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
ing the present credibility gap between branches of Government and
the employees. All, including politicization, create wholesale raids on
the career merit system.
SUMMARY
In summarizing, the actual administration of these programs as
they have been given to the Civil Service Commission have clearly
indicated to us that that they have not been administrating the service
in light of the present Hatch Act. It was our organization that origi-
nally exposed the GSA twisting of the arm. For 18 months we got no
response. We went to the Justice Department and they too ran a cur-
sory investigation of the entire matter and nothing happened until we
had to go to the press and expose this entire thing that we finally got
the results that we did in GSA.
I have with me letters received this very morning about the same
sort of actions going on in terms of political appointees, actually tak-
ing over career civil service jobs in the field. We heard previous testi-
mony that this has only happened at the top level. This is not true. It
is going on all over the country. And if we commit ourselves to this
open, uncontrolled and, may I say, poorly administered right given
back to the Civil Service Commission to endorse this program I can
see nothing realistically than a repetition of what has happened before
Nit exaggerated.
We are going to have more political activity rather than less and in
a quick summation and off the top of my head I would like to say this:
That for purposes of political muscle, there are those in the labor
mo cement and those who are in the political arena who are endorsing
a complete repeal of the Hatch Act for purposes of strength and influ-
ence and this is not the purpose of the Hatch Act and I don't believe
any modification to it should be so revised.
Generally, I would appreciate very much if the committee would
review our testimony. We also have added a history as an addendum
to our testimony because despite the facts that politically we are on
the opposite side of the fence when the Hatch Act was originally
proposed we endorsed it in a public interest. We feel that we are in the
same circumstances today considering the realistic aspects of the im-
plications of Watergate and what is happening today in Government.
There were some. questions asked earlier with reference to the cor-
relation between the merit system and the Hatch Act. You cannot
possibly differentiate between the two. They should be. Political ac-
tivity can be defined as a distinct order from the merit system in
Government.
But we cannot help by ease study, hundreds of cases, indicate the
fact that there is a separation of the two because the minute you have
political influence any way invoked in our large operation of our image
in Government, you cannot help but get the twisting of the arm and
the effect on the merit system in Government and I think history last
year and even this year actually validates our statement.
We favor six of your proposals and we certainly feel that the three
that. I have enumerated would have a devastating effect by enhancing
the sort of things that are going on today in Government.
On behalf of the National Federation of Federal Employees and
our scores of thousands of career employees in all departments and
agencies, I want to express appreciation 'to this subcommittee for the
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :a4-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
opportunity of presenting our views on a subject which we regard to
be of prime importance, now and in the years ahead.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you. First of all, what percent of all the Federal
employees do you represent?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. We represent approximately 150,000 of all Gov-
ernment employees. We are an industrial-type across-the-board union
and in every key Government agency.
Mr. CLAY. And you are the largest independent union?
MT. WOLKOMIR. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAY. You have been in business for 58 years?
Mr. Worziomm. People who have testified previously really came
into being because we walked out of the AFL and became independent.
May I state for some of the very reasons that we are discussing today.
Mr. CLAY. Can you give us a little composition of your union? You
say it is an industrial union?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Industrial type in the labor sense. We represent
anybody. From the janitor, let us say, to the chief personnel in any
particular agency.
Mr. CLAY. Catchall union?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAY. Can you tell this committee of any other country in the
free world that has the kinds of prohibitions against Federal employ-
ees participating in politics that we have in this country?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. The day that the labor movement in this country
becomes a political party I can answer your question. In practically all
of the foreign countries you find that the labor movement there are
a political party rather than a pure labor movement per se. They do
participate in partisan politics. They put up candidates and we have a
peculiar set up in this country as compared to most of the European
countries. They are labor parties just the same as Republicans and
Democrats here. They are considered a partisan section of general
movements in foreign countries. In some countries they do have pecu-
liar setups. They have a relationship under a different type of control.
For example, you take countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden,
they have a ombudsman sort of control.
But we find that generally in Great Britain you will find that there
is no political ramifications at all involved to their career employees.
In fact, it is forbidden and it would be actually a
? Mr. CLAY. They have three classifications of public employees in
Great Britain, is that correct?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. That is right.
Mr. CLAY. SO let's don't say they don't have--
Mr. lilromioivEnt. But the career employee and those in the foreign
service are never involved in partisan politics. I say career employees,
not armed services.
Mr. CLAY. You can equate the two when you send these guys off to
these deserted islands. They have no interest in actively participating.
But you still haven't been responsive to the 'question. Name a country
in the free world that prohibits public employees from participating
in politics to the extent we do in this country.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. You say to the extent we do in this country. Name
the countries. I wish I knew them all today. I would use England. I
would use Great Britain.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/E,5 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. Public servants run for public office in England. They
campaign in England.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. I can't answer your question, sir. I would have to
do a little further research on that.. I would like to turn the question
around.
Mr. CLAY. Well, the point of the question is why should we deny our
public servants the right to actively participate in politics when all of
the other democracies in the world allow their public servants and
there haven't been any great catastrophies as a result of that.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. I don't believe that is fair. Because they smoke
marihuana and sell it in Turkey too. Does that mean?I don't see any
correlation.
Mr. CLAY. Aren't we supposed to be the epitome of democracies?
Aren't we supposed to set the pace for the democratic process?
Mr. TILTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that also, the
United States is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the
world.
Mr. CLAY. You don't attribute that to the fact that we deny the
basic right to participate in politics, do you?
Mr. TILTON. I don't know that we have to follow other nations..
Maybe other nations should follow us.
Mr. WOLKOMM. I believe the comparison and the question_ is not a
fair question for this reason: just because other countries have revolu-
tions and overthrow their governments because of one reason or
another does that mean that is the right thing to do?
I would like-to-answer your question but T don't believe frankly that
the comparison and the innuendo and the fact that just because other
countries are doing it necessarily calls for our doing it. -We have set
an example of how our democracies work.
I will stand with reference to the Hatch Act. I think we would
actually keep our democracies a lot more pure by not necessarily main.,
taining the Hatch Act as is. We recommend revisions to it. It needs
some modifications.
. Mr. Cray. Do you know what has made this country so great is our
ability to change-, our ability to recognize injustices and to change
ac-
cordingly? When we set this country up, women didn't have the right
to vote and we heard the same arguments then that women should not
have the right to vote because for some reason it was going to destroy
our syste.m of. government. -We heard it. when blacks didn't have the
right to vote. For some reason if blacks were given that right it would
destroy our syste.m of government. You made the statement that you
gave us your emotional feelings about this thine.. We are dealing in
facts and figures. And I would like to know where in the world in a
democracy has the right of public employees to participate actively
in politics in some way destroyed the effectiveness of the democracy.
Mr. WomiomiR. Mr. Chairman, will you please tell me where else
in the world we have a democracy?
Mr. CLAY. In Germany, West Germany, don't you?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. No. We differ in terms of our interpretation.
Mr. CLAY. I think we have a democracy in France, don't you?
Mr. Womtomuz. No, sir.
Mr. CLAY. Well then maybe we don't know what a democracy con-
sists of.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. It could be.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :1%A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. I would think it could be very simply defined as a gov-
ernment by the people, for the people' and of the people. Tell me
which of the countries I have mentioned doesn't have that?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. In my mind there are so many contaminations that
I will say none of them do. If we want to get into the political rami-
fications as to why, we can probably write dissertations on this.
Mr. CLAY. Well, we are not going to do it this morning. Let's be
specific. On page 19 of your remarks you tell us about a sample selec-
tion of your survey. Could you tell us how did you go about assuring
that it was an accurate measure?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Prior to the time that the Commission on Political
Activities had its hearings we had at our national convention in that
year, prior to the time the Commission met, a resolution passed by
our delegates in which they endorsed maintaining the Hatch Act
but asked for certain revisions with six of the items that were men-
tioned in your program.
However, due to the Commission on Political Activities Study
earlier in those days and then the Commission itself and the hear-
ings that were forthcoming, I felt personally that we didn't really and
truly have a complete cross-sectional view of our membership and
consequently we made available to every member of questionnaire re-
peating the general resolution passed at our convention and asked
them to reply by postcard with comments. We received approximately
30,000 answers from our people prior to our testimony and based upon
the breakdown of that approximate 30,000 returns, this is the analysis
and the replies that we got; 89 percent of them 'actually expressed
strong support to leave the Hatch Act alone as is; 10 percent would
not object to a very careful and some minor modification and 1 percent
asked for repeal.
In September of last year we again had our national convention
and of course the resolution on the Hatch Act came up again and
again we got the same consensus of the Vote of our delegates except
that this time there were a lot of people making speeches but it was
amazing that when the actual head count of the delegate vote was
made they passed 100 percent unanimously the request for the main-
tenance of the Hatch Act with slight revision. What the revisions were,
I assume, based upon past performance, we would Continue 0 strive
for the sort of recommendations made.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Mr. CLAY. Yes. It answers the question that leads to another; ques-
tion: If 89 percent of 30,000 people replied that they didn't want the
Hatch Act tampered With, it raises a question in my mind if the experts
in this field 'are correct when they say that 64 percent of all Federal
employees don't understand the Hatch Act, what you are really saying
when you say that 89 percent of 30,000 and 64 "percent of them don't
understand it or are opposed to revising the Hatch Act?. Explain to
this committee--
Mi. Wor,Komm. I don't know where the 64-percent figure came from
and I would like to kno-w that they measured that they don't under-,
stand. Was this a---
ne. CLAY. We have had testimony from the. 'University of Michigan
Institute of Social nesearch, we had testimony from Mr. Hampton
the Chairman of the CSC. We have had testimony from a number
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04R CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
of labor union leaders and they all concur that somewhere in excess
of 60 percent of Federal employees don't understand what the Hatch
Act is about.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Well, this may be the opinions of individuals. In
my 30 years of working with the Commission, I don't know of a single
survey that the Commission ran on what the interpretation of the
Hatch Act was. I wouldn't question anything that the University of
Michigan ran but I am sure it must have been a random sampling type
of study where they took a sampling of people and based upon that they
brought conclusions, and I have run hundreds of such tests of my own
when I worked?
Mr. CLAY. Isn't that how most surveys are conducted?
Mr. WoLKomis. I said I am not. questioning the University of Michi-
gan survey. But with reference to any of the other statements made
and if they refer to the 60-some-odd percent, I question the validity
of that statement. How many of them really measured the knowledge-
ability of the Federal employees on the Hatch Act. How many really
ran a check. Are they using the University of Michigan figures in
quoting? You mentioned that the Commission made that statement. I
don't recall them ever making a study in this field.
Mr. CLAY. Apparently they did or they wouldn't have testified to
that effe,ct. But the University of Michigan states that they drew
a sample from 1,108 Federal merit system employees who in their
opinion generalized on the statistical basis represented 1.611 Federal
employees. A million. 1.6 million. And I would think that knowin!,
the fallibility of surveys that there has to be some kind of an area--
but certainly this is probably the most authentic kind of information
that we could get.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. As a statistician, I would question the reliability
of the study.
Mr. CLAY. Do you have your statistics here.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. In terms of my memory.
Mr. CLAY. 30,000 of a 150,000 and 150,000 as part of 2.5 million so
you are talking about 0.016 percent of the total number of Federal
employees in this country.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. I did not make a universal application of our find-
ings. No statistics will. No one who makes a study confined to his
own particular environment will draw conclusions from that and that
is what you have done.
Mr. CLAY. I would think that that independent study would be much
more valuable to this committee than one taken by your organization.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. You are missing the point. The point is that the
University of Michigan study cannot draw universal conclusions from
the study of 1,100 people.
Mr. CLAY. But yours can?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. No. That is exactly my opinion. T am trying to,
emphasize the fact that the study we made was limited to our mem-
bers and I am not going to draw a universal conclusion. I can only
speak from our experience and that is the only basis upon which
indicated the study. So I don't want in the record the fact that I am
drawing any universal conclusion from our study and I don't want
the University of Michigan study to indicate the facts that this is
true of. all Government employees.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :IRA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. For the record let us indicate that your study covered
less than 1 percent of the Federal employees.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. And three times more than their study.
Mr. CLAY. And less than 1 percent. Mr. Harris?
Mr. Mums. I want to express my appreciation for the compre-
hensive nature of your statement and for the service it does. As I
understand your position, you agree with some of the provisions of
the bill but with respect to others you disagree as far as opening
up that type of participation.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. That is right.
Mr. HAatits. If I may, let me refer to page 3 of your statement,
where you made the statement that:
The law affords them ample opportunity to take a meaningful part in the
political process and at the same time provides them with protections against
improper, inappropriate and sometimes extortionate demands upon them for
partisan political funds, campaign activities, and a wide variety of related
chores.
In what way does H.R. 3000 change this protection?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. The only change that I can see is the fact that you
have indicated a $5,000 fine or imprisonment. Either/or. Leaving the
administrative determination generally to the Civil Service Com-
mission. And that is the only improvement I can see in terms of what
presently exists in the Hatch Act. However, we would like to go
further by saying that the Justice Department should be the main
administrator of any curtailments or any controls placed upon vio-
lations of proposal of H.R. 3000. And we should drop the fine com-
pletely and leave the imprisonment sentence stand by itself.
Mr. HARRIS. H.R. 3000 doesn't diminish this protection anyway,
does it?
Mr. ,Womiomnt. No, it doesn't. That part of it does enhance the
protection except for again coming back to the credibility that we have
in the administrative enforcement on the part of the Commission. The
record has been absolutely horrible up to date.
Mr. HAitais. The areas you feel that you disagree with in the
committee's bill include the area for candidacy for any public office.
Under the existing Hatch Act can a Federal employee be a candidate
for public office?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Yes. But he must resign from his position in Gov-
ernment or he can take leave of absence without pay, which is what
we recommend. We also recommend -
Mr. Hmuus. I am talking about the existing law now. You say that
is what he can do under the existing law. How does this bill change
that?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. I don't see it frankly. It doesn't. We don't see any
change in terms of the liberal aspect of the Hatch Act as interpreted
now: May I state for the record also that I personally was accused
of a violation of the Hatch Act because I did run for public office but
it waS not partisan office. And the ,Civil Service Commission made the
determination: that it was not partisan.
Mr. HARRIS. I guess I understand your position. I thought you were
indicating in the statement :that the thing you disagreed with with
respect tC H.R. 3000 was the fact that it did permit candidacy for,
public office. " ' "
1 .1
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1d CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Yes. But with no restrictions attached to the per-
missiveness of candidacy for office. What. we are saying is that in order
to prevent the present status of what is happening in Government
that if such an individual wants to be a candidate there are two factors
and we mentioned it in our testimony. No. 1, there should be no politi-
cal roles while they are on Government time. This should be restricted.
The other addition we state is that if an individual wants to be can-
didate for office, partisan type, he should either resign from his
Government position or take a leave of absence completely from the
environment.
Mr. Hmuus. So you don't disagree with the provisions that permits
a Federal employee to be a candidate?
Mr. WOLEOMIR. Not at all. And I will say that the present Hatch
Act permits him to do the same thing under those conditions.
Mr. Minus. You also state as No. 1 of these three points that you
had questions about paragraph 4, organizing or conducting a political
meeting orally.
Do you disagree with including that permission in the bill?
Mr. WonKomia. Yes. And also with the managing of a publication.
And the reason we disagree with it is that the very nature of an indi-
vidual who winds up monitoring a program, a partisan politics meet,
ing of some kind, the very nature of the fact that he is running and
managing a political partisan type newspaper cannot help but con-
taminate his employment in government. That is the only reason,
There. is bound to be sOme coercion and bound to be some impact and
some pressure on the employees when he plays that active a role in
partisan politics.
Mr. HARRIS. Under the existing Hatch Act, can a Federal employee
participate in a partisan mass meeting to nominate a candidate?
Mr. Wontcomui. I see no violation of the present Hatch Act. He could
be very active at a rally.
Mr. HARRIS. Could lie not be subjected to coercion?
Mr. Wontiomin. Probably. I am sure it has happened.
Mr. HARRIS. But if he organizes that meeting you feel like, that is
wrong?
Mr. WOLKOWITR. Yes. He is then monitoring the program. He is the
so-called manager of the, program. When he is active at a rally or a
meeting he is part of the public, per se. But once he takes an activistic
role as a leader then he is so much a part of the environment in which
he is working
Mr. HARRIS. Let me return to the point with regard to runninp,. for
public office. You say in your statement on page 14 it is our contention
that Federal employees should not be able to run for political office
themselves. I thought I just understood you to say you thought it was
all right for them to.
Mr. WOLROMIR. But then we added ,Et sentence that they should re-
sign from employment if they are candidates.
Mr. HARRIS. Obviously. At that point they are not a Federal em-
ployee anymore. I am a little confused about your position. Should a
Federal employee be able to rim for office or not?
Mr. Wonlioartn. On the position that he resigns from the Govern-
ment.
Mr. HARRIS. Well, obviously he is. If he resigns from his Federal
position he is not a Federal employee anymore.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1315rIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. WOLKOMIR. I think our difference is in the fact that should he
be permitted to run for political office and still keep his position in the
Government?
Mr. HARnis. If he is a Federal employee, then he has to resign. The
question is should the Federal employee be able to run for political
office?
Mr. WoLuomin. Yes.
Mr. HARRIS. If he resigns?
Mr. Womcomut. Yes. If he resigns or takes a leave of absence from
his position.
Mr. HARnis. Well, that is not what you said on page 14 with regard
to leave of absence.
Mr. -Womiomm. I think I said or take leave without pay.
Mr. ITAnnts. I am going to suggest that your statement on -page 14
says that a Federal employee cannot run for public office. Your next
sentence says?I think the two sentences are inconsistent. A Federal
employee should not run for public office. But then I understood you
to respond to me before, that you though a Federal employee should
be able to run for public office if he takes a leave of absence.
Mr. WOLKOMTR. Yes. I don't see anything in controversy in those
statements at all.
Mr. Manus. Do you want to amend the statement on page 14?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Let us reverse it this way then. A Government em-
ployee should either resign from his position or take a leave of ab-
sence without pay if he is candidate minded.
Mr. HARRIS. Do you want to amend the statement that way?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Yes, sir. It stands so amended.
Mr. Ilimus. Now that would be a change then from the existing
situation as far as the Hatch Act is concerned. You would not allow
him to run as a nonpartisan candidate unless he takes a leave of
absence?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Well, under the present Hatch Act he is permitted
to run for nonpartisan politics even as a Government employee.
Mr. IInanis. Right. But you have said he should either resign or
take a leave of absence.
Mr. WoLKomin. As it refers to partisan politics.
Mr. HAaats. You want to amend it now to where he runs as a parti-
san candidate?
Mr. WoLicomia. I realize the gymnastics that's going on and I don't
appreciate this. I think our stand is clear. I have been around a long
time. With reference to the fact that we have taken a stand here that
is a little different than the other stand is something we feel strongly
about because we realize what the realistic world is today.
Mr. HARRIS. What I am trying to determine is what your stand is.
Mr. Womio-min. If you want it restated, we have made no mention
of the present status of the Hatch Act and with reference to changes
to the Hatch Act except the subject of this particular hearing, and that
is H.R. 3000. And this is all the subject of this hearing. If we have
recommendations in terms of what the bills refer to, fine. And if my
language is not clear, then I will requote it by stating that the right
of a Government employee to participate in nonpartisan politics should
remain as it is presently interpreted under the Hatch Act. The
right of an individual to run for a candidacy if he is a Government
52-137-75- 11
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1315cIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
employee, he should either resign from his position or take leave
without pay if he is candidate minded in partisan politics.
Does that clarify it?
Mr. HARRIS. It does. If, in fact, he is going to be a nonpartisan can-
didate you feel it is all right for him to stay as an employee and not
take a leave of absence or resign; is that right?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. That is right. You appreciate the fact, Mr. Harris,
that a nonpartisan candidate normally accepts that position without
pay.
Mr. HARRIS. That is not true.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Normally he accepts.
