Final report on violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment, together with minority views


Material Information

Final report on violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment, together with minority views
Final report on violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment ..
Violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment
Physical Description:
xviii, 1509 p. : forms ; 24 cm.
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. -- Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Civil service -- Personnel management -- United States   ( lcsh )
Officials and employees -- Selection and appointment -- United States   ( lcsh )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session.
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.
General Note:
At head of title: 94th Congress, 2d session. Committee print no. 94-28.
General Note:
On spine: Violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 024510194
oclc - 02704372
lccn - 77600987 //r89
lcc - KF49
System ID:

Full Text

94th Congress l CMITE RN COMMIT EE
2d Session C I E NPRINT No. 94-28




'P SJAN 197

DECEMBER 30, 1976 *~I,

Printed for the use of the Oommittee on Post Office and Civil Service

2d Session f PRINT No. 94-28






DECEMBER 30, 1976

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service


DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman
MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Vice Chairman
ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania
NORMAN Y. MINETA, California JOHN W. JENRETTE, JR., South Carolina STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York JOitN H. MARTINY, Chief Counsel VICTOR C. SMIROLDO, Staff Director and Counsel THEODORE J. KAZY, Associate Staff Director ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Counsel JAMES PIERCE MYERS, Assistant Counsel DAVID MINTON, Associate Counsel


DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
(Paul W. Newton, Subcommittee Staff Director, Room B-370(b), Rayburn BuildingExt. 52821)
NOTE.-The chairman and ranking minority member are ex officio voting members of all subcommittees on which they do not hold a regular assignment.



Staff work on the investigation was initially under the direction of Manpower and Civil Service Subcommittee Staff Director Roy C. MIesker, and upon his retirement in I)ecember 1975, under the direction of Staff Director Paul AV. Newton. Staff interviews and research were the. responsibility of Subcommittee Staff Investigators Gordon Freedman, Jr. (majority), J. Warren Geurin (minority), and Investigator Edward T. Hugler (majority).
This comprehensive report is the result of untiring efforts of these staff members and reflects unusual performance that could have easily justified employment of a much larger number of staff employees.


Prologu( --------------------------------------------------------- X11I
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------- XV
Authority for investigation-------------------------------------- XVI
Scope and nature of investigation-------------------------------- XVI
Part I.-Civil Service Commission:
Recruitment and examining---------------------------------- 1
Enforcement----------------------- ------------------------- 2
The Bureau of Recruiting and Examining---------------------- 3
CSC 'Merit Staffing Review Team------------------------------ 6
"Pink tags" designated favorable treatment --------------------6
Affidavit of Charles L. Ryan, dated April 5, 1976 ----------------9
Affidax-it of Edward A. Dunton. former Deputy Executive Director of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, dated January 22,
1976, with attachments ------------------------------------ 32
Alleged destruction of records prior to committee investigation- 118
Bureau of Personnel Management Eva luation-En forcemien t,
pre-1973------------------------------------------------ 119
Civil Service Commission investigation of "Special Referral
Units'" -------------------------------------------------- 120
Allegations arising from GSA-------------------------------- 120
CSC investigation of allegations ------------------------------ 120
Part IL.-Commiss ion initiated disciplinary actions against employees of
the General Services Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Small Business
Background---------------------------------------------- 125
Jurisdiction and enforcement authority of the Commission -- 129 Procedural aspects ---------------------------------------- 133
The lack of substantive law-------------------------------- 136
Part III.-The White House personnel operation (WHPO):
Introduction--------------------------------------------- 139
The White House personnel operation-1969 -------------------139
Who's Who in America mailing -------------- --------------- 140
The WIIPO staff --------------------------- --------------- 140
Personnel contacts ----------------------------------------- 141
WHPO meetings ------------------------------------------ 141
The WHPO computer----------------------- --------------- 142
Response to the Flemming WHPO ------------ ---------------'142
The Malek takeover ---------------------------------------- 143
The Malek study --------------------------- --------------- 143
Changes in the department personnel contacts ---------------- 144
The "must" system----------------------------------------- 145
The patronage operation----------------------------------- 146
Implementation of the Malek study ------------------------- 147
Informing the departments and agencies --------------------- 149
The' Malek WUPO staff------------------------------------ 149
Liaison with the departments and agencies --------------------149
Status reports -------------------------------------------- 1-1
WUPO and the 1972 Presidential campaign ------------------- -51
Staffing the new administration ----------------------------- 154
Letters of resignation-------------------------------------- 155
Placement of campaign workers ----------------------------- 156
0M.NB and the freeze---------------------------------------- 157
Kingsley and the WHPO----------------------------------- 158
The new WUPO computer system --------------------------- 158
Decentralization of WHPO, the so-called "'Malek M.Nanual'_ 158


Part III.-The White House personnel Operation (WHIPO) -Continued Page
The manual, first and final drafts --------------------------- 161
January 1973 May seminar ---------------------------------- 164
Impact of the WHPO on the career system ------------------- 166
Congressional pressure ------------------------------------- 167
Problems created by the WHPO ----------------------------- 170
Part IV.-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Alan May ------------------------------------------------- 171
Classification Task Force ----------------------------------- 172
The struggle between May and Cole ------------------------- 172
Operation Talent Search ------------------------------------ 173
Operation Talent Search investigated ----------------------- 174
Frederick Malek ------------------------------------------- 175
Political screening of career employees ----------------------- 177
Finch's departure ------------------------------------------ 179
Office of Special Projects ---------------------------------- 179
Schulhof memorandum ------------------------------------- 179
Political referrals ------------------------------------------ 180
Advisory boards and committees ---------------------------- 181
Office of Special Projects continued ------------------------- 182
Civil Service Commission investigations --------------------- 183
Social Rehabilitation Service (SRS), HEW ------------------ 183
Office of Special Projects ----------------------------------- 184
Part V.-Department of Housing and Urban Development.
March Miller ----------------------------------------------- 185
Political checks and clearances ------------------------------ 187
Alan May -------------------------------------------------- '188
White House discontent over Miller's operation --------------- 188
Lawrence Ba ker -------------------------------------------- 189
The WHPO and letters of resignation ------------------------ 190
HUD and Secretary Lynn (political profiles) ------------------ 190
Alan May school -------------------------------------------- 192
Baker's departure -------------------------------------------- 192
Stanley Armstrong ------------------------------------------ 193
Armstrong's office ------------------------------------------- 194
May manual influence ---------------------------------------- 196
i'Must" placements ------------------------------------------ 197
Results of Armstrong operation ------------------------------- 197
The field operation ------------------------------------------- 198
The HUD field organization --------------------------------- 200
Interface of field recruitment and the Armstrong office -------- 200 Political implications of field positions ----------------------- 200
The political affiliation "machinery" ------------------------ 203
Political pressure ------------------------------------------- 204
Potential field directors interviewed -------------------------- 204
Liaison with the White House Personnel Operation ----------- -05
HUD Office of Personnel ------------------------------------ 206
The Inspector General's investigation ------------------------- 209
Confiscating the file, ------------------------------------------ 211
Armstrong's and Ruddy's reactions -------------------------- 212
White House reaction ---------------------------------------- 213
The end of the Armstrong operation --------------------------- 214
Part VI.-General Services Administration:
The referral system, 1969 71 -------------------------------- 217
Political affiliation ------------------------------------------ 218
The operation of the referral system ------------------------- 219
Awareness of and participation with LeMay'soffice ----------- 219
Corneal --------------------------------------------------- 220
Purge of Regional Administrators --------------------------- 221
The Personnel Office ---------------------------------------- 222
Region 3 -------------------------------------------------- 923
Time expended on "must" cases ----------------------------- 226
Attempted transfers ---------------------------------------- 22(;
The Pennsylvania connection -------------------------------- 22
A ease of White House pressure ----------------------------- 229
The referral office continued, 1972-73 ------------------------- 230