Mr. HARRIS. That is just not true.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Having been the man of my community in our
partisan politics and having been chief of several things in Illinois,
I haven't taken a nickel in pay.
Mr. HARRIS. I think this is fine. But to say that a nonpartisan can-
didate normally runs for a position and doesn't accept pay for it?
I am 'referring to boards of supervisors, city councils, *hat have you.
We have all kinds of nonpartisan candidates for such positions. I have
served with them. Government employees. The last Government em-
ployee who ran as a nonpartisan candidate was elected in my juris-
diction and received $10,000 a year in pay.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. If you don't mind I would like to get from the
general counsel an interpretation of the present policy with reference
to partisan politics.
Mr. HARms. I don't blame you. It is hard to understand the existing
regulation. I don't have anything further.
Mr. CLAY. One last question: In your summary you made the state-
ment that there were people in this Congress and people in the labor
movement who were calling for complete repeal of the Hatch Act.
Will you identify some of these people?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Not for the purposes of this hearing I wouldn't. I
will personally to you.
Mr. CLAY. Well, are they doing it publicly?
Mr. WOLKOMrR. Yes.
Mr. CLAY. Well, why would you hestiate to identify them publicly?
Mr. WoLKomin. We, sir, are a labor union and right now the situa-
tion of a labor movement is a dog-eat-dog and I am not about to name
names here.
Mr. CLAY Well, what was the purpose of making that statement?
It certainly wasn't to give the impression that H.R. 3000 was calling
for repeal of the Hatch Act, Was it?
Mr. WOLKOMIR. No.
Mr. CLAY. I just want to get it straight for the record that we are
asking to revise the Hatch Act and not to repeal it.
Mr. WOLKOIIIR. My statement is that there are some.
Mr. CLAY. Some that are doing what?
Mr. Womcomin. Exactly what you are implying.
Mr. CLAY: Some in a position to actually repeal the Hatch Act?
Mr. WoLKoivrin. Yes.
Mr. CLAY. Are there people in this Congress who would have the
power to repeal it
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Of course not. There are those who have their
opinions.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 MA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
I am not going to be quoted out of context.
Mr. CLAY. The record has your quote. We will send you a copy and
you might want to revise it.
Thank you. We certainly appreciate your testimony this morning.
Mr. WOLKOMIR. Thank you.
Mr. CLAY. The next witness will be Mr. John A. McCart.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
DEPARTMENT, AFL--CIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. McCART. In view of the time, I'll be happy to briefly summarize
our statement. I will dispense with the amenities with respect to the
subcommittee and the chairman and the numerous Members of the
House who have sponsored the pending legislation.
The fundamental issue confronting this subcommittee is the status
of a significant number of citizens in a democracy with respect to the
political life of the Nation. There is no denying the fact that the vast
mass of citizens in our country enjoy political freedom.
On the other hand, a large number of workers, Federal and postal,
are denied that same freedom. So the task of the subcommittee is to
balance the equity between the rights of these individuals who work
for the Government as citizens and the needs of the public service.
This, of course, at a time when there is the greatest need for citizen
involvement in the political activities in the country. Let me give you
just three examples: In the 1974 elections, 38 percent of the eligible
voters participated. In 1972, the number was 56 percent, and in 1970, 45
percent. This tells a story of general citizenship apathy with respect to
the exercise of franchise.
It is our conviction that amendments to the. Hatch Act would do
much to stimulate and correct this problem to the extent that Federal
and postal workers would be encouraged, would be stimulated, to
participate more fully in the steps in the political process as well as
the responsibility for voting.
In enacting the amendments to the Federal Election Campaign
Act of last year, the Congress included the provision excluding the
previous restrictions on State and local government workers against
political activity.
We believe that the decision last year by the Congress with respect
to State and local government employees was wise. The time has now
come for the Congress to act in similar fashion for postal and Fed-
eral workers.
Actually the whole issue of separation of merit and politics is very
deeply grounded in the Federal civil service system. Its origin is
the 1883 Civil Service Act. That act contains some very specific in-
junctions with respect to political coercion, political reprisal, and
merger of political offices.
Although the Hatch Acts of 1939 and 1940 were enacted in a dif-
ferent climate and for a different purpose, they really represent an
extension of the provisions of the Pendleton Act of 1883 with respect
to political matters.
? We believe that the time has come to review the Hatch statute in
light of the 1883 act and the deeply ingrained merit concept that the
1883 act projected and to make some necessary changes.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1%6 CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Actually, I sense that a great deal of temerity in some of the testi-
mony that has been presented by representatives of the executive
branch, and in some few instances, by union representatives that some-
how the whole system of civil service in our democracy will fall down
around our shoulders like a pack of cards if this reasonably moderate
legislation is enacted.
We in the Public Employee Department just don't see it that way.
Assume the worst, assume that RR 3000 is enacted and that abuses
become, greater than they are today. The civil Service system is not
going to become extinct. Congress will be able to change whatever
portions of the act needs changing. To do less, it seems to us, is really
put our heads in the sand simply because we don't want to confront
the problem of whether postal and Federal workers should now ap-
proach the same political status as their fellow citizens:
The chairman has made reference to the practices of other democ-
racies. Our statement recites them in some detail. They include Great -
Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Canada Australia, Austria
Mr. CIAY. Excuse me. Just for the. record, will you tell ns what
percentage of public employees in Great Britain are free to participate
in politics at all levels.
Mr. McCART. Two-thirds. It is just a very relatively small cadre
of what the British term career civil service who are the highest rank-
ing nomninisterial individuals that are excluded from the political
process.
Mr. HARRIS. They kind of dorit the opposite from the way we do it.
Mr. MOCART. That is right.
Their blue-collar and white-collar national government popula-
tions are treated entirely differently than ours.
Mr. Cir,Ay. Would you refer to the governments in West Germany
and France as democracies?
Mr. McCART. Of course.
Mr. HARRIS. You might include Canada.
Mr. MCCART. Yes. They're now free to be candidates for Parliament
-Lindero recent law.
Actually, the provisions of H.R. 3000 to a large extent mirror the
recommendations of the bipartisan commission on political activities
which made its report in 1970. There is one significant difference, the
ability of Federal and postal employees to compete for partisan offices.
We subscribe to that provision. We believe there should be certain
safeguards surrounding that right. But we're convinced that it's a
meritorious, one.
The time for action, therefore, is long overdue. I have been exposed
to the public sector of the trade union movement for 25 years. During
that entire time I can recall convention_ after convention of not .only
my own union but the other unions with which I have been associated
that have endorsed revision of the Hatch Act.
The time to act is now. We deeply appreciate the work of the sub-
Committee in this area. We. hope you will see fit to report a bill favor-
ably !at a very early date.
Mr. HAnnrs. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony,
and I had read through it and noted the comments on page 6. We do
have rollcall, and So if there aren't any questions, we'll !adjourn the
meeting and we'll meet tomorrow morning at 9 :30 a.m.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1316pA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
[Whereupon at 12:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene
at 9 :30 a.m., on Thursday, April 10, 1975.]
[The prepared statement submitted by Mr. McCart follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MCCART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
Mr. 'Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Public Employee Depart-
ment consists of 28 AFL-CIO unions representing more than 2.2 million Postal,
Federal, State and local government employees.
We are grateful, indeed, to the chairman of this Subcommittee, Representative.
William L. Clay, and .his 53 colleagues for introducing II. H. 3000 and -other iden-
tical bills. These measures include badly needed revisions of a statute controlling
:political participation by Federal, State and local government workers,
All told, more than 2.5 million Federal employees are affected by the existing
statutes limiting their involvement in politics. Thus, we cannot overemphasize the
importance of the bills which are the subject of this hearing.
The fundamental question to -be resolved by the Committee and Congress is
whether the restrictions on political activity now in effect are warranted today
to the same extent as in 1039. More than-30 years have elapsed since the original
law was approved. Great social and economic changes have occurred in that period.
Our society has become much more complex. The need for citizens to share in the
political decisions of the nation grows each day. Maintenance of our social and
political ideals dictates the broadest participation possible by the electorate.
Never in the 'history of the country was. there a greater need for intelligent ap-
praisal of political issues and active partiCipation in elections and related activ-
ities by more and more citizens.
One evidence of the need for encouraging our citizens to play a more active role
in achieving good government is the discouraging participation of Voters in na-
tional elections.
In 1974, for example, According .to the Census Bureau, only 38 percent of -the
eligible voters cast ballots in the election. Two years earlier, the figure was
approximately 6 percent. And in 1970, slightly more than 45 percent voted.
Revision Of the Hatch Act would stimulate an awareness by Federal and Postal
workers of the obligation they have as Citizens in. ademocracy.
Last year, Congress enacted a series Of amendments of the Federal Election
Campaign Act. Section 401 of that statute?Public Law 93-443--removes all of
the previous restrictions on Political activity by State and local government em-
ployees, whose jobs are in whole or in part by Federal funds. The one exception is
that they a-re still prohibited from competing as candidates for partisan political
office. - ? . .
We believe the decision reflected in Section 401 was wise. It should now be
applied-to Federal and Postal employees.
As you are aware, the separation of public service from politics has deep roots
in the Federal. Service. The basic Civil Service Act of January 16,. 1883, contains
explicit injunctions against pressure on Federal workers for financial contribu-
tions or. other 'assistance for political purposes. It bans also use of a Federal em-
ployee's office to compel political action by another -person. This legal -basis of our
merit system. free of politics has been in effect. for almost 90 years.
Rule IV promulgated by the Civil Service Commission amplifies the statutory
requirements by proscribing involvement of Federal employees in political man-
agement of -campaigns. The rule further forbids political considerations in any
personnel action and discrimination against any applicant -or employee because of
party affiliation.
The economic tribulation experienced by our country in the 1930s resulted in
legislative approval of several national programs designed to assist destitute
citizens. Scandals related to some relief projects and internal party difficulties
over patronage provided the 'background for Congressional action in 1939 and 1940
to prevent political abuse of citizens because of their dependence on government-
sponsored benefits. These are now known as the "Hatch Act".
Subsection 9(a) of that Act consists largely of a repetition of Rule TV.1 of
the Civil Service Commission, issued in another form shortly after passage
of the Pendleton Act of 1883.
The remaining language describes the political officials excluded from the
Hatch Act, and, as amended, sets forth details of enforcement of the law.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
le 2
Section 15 of the Act buttresses the original restrictions in the Civil Service
Act and the Commission's rules by making the Hatch Act applicable to persons
covered by those two regulations. From this viewpoint, the Hatch Act is simply
an extension of the princiPles enunciated by Congress in the 1883 statute.
However, it is necessary to analyze the attitudes which led to approval of
the Hatch Act. While the obvious purpose was to insure retention of a merit
system in Federal Service based upon the absence of partisan politics, the
effect was to engender suspicion that politics has no place in civil service and
individuals employed therein must hold themselves aloof from all but the most
elementary political rights?voting and expressing opinions on political sub-
jects and candidates, Even this latter right is somewhat obscure because of
uncertainty in administration of the law.
The result of these actions has been to cast a pall over the rights of Federal
and Postal workers as citizens in contrast to those enjoyed by others outside
the Government. At times in the past, the negative effects of the laws and
regulations have been highlighted. These employees have the impression, justi-
fied or not, that existing limitations on their political rights can be best ob-
served by remaining completely apolitical. In short, the current law and the
safest course is to take no part whatsoever in the political life of the com-
munity, rather than risk the severe censures imposed by the Hatch Act and
the criminal code.
Rather than a philosophy that is completely negative and injunctive, we be-
lieve Federal employees as citizens should be encouraged to participate in
political work?partisan or non-partisan?to the maximum extent consistent
with retention of the merit system and the public interest.
Certainly, no one can quarrel with the philosophy expressed in the Civil
Service Act and Rule IV. A highly laudable purpose was served by removing
political considerations from appointment and separation from Federal jobs.
Federal workers were 'assured that with competent performance they would
have the job security necessary to make a meaningful contribution to public
service.
The Civil Service Act has stood the test of time for almost 90 years. The
concept of merit has become a part of the fabric of Federal Service. The public
has come to view it as free of partisan considerations. We believe the time has
come to make substantial changes in the Hatch Act, which will encourage
Federal workers to accept their citizen responsibilities without doing violence
to the merit principle. This position is practical.
POLITICAL PRACTICES ELSEWHERE
In preparing this presentation the Department felt the Subcommittee would
be interested In practices prevailing in some other democracies with respect
to political activities of public employees.
In Great Britain, for example, employees of the Crown are divided into
three categories:
1. Service, maintenance and manipulative employees have the same political
rights as other citizens of the United 'Kingdom, including minor supervisors.
2. An intermediate group?technical and clerical services and lower profes-
sional and administrative categories?may not be candidates in national elec-
tions. hut are allowed, with permission of their agencies, to participate in poli-
tics, including the handing of funds. (A) Participation can take place at na-
tional and local level with permission. (D) Participation can take place at local
level without permission.
3. Senior civil servants?those in the executive classes--are banned from
participating in politics, and must resign their jobs to become political candi-
dates.
Union of government employees take an active part in party affairs.
The effect of this system is that approximately two-thirds of British civil
servants are permitted to engage in national and local partisan politics and
to be candidates for office while retaining their status as public servants.
A unblie service employee in Australia must retire or resign to become a
candidate for national or state parliament. However, if he is unsuccessful, he
may be reemployed in public service without loss of benefit:4 upon applying for
his former job within two months of the election.
An individual worker is free to speak and work for candidates, subject only
to the pro:libition that he cannot use information obtained in the course of ex-
ecuting his, official functions.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 ifilA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Unions representing national government workers participate in financial
support and work for candidates endorsed by labor organizations.
Sweden has a liberal law dealing with political action by civil servants. They
may join a political party, work -actively in its behalf and become.a candidate for
Parliament or any municipal council. The Swedish Parliament contains .a num-
ber of public workers who continue to receive part of their pay as public em-
ployees as well as the normal compensation attached to the legislative office
they occupy.
Under the 1929 Constitution of Austria, national government workers are
able to engage actively in partisan politics. If nominated to serve on a consti-
tutional body, they may secure leave of absence. Upon election, the leave of
absence is extended without loss of benefits.
A national government employee may be a candidate for office with the per-
mission of the minister responsible for his department. If the request is ap-
proved, the employee is entitled to a minimum leave of absence of three months
to campaign.
In Denmark, workers of the national government may participate in elec-
tions and cOmpete as candidates for office. They may not use official leave to
campaign. However, a leave of absence is available for this purpose and may be
obtained to serve in the national legislature.
Until 1967 the Canadian statute banning politics in civil service was quite
stringent. Then, a new law was enacted. It continues the bar against political
actions by Canadian public employees. Significantly, however, the statute em-
powers the Public Service Commission to grant leave of absence for an employee
to stand for election as a member of the House of Commons, or a provincial
legislature. If elected, the individual ceases to be an employee.
The point of these examples is that western democracies have seen fit to en-
able their public employees to share the responsibilities of self-government to a
substantial degree. The objective of their laws appears to be to free government
workers as much as possible from political restrictions.
EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND OTIIER OBSERVATIONS
The Committee is interested, of course, in the opinions of Federal employees
themselves on this vital issue.
In developing a training conference with one of our affiliated unions several
years ago, the organization which preceded the Department, and that union
decided to explore with the participants their ideas on the relationship between
the Civil Service merit system and political action. This was an honest effort
to secure a "grass roots" reaction from Federal employees to the vital subject
you are considering. No attempt was made to "direct" the discussion. We simply
Posed these questions to the group of approximately 35 students and solicited
their verbal reactions.
1. Is there an essential conflict between political activity and the merit
system?
2. Does the public interest demand complete political neutrality by public
employees?
3. Are Federal employees able to discharge their fall civic responsibilities
under the current Hatch Act restrictions?
4. Should Federal employees have complete freedom to participate in political
activities?
After about two hours' discussion, these conclusions emerged?the general
answer to the four questions was "no". It was impossible to elicit specific rec-
ommendations for changes in the present statute, but it was clear that the
Federal employees present?all of whom represented local unions?desired
substantial modification of their present political status.
With this background, it becomes clear that Congress should take a bold
step to encourage Federal workers to exercise their full political rights as
citizens.
This philosophy is embodied in H.R. 3000. Removal of the serious obstacles and
severe penalties now assessed for such activities will assure Federal workers
that the national government has set an example by welcoming the exercise
of the obligation of Federal employees to shed their passivity with respect to
political involvement at all levels.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
164
There is one significant difference between H.R. 3000 and proposed amend-
ments to the Hatch Act in the past. The current bill removes the prohibition
against Federal employees vying for office in partisan election:.
The Department believes this is a highly desirable feature of the legislation.
With appropriate requirements for individuals to remain off the payroll, in a
leave of absence status, during their candidacies or while occupying office, oppor-
tunities for abuse would be quite remote. Moreover, specific language could be
incorporated in the bill to prevent Federal employee candidates from attempt-
ing to influence Federal workers or others because of their previous govern-
ment employment.
We are optimistic that enactment of H.R. 3000 will cause neither disruption
of the normal civil service system nor jeopardy to the status of Federal em-
ployees. This observation is based on the fact that the bill retains the existing
safeguards against coercion of any kind in political matters.
In retrospect, the Hatch Act was a product of its time. Given the circum-
stances leading to its enactment, the statute met a pressing need.
Conditions have changed substantially in the intervening 36 years. We be-
lieve that in the light of the attitudes of the public on politics, the political
rights of civil employees, and the necessity for retaining effective, impartial
service to all citizens, Congress should approve fundamental changes in the Hatch
Act. These objectives can be achieved through H.R. 3000. The Public Employee
Department strongly recommends that the Committee act favorably on the bill.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
ACT OF 1975
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1975
-U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND 'CIVIL SERVICE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE POLITICAL RIGHTS
AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS,
Washington, D .0 .
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 311, Cannon House Office
Building, Hon. William Clay (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Mr. CLAY. The committee will come to order.
The first witness this morning in the continuation of hearings on
H.R. 3000 will be Mr. Clarence Mitchell, the director of the Washing-
ton bureau of the National Association-- for the Advancement of Col-
ored People.
Mr. Mitchell, we have a copy of your statement and you may pro-
ceed as you see fit.
STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
BUREAU OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCE-
MENT OF COLORED PEOPLE
Mr. Minaita.L. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if it is permissible
I would just like to read this because it is brief. I tend to talk much
longer when -I talk extemporaneously.
Mr. CLAY.. We have no time problem, so please take. your time.
Mr. Mrrciini,L. I would like to say before I begin this testimony
that it is a real cause of gratification to see you sitting here as chair-
man. I think the last timeI was in this committee room your colleague,
who was bead of the committee?I always thought of it as Un-Ameri-
can Activities?I forget what the new name is.
Mr. Cry. InternarSecurity.
Mr. MrrcnELL. That is right. But in any event, I must say that it is
really a heartwarming experience to be hero before you and also to
appear before my fellow statesperson, Congresswoman Spellman, who,
as you know and many others know, has had a long and very con-
structive career before she came to Congress in so many things that
were helpful to the people.
So I feel that as I talk here I am speaking in a forum where there
is a genuine interest in trying to reform some of our faults, this being
one of them.
(165)
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
166
As I said, I am director of the Washington bureau of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I thank you for
this opportunity to appear and present testimony on the Federal
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1975, to restore to Federal
civilian employees their rights to participate, as private citizens, in
the political life of the Nation, and to protect Federal civilian em-
ployees from improper political solicitations and other purposes.
We support changes in the Hatch Act so that persons in Govern-
ment service may participate in the country's political processes with-
out fear of reprisal or dismissal. As a practical matter, the act operates
to prevent constructive political participation by many able persons
who could make a real contribution to improving our system of elect-
ing public officials.
In many cases, Government employees hold positions of leadership
and respect in their communities. Often their failure to join in sup-
porting good government policies and candidates is not understood. In
addition, many of them who are strongly motivated participate in
election campaigns anyway, even though they run the risk of being
penalized.
I offer as an example a case decided by the Civil Service Commission
in 1974. I have deleted the names of the. employees, Nit offer the full
text of the decisions. I believe that is attached to my testimony.