Part VI.-General Services Administration-Continued Page
Kunzig's departure ---------------------------------------230
An illustrative case --------------------------------------- 231
Anne Powell attends the "Alan May School" ------------------233
Kaupinen as Assistant Administrator ------------------------ 234
The Davis case ------------------------------------------237
CSC complicity -------------------------------------------237
The Jones case -------------------------------------------238
CSC Investigates ----------------------------------------- 240
Obtaining the GSA referral files -----------------------------241
CSC proposes disciplinary actions --------------------------- 242
Hutchinson and Jones cases revisited ------------------------243
Conclusion -----------------------------------------------244
Part VII.-Conclusions, findings, and recommendations ------------------245
Part VIII.-Minority views -----------------------------------------249

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2013

 nalonvio00u nit


Memorandum to Edward A. Dunton from John D. R. Cole, dated June 12,
1973 -------------------------------------------------------------- 255
Memorandum to Bernard Rosen from John D. R. Cole, dated July 25, 1973-- 263 "Request for controlled processing, senior level examination," a "pink
tag" -------------------------------------------------------------- 267
Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service staff summary of "the Wade
Burger Case," with attachments --------------------------------------- 268
Draft memorandum to the President from Robert E. Hampton, dated September 30, 1969 ----------------------------------------------------- 290
Memorandum to the Commission from John D. R. Cole, dated October 15,
1973 -------------------------------------------------------------- 293
Recommended rulingof the Administrative Law Judge on respondent's motions to dismiss, dated June 24, 1974, in the matter of proposed disciplinary action against seven employees of the General Services Administration ------------------------------------------------------------ 3092
Memorandum to accompany recommended ruling on respondent's motions
to dismiss, in the matter of proposed disciplinary action against seven
employees of the General Services Administration --------------------- 304
Letter to Harold S. Trimmer, Jr., from Robert E. Hampton, re Civil Service Commission ruling in the matter of proposed disciplinary action against seven employees of the General Services Administration, dated
August 14, 1974 ----------------------------------------------------- 339
Order -on motions filed by respondents, dated August 27, 1974, in the matter
of proposed disciplinary action against certain employees of the General
Services Administration --------------------------------------------- 354
Letter to Glenn R. Graves, Esq., from Commissioners Robert E. Hampton,
Jayne B. Spain, and L. J. Andolsek, "Notice of Decision," re In the matter of proposed disciplinary action against certain General Services Administration employees, dated September 23, 1974 ---------------------- 360
Initial decision, in the matter of Benjamin Schiffman, General Services
Administration, dated June 13, 1975 -------------------------------- 367
Letter to J. WarrenGuerin from Joseph B. Scott, dated December 4, 1975,
with attachments --------------------------------------------------- 3 92
Management of noneareer personnel: Recommendation for improvement,
dated December 18, 1970 -------------------------------------------- 409
Management of noneareer personnel, summary of recommendations, dated
December 18, 1970 (revised January 6, 1971) ------------------------ 459
Letter to Cabinet members from President Nixon, dated January 29, 1971-- 475 Memorandum for Fred Malek and Daniel Kingsley from Bill Horton,
dated February 17, 1971, subject: Talking points on changes in management of noneareer personnel ---------------------------------------- 476
WHPO Handbook, dated March 17, 1971 ------------------------------ 482
WHPO referral letter to Jack LeMay from Stan Armstrong, dated May 7,
1971 -------------------------------------------------------------- 521
WHPO referral letter from Stan Armstrong to Mack Warren, dated October 26, 1971 -------------------------------------------------------- 529
WHPO referral to Daniel T. Kingsley from Clark MacGregor, dated
August 30, 1971 ---------------------------------------------------- 523
Memorandum for all policy level contacts from Daniel T. Kingsley, dated
October 1, 1971 ---------------------------------------------------- 524
Memorandum for Ernest Betts from Daniel T. Kingsley, dated October
12, 1971 ------------------------------------ ---------------------- 525
Memorandum from Frank Herringer, dated December 30, 1971, subject:
Monthly reports ---------------------------------------------------- 527


Memiorandum for Frank Carlucci from Allan Kaupinen, dated January 10, 1973. subject: Exceptions from the freeze with related documents --------535 Memorandum from Dan Kingsley, dated July 27, 1972, subject: Automated White House personnel system for selection of noncareer personnel, with enclosures ---------------------------------------------- 553
Federal "Political" Personnel Manual, dated 1972----------------------- 573
Federal "'Political" Personnel Manual, dated 1973 ---------------------- 728
"Report of the Classification Task Force"------------------------------- 821
Memioranidum for the Honorable .John W. Macy. dated April 18, 1966, with attachments ------------------------------------------------------ 849
Letter to the President from J. F. Griner, dated May 9, 1969 -------------852
Memorandum to Robert E. Hampton from Alvin WV. Norcross, dated May 16, 1969, with enclosures ------------------------------------------- 854
Routing Slip to Mr. Norcross from Paul E. Wright, dated June 4, 1969, with attachment------------------------------------------------- 856
Menimrandumfl to Chairman Hampton through Mr. Oganovic (undated, unsigned) ---------------------------------------------------------- 8629
Memoranidumn to the Honorable John D). Ehrlichmian from Robert E. Hampton, dated May 28, 1969, with enclosures---------------------------- 865
Letter to the Honorable Bob Hampton from John D. Ehrlichman, dated May 29, 1969---------------------------------------------------- 868
Memorandum to Chairman Hampton from Alvin WV. Norcross (undated), with attachment------------------------------------------------- 869
flandwvritten note re Operation Talent Search, dated July 3, 1969, with attached memorandum to Alvin WV. Norcross from Anthoniy L. Mondello,
dated July 2, 1969------------------------------------------------ 878
Menoramidumn to Chairman Hampton front Alvin W. Norcross, dated July 3,
196~9, with attachments ---------------------- ---------------------- 881
Memorandum for.NMr. Schulkind from "REH", dated August 13, 1969 --------895 Letter to .John F. (iner from Robert E. Hampton. dated August 19, 1969- 896 Memorandum to "the Secretary" from Frederic V. Malek, dated July 21,
1970, with attachments -------------------------------------------- 897
Letter to Thomas F. Williams from Frederic V. Malek, dated December 10,
1969------------------------------------------------------------ 928
Letter to Frederic V. Malek from Thomas F. Williams, dated January 2,
1970 ---------------------- -------------------------------------- 930
Letter to Thomas F. Williams from Frederic V. Malek, dated January 15,
1970 ------------------------------------------------------------ 939
Memorandum to Charles C. Johnson, Jr., from Thomas F. Williams, re:
Meeting with Mr. Veneman, Under Secretary, DHEW, dated February 3,
1970------------------------------------------------------------ 941
Memorandum for the Under Secretary from Samuel A. Schulhof, dated
March 9, 1973, with attachments----------------------------------- 946
Memorandum from John D. Cole to Chairman Hampton, dated July 29,
1974 ------------------------------------------------------------ 984
Letter to the Honorable Casper W. Weinberger from Robert E. Hampton
(signed by Bernard Rosen), dated July 31, 1974---------------------- 989
A Report on Special Inquiry of Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, prepared by U.S. Civil Service
Commission, Bureau of Personnel 'Management Evaluation (undated) -- 993 Letter to the Honorable Robert E. Hampton from the Honorable Casper
WV. Weinberger, dated September 9, 1974 with enclosures ------------- 1027
Letter to the Honorable Robert E. Hampton from "Frank," Acting Secretary, dated October 22, 1974, with enclosures ------------------------ 1050
Memorandum to Robert E. Hampton from John D. R. Cole, dated November 7, 1974 (attachments missing) ----------- ---------------------- 1053
Letter to the Honorable Casper WV. Weinberger from Robert E. Hampton, dated November 21, 1974----------------------------------------- 1056
Letter to the Honorable Casper W. Weinberger from Robert E. Hampton,
dated Febrilary 19. 1975 ------------------------------------------ 1058
Letter to the Honorable Robert E. Hampton from Casper W. Weinberger,
dated March 28, 1975-------------------------------------------- 1061
A Report on Alleged Political Influence in Personnel Actions at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, prepared by U.S. Civil Service Commission, Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation,
dated July 1975 ------------------------------------------------ 16