To summarize it briefly, it is a situation where some employees, one
of whom was directly employed by the Federal Government and the
other was in a project that was being assisted by the Federal Govern-
ment?they felt very strongly that they ought to be participants in
the Democratic National Convention.
Mr. CLAY. Without objection, the exhibit will be included in the
record in its totality, at the end of your remarks.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
They felt that they should participate in the election process and
did, in fact, succeed in getting elected as delegates to the Democratic
National Convention in Florida.
They were duly warned that they would run the risk of losing their
jobs if they did so participate, but at the time a case had been insti-
tuted in the U.S. district court, in the area where they were located,
challenging the Hatch Act.
I am satisfied, having talked with one of them and being convinced
that she was a very sincere person?I am satisfied that they were act-
ing in good faith to vindicate a constitutional right as they saw it..
Interestingly, a U.S. district court in that instance gave a favorable
decision, holding that the employees did have such a right to partici-
pate, but, as you know, the lower court was reversed by the U.S. Su-
preme Court.
I thought that the penalty of dismissing these people was unduly
harsh. In addition, the Civil Service Commission even went after one
who had transferred to a different job. and as the decision states, the
Commission supported action on its own interpretation of the statute.
In the circumstances of the case, the parties stated that they were
seeking to vindicate a constitutional right. When that right was not
imheld, it would have been far more just to impose some penalty short
of dismissal, indeed a more evenhanded result would have been a
reprimand.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
167
There is a serious question about whether the Civil Service Com-
mission should be given the responsibility of making a final decision
in matters of this kind. It would be more appropriate to let the Com-
mission determine the facts and leave the question of what penalty, if
any, should be imposed to an impartial tribunal.
I say that because these are serious questions of law, and the Com-
mission' after all, is an administrative body. I 'assume that it is com-
petent to make a finding of fact, but it seems to me that where you get
into a question of whether an employee has violated a criminal law,
that ought to be handled by thecourt or perhaps a master appointed
under our judicial system.
I don't :think any administrative agency should have the right to
make a final determination when there is :a Constitutional question
involved.
It is noted that in H.R. 3934 and possibly other bills, there. is:a pro-
hibition against affected emPlovees reonesting, receiving or giving "a
thing of value for political. purposes." There is, then, an exception
permitting an employee to "freely and voluntarily make a contribu-
tion to any candidate for public Ace on his own volition." This phras-
ing seems to open the door for considerable disagreement on when an
affected employee has violated this part of the proposed statute.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, you were tracking the statute as it now is
in the first part of that, but it seems to me that you would have to
read very carefully, and perhaps have some considerable insight to the
background of the statute in order to make this exception as it is given
here fully applicable and not subject to being rnisinterprete.d by the
body that would be trying to determine the fact of whether an em-
ployee has violated that particular section.
H.R. 3934, and perhaps other bills before the subcommittee, would
provide for mandatory prosecution by the Attorney General upon re-
ceipt of a "finding by the Civil Service Commission of illegal activity
under section 7323 of: title 5" unless he?the Attorney General?shall
determine that no factual basis for prosecution exists or the cause of
justic,e will not be served by such prosecution.
Now, there I really have trouble because I feel that if the Civil
Service Commission is set up as the finder of the fact and makes an
absolute determination that the facts show that the law has been vio-
lated,.it would be unusual for the Attorney General, upon his review
of the Civil Service Commission's findings, to make a contrary finding
that the facts were not as shown by the Commission.
This would then leave the Attorney General in the position of hav-
ing to prosecute, unless. as is provided, he finds that the ends of jus-
tice would not be served. And then, of course, he would have to report
to Congress.
That is loaded with so many political possibilities for exploita-
tion that I think it would not be good. As you know. Mr. Chairman,
I have been around here for more than 30 years and I find that some-
times political considerations outweigh the merits of a given case.
I would assume that if, in a matter of broad public interest, the At-
torney General decided the ends of justice would not be served by
pursuing the case and submitted a report to Congress, that might be
very good speech material -for people who might be of an opposite
political party.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04M : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
I think in these things it is better to err on the side of being a little
too lenient than being too punitive.
As I said, this provision is far too severe. It must be remembered
that the Hatch Act was passed at a time when fines and jail sentences
were almost routinely added to new laws. There is little to show that
such penalties have improved the quality of society nor have they kept
wrong-doers from carrying out schemes against the public interest.
I am a very strong advocate of substituting a civil approach for a
penal approach in a great many matters of this country. Indeed, any-
one who looks at the civil rights legislation which I played some part
in helping to get passed will see that we have leaned strongly in favor
of equity approaches and remedies as opposed to criminal remedies.
My experience has been that criminal remedies usually are avoided,
if possible, and it does seem a little bit out of line, in my judgment, if
a person who commits a misdemeanor of some kind involving, say,
pocketbook snatching or assault, would have the same kind of jail
penalty as an individual who has been guilty of some infraction of
the law where his infraction might be due to an error of judgment on
his constitutional rights rather than intention, to commit a criminal
act.
I think courts take that into consideration a great deal and there-
fore they are put in the position of seeming to give light penalties
when people are charged with certain kinds of criminal offenses.
I have been giving some attention to that nationally with other
members of the bar around the country, and it is my Opinion that we
ought to eliminate a great many of our criminal penalties that are
attached to various statutes-. I, would hope that a criminal penalty
would not be added in this case.
Instead of treating these matters as criminal offenses, it would be
better to make dismissal from a post the maximum penalty. In cases
where the offending employee, by unlawful action, caused others to
suffer financial losses, a provision could be included requiring
restitution.
It is difficult to see why a person who works for the Government
should be required to give up the right to engage hi full political
participation when such a requirement should not and could not
be imposed on a person in private indstry.
The. key to the rights of Government employees should be whether
their actions take place when they are on official duty mid on Govern-
ment premises. One or both of these requirements shoulei be met before
any penalty should be imposed.
Under the circumstances, we hope that the hatch Act will be revised
and that Government employees will be, allowed full participation,
including the right to take leave to seek public office if they desire
to do so.
I do not believe that a person who is employed at any level of
Government should be permitted to campaign for office while he is
actually receiving his regular pay. For instance, if he works from
9 to 5 and gets off at 5 o'clock and campaigns, I don't think that is
proper. I do think he ought to take whatever leave he, has accumulated
or leave without pay so that he is not in fact at his desk or in his office
during the period that he is seeking election.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
169
In regard to the last point that you made, are you saying it is your
opinion that a person who files for public office ought to go oft the
payroll of the Federal Government during the period of the
c amp aign
Mr. MircirELL. I think that would be an ethical thing to do. It
would be very difficult to separate, say, a person who is a postmaster
of a large city from the post office, itself, if, at 8 o'clock at. night one
sees him on television campaigning for a position and then the next.
morning when one goes to the post office sees him there running the
affairs of that office.
To me, it is more a matter of judgment and I think that would be
one way of keepiing, it from having the taint of a person using his
appointed office to obtain an elected office.
Mr. CLAY. But in a practical sense, wouldn't you be placing an
unbearable, an unreasonable condition on those who cannot afford to
be off from work without pay?
I am talking now or thinking of those in the lower echelons, the
man that delivers the mail as opposed to the postmaster. For a 3-month
.campaign, how could he be without pay?
Mr. MrrditELL. I think that that is a problem but it us my opinion
that when a person runs for public office that person ought to be pre-
-pared to make some reasonable sacrifices.
Mr. HARars. He does.
Mr. MITCHELL. As you so well know.
And for that reason I would advocate a person being on leave.
Now, it /night be that he could make a declaration that he intended
to run, but not beginning his campaign right away, and thereby
shorten the time that he would be without income from his job.
Of course, there might well be prudent people who had accumu-
lated enough official leave to be out during that period.
Mr. CLAY. Well, what about those persons who would be seeking
nonpaying positions? Would you still impose that kind of condition
on them?
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I think it is hard to imagine many nonpaying
positions except something perhaps like a school board or a commis-
sion or something of that sort. I certainly would have no objection
to a provision which would give to some administrative body the
right to make a determination of whether the office was of sufficient
importance to warrant being off the job.
Indeed, I think the statute which was enacted -for areas adjacent to
Washington, D.C. concernino?e' local interest questions does make that
kind of exception, so that, asfar as I know, anybody running for the
school board or something of that sort in some of these areas, where
it is strictly a local question, would not have to give up the job at the
time.
Mr. CLAY. Well, that is only in the impacted political areas here,
and it is all right for nonpartisan positions. But in many of the smaller
communities the city council positions are not paying positions. The
mayors of many small cities are not paying positions, and they are
partisan positions. And 1 just wanted to know if you wanted to im-
pose those kind of restrictions.
Mr. MrrcllELL. Well, as I said, I had really in mind people seeking
paid positions.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/M: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. CLAY. Congress?
Mr. MITCHELL. Congress?hopefully, not in Missouri?or the city
council or State legislature, things of that sort, where the functions
that they perform have a great impact on the whole legislative process.
I would certainly think if we revised my suggestion so that it would
exempt nonpaid positions or matters that are strictly in an adminis-
trative area, such as school boards and things of that sort?I certainly
don't see anything wrong with that.
Mr. CLAY. On page 2 of your statement you question whether the
Civil Service Commission should be given the responsibility of making
the final decision in matters, as you pointed out in this lawsuit. And
then you suggested maybe these decisions should be left to an im-
partial tribunal.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. The Civil Service Commission now has what
they call administrative law judges?in fact, I guess a number of
(3 overnment agencies have that.
I have not been satisfied that those officials are really impartial in
sitting as judges and handling affairs of an agency that does have
some control over their function. So I would think we could do what
was done in the Voting Rights Act of 1957 where judges were given
the right to appoint masters, as indeed U.S. judges have the right to
appoint masters in certain types of cases.
I would think there could be a panel from which such persons
could be designated by a U.S. district judge to handle things of that
sort.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Mitchell, some minorities have expressed fears that
broadening the political permissible activities may in some way make
them vulnerable to improper coercion.
What is your opinion on that?
Mr. MITCHELL. I think people must have a little backbone in these
matters. Federal employees enjoy the right of representation by
unions, and many of them are people of very strong convictions
anyway.
So I would think that in view of the fact that the statute gives
them redress, that may be a risk, but I think the risk is outweighed
by the value of giving to people the right to have actual participation
in the political life of this country.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Ms. Spellman.
Ms. SPELLMAN As I sit here looking at Mr. Mitchell, I recall the
last time we were together was at the Woodrow Wilson Institute
for Scholars.
Mr. MITCHELL. That is right, on revenue sharing.
Ms. SPELLMAN. You are right. It was on revenue sharing.
As usual, you have given a very well prepared and very worthwhile
statement and I appreciate that.
There were a number of questions I had as I was reading the state-
ment but in each case you elaborated and made it very, very clear.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
MS. SPELLMAN. I just want to ask one question of you. We want
to be very sure that we have sufficient protection in this bill to prevent
coercion and to prevent undue influence upon employees.
Do you find that there is that? Or, if not, where would you sug-
gest we strengthen that?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :1711A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. MITCHELL. It is my opinion that by imposing penalties you
really have a very strong deterrent. The bill goes a bit further than
i
I have suggested n my testimony. In fact, under the bill a person
found guilty of coercion, would be fined and put in jail as well as
put off the job. I think dismissal from employment under a tightly
drawn statute and implementing regulations would be a sufficient
deterrent.
In these days where employees are represented by organized labor,
I would assume that the first thing that would occur when coercion
arose would be that the employee would go to his shop steward or
some other official to whom he would report a grievance, and wheels
would be set in motion to stop whatever was wrong.
Ms. SPELLMAN. So employees need not fear? People want to see an
opening of the Hatch Act so they can participate but they are fearful
we won't be able to give them proper protection. You don't see any
reason to be concerned?
Mr. MITCHELL. As I said, I think free people must assume some
risks to their lives, fortunes, and their safety. If they are unwilling
to assume those risks, then you might find that you are not going
to be free.
As I remember the history of the Hatch Act?it was passed in my
early days in Washington?it was really designed to get at the pos-
sibility of minor-grade employees being coerced into voting for cer-
tain candidates.
At that time I think the Works Progress Administration, which
was a New Deal agency, had a lot of people doing Government jobs
and there were some who thought these people were being used to un-
dermine candidates who were in office.
But this is a different day. I think that with the television, radio,
and the sensitivity that people have to what their rights are, a person
who attempts to coerce anybody is really in for an awful lot of
trouble.
And, by the same token, it doesn't seem quite fair to me for the
people who have the so-called supergrade jobs, who, after all, get
money out of the same Treasury, to have the right that they have,
whereas those who are at a lower level and maybe feel the pinch of
social problems more severely, don't have an opportunity.
Ms. SPELLMAN. Thank you. I said I would ask only one question
but I do want to make a comment.
Quite a few of the people who have testified have indicated that
they felt that employees should take a leave of absence when they are
running for office. I would not have expected that. I think that is in-
teresting and I certainly am going to take a good look at that proposal.
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, we have that policy in our organization. A
number of our people?they are not paid officials?who are branch
presidents and that kind of thing, eventually wind up as members of
city councils, sheriffs, or one thing and another. But under our policy
it is expected that they would take a leave of absence while they are
running for office and hopefully, if they win, they would then be sub-
jected to scrutiny by our local board for the purpose of determining
whether, by holding a public office, they would be in conflict with the
things that are required of them in the organization.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/112: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
It is a little bit different in that these people are not drawing a salary
from our organization.
In my opinion, it is largely a question of judgment., and if anyone
is deeply troubled by the notion that an employee is. not able to make
any money during the period that he is running for office, I would not
feel that it was so important as to defeat the overall purpose of the
bill.
Ms. SPELLMAN. Let me just ask this, then. If someone were to run
for Congress, the congressional. seat in Maryland, would I have an
unfair advantage over this man or woman who was working for the
Federal Government in another capacity, if I did not take leave as a.
Member of Congress?
Mr. MITCHELL I think it would not give you an unfair advantage
because, in your case, or in the case of most Members of Congress, they
usually make some kind of a provision to run, and do make great
financial sacrifices.
So that I think having made those financial sacrifices and being sub-
ject to the inconveniences they are subjected to, it doesn't seem to me
improper or of any great. advantage, for the individual to continue
serving.
Indeed, it would be contrary to the whole purpose of being elected
to Congress because presmnably, if all Members had to take leave
to campaign, the. legislative body couldn't function in their absence.
Ms. SPELLMAN. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
Mr. Solarz.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, T yield to the distinguished successor to
the former distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee., my good
friend, Mr. Harris.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Sol arz.
I am on my third meeting now. My fourth one, starts in two minutes
and I have to leave awl I regret that very much.
I wanted to compliment you on your statement but, to follow up
again on some of your statement with respect to the requirement for
leave of absence which cconcerns me a great deal, I do not believe it is
a requirement of the Hatch Act now with those nonpartisan candi-
dates. Is that true?
MT. MITCHELL. That is correct, with respect; to those that are ad-
jacent to Washington; I am sure that is correct. And of course with
respect to those employees who are exempt, that is correct.
Mr, HAmas. I have some sensitivity with regard to local offices
especially, where the effort here to open up the Hatch Act a. little bit
has a. great deal of merit as far as gaining participotion of leading
citizens in the, community in affairs of their local govern me nt
And I do think the. requiremont that they take leave of absence for
them to be a candidate really would vitiate the whole effort that we
are making.
And I was wondering if you might not want to consider here that
especially candidates for part-time positions should not he subjected
to the requirement that they leave their jobs in order to be candidates.
I am not so sure, this logic would not apply to other positions in the
campaign once you opened up the door.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : qft-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Mr. MITCHELL. In shaping legislation you do have to have floors and
ceilings on things. I would think with respect to the District of Colum-
bia and with respect to a number of other Government enclaves around
the country, we might have an exception, just as was done for adja-
cent areas in Maryland and Virginia.
But as I said, I don't have any strong feeling about it, and I am sure
in our Organization we would not have a very strong feeling about it
if it meant increasing the opportunities for people to participate in
political process. I am sure we would come down on the side of doing
everything reasonable to make it possible for them to participate.
Mr. HAllitis. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Solarz..
Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
We apparently have quite a few jaded adults who attend the hear-
ings of our committee and it is not too often we get some representa-
tives of the young generation to listen in on our deliberations. So I
thought it perhaps appropriate, in view of the fact that we do have
a representative of that generation here today, to take note of the fact
that we have with us Miss Lori Ann Reffett who, I understand, is the
youngest board member in Easter Seal history. And I can only say,
Lori, you are already off to a good start and I hope you Maintain your
activities because really in many respects the future of our country
depends upon the willingness of young people like yourself to play an
active role in the lives of their communities. And I am sure you have
already demonstrated you have a lot to offer and I have no doubt that
you will continue to make a meaningful contribution in the future.
So if I may take the liberty of speaking on behalf of the other mem-
bers of our committee, we are just delighted that you are here today
and that you have indicated an interest in our work. I just hope that
we can conduct ourselves in such a way that we can merit your con-
fidence in the future.
Getting back to the business at hand, let me say, Mr. Mitchell, I
have heard a lot about you over the years and I am delighted now to
finally have the opportunity to meet you.
I thought your testimony was most persuasive. I just have one or
two questions.
On page 3 of your statement you made the point that you could not
see why someone who works with the Government should be required
to give up the right to engage in political activity when such a require-
ment is not imposed on people who work in the private sector.
And I think that is an excellent point, and it suggested a possible
course of action to me with respect to this legislation which I would
like to try. out.
If, in fact, workers in the public sector should be entitled to the
same protections and privileges as workers in the private sector, it
seems to me if we enact this legislation to a certain extent those who
work in the public sector will be significantly better off than those
that work in the private sector in the sense they will have the same
rights to participate but they will have a measure of protection with
respect to political coercion which Workers in the private sector do
not have.
Perhaps we ought to include in this bill, or it would be germane in
another piece of legislation, a bill of rights for employees in the
52-137-75----1.2
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/7143 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
private sector which would protect them from the same kind of
potential coercion which we seek to protect Federal employees from
in this bill.
Mr. Mriximmt. Before I answer that I would like to join you in
expressing appreciation to the young lady whose name you mentioned.
I will say to her when I was at lier age I assumed that De Senectute did
not mean as much to me when I read it then as it does now that I am 64.
But I will say, also, that in all seasons, spring, fall, winter, and
summer, life is wonderful and it becomes more so if people of all acres
and all stations become involved in the things she is involved in by
being here.
Now, to answer the question, I would like to say it is my belief---
I would have to check the specific part of the criminal code because
I haven't read it recently, but provision in the criminal code, title 18,
section 594, which makes it a crime to interfere with an individual's
right to vote and participate in Federal elections.
I would assume that would be applicable to the people who interfere
with private employees.
In addition I would assume that where employees are represented
by a labor organization, again the same defenses would be made. But
there is a class of private employees that I think would be vulnerable
and I think indeed is now vulnerable, and that is the white collar
junior executive group, which is so close to management and often
lives in such close social contact that it is unlikely they would depart
from the political concepts and views of management, or seek to run
for office unless their superiors approve.
For example, I do know in my State there are some people who
work for the telephone company who have run succe3sfu11y for the
State legislature, and some who work for the steel companies and
others who have worked for large corporations.
Their views are not necessarily the same as those of the executives of
the companies for which they work, but if it could be a greater safe-
guard for these employees to do something along that line, I think it
would be a good idea. I do think it would have tic;'be done in a separate
statute.
Mr. SOLARZ. I think one would have to distinguish in this regard
between efforts to interfere with the. right to vote, on which I will
take your argument for granted that it is already proscribed, with
efforts to coerce employees in the political process through the form
of campaign, et cetera, which the Hatch Act already proscribes and
which the amendment to the Hatch Act would proscribe. What I am
saying is if Federal employees deserve to be protected against such
efforts, then perhaps private employees should be protected as well.