Memorandum to Richard C. Van Dusen from C. March Miller, 11, dated
August 18, 1969 ------------------------------------------------- 1112
Memorandum for Fred Malek from Dan Kingsley, dated February 12,
1971 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1123
Summary of interview with William Stanley Armstrong conducted on
October 3, 1973, by HUD investigators------------------------------ 1128
Special weekly status report, dated March 2, 1973--------------------- 1143
Summary of interview with John William Zook conducted on October 11,
1973 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1154
Summary of interview with Joseph A. Ryan conducted on October 11 and
12, 1973, by HUD investigators ------------------------------------- 1164
Summary of interview with Trudy Slaby Etherton conducted on October 9,
1973, by HUD investigators --------------------------------------- 1175
Summary of interview with Judith D. Bryant a.k.a. Judy Bryant conducted on October 1, 1973, by HUD investigators--------------------- 1185
Affidavit of J. William Zook, dated November 2, 1973--------------------- 1190)
Affidavit of James W. Hardgrove, dated July 31, 1973------------------- 1206
Affidavit of Arthur G. Palman, dated November 20, 1973----------------- 1218
Affidavit of James W. Hardgrove, dated November 20, 1973-------------- 1226
Affidavit of James WV. Hard-rove, dated July 25, 1973 ------------------- 1234
Affidavit of Donald J. LeMay, dated July 30, 1974 ---------------------- 1242
Affidavit of Ann Landers Powell, dated July 17, 1973 -------------------- 1258
Affidavit of Anne Landers Powell, dated August 16, 1973 --------------- 1272
Affidavit of Allan George Kaupinen, dated October 4, 1973--------------- 1284
Affidavit of Donald J. LeMay, dated July 30, 1974 --------------------- 1292
Affidavit of M~arion W. DeTuncq, dated August 3, 1973 ----------------- 1299
Affidavit of William J. Bailey, dated November 20, 1973 ---------------- 1303
Affidavit of Donald 3. LeMay, dated July 30, 1974---------------------- 1309
Affidavit of Donald J. LeMay, dated July 30, 1974---------------------- 1321
Affidavit of Donald .J. LeMa y, dated July 30, 1974----------------------- 1333
Affidavit of Donald J. LeMay, dated July 30,1974111111111111111111111111342 Affidavit of Leon Cohen, dated July 16, 1973-------------------------- 1348
Affidavit of Theodore C. Applebaum, dated July 13,19731111111111111111111353 Affidavit of John P. Joynt, dated July 13, 1973------------ ------------- 1365
Affidavit of John P. Joynt, dated July 13, 1973-------------------------- 1372
Affidavit of Donald J. LeMay, dated July 30, 1974--------------------- 1378
Affidavit of F. Bruce Corneal, Jr., dated October 18, 1973 -------------- 1389
Affidavit of Rod Krc.ger, dated October 2, 1973-------- ---------------- 1394
Affidavit of Arthur G. Palman ((late missing) ------------------------ 1398
Letter to the Honorable Arthur Sampson, from the Honorable Richard S.
Schweiker, dated June 28, 1973 ------------------------------------ 1406
Letter to the Honorable Rtichard S. Schweiker from Arthur F. Sampson, dated July 16, 1973 (carbon copy) ---------------------------------- 1407
Letter to Joseph ID. Gebhart, Esquire, from Robert R. Rile, dated January 30, 1976, with attachments ------------------------------------- 1408
Typewritten note to Mr. Sampson from "Cathy," dated August 10, 1972
(candidate's name deleted)---------------------------------------- 1424
Letter to John E. Clarke from (candidate's name deleted), dated August 7,
1972------------------------------------------------------------ 1425
Handwritten note from "LR" to "Anne," dated August 22----------------- 1426
Typewritten note to Mr. Sampson from "Cathy," dated August 11, 1972
(references to candidate deleted) ----------------------------------- 1427
"Note to file" dated September 26, 1972 (candidate's name deleted) --------1428 Handwritten note signed "LR," dated October 19------------------------ 1429
Handwritten memorandum to "Dec" and "AP" dated February 7, 1973
(candidate's name deleted) ---------------------------------------- 1430
M1emioranduni to Andy Lawrence from Anne Powell, dated March 26, 1973
(candidate's name deleted) ---------------------------------------- 1431
Memorandum to "Larry" from Anne Powell dated March 26, 1973
(candidate's name deleted) ---------------------------------------- 1432
Typewritten note to "Larry" from "Anne" dated March 27, 1973
(candidate's name deleted) ---------------------------------------- 1433
"Reminder for the Day," dated April 19, 1973 (candidate's name deleted)--------------------------------------------------------- 1434
Typewritten note to "Larry" from "Anne," dated June 13, 1973
(candidate's name deleted)----------------------------------------- 1435


Typewritten note to "Larry" from "Anne," dated June 7, 1973 (candidate's
name deleted) --------------------------------------------------- 1436
Typewritten note dated June 15, 1973 (unsigned) (candidate's name
deleted)-------------------------------------------------------- 1437
Letter to William R. Irvin, Jr., from Stanton B. Maher, with enclosures,
dated May 8, 1973 (candidate's name deleted) ----------------------- 1438
Affidavit of Anne L. Powell, dated August 22, 1974 --------------------- 1442
Letter to the Honorable Robert E. Hampton from the Honorable Bob
Price, dated November 13, 1970 ----------------------------------- 1443
Memorandum to Charlie Ryan from Helen Marshall, dated November 16,
1970------------------------------------------------------------ 1444
Letter to Rod Kreger from Robert E. Hampton, dated December 8, 1970-- 1445 Letter to Robert E. Hampton from Rod Kreger (undated)---------------- 1446
Memorandum to the Administrator" from Rod Kreger, dated January 14, 1971------------------------------------------------------------ 1447
Letter to the Honorable Robert E. Hampton from Robert L. Kunzig, dated
January 26, 1971------------------------------------------------- 1448
Letter to Robert Hampton from the Honorable Bob Price, dated February 1, 1971 ------------------------------------------------------- 1449
Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service staff summary of "The Lyle
Hutchinson Case"------------------------------------------------ 1450
Letter to Robert L. Kunzig f rom Robert G. McCune, dated October 6, 1969-- 1453
-Menio for Rod Kreger" from Robert E. Hampton, dated October 8, 1969-- 1454 Letter to Lyle E. Hutchinson, Jr., from Robert K. Hampton, dated October 8, 1969 ------------------------------------------------------ 1455
'Meio, for Betty Walker" from Helen Marshall, dated October 22, 1969_-- 1456 Letter to) Lyle E. Hutchinson, Jr., from John E. Beckman, dated October 24,
1969 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1457
*M1emoranldumn for Robert Kunzig" from Harry S. Flemmning, dated October 2-9, 1969 ---------------------------------------------------- 1458
Handwritten note to "Jack" dated October 30, 1969 --------------------- 1459
Memorandum from Jack LeMay to Arthur F. Sampson, dated November 17,
1969------------------------------------------------------------ 1460
Memorandum to "The Files" from "Ann," dated December 22, 1969 -------1461 "Memorandum for the File" from L. F. Roush, dated January 5, 1970 ------1462
**Memorandum of Call" to LeMay, dated February 12 ------------------- 1463
Memorandum to Donald J. LeMay from Wilbur Jones, dated March 12,
1970 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1464
Typewritten note to Mr. Abersf4eller from Wilbur Jones, dated March 20-- 1467 "*Memorandum to the Administrator" from Rod Kreger, dated March 25,
1970 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1468
Tyerte note (unsigned, undated) -------------------------------- 1469
Typewritten note dated March 26, 1970. signed Helen M ----------------- 1470
*'Memo to Larry Roush" from Anne Powell, dated August 8, 1972 ---------1471 Reproduction of H.R. 13891, 94th Congress, 2d Session, a bill introduced
by Hon. David N. Henderson on May 19, 1976------------------------ 1472


The violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment, discussed in this report should be viewed in the context of a Federal civil service merit system that is founded on immutable merit principles yet is also (designed to be a system which is flexible in responding to today's management needs. In retrospect, the evolution of the system has been dramatic, particularly since the early 1950's. For' the past 25 years, there has been continued emiphasis to integrate personnel management with the overall management functions of Executive agencies. Civilian personnel responsibilities have, to a large extent, been delegated to the agencies, to be exercised with the widest lattitude possible within the limits of applicable laws and regulations. This change in emphasis was meant to overcome restrictive regulatory procedures and to put more substance than form in the system.
Since -the mid-1960's, many flexibilities have been built into the system. However, absent. adequate mechanisms in the agencies, and particularly the Civil Service Commission, to protect the integrity of the system, excesses in the use of personnel authorities have subverted the legitimate ends of personnel administration.
The excesses and unchecked improper use of personnel authorities were particularly acute during the period 1969-73. Throughout this period, serious allegations of improper political influence in making Federal career appointments surfaced from a variety of sources.
The volume and scope of such allegations reached unprecedented proportions by 1973 requiring immediate and forceful action. The Executive ag' encies' enforcement. functions failed to adequately respond to such allegations and ensure that merit principles in Federal employment were observed. This failure was due in large measure to individual agency officials at all levels who were responsible for specific instances of violations, abuses, and improper conduct.
The subcommittee believes that the cumulative effect of the instances of improper use of personnel authorities and official misconduct documented in this report seriously damaged the fabric, if not the foundation. of the civil service merit. system. The circumstances in which the instances took place are, in part. explainable but not justified, by the Watergate events unfolding durincy the period 1972-74. The subcommittee believes that a strong, dynamic Federal personnel policy best serves the interests of Government efficiency and economy as well as the public.
However, it is clear that these interests cannot justify or excuse the types of abuses covered in this report. The subcommittee believes that steps must be taken to prevent similar abuses from happening in the future.