Does that make sense to you
Mr. MITCHELL. It certainly does and there would appear to be
some violation of the rights of people because we have these instances
of private employees used as conduits for contributions to certain
campaigns, and I think if we could give these people protection it
would be a good idea.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Mitchell, one last question. We had some testimony
the other day from the Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, and
it was indicated there was some concern that if the restrictions in
the Hatch Act on political activity were lifted, that this might open
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : P14-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
up possibilities for coercion and discrimination which, while theo-
retically applicable to all Federal employees, might fall dispropor-
tionately on minority employees; and while I felt Mr. White basically
supported the thrust of this legislation, he nonetheless was concerned
that from a minority point of view this could open up a Pandora's
box, that minorities being more vulnerable than others might require
this kind of protection.
I wonder if you could give us the benefit of your own analysis
about the extent to which, if there are problems here, they would
fall disproportionately on minorities.
Mr. MITCHELL. I would certainly think if anybody is going to try
to push people around, most likely they would start 'with minorities
first.
The post office, as now constituted, and as I have known it over the
last three decades, is one of the most repressive, antisocial, and lack-
ing in sensitivity to the needs of employees of any of the Federal
agencies.
I would say if a parade would be formed to try to repress employees,
the postal people would probably be at the head of it.
Nevertheless, I think in the case of Pandora's box, there is very
little in it now that frightens black people of this country. Every-
thing that has been in there has been brought out to intimidate.
And I think that for the most part, while there might be some who
might be frightened, my experience?and particularly if they tried it
on my good friend and colleague, John White who is here in the audi-
ence now?my guess is they would have the biggest fight you could
imagine and they would be very sorry they had 'opened Pandora's
box. [Laughter.]
So I think the risk which is undoubtedly there is outweighted by the
opportunity that this offers.
Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Solarz.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand you, Mr. Mitchell, you believe a person should
resign their job or take a leave of absence during the.time they run
for office.
Mr. MITCHELL. That is what I said, Mr. Collins; not resign, but
take a leave of absence. But I added that if, in the judgment of the
committee and others interested in it, they felt that was not fair I
would not press that point.
Mr. COLLINS. I think that is an excellent attitude you have taken.
In fact, a man in business at home?they would certainly demand
that before he ran, because there are only two Federal jobs he is run-
ning for and they pay $42,000, and that is Congress and the U.S.
Senate. If he runs for Federal office it is a major jdb., not like running
for the school board. Although we realize the incumbent must stay
on the job to still stay in, at the time he challenged he had to resign.
Or maybe my colleagues know of cases where they have run for a
Federal office and did not require it.
Mr. MITCHELL. I think the reach of the statute?I don't know if the
bill would eliminate that provision of existing law, but the reach of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1t3 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
76
the existing law catches people who are working for organizations
which are financed by Federal funds.
Indeed, the case I have submitted as part of my statement involves
that kind of principle. In. that case the employees were running for
delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
So the reach of the statute would go further than simply Congress
and the Senate. However, as I say, I think that is largely a matter of
judgment and I said before you came. in. Mr. Collins, in our organiza-
tion we have a number of volunteers who serve as presidents of our
local branches. Under our rules, when they run for office they are sup-
posed to take leave.. If they are elected, then we have a process by
which it is determined whether their duties as elected officials would
be in conflict with the interests of our organization. If there is no con-
flict found by those who are authorized to make the determination,
then
Mr. COLLINS. I think you have a good set of ground rules. For in-
stance, a judge?you would have someone like that resign if they were
sitting on the judicial bench, I would imagine?
Mr. MITCHELL. It would depend on the circumstances. There was a
distinguished judge in Kansas City, Mo.. Carl Johnson, who, for many
years, was president of our branch there. He ran for a judgeship and
was overwhelmingly elected.
My best recollection is that he was thought to be such a distin-
guished person and was so important in the community that he con-
tinued to serve, and indeed we have on our board of directors, as many
other private organizations do, judges of one kind or another.
One of the most distinguished of those was former Justice Murphy
of the Supreme Court, who, while he was Governor of Michigan and
while he was a judge in the State of Michigan, continued to serve on
our national board. He resignedwhen he went on the Supreme Court.
Mr. ComaNs. Well, I never heard any criticism about any of those, so
they apparently all carried it on with fine tradition.
Let me ask you something. If a Federal employee working in an
office decided to run for office?now you are a practical man. If he ran
for that office and he won, do you think he would treat the people in
his office that supported him and the people that opposed him exactly
the same in the future?
Mr. MITCHELL. Are you saying that if he runs for office and wins,
then he would continue to serve
Mr. 'COLLINS. Let's just say he ran for Congress and everybody in
the office took a partisan position, as this Hatch Act suggests.
Do you think he is going to come out of there and treat everyone
the same, the ones that helped him and the ones that coposed him?
Mr. MrrcuELL. I think everything would depend on the integrity of
the person.
There are some people?and I have-some friends in Congress whose
views I did not agree with at the time they were running for office. But
once they took the oath of office they became the servants of all the
people and I have had very friendly and effective relationships with
them, and I think that is true of most people.
So I would say if a person is a person of integrity. I would assmne
that he would treat friends and foes alike.
T guess the best example of that I can give?I don't consider myself
a foe of the President of the United States but I did make a very
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : 9A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
analytical presentation of his record to Congress at the time he was
nominated for Vice President.
I have not felt that it in any way put a strain on the relationship
that I have with the President, and I am pleased to say that he has
been most cordial, most understanding, which, in my judgment, is the
mark of a great statesman,
Mr. COLLINS. Well, I am glad of that. The best politician I have ever
known was in the opposition party and he would smile when he said it
but he would say, "I just want you to remember during this campaign
that I have a long memory."
I don't think it is as much a matter of integrity as it is of political
philosophy.
I just cannot imagine the persons that worked actively against him
getting a fair shake in the future and that is what worries us.
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I will give you another story of the past. As
you well remember, when Senator Wayne Morse was in the U.S. Sen-
ate, he was a very vigorous critic of the then Majority Leader Lyndon
Johnson of the State of Texas.
I attended a luncheon which was a fund raising luncheon for Senator
Morse. He was seeking reelection at the time in Oregon and finally won.
The majority leader, Mr. Johnson, was present and made this speech.
He said, "Wayne, you have been one of the most ardent critics that I
have had in Congress. You have said everything bad about me that you
could think of saying. I am willing to come out and campaign in
Oregon in your election but all I want you to do is tell me which will
help you most, if I campaign against you or for you."
I think people in politics for the most part realize that things that
are said during an election and positions taken do?not necessarily have
a long-term significance, so most of the people who are really statesmen
tend to treat opponents as well as proponents with an even hand.
Mr. COLLINS. There was a period in our State when most of the
judges named had been campaign managers for the Senators in dif-
ferent areas. I know they were capable attorneys but there was a very
strong correlation in their appointments.
Do. you really believe if you had two guys to choose from and you
were in a position?in this case, you see, all the Federal employees in
the past had been completely neutral. But do you think you would be
completely impartial if you had two fellows sitting there, if one had
been your campaign manager and the other had been running up and
down the street with a flag against you?
Mr. MITCHELL. I hope very much I would be. It would be too snh-
jective for me to say absolutely that I would. I hope I would. I do
know of people who have followed that principle.
I can remember, for example, when I first came around here in the
Roosevelt administration. President Roosevelt appointed Knox and
Stimson to his Cabinet, both of whom were Republicans.
I also remember that President Lyndon Johnson appointed to the
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission Samuel Jackson, who
was well known as a Republican from Kansas and who at that time
-was one of the early black advocates of the election of President Nixon.
And Mr. Johnson knew that, but he appointed Mr. Jackson, neverthe-
less.
I would also say that under our system of appointing Federal judges,
as you so well know, we do try to maintain a balance by appointing
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
178
some people who are not members of the party in power in the execu-
tive branch.
Also, many of our statutes provide for a mix of political parties in
appointments to the administrative boards.
I think there are sufficient safeguards in the law. I think there is
sufficient interest on the part of the public. And as I grow older, I have
more faith in the ultimate decency of many people.
I think we could afford to take a chance on that.
Mr. COLLINS. The longer I am in Congress the more confidence I
have in their honesty and their integrity, but I still believe they are
very human. And most politicians are very closely associated with
people and most of them are very closely associated with friends. And
most of the -successful people I know appear very loyal to their friends.
And I say again I have been impressed with the integrity and honesty.
of the Members of the Congress but, by the nature of having to win
through a popular vote, they do get balanced.
? I very much appreciate all of your testimony. It was very good and
from the heart and a splendid presentation.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, MT. Collins.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Mitchell, we certainly want to thank you for the testimony you
gave us. I am sure it will be quite helpful in helping Us to make up our
minds about the final version that this bill ought to take.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The attachment to the prepared statement follows i]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding involves charges- that two employees violated section 1502(a)
(3) of title 5, of the United States Code, a provision of the Federal statute
known as the Hatch Act Political Activities Act. In notices issued to the indi-
viduals and to their employing agencies, the General Counsel of the U.S. Civil
Service Commission alleged that the employee-respondents * * served as dele-
gates to. and participated in, the Democratic National Convention held in Miami
Beach, Florida, from about July 10 through July 14, 1972. The charge against
* * also stated that she was a candidate for election to that office in the
Primary Election held * * * on June 6, 1972.
The individua respondens admitted that they engaged in the political activ-
ity as alleged, but asserted that the Hatch Act and regulations under which the
charges were brought were invalid and of no effect because they violate the
Constitution of the United States. The * * * County Community Action Project,
for which * * * then worked as Head Start Project Director, did not file an
answer. Respondent * * * employer. the * * * State Department of Human
Resources Development, filed an answer, by counsel, admitting some of the
allegations set forth in the Letter of Charges.
A consolidated hearing was held * * * at which evidence was introduced by the
parties. Written stipulations by counsel were also received. Thereafter, briefs
were filed by Government counsel and by the attorneys for the individual
respondents.
STATUTE AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED
The Hatch Act limits the political activity 'of most Federal employees and
imposes similar restrictions on certain State and local g,overtiment employees in
executive agencies. Specifically, it applies to a "State or local employee," defined
in the statute as "an individual employed by a State or local agency whose prin-
cipal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole
or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency.
5 U.S.C. 1501(4). The law provides certain exemptions not pertinent here.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
179
Besides forbidding the Use of coercion to solicit political contributions and the
use of one's_ official authority to interfere with an election the statute provides:
"A State or local officer or employee may not?
"(1) * * *
"(2) * *
"(3) take an active part in political manageinent or in political campaigns."
. 5 U.S.C. 1502(a).
The latter restriction covers partisan political activity, for the law does not
apply to elections or public questions that are not connected with national or
State political parties or candidates. 5 U.S.C. 1503. An employee also "retains
the right to express his opinions on political subjects and candidates." 5 U.S.C.
1502(b). -
Another statute is pertinent to the case of * * who is employed by the * * *
County Community Action Project. The law provides that employees of private
community action agencies receiVing funds under the Economic Opportunity Act
of 1964, as amended, are Subject to the Hatch Act on the same basis as employees
of governmental agencies. [ Section 603(a), 42 V.S.C. 2943(a) ; 80 Stat. 1469, as
amended.]
EMPLOYMENT
From documentary evidence and stipulations entered into by the parties
through counsel, it is established that the individual respondents were subject
to the prohibitions of the Hatch Act during the times relevant to the charges.
The salient facts will be set forth briefly.
Mrs. * * * served from September 27, 1971 to July 12, 1972, as the full-tithe
Administrative Assistant for the * * * County Community Action Project. That
agency received approximately $507,900 in grants made by the Office of Economic
Opportunity for the program year September 1, 1971 to August 31, 1972.
During the times pertinent to the charges Mrs. * * * worked full-time as a
Manpower Services Representative with the * * * Department of Human
'Resources Development; a State agency which received Federal funds under
the Manpower Act of 1965. (42 U.S.C. 2571 et seq.). Her employment was
connected with activities financed pursuant to that Act.
Thus, the record shows jurisdiction in both cases, that is, each respondent
was a "State or local officer or employee" at the times relevant to the charges.
The next questions are concerned with the political activity charged.
TIIE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
The respondents do not dispute the factual allegations recited in the charges;
they readily admit that they attended and participated as delegates in the
Democratic National Convention at Miami Beach, Florida, in July 1972. * * *
concedes that she was a candidate for that post in the primary election of
June 6, 1972.
Candidacy for and service in the position of delegate to a political party
convention are clear violations of the statutory proscriptions and the implement-
ing regulations published by the Civil Service Commission. 5 CFR 151.122(a),
151.122(b) (1) and (11). The Commission has so held in a number of cases. See,
for example, In the Matter of John I?. Hansen, Iowa State Highway Commission
and the State of Iowa, 3 P.A.R. 53 (1970)1; In the Matter of Barney E. Hilburn
and the Housing Authority of the City of Oakland, California, 2 P.A.R. 701
(1964) ; In th6 Matter of Lannon V. Stennis, 1 P.A.R. 888 (1965).
PENALTY
In the absence of mitigating circumstances, active and conspicuous partici-
pation in the - management of political party business?here, at the national
level?warrants removal from employment. The record in these cases is devoid
of evidence that would support a moderation of the penalty. In, the Matter of
R. E. Palmore, et at., and the State of Kentucky, 3 P.A.R. 137 (1972).
On the contrary, it appears that * * * engaged in the political activity after
receiving notice that the Hatch Act forbade her service as a delegate to the
1 The citation to P.A.R. refers to the Political Activity Reporter published by the Civil
Service Commission, containing its Hatch Act decisions. The four-volume publication is
available at State libraries, law schools, State Bar Associations, and at libraries of
Federal courts.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13180 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
national convention. The record shows that her agency reacted to newspaper
publicity concerning her election as delegate by warning her that she would
violate the Hatch Act by serving as a convention delegate. Though * * * at first
indicated she would resign as a delegate, she informed the Department a week
before the convention that she would attend as a delegate?apparently willing
to challenge the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. (Gov. Ex. C).
With regard to * *, it was admitted that the Executive Director of her
agency contacted her at Miami Beach on the first (lay of the convention and
advised her that she should withdraw from the convention, resign from her
employment, or face dismissal from her job. She decided to continue serving
as a delegate and participated in the convention proceedings.
Thus, the record in these cases shows substantial and willful violations that
justify removal of the respondents from their employment. The respondents'
belief that the restraints imposed on their political activity by the Hatch Act
were unconstitutional does not mitigate the offenses; to rule otherwise would
cause employees to expect that serious violations of the law would be officially
countenanced or dealt with less severely whenever the offender acted under the
belief that the statute-abridges his constitutional rights.
In a related argument, respondents contend that even though the statute may
not be held unconstitutional on its face,' it cannot he validly applied to the
activity involved here: to bar their participation in a party convention on their
own time?an open activity which, they argue, would not lead to corruption
or political coercion of subordinates?is a violation of their constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court considered a similar argument, among others, in the Letter
Carriers case: "It may be urged that proldbil ions against coercion are suffi-
cient protection [for subordinate employees;] but for many years the joint
judgment of the Executive and Congress has been that to protect the rights
of federal employees with respect to his job and his political acts and beliefs
it is not enough merely to forbid one employee from attempting to influence or
coerce another." [Footnote omitted.] 41 L.W. at 5127.
The same thesis undoubtedly prompted Congress to extend these restrictions
to State and local employees, who are expected likewise to administer
Government-funded programs without bias or favoritism for or against any
political party or its members. In any event, the opinion in Letter Carriers,
supra, lends substantial support to the view that the prohibition in question
here, relating to service as a convention delegate (even while on one's own time).
is within the area of constitutionally permissible regulation. The constitutional
arguments advanced by respondents are, accordingly, rejected.
RESPONDENTS' EXCEPTION S
In their Exceptions to the Recommended Decision, respondents argue that the
penalty of removal is too harsh in light of the fact that they acted in good
faith in reliance on advice that the Hatch 'set was unconstitutional, as dem-
onstrated, respondents say, by a. decision that had been issued by the U.S.
District Court in the Letter Carriers ease. But the main force of the argument
is dispelled when it is seen that at the time * * * engaged in the political
activity charged, the District Court had not announced its decision. Whereas
the election of delegates took place on June 6, 1972, and the convention activity
between July 10 and July 14, 1972, the District Court's decision was not released
until July 31, 1972.3 Hence, neither the respondent's nor their advisers could
have relied on that decision as giving prior sanction to their political activity.
Another exception, earlier presented in respondents' brief as a constitutional
argument and already discussed herein is reasserted as a matter in mitigation.
Respondents say that their violations did not involve pernicious conduct, for
which alone the removal penalty ought to be reserved. Therefore, they argue,
it would be an arbitrary and indiscriminate exercise of the Commission's power
to find that removal is warranted in this case and similar eases where the
political activity is not one of the specific evil practices expressly condemned by
the Act.
But that argument minimizes the broad reach of the statute, for the Act
also prohibits other forms of partisan political activity that are not regarded
20n :lime 25, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision upholding the Hatch
Art provisions covering Federal employees. U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National
Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973).
3 National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL?CIO. v. U.S. Civil Service Commission,
1)40 F. Stipp. 578 (D.D.C. 1972), rev'd 413 U.S. 548 (1973).
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : in-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
as inherently evil. The Commission finds that here the respondents' activities
were substantial and knowing violations of the Act and that removal is
warranted.
A final point is made that * * * has moved to a different job since the vio-
lation and that her removal from the new position is not authorized by law.
There can be no doubt, however, that the Commission has the authority to make
the determination that removal is warranted, irrespective of whether the
employee is in a different position or employment when the decision is issued.
The statute expressly requires that after a hearing on the charges the Com-
mission shall determine whether a violation warrants removal and shall notify
the employee and the agency of its conclusion. 5 U.S.C. 1505.
Section 1506 of title 5, United States Code, prescribes the consequences that
may follow a Commission determination that removal of a State or local em-
ployee is warranted. Even if the employee changes his employment before a
final decision is issued, the requirement a section 1505 that the Commission
make a determination still applies. In the Matter of Nello A. Tineri and the
Department of City Planning and Urban Development of Monessen, Pennsyl-
vania, 3 P.A.R. 146 (1972) ; In the Matter of Done Moore, the State of Indiana,
at al., 2 PAR, 530 (1959). The separate question of whether an employee who
has moved to a different agency ought to be removed from his new employment
depends upon the application of section 1509.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
It is found that:
(1) The respondents * * * while principally employed in connection with a
Federally- financed activity, engaged in political activity in violation of section
1502(a) (3) of title 5, United States Code, as charged.
- (2) The violations warrant removal of the respondents from their employ-
ment.
It is Ordered that this Final Decision and Order of the Commission be.
authenticated by the signature of an authorized official of this Commission and
that due notice thereof be given to the parties in interest.
BY THE COMASSION:
JAMES C. SPRY,
Exeoutive Assistant to the Commissioners.
Washington, D.C.
Ms. SPELLMAN. Our next witness is Mr. John F. Leyden, president
of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization.
We welcome you here, Mr. Leyden, and are looking forward to
your ,testimony.
STATEMENT 'OF OIN P LEYDEN, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIR
TRAFFIC 'CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION, ACCOMPANIED BY AL-
LAN MOSKOWITZ, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. LEYDEN. Thank you. I guess I appropriately should say Madam .
Chairperson.
Ms. SPELLMAN. My son calls me Gladys Spellperson, the Fresh-
person Congressperson. [Laughter.]
Mr. LEYDEN. Here with me is our legislative director, Mr. Alan
Moskowitz.
My statement is rather brief and if I may be permitted I would
like to read it into the record.
Ms. SPELLMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. LEYDEN. Ms. Spellman and members of the subcommittee,
PATCO appreciates the opportunity to testify before this subcom-
mittee on II.R. 3000, the Federal Employees Political Activities Act
of 1975.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
182
This bill would reform the political limitations imposed on Federal
employees by the Hatch Act and restore those basic political rights
which are the essence of American citizenship.
For 35 years, the Hatch Act has purposefully deprived Federal
employees the right of full political participation. While I don't think
it necessary to repeat the history and reasoning behind the law, it is
very relevant to note that the Federal employee-employer relationship
has changed through the years to the point where those political
machinations of the past are virtually impossible today. Federal em-
ployees no longer need the suffocating blanket provisions of the Hatch
Act to protect them from political pressures; they are able to protect
themselves in many ways through labor unions. H.R. 3000 can provide
the rest.
The Hatch Act not only forces the employee to forego basic rights
but also denies the employee the opportunity to take effective political
action to retain these rights. Without the broader freedom of speech
and the freedom of association, does the Government employee really
have the requisites of freedom? Besides the right to vote and the
ability to be a, reluctant member of the silent majority, what political
freedom does the Federal employee have?
Mr. Hampton stated in his testimony before this subcommittee that
"not one employee's vote goes uncast because of the Hatch Act, nor one
idea unexpressed." Is the mere right to vote the extent of democratic
political activity? Citizens of the Soviet bloc have this right; would
Mr. Hampton deem them politically free?
As to the expression of ideas, Mr. Hampton is correct if the em-
ployee talks to himself, his family or one or two friends. But if the
employee dares to express his ideas to a larger gathering then he may
be guilty of political association and thus in violation of the act.
Rather than attempting to define the legally drawn line between the
two situations, the employee may very well just abstain from meaning-
ful political participation.
This abstention not only harms the individual; it is injurious to the
health of the Nation. Democracy can only function properly where
there is participation; the higher the proportion of citizens actively
participating in the political -process, the healthier society will be as a
result of the diversity of opinion expressed and the participatory ener-
gies harnessed.
The ancient Greeks were well aware of this. There, full political par-
ticipation was not merely a right but was rather a duty, the price one
paid for citizenship and membership in the society.
History teaches that nothing is more dangerous to democracy than
large "silent majorities," silent either through apathy or restriction.
There are 214 million Federal employees, politically aware and
concerned. Considering the paucity in numbers in the recent years'
elections, society desperately needs the energies, time, and active par-
ticipation in our political processes that this large group, long dor-
mant, could contribute. To purposely continue the bar on full Federal
employee political activity would not only cheat these employees of
their full citizenship, but would also deny our Nation the potential
vitality inherent in their numbers.
I might interject that the act's emphasis on individual action, while
barring particprttion in most collective form, has the effect of politi-
cally isolating the employee, rendering him virtually ineffective in a
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :.1c-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
nation of 200 Million people where organization and number are es-
sential to influence and the equivalent of power. .
Going beyond the right to vote and the free expression of ideas, there
is the issue of candidacy for public office. Isn't this a basic right and
dream; that any American citizen could theoretically run for Presi-
dent, let alone city council? Not if you are a Federal employee; an-
swers the Hatch Act. When each separate infringement of political
freedom is united to form the bulwark of the Hatch Act, the image
of the Federal employee that comes to mind is not the stereotype of
completely "bound and gagged," but rather the reality of weak-limbed
and whispering.
The political inhibitions involved in the Hatch Act are too numerous
to discuss in their entirety, but one deserv.ps to be highlighted.
The most wasteful and arbitrary demarcation in the act is the one
which bars partisan activity, yet endorses independent or nonpartisan
political action. First, in the contemporary sphere of affairs, what issue
or election can truly be called nonpartisan? Even if partisan flags
are not officially unfurled, each party takes a stance and works toward
its desired end. Second, by limiting the Federal employee to nonparti-
san elections, he is excluded from participation in the great majority
of elections and barred from shaping the great issues of his day. This
amounts to unreasonable discrimination.
Furthermore, if the employee resides in a geographical area deemed
to be heavily populated by Federal employees, such as the suburbs of
the District of Columbia, he may legally be a candidate in a local
partisan election. But he must be an independent candidate. But his
independent candidacy may be legally endorsed by any or all of the
partisan political parties.
While I can admit the Ionic of this procedure in terms of the basic
framework of the Hatch. Act, it still remains a sham and allows, or
forces, the employee to do indirectly what he is unable to do directly.
Despite the change wrought in the political activities allowed to
State and local employees by the Federal Elections Campaign Act
amendments of 1974, the Hatch Act's coverage still extends in some
measure to those in State and local governme:nt whose principal em-
ployment is in connection with an activity financed in whole or in
part by Federal loans or grants. As Federal grants-in4tid increase,
touching more and more people the thought occurs that some day,
everyone could, to some degree, be covered by the act. Who would run
for office?
Admittedly, that projected dilemma is whimsical at best, but the. gist
of the argument is viable. If one starts from the assumption that Gov-
ernment employees have in principle the same political rights as any
other group, one automatically becomes cautious about restrictions,
weighing each one carefully in terms of the Constitution, the advan-
tages to be gained for the public interest, and the effect on the civil
service. This viewpoint protects one against blanket prohibitions or
the blind acceptance of past practices. And it is this viewpoint which
the Hatch Act lacks.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Chairman Clay and his
numerous cosponsors for this progressive piece of legislation. Chair-
man Clay's statement of February 27, 1975, that "this bill will bring
the provisions of the Hatch Act in line with the realities of the 1970's "
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/IL CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
brought to my mind not only the 1970's but also the 1770's, those years
in which this Nation fought a revolution to insure the citizenry many
of the same rights presently denied to Federal employees.
- Once again, I would like to thank this subcommittee for allowing the
views of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization to be
heard on these issues and this legislation.
Ms. SPELLMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Leyden.
I was interested in what you had to say in comparing the -Russian
system and true democracy.
It brought to mind something that Averill Harriman told some of
us one day. He had just come back from Russia and had been talking
with the top echelon of the Soviet Union.
One Of the men said to him, "In your country you believe in one
man, one vote. now, don't you?"
And he said, "Yes, we certainly do."
And the man said, "We go even further. We go one man, one vote,
one candidate."
On page 4, I am interested where you mention the. fact that if you
live in the Metropolitan Washington area., for instance, you can be a
candidate in a local partisan election but you have to run as an in-
dependent.
It brings to mind the fact that when we in_Prince Georges County
first had an election for a school board people ran as independents, but
there was a Democratic slate of independents and a Republican slate
of independents. And we had also the same. kind of an election for
our first county council. And all of us ran as independents, with the
Democrats setting forth a slate and the Republicans setting forth a
slate. And my colleague on my right would be interested to know that
didn't like that and I ran truly as an independent against both the
Democratio slate and the Republican slate. If it was going to be an
independent election. I was going to be a real independent?and I won.
Mr. COLLINS. That is very good.
Ms. SPELLMAN. You also ask?and yon have made some excellent
points here?on page 5, that as the, Federal grants-in-aid increase,
touching more and more people, who will be eligible to run?
Mr. Mitchell did cite a situation, as you know, where :people did
run to ptove a point. In the, metropolitan Washington area there
were people who ran for office who were working with the com-
munity service. programs and they really thought they could run to
become delegates to the national conventions. Later, they were, indeed,
found to be in violation of the_Hatch Act.
? So you are quite right, we keep narrowing this down more and
more. .
Mr. LEYDEN. I like to think the Supreme Court addressed them-
selves to that in the decision of 1973. I have a lot of respect for those
people who did that, not because they are lawbreakers, because I think
the law demands a look at it, and I think even the Justices said so,
said maybe Congress will get enlightened sometime in the. future.
Ms. SPELLMAN. And_Mr. Clay has stepped into the breach so maybe
they won't have to make decisions like that again.
Was this discussed in your group and was there a vote taken?
Mr. LEYDEN. As far as our position on the. Hatch Act., we have an
executive board and have discussed it at that level and we additionally
have provided the chairman with members, who are not officers of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : pyk-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
this organization who will be testifying before. your committee when
you .cro out for field investigations. I think that might belie the fears
that have been raised about differences of opinion between elected
officials of the union and membership. I feel you will get the same
reaction.
Ms. SPELLMAN. There have been suggestions made that the penal-
ties should be civil, rather than criminal. Do you have any thoughts on
that?
Mr. LEYDEN. It was kind of refreshing for me to listen . to Mr.
Mitchell's views and I think dismissal from Federal employment?as
far as I can conceive of a penalty being invoked on an individual for
this type of action, I would support his position that anything beyond
that is a penalty that doesn't fit the crime.
Ms. SrELLmAN. Another point I was especially interested in, and
asked Mr. Mitchell about, was the taking of leaves of absence.
Mr. LEYDEN. I think if we are going to try to parallel the rights
that have been long accepted by private employees?and I speak as a
Federal employee with 17 years of Federal employment and leaves
of absence?if we are trying to catch up, this is a step in the right
direction.
On the other side of the coin, I think we have to say the same ob-
ligations that are imposed on a member of the private sector if he
decides to run for office should be imposed on us. I find rare exceptions
where Federal employees would not be supportive of a position to
take a leave of absence when one wishes to run for office.
And I don't think it is inconsistent with the feelings of most of
the people that I am associated with in the union movement.
Ms. SPELLMAN. They would say, also, to take a leave of absence?
Mr. LEYDEN. I think so.
Ms. SPELLMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. CLAY. I would like to follow up on that last question because
I have strong feelings on whether or not the leave of absence ought
to be compulsory or a person ought -to make that judgment, himself.
I can see where we would be extending a certain amount of political
freedom on the one hand, and imposing some unreasonable and unfair
restrictions with the other hand.
Take, for instance, a person who earns $7,000 or $8,000 a year work-
ing for the Government in a very nonessential position in terms of
whether or not the agency will continue to function. That person
camiot afford to take a 3-month leave of absence, or 2-month leave
of absence, and still support his family.
On the other hand, in private industry, people at those levels of
employment aren't forced to take leaves of absence in most instances
in order to campaign for office.
My first elected position some 18 or 19 years ago was to the city
council in the city of St. Louis and at the time I was in management.
I was manager of an industrial insurance agency in the city of St.
Louis with some 18 or 19 employees working under me. And I cam-
paigned for about 8 months in my off-duty time and there was no
condition that I had to resign or to take a leave of absence to do it.
And the job I was seeking paid. At that time it paid some $5,200;
$1,000 in salary and $1,200 in expenses.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/118.1: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
And. I just see that if you put that kind of provision in this law
you are going to deny hundreds of thousands of people who perhaps
may want to seek office that right because they can't afford it.
So I think we ought to give a great deal of thought before we put
a provision such as that into the law.
Mr. LEYDEN. I am sympathetic with that and don't have an answer
for it. I do see the problem that would be created and the burden
imposed on a person in the income bracket described. Maybe there
can be a breakpoint or the law can be drafted to categorize distinc-
tions, making exceptions for certain persons in Federal employment.
Maybe you could make breaks and have different standards for the
individuals, depending on the sensitivity of the position and the in-
come itself.
Maybe that is the answer. I don't have a positive answer for it and
it is a dilemma.
Mr. MOSKOWITZ. Or possibly you might not have to make it man-
datory. It seems to me most people who would be running for full-
time office would take the time off from the job. And even if you don't
put it in the law, they could possibly work A out with their employer
at their particular shop.
I don't know whether that can be worked out through the Civil
Service or not.
Mr. CLAY. I see some problems both ways but I think we are going
to have to strike a happy medium, strike some type of a balance.
I, like Ms. Spellman, was interested in your quote or reference to
the Soviet bloc, and would like to state that we found out in recent
months that there isn't a country in the Western World, a democracy
in the Western World, that prohibits its Federal or its public em-
ployees from participating in politics to the extent that we do in this
country.
In fact, most of the democracies in the world have no laws, no
limitations whatsoever. Just recently, when we were in Germany, we
found out that 60 percent of all of the elected officials in the entire
country are public servants' and 40 percent of the elected officials in
the highest legislative body they have in Germany are schoolteachers,
with another 20 percent coming from other categories of public serv-
ice. And they seem to have no problem there.
In France and in England the same is true, and in the Scandinavian
countries.
And I would just like to know, in your opinion?and I am asking this
question because the opponents who have testified before us have all
made generally the same statement: That, if we revise the Hatch Act
as proposed in H.R. 3000, that in some way it would have a tendency
to erode the Federal merit system. Do you agree with that statement?
Mr. LEYDEN. No, I don't. I think again you have to make a deter-
mination?and give the benefit of the doubt to the integrity of the
individuals who are involved. And the possibility of erosion is there.
Mr. Mitchell stated the risk when you open Pandora's box. I think
that risk is outweighed by the rights there have not been for a long time
to fully participate in the political activities of this country.
Mr. CLAY. There is just one part of the statement?I don't think
it is a question, Madam Chairperson?but in regard to a question posed
by the previous speaker, Mr. Mitchell, by Mr. Collins, he expressed
some fears about what would happen if a supervisor in the office ran,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIXRDP77M00144R001100120002-8
and some in the office were opposed to him and some were for him,
who would be give preference to?
My experience in this field?and I have been in it for 20 years now?
is if those opposed to me were able to garner a sufficient and substan-
tial amount of opposition, I would do all in my power to win them
over to my side.
And my personal political philosophy has always been that I have
no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.
Someone may be opposed to me today and tomorrow we may be on the
same side because the interest of both of us is in agreement.
I don't think that is anything we should be overly concerned about.
I think the basic thing involved in this piece of legislation is that it
is right and the most democratic thing we can do in this country.
?
Thank you.
MS. SPELLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. COLLINS. Thank you.
We have seen your union two or three times and it is a very well-run
union and one I have never thought was short of any of the benefits.
What is the average income of your members.
Mr. LEYDEN. I would say between $20,000 and $30,000 a year.
Mr. COLLINS. And Ave visited yesterday with the postal employees
and I think they said theirs was about $10,000.
You have always prided yourself on the fact that you have certain
special qualifications of your members and that they should have cer-
tain special benefits and in your contracts you have certain benefits
that no other union has.
Mr. LEYDEN. That was because of the wisdom of the Congress in
passing the legislation. [Laughter.]
Mr. COLLINS. But you do a very active job of keeping them informed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. COLLINS. Going back, what advantage would your union have
toward trying to get involved in politics and working toward an
equalization program? Because usually in politics things tend to equal-
ize out, whereas your group runs ahead of what the average person
in the union is making.
Mr. LEYDEN. I don't share your views because I draw a parallel with
the pilots and we have a long way to go to reach them, and my mem-
bership reminds me we are not making $87,000 a year.
Mr. Conmics. I didn't see the pilots come in, either. You may not
drive a Rolls Royce but you drive a good Cadillac.
Mr. LEYDEN. It has been recognized by the Congress that special
consideration is given to the controller, because of the responsibility he
assumes.
Mr. COLLINS. You are a very practical man. Can you imagine a su-
pervisor coming in and saying, 'I am a very, very strong supporter
of George Wallace and I would like you fellows to come out and take
a strong position for Wallace, too?"
Mr. LEYDEN. Mr. Collins, isn't it done sub rosa now?
Mr. COLLINS. I don't believe it is. In my district I am not aware of
any, and that is a fact. The union membership in our town vote both
ways and they are very open about it?and when I say "very open," I
mean they are not coerced in any way. There is no coercion ever seen
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/0443 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
in our area and yet I have never even heard anything very loud on
where they stand, either.
I am not familiar with anyone in Government work coming out and
speaking strongly.
Mr. LEYDEN. I am divorcing myself from the union. I think the
realities are, Mr. Collins, that this has been a practice for a number
of years. And it is sub rosa. It is done in the facilities. I have had ex-
perience with it. It is done not only in political campaigns but with
bond raising and charity affairs?the whole load.
Mr. COLLINS. Bond raising and charities
Mr. LEYDEN. Some subtle pressures are applied.
Mr. COLLINS. They are applied because most people don't just run
forward and Make their gifts. There is a different deal?and the
same with the United Fund.
But going back to this, I am. not aware, as to a single member of
your union, whether you are for me or against me.
Mr. LEYDEN. We didn't take a position on your election, sir.
Mr. ComAxs. The members never do. And I just wonder what ad-
vantage you have in doing differently.
Mr. LEYDEN. Well, I am a very practical man and I am a political
man. I run for office every 3 years.
Mr. COLLINS. That is a good system; it is good.
Mr. LEYDEN. Yes, it is good. I am judged on my productivity as a
political person just as you are by your record in Congress. I am cer-
tain when I am elected I am not elected to sit and not further the goals
and interests of the membership or protect them and represent them
as best I can. And I will be gauged on that record. It certainly would
be to my advantage to have the support of and be persuasive with peo-
ple in Congress and have the right to lobby as every other vested
interest group does in this country. We are precluded from the full
participation that non-Federal unions and corporations now enjoy. I
would like to participate in that.
Mr. COLLINS. But you are very effective right now. What I am trying
to get back to is: Why do you need to have Congressmen pledged to
come in? Why don't you have them come in open and take a. fair and
open chance when an election comes up? You would like to have
Congressmen committed and pledged in a campaign?
Mr. LEYDEN. I didn't say that.
Mr. COLLINS. No?
Mr. LEYDEN. I would like to have an ear to be receptive to myviews.
Mr. Coumcs. What other point would there be in participating, if
not to get
Mr. LEYDEN. I am not a Congressman, so I couldn't say.
Mr. COLLINS. Why would a union do-that ?
Mr. LEYDEN. I would like to have an opportunity to present my
views and get a sympathetic ear for a view I am espousing.
Mr. COLLINS. I have an article that came out of the Star where a
fellow says on this business he believes this will be the end of the
merit system as he knows it today. He says the attacks on the merit
system during the Nixon administration would be child's play com-
pared to what would happen if the Hatch Act were radically changed.
Federal employees would be on shaky ground if they refused their
boss' orders to engage in political activities.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
180
Do you honestly believe the merit system would continue the same
:as it is today'?
Mr. LEYDEN. I think the same opportunity is now :available for in-
dividuals to coerce, to apply pressure, in a sub rosa manner and I be-
lieve that is the case today and I don't see the distinction if the law
. opens that up.
I think you have to weigh it on two sides, Mr. Collins. The scales
. seem to tilt, as I see it, on the present course of action by Federal em-
ployees?the safest course is not political involvement because there
:may be a Hatch Act violation. That costs not :only the individual but
:this Nation something and I don't think there should be two sets of
rules applied, One for Federal employees and one for .people on the
:private side, That wasn't the constitutional intent and I, think the
Hatch Act should be brought up to date. -
Mr. COLLINS. The reason why there are two sets, if a man works for
United States Steel or, a lady works for Republic Steel, We have no
,-control over their job, but if they work for the U.S. Government
through the appointive positions we do have an input to their job. It
is a tremendous difference.
And this is my fifth term and I have never had any single case, and
I hope I never do, where people have come-to me and said, "Jim, we
,ought to work that guy over because be was against us." I have never
had anybody come and tell me that and I have been here five terms.
And I think that is an excellent thing,
Mr. LEYDEN. Would you say by having the right concerned. individ-
-uals will abuse the ability or the right to try to persuade individuals?
Mr. COLLINS. That is exactly right.
Mr. LEYDEN. Let me speak for my constitutency, then. I believe they
:are the most individualistic Federal employeees and there is a myth
-that has been perpetrated about union activities and a union's ability to
deli ver blocs of votes. I know from experience that that is a myth. The
people I represent are free thinkers and they are, going to weigh and
evaluate the situation and make a determination not Cased on what I
say but based on what they objectively review or look at and see as the
:merits of the case. And I am not convinced I can say to you, "I can
deliver 15,000 votes." I don't think you would accept that as a reality.
Mr. COLLINS. We appreci ate hearing from you.
Mr. CLA-r. Thank you.
_Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Leyden, while I regret I was delayed in arriving at the hearing
-and not hearing all of your testimony, I have reviewed through your
-prepared testimony.
One of the things that troubles me is that while you are suggesting
greater participation, I am concerned about how we prevent the abuses
that occurred prior to the adoption of the Hatch Act. How are we
going to prevent these very same abuses from occurring once again if
we now allow political activity?
Mr. LEYDEN. Again, I think that you must take a look at the totality
-of the Federal work force. I like to think they are a pretty enlightened
group.
As the trade union structure has evolved within the Federal struc-
ture there are protections afforded individuals as to abuse in the merit
52-137-?-75---13
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04M : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
system or if they get involved in partisan politics and there was coer-
cion exercised.
I speak not only for my group but the executive group, that we would
welcome an opportunity to see that those abuses don't continue.
I think you have to think of the role the Federal unions had when
this act first went into place 30 years ago, and where we stand today.
I think it is the evolution of the Federal unions that has made this
possible.
Mr. GILMAN. Isn't that what brought about the adoption of the
Hatch Act, to avoid these abuses?solicitation, favoritism, some of the
abuses that were prevalent pre-1939? What I am concerned about,
Mr. Leyden, is what sort of teeth do you propose to prevent that from
happening again once we, open the door to political activity?
Mr. LEYDEN. Well, if there is coercion on the part of, the union there
is redress for the individual. I think you are providing sufficient safe-
guards for that individual to file his complaint and take action.
Mr. GILMAN. You are not concerned about any erosion of the merit
system?
ME. LEYDEN. No, I IUD not.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Leyden.
? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Gilman.
I don't think we need to ask any more questions. I think the testi-
mony has been right to the point. I think we know exactly where you
stand on the proposed legislation. And we would just like to thank you
for coming out tins morning.
Mr. LEYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Mr. CLAY. The subcommittee will adjourn, subject to the call of the
Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11 :25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the
call of the Chair.]
[The following statements and letters were received for inclusion in
the record:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
There are over 2.8 million Federal employees in the United States today. These
government employees constitute a significant segment of the Voting population
in several states. For example, in my home state of New York there are close
to 175,000 Federal workers, with over 98,000 in New York City alone. And yet,
for many years these government employees have been prohibited from partici-
pating fully in the political life of the nation. I think that this situation is un-
wise and unfair. Therefore, I have introduced a bill, H.R. 719, to allow govern-
ment employees to exercise full political rights, similar to those enjoyed by
other American citizens.
The source of the existing restrictions on the political participation of govern-
ment employees is the Hatch Act, originally passed by the Congress in 1939 and
subsequently amended. I think that by this point most of us are familiar with
the somewhat vague prohibitions contained in the Hatch Act: for example, cov-
ered employees may not use their official authority or influence for the purpose
of interfering with or affecting the result of an election nor may they take an
active part in political management or in political campaigns. Tn practice. this
has meant that a Federal employee may vote or express an opinion on political
issues, but is banned from performing any more active role in a partisan cam-
paign or assuming any position of leadership in a political party.
The Passage of the Hatch Act in 1939 represented the culmination of several
years of debate in the country ;this discussion had focused on the "pernicious"
political activities of public employees, allegedly associated with the emergency
public relief programs such as WPA in the 1930's. While there was widespread
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : d9A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
agreement in the Congress at the time that some legislation was needed to curb
political abuses of and by workers in various Federal agencies, many thought that
the provisions of the Hatch Act might be unnecessarily restrictive and ambiguous.
In the ensuing years debate in the Congress has continued concerning the pro-
priety of the Hatch Act restrictions, although no substantial changes in the legis-
lation occurred until 1974.
Some have questioned the constitutionality of the Hatch Act, contending that
the existing provisions are so unnecessarily restrictive as to constitute an ex-
cessive abridgement of the public employee's freedom of political expression,
guaranteed in the first amendment, however, the Supreme Court has upheld the
constitutionality of the Hatch Act, most recently in 1973 in the case of United
States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers. This
1973 decision of the Supreme Court, which reverses a lower court's ruling in the
case, has been subjected to criticism in legal journals, however. As one writer
noted in a scholarly journal, "After being rebuked by the Supreme Court, 'govern-
ment workers and particularly their unions will now have to apply pressure for
legislative reform, if there is to be any liberalization of the law."
Last year 'Congress did enact legislation repealing portions of the Hatch Act.
From 1940, when the Hatch Act was amended, until 1974, state and local gov-
ernment employees who were at least partially paid with Federal funds were
covered by the Hatch Act restrictions, along with the employees of the Federal
Government. The new Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FL.
93-443) lifted many of the restrictions from the state and local employees who
had previously been subject; to the Hatch Act, but did not benefit Federal em-
ployees.
We in the 94th Congress must continue this much needed process of reform.
My bill, H.R. 719, is designed to permit Federal, State, and local officers and
employees to take an active part in political management and in political cam-
paigns. The heart of my proposal is section 1, which would amend section 7324 of
title 5 of the United States Code. Under the proposed amendments nine specific
activities, included under the rubric of "an active part in political management
and political campaigns," are listed. If this legislation is enacted, all Federal,
state, and local employees currently restricted by the Hatch Act could engage in
the following activities:
(1) candidacy for service in political conventions;
(2) participation in political meetings, caucuses primaries;
(3) preparing for, organizing, or conducting a political meeting or rally;
(4) membership in political clubs;
(5) distributing campaign literature and distributing or wearing cam-
paign badges and buttons;
(6) having a publishing, editorial, or managerial connection with politi-
cal publications ;
(7) participating in a political parade;
(8) circulating nominating petitions; and
(9) candidacy for any public office.
I might point out that this listing is virtually identical to that found in H.R.
3000, introduced by the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Clay.
More than eight years ago, in October of 1966, the Commission on Political
Activity of Government Personnel was created to review the Hatch Act and to
make recommendations for change. In the report of their findings, issued in early
1968, the Commission noted that its overriding problem involved the accommoda-
tion and reconciliation of two sometimes competing objectives:
On the one hand, in our democratic society it is important to encourage the
participation of as many citizens as possible in the political processes which shape
our government. All citizens must have a -Voice in the affairs of government.
On the other hand, it is equally important to assure integrity in the adminis-
tration of governmental affairs and development of an impartial civil service free
from partisan politics.
This saline dilemma confronts us in 1975 as we seek to reform the provisions
of the Hatch Act. Clearly a balance is necessary between the individual rights
of public employees to participate in political activities and the societal need
for a neutral, effective government bureaucracy.
Therefore, While I have introduced H.R. 719 and enthusiastically advocate
the enactment of legislation which would extend to government employees their
full rights to participate actively in politics as private citizens, I am very con-
cerned that we maintain adequate safeguards to prevent potential abuses. In
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/46123 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
My bill the range of permissible political activities by government employees is
greatly expanded, but at the same time there is a provision prohibiting the use
of offical authority or influence to interfere with or affect die result of an
election.
In 1075 the Hatch Act is obsolete. In the thirty-five years since its original pas-
sage, very significant changes have occurred in American society. For one thing.
government bureaucracies at all levels have expanded, thereby bringing more
and more American citizens Under the restriction on political participation
found in the Hatch Act, Also, the public and especially the media are probably
much more alert and Sensitive to potential abuses of the merit system. And
particularly in the aftermath of the Watergate affair, we in a rebirth of
conthlence in Ann riean politics. To revitalize the system we should be encOttoig-
ing active and responsible political participation by all Americans, government
employees certainly included. In short, the existing Hatch Act provisions have
outlived their usefulness. While we must maintain the integrity of .our civil
service system and protect public employees' from coercive threa is to participate
involuntarily, we must now replaCe the Hatch Act with legislL ion more appro-
priate to the cirmitfistances Of the -,seventies. I Urge illy colleagues to join with
me in this important task.
STATEMENT Or 'lox. Ty-an:Nick V. nAi41ELS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGEEE'S FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on II.R.1(175, the Federal
Employees Political Activities Act of 1975.
I have introduced this legislation in an attempt to restore to Federal em-
ployees their rights to participate, as private citizens, in the po itical life of the
Nation. This right has been denied to Federal workers since the enactment of
the Hatch Act in .1930.
The irony of this situation is that as of January 1st of this year, the pro-
hibitions against taking an active part in political ettinpaigna Will no longer'
apply to 12 million State and local employees whose principal employment is
in connection with a federally financed activity. The Federal Eleetion Campaign
Act Amendments of 1974 (P.t. 03-443) deleted the prohibition in that portion
of the Hatch Act governing political activity by State and loea employees. aml
replaced it with a prohibition against being a candidate in a partisan election,
State and local government employees who previously 'could not do FO, may now
serve as officers of national, State or local political parties and organize partisan
political clubs. They may sell tickets to political fund-raisers, manage eanmai,:,us,
solicit votes, act as challengers or poll watchers during elections or help in
transporting voters to and from polling places.
Prohibitions still exist against coercion of fellow employees 141,4ed on employ-
ment circumstances, as well as against on-the-job financial so icitation or the
use of official authority to influence nominations or elections and actual can-
didacy for elective or partisan political office.
Further, criminal status other than those originating in the Hatch Act, still
regulate political activities by government employees. Under 18 U.S.C. 602,
the exchange of political contributions between government employees and the
solicitation, giving, or receiving of political contributions betv, con government
employees is subject to fine and imprisonment. These prohibiti:ms apply to all
government employees?Federal, State and local.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that Congress will take action to correct this
discriminatory prohibition against political activity by Federal employees, and
restore to these public servants the basic constitutional rights now enjoyed by
their contemporaries in State and local service.
My distinguished colleagues on the subcommittee may well remember some
of the recommendations of the Commission on Political Activity of Government
Personnel, created in October 1966, to review the Hatch Act and Make suggestions
for change. The report of the commission reveals agreement on several points,
which I would like to share with you.
First, the commission found that the present Federal Hatch Act is confusing,
ambiguous, restrictive, negative in character and possibly unconstitutional. The
commissioners believed that changes should be made which clarify prohibitions,
increase participation and reflect a positive tone, so that employees would be
encouraged to participate in permissible activities.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 aek-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Second, the commission agreed that an effort should be made to strengthen the'
.
law on coercing public servants to participate in politics. To the extent that is
. possible, they recommended the development of workable legislation on coercion,
thus adopting the narrower approach rather than restricting first amendment
freedoms. This was precisely the approach of the California Supreme Court in
two cases of high relevance to the concerns, of. the commission. In Fort v. Civil
Service Commission of the County of Alameda (38 Cal. 025; 392, P. 21) 385;
1904)? the court, ruled that the Alemeda County Little Hatch Act was uncon-
stitutional , because its restrictions violated the first amendment of the U.S.
. Constitution. The, court argued that the restrictions were overbroad and uncer--
taim In Bagley v. Washington Township Dospitca Districts (55 Call 40L: 42L
P. 21) 409; 1966). the court reiterated the ,overbreadth doctrine set down in the
,Fort decision. But the court went further to outline the criteria which should
be followed by a legislature when imposing restrictions on first amendment 'free-
doms as .a condition of public employment. This finding of the California Supreme
, Court was a significant influence on the members of the commission as they
; sought to weigh the principles outlined in the first amendment against those
which are inherent in an impartial civil service for administering the public
business.
The commission also found the existing hatch Act distinction between partisan
and nonpartisan is unrealistic ; the commission felt that no such distinction
could be made. In addition, the members of the commission agreed that the States
should be given an opportunity to develop their own laws on political activity of
government. personnel (those receiving Federal funds) based on criteria used
gt tliei Federal level. There was also agreement that coverage should be more
uniform than at present: That there should be greater flexibility in penalties for
violation; that certain improvements in enforcing the law are essential ; and that
more money is needed to administer the law.
? Mr. Chairman, I fun sure my distinguished colleagues on the -subcommittee will
agree that these findings of the commission on political activity of government
:personnel underscore the growing congressional dissatisfaction with the Hatch
Act during the -past three decades. There has developed in some quarters uncer-
tainty regarding the original congressional intention in passing the law. The traditional interpretation has been that a comprehensive statute was needed because
during the rapid expansion of the Federal Government in the days of the New
Deal, employees of relief agencies such as the Works Progress Administration
were being used for political purposes. One can conclude after examining the de-
bates and other records of the event that Senator Hatch and the other framers of
the act were concerned with protecting more Federal employees, but they also
- wanted to liberalize the restrictive policy evolved by the Civil Service Commission
and to protect freedom of speech. As a means of achieving these goals, they inten-
tionally wrote a broad, loosely worded statement in order to permit liberal
interpretation.
? Experience has revealed that the vague language has been narrowly defined to
produce even greater restrictions. The historical record indicates that the very
Senators, who enacted the legislation were confused by the vagueness. In order
to clarify his interpretation of the proscribed activities, Senator Hatch prepared
an index card on which he listed 18 "rulings". His interpretation was based upon
the adjudications made by the U.S. Civil Service Commission pursuant to the
Civil Service Act in dealing with political activity among civil servants. He inter-
preted it in this manner because of the similarity in language between the Hatch
Act and the Civil Service regulations. When the Hatch Act was amended in 1940. it
defined the prohibited activity by incorporating by reference those 18 rulings made
by the Civil Service Commission prior to 1940, as to what constituted political
activity. Instead, the Commission was saddled with over 3,000 of their pre-1940
When passing the 1940 amendments, Congress expressly denied the Civil Service
- Commission the power to promulgate rules and regulations specifically pertain-
ing to the Hatch Act. The Commission was denied the power to define political
activity. instead, the Commisrdon was saddled with over 3,000 of their pre-1940
rulings. When the amendment was introduced, Senator Hatch did not provide all
of the rulings which were to be incorporated, but merely the same index card he
had used in 1939. Thus, Congress passed the Hatch Act without being fully aware
of the scope of these rulings. .
The same Congressman who passed the act would have been unsure as to the
proscribed activity. There was not one specific commission ruling before them?
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
194
only the index card prepared by Senator IIatch. If they felt they were passing
a law prohibiting only those activities on the card, this should have been made
clear. However, an examination of the pre-1940 rulings themselves is even more
amazing than this lack of congressional understanding of the scope and impli-
cations of this legislation. As a class, these regulations are overboard and thus
'violative of the first amendment. The Hatch Act incorporates all of the pre-1940
rulings, not merely those pre-1940 rulings which are constitutional.
An interesting example of the problem inherent in the incorporation of these
rulings is the case of one Archie B. Cole, a rural mail carrier. Archie was a
Jehova's Witness whose political activity consisted of attending society meet-
ings and distributing literature. Since the society was critical of certain political
leaders and certain governmental policies, Archie's participation was judged to
be in conflict with the law and he was dismissed from service, even though he
Promised to withdraw from the religious activities. This ruling could hardly
withstand a first amendment analysis, and yet it is still a part of the definition
of proscribed political activity. I doubt that my congressional colleagues would
be willing to allow the rights of over 2 million Government workers to depend
on administrative nullification of this ruling when the fint amendment is at
stake.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure many of my colleagues on the subcommittee are
aware of the ruling of the three-judge panel in the district court for the District
of Columbia which, in July of 1972 found the Hatch Act unconstitutional.
In this decision, the court saw the problem of the ambiguity and lack of
precision in the definition, and with its incorporation by reference of over 3,000
rulings made by the commission prior to 1940. The court did not find that the
political activities reporter or various pamphlets published by the Civil Service
Commission as aiding the notice requirements of statutes which prohibit activity.
The problem was further exaggerated by the qualifying statement in the Hatch
Act by which the employee retains his right to vote and to express his opinion.
The court felt that Congress clearly intended this to oualify the restrictions on
the employee's behavior. The court ruled that vagueness and overbreadth would
create a "chilling effect unacceptable under the first amendment."
In summing up its objections to the act, the court stated:
"If the Congress undertakes to circumscribe speech, it cannot pass on an act
which, like this one, talks in riddles, prohibiting in one breath what it may be
argued to have allowed in another, leaving the citizen unguided but at hazard for
his job. Perhaps details could have been left to the administrative discretion,
but in this instance, the commission was given no rulemaking power and the act
itself does not state with any precision what evils it seeks to prevent. It is no
answer to imply that a reading of the voluminous political activities reporter
and resort to advisory rulings by the Civil Service Commission will give one
who wants to express himself adequate guidance."
The Supreme Court reversed this lower court holding as to vagueness and
overbreadth. However, this decision has received criticism from legal scholars,
who contend that it begs the question of the least drastic means. The court
accepts the statute and regulations as necessary without making inquiry into
why such drastic means are necessary.
As revealed by the findings of the commission on political activity of govern-
ment employees, the danger of political coercion upon the public employee by
his superior may be more imagined than it is real. In any event, such coercion
is already clearly prohibited by provisions of the civil service act.
Mr. Chairman, in my view, the Supreme Court did not pay adequate attention
to the standards of compelling interest, least drastic means, overbreadth and
vagueness. In fact, the court admitted the statute was vague, but proceeded to
reverse the lower court's finding on ambiguity. I find this decision most
perplexing.
Mr. Chairman, the initiatives taken by the 9f1rd Congress i:i defining allowable
political activities for State and local government workers must now be followed
by appropriate action by the Olth Congress to define and restore political
rights to the over 2.8 million men and women who work in i lie Federal Govern-
ment. I believe that it is high time for Congress to correct an inequity that has
deprived these Americans of political rigids that you and I enjoy. From
Senator Hatch's index card to the Supreme Court's admission of vagueness, the
history of this law and its administration should be a source of acute embar-
rassment to those of us who serve in Congress and who are pledged to uphold
the Constitution of this country.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : gff-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
It is perhaps to the great credit of this body that a minimal amount of funding
has been allotted to the administration of the Hatch Act?my records reveal
that the Civil Service Commission has never had more than $100,000 for this
purpose. However, I do not believe that we are fulfilling our responsibilities to
2.8 million Americans by simply keeping funding levels low for administrative
purposes, or by excusing any further .delay in resolving this inequity on the
basis of a weak Supreme Court decision. We need to clearly define what con-
stitutes a proscribed political activity. Further, we need to seriously question a
draconian solution that prohibits political activty allowable to other Americans,
rather than simply addressing the problem of political coercion through appro-
priate sanctions against such activity.
Finally, this Congress must ask itself if it can, in good conscience, deny basic
political rights to those who serve in the Federal Government. I hope that Con-
gress will decide that Federal workers are, indeed, worthy of these rights. I
believe these Americans are entitled to participate in the political process, and
I hope that this subcommittee will share this sentiment and act favorably upon
legislation pending before it that will restore these basis political rights to
Federal workers.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to express my
views on this issue. I am hopeful that this subcommittee will be instrumental
in lifting the burden of being a "second class citizen" off the shoulders of
America's dedicated Federal workers.
ARIC ANSAS .AUNITIARY TO APWLT,
Camden, Ark., February 22, 1975.
Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. Mr. HENDERSON : Once again the Auxiliary to the American Postal Work-
ers Union is seeking support in amending the Hatch Act.
I am asking you to support in the committee on Post and Civil Service the
Bill introduced by Congressman William Clay; H.R. 3000.
Sincerely,
LINDA CALL AW AY,
Secretary-Treasurer.
ARKANSAS POSTAL WORKERS UNION,
Fort Smith, Ark., February 20, 1975.
Congressman DAVID HENDERSON,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. MR. HENDERSON : I would like to solicit your support of RR. 2000 as
introduced by Representative Clay. I feel the "Hatch Act" has played it's part
in restricting the political activity of the many federal employees.
I feel every American regardless of his occupation should have the full right
to participate as private citizens in the political life of our Nation.
Sincerely,
HERB JERLIE,
Legislative Aide.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. KIERNAN, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward J. Kiernan and I am President of the
International Conference of Police Associations, which represents over 170,000
police officers in the United States and Canada. On behalf of myself and Robert
Gordon, our Legislative Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present
our views to your Subcommittee.
I wish to speak on behalf of legislation currently before your Subcommittee
that would amend the Hatch Act, which has for many years deprived public
employees of their rights under the Constitution to engage in political activities.
When this legislation was first enacted into law over 35 years ago, the fear
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/1(33: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
was that public employees would be used as a club by the political parties of
our country. Without getting into the merits as to whether or not that was the
position at that time, I think it is safe to say that in the enlightened atmosphere
of politics today with the constant scrutiny of the news media of all things
political, it seems ridiculous to perpetuate this discriminatory act.
Speaking on behalf of police officers who have probably been more harshly
restricted by the prohibitions against becoming involved in politics than any
other public employee group, I can only say that we have deeply resented the
restrictions and look forward to the day when a responsive Congress will grant
to us the same rights being enjoyed by every other citizen of his country.
We have no objections to safeguards within any of these bills that would pre-
vent political organizations from being able to use coercion or threats against
public employees in order to get their support but we do feel that the fear of the
possibility of this happening should not preclude affirmative action on this
The numerous cases throughout the country where police officers have been
prevented from becoming involved in local politics such as holding office on non-
salaried local school boards and the harsh discipline that has been meted out to
these men for being so darling as to try to perform their duties as citizens, would'
astonish many of you.
In closing let me reaffirm our support of any bill currently before your Sub-
committee that would liberalize the present restrictions .currently in force
restricting the ability of federal, state of local police officers to take part in the
political process.
Thank you.
CITY OE FALLS CHURCH REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE,
Falls Church, Va.; April 8,1975.
HOTI. JOSEPH L. FISHER,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN FISHER : The undersigned members of the Falls Church.
Republican Committee urge you not to support legislation which wilirepeal or
revise the Hatch Act.
We believe that the provisions of this law have served well the interests or
United States federal employees in that it has protected them from Partisan
political pressures and has insured that their careers will be governed by a'
merit system, not a spoils system.
Sincerely,
JUDITH H. SIIREVE,
Chairman
(and 19 others).
STATEMENT OF PETER Fosco, GENERAL PRESIDENT, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION'
OF NORTH AMERICA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; the Laborers' International:
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, under its General President. Peter Fosco,
represents over six hundred thousand workers. Of this membership, 47,000 is in
the U.S. Postal Service in the Mail Handlers' Division of our Union, and the-
Federal-Public Employee Division of our Union represents employees of other
Federal agencies, all covered by the Hatch Act.
The concepts of the Hatch Act have been carried over into state and local'
government employment so there is a constant fear, in all segments of public
employment, of violation of the political restrictions and a corresponding neglect'
of political activities so essential to the survival of our democracy.
The Laborers' International Union has, for a number of years, been con--
eerned about the fact that legislation at the Federal and state levels has had a
tremendous effect upon our membership and upon our position at th9 bargain-
ing table. In the private sector. Federal laws relating to the Voir Labor Stand-
ards Act (minimum wage, overtime, etc.), Social Security (ai,; it affects negoti-
ated pension plans), the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Lan-
drum-Griffin Act of 1959 and the obvious National Labor Relations Act of 1937
and 1947, have all had a decided effect upon labor-management relations and
on conditions negotiated in collective bargaining agreements, The trade union?
movement, because its' very existence and future depend on policies estab-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : Cl6k7RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
lished by acts of Congress, must be an active political body in endorsing politi-
cal candidates and supporting those who act most favorable in the legislative
interests of organized workers
The AFL?CIO, as a"result of the Taft-Hartley amendments, established its
Committee on Political Education with the sole purpose of endorsing Congres-
sional and state candidates who supported legislation in the interests of labor
.and the general public. The COPE Program, through its voluntary contributions
by individual workers, used money to actually support candidates and party
.activity committed to labor's political future.
Federal employees for a number of years, principally because Of the Hatch
Act, have avoided being involved in the programs of the AFL?CIO, especially
those which give financial support to candidates for public office. The Federal
.employee probably has more to gain through political endorsements and having
-friends in Congress than any segment of the labor movement. The Federal em-
ployees' health and welfare plans, the retirement plans, the vacation benefits,
holidays, and wages and salaries are all determined by political action in Con-
gress. The only items left to the so-called bargaining table are noneconomic
issues. As a result of a recent interpretation of the check-off provisions, the
U. S. Civil Service Commission has agreed that the two-cent charge for a check-
-off deduction to a union could now be negotiated so that theoretically the unions
now have an economic issue on the bargaining table with Federal management.
One of the principle stumbling blocks to the Federal employee participating
in AFL?CIO COPE p'rog'rams has been the ,cloud of possible violation of the
hatch Act. The prohibitions of ?the Hatch Act against solicitation of funds
:for political purposes has damPened the 'voluntary solicitation of funds such
as practiced under the AFL-CIO COPE program. Some of the more aggressive
'unions have followed :a pattern of soliciting voluntary money to support the
"educational fund" of COPE and thereby avoiding the implications of solicita-
tion for politieal purposes. ? ? ? ?
The amendments proposed to the Hatch Act by UR. 3000, H.R. 3934; H.R.
3935 and H.R. 3936 would liberalize the existing provisions so that the pro-
hibitions against "participating in political activities" would be removed, which
would be a major step in liberalizing the Hatch Act. The Laborers' International
Union and its' Mail handlers' Division, representing the mail handlers' craft
in the postal service, strongly endorses the liberalization of the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act was born in a completely different atmosphere from the one
currently existing in the federal, state and local fields. Theoretically?public
;employees were protected from being forced to participate in political activities,
make contributions to political candidates in order to keep jobs, get promotions,
?or .secure the favor of management officials, by the Hatch Act provisions. The
Batch Act was designed primarily to take politics out of office-holding or employ-
ment considerations. Restrictions were placed on the solicitation of funds, al-
though it was conceded that employees could make voluntary contributions to
regularly constituted political organizations or candidates for office. Employees
were also restricted in activities involving the sale of dinner tickets of a political
party or in the distribution of pledge cards soliciting subscriptions to dinners.
The Hatch Act has withstood the constitutional challenges, and has continued
as the guideline on prohibited political activity for Federal employees, and-for
those state and local government employees who are in programs which receive
Federal Grants-In-Aid. Many of the states have seen fit to follow the pattern of
the Federal Government by adopting "State Hatch- Acts". Some of these laws
have been even More restrictive in terms of political activity than the Hatch
C.? Act.
Since the 1930's there has been a rapid growth of public employee unions, not
only at the Federal level, but at state and local government levels as well. It is
.the position of time Laborers' International Union that the protection afforded to
public employees since the 1930's is now the legitimate function of the recognized
trade unions in the Federal, state and local government fields. As collective
bargaining representatives, the exclusive unions should he able to protect their
Members from solicitations being made Which violate the individuals' interests,
as Well as the interests of the trade unions in representing public employees. The
public employee unions should function in such a Way that Hatch Act protection
will no longer be necessary. Unions will prohibit political considerations in
obtaining jobs, promotions or other favors to public employees that are not
based on merit and seniority.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/0143 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
The public employees, of necessity, must be active politically, because of the
peculiar nature of collective bargaining in the public sector. As long as the
economic issues of collective bargaining in the public sector continue to be
decided by state legislative bodies and by Congress, the benefits that these public
employees achieve will depend to a great extent upon their political effectiveness.
Unions cannot function as effective representatives of public employees when
the bargaining table issues are Limited to: the cost of dues dedueted ; assignment
of parking space; or the number of union representatives on the Welfare Commit-
tee. Until such time as Congress and the state legislatures are willing to put the
economic issues on the bargaining table, it will, of necessity, require that the
unions take an active part in endorsing political candidates and?yes--even
financing in part their campaigns.
The private sector unions have recognized political action as a way of life--
even though the major economic issues are at the bargaining table and the only
issues in Congress and the state legislatures are indirectly related to the bargain-
ing process. There has been a major shift with the adoption of President Nixon's
Executive Order 11491 in establishing policies and practices which follow very
closely those set by the Labor Board in interpreting the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. The public employee unions should at least have the ability to function
in the political arena in the same way that the unions have in the private sector.
Based on what the Laborers' Union considers to be the new atmosphere in the
Federal field, we wholeheartedly support the amendments to the Hatch Act spon-
sored by Chairman Clay and fifty-three colleagues in H.R. 3000 and companion
bills. The Laborers' Union recognizes this as the first step which will permit Fed-
eral employees to take an active part by participating in political activities so
essential to the life of our democracy. When the public employee movement of
Federal, state and local government employees exceeds 13 million workers, it is
inconceivable that this large block of informed citizens should be disenfranchised
from active political participation by a Congressional act which has long out-
lived its Usefulness.
NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE LEAGUE,
Washington, D.C., April 22, 1975.
The Honorable WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Employee Political Rights and Intergovernmental
Programs, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives, House Office Building Annex, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. CLAY: The National Civil Service League is firmly convinced that the
range of political activity permitted under HR 3000 is so broad that political
action on the part of Federal employees would inevitably permeate and politicize
the Federal establishment. HR 3000 breaks with vital principles of the merit
System developed over seven decades.
The protective sections intended to prohibit coercion of employees for politi-
cal purposes are too weak. Penalties for violation are insufficient.
The impartial and efficient transaction of the public's business would be jeop-
ardized. Our permanent system of civil service, under which penons are hired,
paid, promoted and dismissed on the basis of merit would be eroded and possibly
destroyed. The enactment of HR 3000 would create vast confusion and disarray.
The protections against coercion would be virtually, if not totally, unenforceable.
We could revert to the worst evils of the spoils system, which the lessons of his-
tory have shown to be disastrous.
There would be constant tension among civil service employees who would take
advantage of the complete unleashing of public employees and the many who be-
lieve deeply in the merit system and would strive to uphold its standards.
On the side of maintaining the major principles of the "Hatch Act" it should
be pointed out that:
Its constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as
1973; That much freedom of expression and action is permitted under the present
laws; much more than is taken advantage of by most employees.
No doubt a greater effort on the part of the Civil Service Commission and the
departments and agencies could be exerted in the education of public employees
to exercise the rights they already possess.
Also, some liberalization of permitted activities may be in order short of the
drastic changes proposed by HR 3000. The National Civil Service League believes
that further Congressional study and proposals for some modification of pro-
hibited activities is needed. This should lead to a new and cleanly-worded law
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
199
on both prohibited and permitted activities, which would replace the accumu-
lated law of many decades. Such a law should be given a new catch name to re-
place the onerous implications of being "Hatched" in the popular mind, and hope,
fully, to emphasize the positive.
Some modernization of law prohibiting political activity of public employees
working under the merit system is needed but to enact UR 3000 would be too
sweeping a change.
As a guideline to new legislation, the NCSL suggests the wording included in
its Model Public Personnel Administration Law, which has been successfully
adopted by many state and local governments.
"Section 7, Political Activities : (a) No [government] employee in the career
service shall be an officer of a political party or hold political office during his/her
employment. (b) No employee, official or person shall solicit any assessments,
contributions, or services, for any political party from any employee in the career
service. (c) Nothing herein contained shall affect the right of the employee to
hold membership in, and support, a political party, to vote as he chooses, to ex-
press privately his opinions on all political subjects and candidates, to maintain
political neutrality, and to attend political meetings."
Perhaps one of the most difficult issues to resolve in a democratic society is
the treatment of the public employees with respect to their political activities.
For in a democratic society, one of the overriding concerns and objectives is to
maximize citizen involvement in all phases of the political process. However,
owing largely to past abuses, most public jurisdictions have tended to develop
a politically sterile work force. The tragedy of such barriers to the partisan
activities of public employees is that with the growth of government and its in-
creasing sophistication, a point has been reached where not only are public
employees more prevalent, but much more importantly, they constitute a group
of persons that is undoubtedly one of the best informed in our society. As a
result, governments can ill afford to isolate these individuals from the political
process. The problem is to succeed in broadening the sphere of political activities
available to the public employee while at the same time maintaining the impartial
administration and efficiency of the public service?without which our system of
government cannot successfully function.
The National Civil Service League would like this letter to be made a part of
the record on HR 3000, a Bill "To-Restore to Federal Employees their rights to
participate as private citizens in the political life of the nation, to protect Fed-
eral civilian employees from improper political solicitations, and for other
purposes."
If you have further questions regarding the position of this organization,
please let us know.
Sincerely,
KATHRYN H. ,STONE,
Chairwoman, Executive Committee.
STATEMENT OF .TACH A. WALLER, LEGIST,ATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL?CIO
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the International Association
of Fire Fighters is grateful for the opportunity to appear before your Committee
this morning to convey to you the thoughts and feelings on the part of our entire
membership on the need for drastically amending, even outright repealing, the
Hatch Act. For the record, this testimony was prepared by Jack A. Waller, Legis-
lative Representative for the International Association of Fire Fighters.
The International Association of Fire Fighters is composed of 172,000 members
in the United States, its territories and Canada. Approximately 156,000 of these
are in the United States, including .Vederal Fire Fighters, who are 2% of our
total membership.
I wish to direct my remarks today, not only to the effect of the Hatch Act upon
our Federal membership, but also the effect that the Federal Hatch Act has had
upon all other public employees, The Research Department of the International
Association of Fire Fighters has not been able to discover one State that by law
restricted the political activities of state, county, and municipal employees in
1939, when the Hatch Act was adopted. It is safe to say that presently, in one
form or another, either a so-called little Hatch Act at the State level, civil serv-
ice restriction at any level of government, or by department rules and regula-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
200
tions, the activities of public employees in all States of the Union are to some
degree restrained. During the adoption of the Campaign Practices Act in the 93rd
session of Congress, the deliberate bodies of the House and Senate saw fit to
adopt an amendment that removed from coverage of the Federal Hatch Act all
state, county, and municipal employees whose salaries are in part or in whole
Paid with Federal funds. That is a giant step forward for public employees; it is
certainly an excellent example of establishing political freedom and must be
followed with extensive overhauling of the Federal Hatch Act, State Little
Hatch Acts, and previously mentioned Civil Service regulatI)as and restrictive
city ordinances. The time has come for all piddle employees td enjoy the freedom
of political participation at the very modest levels suggested in 1I.11. 3000.
The Federal Act, when enacted, was adopted primarily to protect a very small
number of Federal employees from coercion and intimidation to contribute to
political activity not of their own choice. The Act now covers more than five
million employees and acts as a deterrent to their political activity. In fact, they
are relegated to second class citizens because of this denial. 'The conditions that
existed in 1930 that brought about the adoption of the Hatch Act do not exist
at the present time. Public employees in large numbers noW belong to unions.
These organizations through the collective bargaining process can protect their
membership against coercion and undue pressures in the area of political solicita-
tions and pressure for political involvement, by Federal statute give raJblic ear-
ployees collective bargaining and the Hatch Act could be outright repealed.
The most devastating effect that the Hatch Act has upon Government em-
ployees is that they are, in fact, fearful of even w7ereising those meager activities
to which they can legally participate. Studies undertaken by the, Hatch Act
Commission itself showed that most Governmeni employees lital very little idea
of what they ,could do and what was prohibited by the ACt. The result has ,been ,
a Very effective gag rule over federal, state, county, and murieipai emplOyeeS.
At One period in my life, I serVed as a County Clvil Defense Director, with one-
half of my compensation conming front the Feder el Gove.rnment therefore I was
subject to the Hatch Act. My office was inundated with material from tile Ad-
Ministrators of the Hatch Act. A continuing bombardment of don'ts and (was.
It is my understanding that there are over 3,000 specific prohibitions issued by
the Hxecutive Branch between 1886 and 1940. Is election time drew near, I
Waited for the day that the word would come that I was at lea A; still enough of
a citizen that I could go to the polls anti cast my vote, but not 'even that positive
position was indicated by the Hatch Act Administrators.
It seems quite evident that to a degree the Hatch Act has circumvented some
of the precepts set forth in the United States Constitution.
The freedom of speech and freedom of association amendments are two of
the most important concepts in our democracy. Yet, individuals covered under
the Hatch Act are unjustifiably denied the full intent of these amendments. We
cannot and should not compromise an individual's constitutional rights because
of passe legislation such as the Hatch Act.
In nearly all of the democratic nations of the world, public employees are not
restricted or inhibited by laws such as the Hatch Act. They are allowed to par-
ticipate actively in the political party of their choice, they are allowed to run
.for public office, merely taking a leave of absenee. It is a strong feeling of the
International Association of Fire Fighters that public employees in the United
States in the field of political activity should not be treated any differently than
those citizens who work in other fields. They should be allowed to participate
actively in the party of their choice, hold office within that party structure, run
for any public office of 'their choke. The only ;imitations placed upon them
should be similar to those placed on private industry employees. It cannot, in
any way, interfere with the performance of their duty and the service that they
render to their employer.
In seeking public office, they should be allowed to use any vacation time that is
rightfully due them, they should be granted a leave of absence in the same man-
ner as leaves of absences are granted to employees for other purposes.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
201
The International .Alssociation of ,Fire ,Fighters wish to commend -Chairman
Clay and the other Members of this Committee for cOnvening these meetings to
discuss Hatch Act amendments. It has been nineteen ,years since the Congress
has acted on amendments to the Hatch Act and those amendments were vetoed
by President Truman. It has been seven years since the Hatch Act Commission
has made its report with no action taken on any of its recommendations. The
Fire Fighters commend you for taking the initiative and we urge you to actually
outright repeal the Thatch Act. But short of this, we urge you to drastically alter
the Hatch Act, as recommended in H.R. 3000, H.R. 3934, H.R. 3935 and H.R. 3936
so that five million Americans will be freed to actively participate in the political
activities of this Nation.
CITIZEN FOR A .3E'PTER, CITY, -
,bt41.8 elmireh, Va., April 29, 1975.
HOD. WILLIAM CLAY,
Chairman, S'ubcommittee on Employee Political Rights and Intergovernmental
Programs, House 0 jtce Building Armco, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CLAY. This refers to the Hearing on H.R. 3000 chaired by Congress-
man Harris held at the Annandale Elementary School in Virginia the evening
of April 14, 1975. Due to the lateness of the hour the Chairman ruled that those
who did not testify or wished- to stipply written statements at a later date,
could do so through April 30, 1975. The Executive Council of the Citizens for
a Better City, CBC, have met in the interim and desire respectfully to express
views in opposition to enactment of H.R. 3000 and the three related identical
bills.
CPC is a nOn-partisan political organization which has existed in the City
of Falls Church, Virginia since 1959. Very little if any emphasis was directed
at tie hearing to the effect this proposed legislation would have on local non-
partisan political party ?fforts in which Federal employees can now fully
participate. There are those of us who believe such non-partisan organizations
would become almost totally ineffective if the Hatch Act is amended as you
propose. Perhaps the reason so little attention has been directed to this aspect
is that fe* communities in this area have bothered to establish such organiza-
tions. A fact not too readily apparent is that the current Hatch Act permits
Federal' employees to engage fully in non-partisan political aetivities including
running for and holding elected office in local communities such as City Council
Melltbel;? The City of Falls Church has two such individuals on the current
City Council. Why? Because they are products of the non-partisan provisions in
the Hatch Act as it now stands.
Falls Church has a successful _thrivipg government which is a - direct by-
product of non-partisan politics. We are proud of this record and wish to enlist
your support in duly, recognizing that this particular quality of American
politics should not be banished from the scene. Falls Church, a past All-America
City is blessed with a goodly number of highly motivated Federal employees.
Such individuals experienced in public affairs, provide au excellent base from
which to draw potential CBC candidates. We see the present Hatch Act as
perwitting Falls Church to obtain highly professional candidates to run for
office ttiftlei the banner of CDC-as-well as other independent, non-partisan spon-
sorship. This could clearly change with the passage of H.R. 3000. In addition,
we see local government issnes:as being distinctly differen-t from nationa issues,
and believe that the national political politics are not completely oriented to
conurimptty affairs, _
CBC wishes to. reeOrd. Its opposition to the proposed legislation and to rec-
ommend that the Hatch Act not be revised in a manner which would ban or
preclude nonpartisan local political activity.
Respectfully yours,
JAMES E. DOUGHERTY,
President, CRC.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
202
NTH CONGRESS
HIr v. R. 3000
SEssiorr
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 6,1975
Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service
A BILL
To restore to Federal civilian employees their rights to par-
ticipate, as private citizens, in the political life of the Nation,
to protect- Federal civilian employees from improper
political solicitations, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent a-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Federal Employees'
4 Political Activities Act of 1975".
5 SEC. 2. (a) Section 7323 of title 5, United States Code,
6 is amended to read as follows:
7 17323. Political contributions prohibited; enforcement
8 by Civil Service Commission
9 "(a) An employee in an Executive agency,. including
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : gyA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
2
1 an employee appointed by the President, may not request
2 or receive 'from, or give to, an employee, a. Member of Con.-
3 gress, or an-nfficer of a uniformed service a thing of value for
4 political purposes,-- except that an employee may freely
5 and voluntarily make a contribution .to any candidate for
6 public office on his own volition. An employee who violates
7 this section shall be. subject to the penalties provided in see-
8 tion 7325 of this title.
9 "(b) The Civil Service Commission shall process corn-
10 plaints arising under subsection (a) of this section and shall,
11 upon receipt of a complaint alleging facts which constitute
12 a,violation of subsection (a), investigate the alleged activity.
13 "(c) Upon a finding that a violation of subsection (a)
14 of .this section has occurred, the. Civil Service- Commission
15
shali-
16 "(1) in the case of an employee in the competitive
17 service, impose the appropriate penalty under section.
18 7325;
19 "(2) in the case of an employee appointed by the
20 President, notify the President, the head of the Execu-
21 agency in which the employee is employed, and the
Congress (A) that a violation of subsection (a) of this
23 section has occurred, and (B) what penalty the Cora-
24, mission has determined is appropriate under section
25 7325 of this title; and
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04N : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
8
1 "(3) refer the case to the attention of the Attorney
? General for prosecution under section 802 of title 18.
3 "(d) For the purpose of this section 'Executive agency'
4 includes the -United States Postal Service.".
5 (b) The table of sections of chapter 73 of title 5, United
6 States Code, is amended by striking out?
"7323. Political contributions; prohibition.",
7 and inserting in place thereof?
"7323. Political contributions prohibited; enforcement by Civil Service
Commission.".
8 So. 3. (a) Section 7324 of title 5,, United States C'ode,
9 is amended to read as follows:
10 1 7324. Use of official authority or influence to affect
11 elections prohibited; other political activities
12 permitted
13 "(a) An employee in an Executive agency or an in-
14 dividual employed by the government of the District of
15 'Columbia may not use his official authority or influence for
16 the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an
17 election.
18 "(b) An employee or individual to whom subsection
19 (a) of this section applies retains the right to vote as he
20 chooses, to express his opinion on political subjects and
21 candidates, and to take an active part in political manage..
22ment or in political campaigns in his role as a private citizen
23 and without involving his official authority or influence.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/132ocIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
4
?1 "(c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase 'an.
2 active part in political management or in political campaigns'
3 includes?
" (1) candidacy for or service as delegate, alternate,
..5 or proxy in any political convention or service as an.
6 officer or employee thereof;
7 "(2) participation. iii the deliberations of any pri-
8 mary meeting, mass convention or caucus, addressing
9 the meeting, making motions, preparing or assisting in
10 preparing resolutions before the meeting, or taking a
11 prominent part therein;
12 "(3) .preparing for, or organizing or conducting a
13 political meeting or rally, addressing such a meeting on
14 any partisan political matter, or taking any part therein;
15 "(4) membership in political clubs and organizing
16 of such a club;
17 "(5) distributing campaign literature and distribut-
18 or wearing campaign badges and buttons;
19 "(6) publishing or having editorial or managerial
20 Connection' with any newspaper including those goner-
'21 - ally known as partisan from a political stan4oint, and.,
22 writing for publication or pUblighing any letter or arti-
23 'ole, Signed. or unsigned, soliciting' votes in favor of or
24 against any political party, candidate, or faction, except
25 that no such editorial, letter, or article shall Make refer-
52-137-7-14
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/132WA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
5
1 cue to the writer's official employment or authority;
2
(7)
3 parade;
(8)
organizing or participating in any political
initiating or signing nominating petitions on
5 behalf of a partisan candidate, including canvassing for
6 signatures of others; and
7 "(9) candidacy for nomination or election to any
8 National, State, county, or municipal office."
9 "(d) For the purpose of this section 'Executive agency'
10 includes the United States Postal Service.".
11 (b) The table Of sections of chapter 73 of title 5, United
12 States Code, is amended by striking out?
"7324. Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibi-
tions; exceptions.",
13 and inserting in place thereof?
"73:24. Use of official authority or influence to affect elections prohibited;
other political activities permitted.".
11 SEC. 4. Section 7325 of title 5, United States Code, is
15 amended to read as follows:
16 "? 7325. Penalties
17 "Whenever the Civil Service Commission finds that
18 an employee or individual has violated section 7323 or
19 7324 of this title, the Commission shall impose such penalty
20 as it finds is warranted but not less than 30 days' suspension
21 from his position without pay. An employee or individual
22 shall be removed only upon the unanimous vote of the Com-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
207
6
1 mission. Funds appropriated for the position from which
2 an employee or individual is removed may not thereafter
3 be used to pay the employee or individual.".
4 SEC. 5. Sections 7326 and 7327 of title 5, United
States Code, are repealed,
6 SEC. 6. Section 602 of title 18, United States Code, is
7 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
0
8 paragraph:
9 "Upon receipt of a finding by the Civil Service Corn-
10 of illegal activity under section 7323 of title 5, the
11 Attorney General shall prosecute under the first paragraph
12 of this section; unless he shall determine that no factual basis
13 for prosecution exists or that the cause of justice will not be
14 served by 'such prosecution, If the Attorney General deter-
15 mines not to prosecute in a case referred to him by the Corn-
16 mission, he shall send to Congress within sixty days a
17 written report describing the nature of the alleged violation
18 and the reasons for not proceeding with prosecution under
? 19 the first paragraph of this section."
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04N: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20503
Honorable David N. Henderson
Chairman, Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service
House of Representatives
Cannon liOUSe Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
APR 2 975
This is in reply to the Committee's request for the views
of this Office on H.R. 719, H.R. 1306, H.R. 1326,
H.R. 1675, and H.R. 3000, all bills primarily concerned
with political activity of Federal employees.
The principal purpose of these bills is to repeal the
restrictions in existing law on active participation by
Federal employees in partisan political activities. In its
report, the Civil Service Commission states a number of
reasons for strongly opposing elimination of such restric-
tions.
We concur in the views expressed by the Civil Service Com-
mission and, accordingly, strongly reoqpIzIljnalEt enact-
ment of any of these bills.
J s F. C. de, Jr.
Acting Assis t Director
for Legislati e Reference
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/130IA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
liaxch 24, 1975
Honorable David N. Henderson
Chairman
Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service
Douse of Representatives
T-Tahington, D.C. 20515
Dear Nr. Chairman:
This is in reply to your letter requesting the Commission's views
on H.R. 3000, H.R. 1306, and H.R. 1675, bills "To restore to Federal
civilian employees their rights to participate, as private citizens,
in the political life of the Nation, to protect Federal civilian
employees from improper political solicitations, and for other
purposes"; on H.R. 1362, a bill "To amend title 5, United States
Code, to permit Federal officers and employees to take an active
part in political management and in political campaigns;" and on
H.R. 719, a bill To amend, title 5, United States Code, to permit
Federal, State and local officers and employees to take an active
part in political management and in political campaigns."
The Commission opposes enactment of these bills for several reasons.
In our opinion, the primary thrust of these hills is to repeal the
existing restrictions on political activities as set forth at 5 U.S.C.
7324(a)(2), This provision prohibits Federal employees and employees
of the District of Columbia from participation in partisan political
management and partisan political campaigns,
2% secoadary thrust of these bills, with the exception of H.R. 1326
and H.R. 719, is to revise and expand 5 U.S.C. 7323 so as to clarify
responsibilities and procedures under this section. The Commission
does not disagree with the basic intent of the proposed revision.
However, we do note that there is no indication in subsection (c)
of section 7323 as to action to be taken, if any, concerning those
employees in the excepted service who are not Presidential appointees.
Further the provision that an employee may "make a contribution to any
candidate" may conflict with 13 U.S.C. 607, administered by the
Department of Justice, which prohibits an employee from giving to a
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/tio CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Senator or Member of or Delegate to Congress "money or other valuable
thing on account of or to be applied to the promotion of any political
object." Additionally, a secondary thrust of H.R. 719 is to repeal
the restriction on candidacy for elective office as set forth at 5 U.S.C.
1502(a)(3). This prohibition applies to State or local officers or
employees whose principal employment is in connection with an activity
which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the
United States or a Federal agency.
The Commission's-major area of concern, however, is with the primary
thrust of these bills which would allow employees virtually unlimited
political activity, both partisan and nonpartisan, even at the national.
level. This goes far beyond the proposals to liberalize the political
activity restrictions as recommended by the Commission on Political
Activity of Government Personnel.
There advancement in the public service is predicated exclusively
upon merit, the entire society benefits from a more efficient and
b.onest pnblic service. Since 1383, this Commission, acting at the
direction of the President and under Congressional enaetfflents, has
endeavored to insure that Federal employment and Federal personnel
management are anchored on the principle of merit, free from the
influence of political partisanship.
Th are convinced that some restriction on the ability of public
employees to identify themselves prominently with partisan political
party success is essential to an effective merit system. While the
political activity of specific employees may appear to be innocuous
in itself, the effect of such activity generally is that public
employees become identified with the aspirations of political parties
and candidates, and partisan considerations are injected into the
career service. The identification of a civil servant ulth a
political party through active participation in party affairs com?
promises that employee in the eyes of the public, and most certainly
in the eyes of an opposing party during a change in administrations.
Competition among employees for advancement and favor based or. their
contribution of money or services to political parties would also
detract from the efficient administration of public business. Our
conclusion is that the intrusion of partisan considerations into the
career Federal service, even in appearance,would constitute a
devastating blow to merit concepts, and to employee morale as well.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/M: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Ve, of course, favor theretention of the prohibition on the misuse
of official authority to influence elections, as well .as the
restrictions on the solicitation and exchange of political contribu-
tions among Federal officers and employees. However, in our view,
those limitations alone, even as revised and eepanded by F.R. 3000,
B.R. 1306 and H.R. 1675, are wholly inadequate to protect employees
Iron the subtle pressures that would impel them to teeaga ie other _
forms of political activity in order to protect or enhance their
employment situation. Without the protection of a public policy that
limits the political activities of public employees, an employee
vould be vulnerable to indirect influence to support the political
party or candidates favored by those in a position to affect the
employee's government career. Under current restrictions everyone
knows that a covered employee cannot serve political purposes, except
at the risk of loss of employment. This protection of the Federal
employee would be discarded by the proposed legislation.
Similar restrictions, which previously applied to State and local
employees in Federally financed programs, were repealed by section 401
.of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (7..L. 93-443).
The restriction against political management and political campaigning
vas replaced by a prohibition against being a candidate for elective
-- office. It was our view at the time that amendment was passed
(without public hearings of any kind), and it continues to be our
view, that such a drastic change in the law would be seriously
detrimental to the maintenance and operation of effective eerit
systems on the State and local levels, and would be contrary to the
purpose and spirit of the original political activity legislation.
V'e believe that to 'go further, as would H.R. 719, and repeal the
remaining prohibition against candidacy for elective.otfice, would
be an error of major proportions and would result in further
impairment of effective merit systems at the State and local levels.
Vie think it significant that after nearly a year of study of the Hatch
Act, the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel con-
cluded that protection of a career system based on merit not only
"requires strong sanctions against coercion . . . ibut] also requires
.some limits on the role of the government employee in politics."
Volume I, Report of the Commission on Political Activity of Government
Personnel-Recommendations, page 3.
Apparently employees, too, feel some apprehension regarding the effect
of amendments that would permit more political activity on n.c.ir part.
A survey of Federal employees, conducted by the same Commission in 1967,
disclosed that more than half (52%) of those contacted believe that such
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
212
changes would effect promotions, decisions., job as:Agnments, and similar
actions. Of the State employees surveyed; a fairly high percentage:
(42.3%) felt that the merit system would be hindertd if all restrictions
on political activity were removed. Volume II, Report of the Commission
on Political Activity of Government Personnel-Research, pages 21 and
78 (1968). We believe the employees' fears stem from a realistic view
of politics in relation to the public service.
The foregoing should in no way, of course, be construed as a total
indictment against political activity of Federal eth?loyees. We would
note, for example, that under existing law Federal employees are free
to engage in a wide variety of activities. T":,e latch Act does not
circumscribe the entire field of political activity, but, rather,
carefully directs its prohibitions to what Congress regarded as
particular sources of danger to the public service namely, direct
participation by employees in the management and campaigns of major
political parties. A wide range of freedom to participate in the
political processes of the Nation, State, and the local community is
permitted under the existing law.
Accordingly, the Commission opposes enactment of these bills.
The Office of Nanagement and Budget advises that from the standpoint of
the Administration's program; there is no objection to the submission
of this report.
ly direction of the Commission:
incerely yours,
. )
Ktekk,
Chairman
a.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 :ElSk-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
;sufmny or 3000 - "FEDERAL rm,LoyEEst
.POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Xt77.717-1975" (7-?1t. CLAY)
Purpose
To restore to Federal civilian employees their rights to
participate, as private citizens, in the political life of the
Nation and to protect Federal civilian employees from improper
nolitical solicitations.
Exolanation of Provisions
SECTION 2. Amends Section 7323 of title 5, U.S. Code, to -
(1) Prohibit 'Federal civilian employees including
employees of the Postal Service from requesting,
receiving or giving a 'ember of Congress or a
uniformed officeranything of Value for political
purposes but permit them to make voluntary
contributions to candidates for public office.
Violators are subject to penalties provided under
Section 4 of the bill.
(2) Require the Civil Service Commission to investigate
alleged violations of the prohibitions discussed
in paragraph (A).
(3) Require that when the Civil Service Commission finds
that a violation has taken place, it shall -
Ca) impose the ap.eropriate penalty provided under
Section 4 when the violation has been committed
by a competitive employee;
(b) notify the President and agency head when a
violation has been committed by a Presidential
appointee; and
(c) refer the Case to the Attorney General for
possible prosecution.
steTron 3. Amends Section 7324 of title 5, U.S. Code, to -
(1) Prohibit Executive Branch, Postal Service, or
District of Columbia employees from using their
official authority or influence to interfere with
or affect any election.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
214
(2) nuarantee such ennloyess the right to.vote, to express
their political views, and to participate in political
management and campaigns so long as they do not use
their official authority or influence.
(3) Define "an active part in political management or in.
political campaigns" to include -
(a) candidacy for service Or office in political
conventions;
(b) particination in nrimary meetings, conventionS
or caucuses;
(c) preparing for, organizing or conducting a
political meeting or rally;
(d) membership in or organizing political clubs:
(e) distributing campaign literature, badges or
buttons;
(f) pul)lishing or having an editorial ot- ..anagerial
association with a partisan political publication:
(a) oraanizing or participating in a political
parade;
(h) initiating, signing, or circulating noninating
petitions on behalf of partisan candidates; and
(i) )being a candidate for public office.
SECTION 4. Amends Section 7325 of title 5, U.S. Code, to
? require the Civil Service Commission to impose a penalty of
not less than 30 days suspension without pay against an
employee who has violated Section 7323 or 7324, discussed
above.
SECTION 5. Sepeals Sections 7326 and 7327 of title 5, U.S. Code.
SECTION 6. Amends section 602 of title 18, U.S. Cod; to. require
the Attorney r7enera1 to report to the Congress should he decide
not to prosecute alleged violators after a finding of illegal
activity by the Civil Service Commission.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/132iFIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
'STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SIMONS, PRESIDENT OF .WASHINGTON TEACHERS'
UNION, LOCAL No. 6, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL?CIO
My name is William H. Simons, and as President of the Washington Teachers'
Union, Local #6, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, I wish to asso-
ciate this organization with the purposes sought in your Legislative Bill H.R.
.3000. While teachers in the Washington, D.C. School System are not encumbered
by the Hatch Act restrictions, it nevertheless strikes at the best interest of
teachers and the larger community to have the great body of their colleagues
who are covered by Civil Service so denied. Therefore, we of the Washington
Teachers' Union cannot stand apart from the effects of the ill-conceived Hatch
Act. For .with well over two and a half million citizens so circumscribed, there
has to be an incalculable loss of intellectual talent legislatively removed from
dealing through the political process with some of the severest problems con-
fronting the nation.
It is here in my view, that the significant remedy lies. Where the federal
.government reaches out for the most able people to meet the demands of its
pervasive obligations, it canot but help including trained and able minds into
its politically sterile fold.
Looking briefly at the inception of the Hatch Act, the cloudy and insecure
,environment of the time in 1939, the politically charged doubts as to bridging the
:gap between widespread economic deprivation at the gut instinct to pile wealth
upon wealth, we can today look with little understanding and appreciation for
the emotions unleashed in the name of governmental integrity.
Unlike today, unions were weak, civil rights groups functioned on hardly
more than determination and dedication. Then too, academic training of the
general population has significantly increased from a median of 8.6 school years
completed to 12.3 in 1973. (latest available data)
More and more, the government has drawn selectively from the people for
positions of increasing training requirements and intellectual responsibility.
The removal of so much talent from the political mainstream represents a tre-
mendous waste. Indeed, where convictions are strong and commitments are
overwhelming, the law has conceivably been bent, if not fractured.
We, therefore, can conclude that the general populace is no longer in need
of the smothering embrace of the patronizing efforts of the then "knowledgeable"
legislators.
I would say that minorities have been particularly ,hard hit in this type of
twilight political process. Where legal barriers compound a history of political
repression, political non-participation has become a way of life with a non-
commitant result of political disregard and unaccountability.
Mr. Chairman, I charge that through wilful intent or happenstance the enact-
ment of the Hatch Act froze into place the power of economics and politics in
the hands of the few. For decades, thereafter, we have shared and witnessed
the anguish associated with poverty and wealth, jobs and unemployment, racism
and rejection.
Where anger and frustration overflowed into the streets, hurried political
reaction sought stop-gap resolution. Where workable cures occurred, continuous
onslaughts developed for their termination. Witness the current task before us,
Mr. Chairman, in connection With the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
To document my argument further, Mr. Chairman, let me cite a bit of recent
history. During the civil rights disturbance of the sixties, minority group em-
ployees, particularly at mid and high level positions in government, were rushed
into the cities to assist iTI quieting the storm. They brought with them the newly
.aroused concerns of heretofore indifferent administrations. They sought out the
causes of anger and frustrations, already well known to demonstrate a will to
-broaden participation. ". . . To bring into the system those left out," worked
then. And, Mr. Nixon's quote is now shrouded in irony.
But Mr. Chairman, those pressures have now subsided. Nevertheless, the need
remains urgent for the knowledge and demonstrated guidance they, the govern-
ment workers, possess.
I do not propose to evade the wariness of the opponents of H.R. 3000. Rather,
I accept the potential for offenses against the sanctions of the law. It seems to
me, Mr. Chairman, that is too much to ask that a law ensure no violations. No
law on the books undertakes. a similar kind of burden. II.R. 3000 includes all of
the necessary prohibitions to discourage violations and to mete out justice where
infractions occur. To deny full politicai participation to an important segment of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
Approved For Release 2005/04/13210A-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8
the population is to deny a political reality in our natiemal life. Throwing the
baby out with the bath water may be an appropriate cliehe used here.
Moreover, events demonstrate the need of government employees to have,
the full ties with the political machinery of the market place. They are beset
by the cruel knife of favoritism, the unworkability of so-called equal opportunity
programs and leverage in the financial and economic decisions. Where high level
executives have access to political decisions and policy making, govermuent
employees as individuals experience difficulty and insecurity.
Some fear unions, some fear seeking Congressional in' ervention and others
suffer retaliation for being so bold. The lessons are not lost. There is sufficient
flexibility in the Civil Service provisions for administrators-to act capricimisly,.
though seemingly correctly.
Therefore, we cannot presume that security of employment is so certain or
prevalent that the federal employee is set apart from the security of his fellow
citizen. Indeed, their security in all respects can only flourish and priq;ress as
the social and economic security of the nation improves totally.
Mr. Chairman, all we have said here is that the market pilule of political ideas
cannot be exclusive. It must be all inclusive. Ideals and goals must surface and
undergo the rigors of testing in the market place. Otherwise, we are without
the true meaning of democracy as it is understood.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120002-8