This report focuses principally on events which occurred within the Federal civil service personnel system during the years 1969 through 1973. The subcommittee recognizes, as discussed in the preceding prologue, that the events which occurred (luring this period and which are described in this report most likely could not have occurred had it not been for the flexibilities which were introduced into the Federal personnel system during the years preceeding 1969. Similarly, the subcommittee is well aware that manipulations and abuses of the merit system are not isolated to the time period examined by this report. Undoubtedly abuses and manipulations occurred before 1969 and after 1973. It is clear, however, that. the extent of manipulations and abuses reached its zenith during the time frame upon which this report focuses.
It is well to remind those who may criticize this report as partisan, that it is by studying a problem at its most acute stage, as well as the origin and evolution of that problem. that solutions to that. problem and measures to prevent future similar problems may best be identified. The evolution of the "flexible" system has been discussed in both the iReport of the Merit Staffing Review Team (see Committee Print No. 94-14) and in a MNonograph on the Merit System in the United States Civil Service, (see Committee Print No. 94-10). In addition, the subcommittee -will shortly issue as a committee print, a comprehensive history of the civil service system which has been prepared for the subcommittee by the Congressional Research Service (see Committee Print No. 94-29).
The subcommittee has also found it necessary to limit somewhat the scope of the report with respect to particular agencies which had been the subject of its investigation. Thus the report focuses on the Civil Service Commission, the White House Personnel Operation, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the General Services Administration.
A study of the Civil Service Commission is essential because it is that agency which establishes merit standards and is responsible f or insuring compliance with those standards. Problems within that agency with respect to the enforcement of these standards, and serious instances of noncompliance with these standards in the Commission itself, have been discussed in the Report, of the 'Merit Staffing Review Team (MSRT). While there may be some disagreement as to whether the scope of the MSRT report was sufficiently broad, the subcommittee has no reason to question the accuracy of the substantive findings which are included in that report. Accordingly, although some portions of this report unavoidably duplicate matters discussed in that report,


the subcommittee has attempted to focus primarily on matters concerning the Commission which have not been previously discussed.
A section on the White House personnel operation (WHPO) is included since it is clear that that operation was, in essence, the "nerve center" for the political personnel operation which evolved during the years 1969-73. An understanding of the WHPO operation, and the various pressures within and without the WIIPO, is essential in order to understand the evolution and operation of the special referral units and political personnel contacts in the various agencies.
Sections on HUD and HEW are included since the special referral
units in those respective departments present a contrast with respect to the nature, extent, organization, and "effectiveness" of the operations. In addition, it is clear that the HEW operation provided a training ground for several of the major principals in the special referral operations. The activities at GSA are of interest since it was that agency which was intially targeted by the Civil Service Commission for the initiation of unprecedented disciplinary actions. The interplay between officials of GSA and CSC is important in evaluating the effectiveness of existing enforcement authorities, and of the individuals responsible for applying such authorities.

The review of the violations and abuses of merit principles in the Federal employment discussed in this report was conducted as part of the oversight functions of the committee under authority of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Clause 1 (o) of Rule X, grants general jurisdiction to the Post Office Office and Civil Service Committee over the Federal civil service and the status of officers and employees of the United States.
Clause 2 prescribes general oversight responsibilities and provides that the committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of the laws within the jurisdiction of the committee under clause 1 and the organization and operation of the Federal agencies having responsibility for the administration of those laws, in order to determine whether such laws and the programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated.
In addition, clause 2 requires the committee to review and study any conditions or circumstances which may indicate the necessity or desirability of new or additional legislation.

The stibcomm ittee developed the material presented in this report t1irough staff iiiterviews with knowledgeable persons, examination of )ertinent files and (doui, nients-soine obtained 11nder subpena or by official re(lpest. others furnished gratlnitously )y interested personsan I public investigative hearinzrs. In this regarl the subcomnfi-ttee has printed more than 1.300 pages of material relevant to various aspects


of this investigation, held 13 days of public lbearings, and conducted numerous staff interviews.'
Much of the material presented in this report has previously appeared in the records of public hearings, committee prints of relevant documents, administrative hearing records, or in the media. Additional documents, some of which have not previously been released, are contained in the appendix to this report. Where the report draws on such sources the appropriate source is identified.
In addition, in some sections of this report. the subcommittee has drawn heavily on information obtained through staff interviews with various individuals familiar with the matters under investigation. Statements or information provided to staff interviewers were not given under oath. Each interview was, however, reduced to a "Memorandum of Interview," prepared by the staff. Whije the subcommittee realizes that the use of information obtained through these staff interviews will inevitably lead to charges by some individuals that the conclusions drawn from such information are subjective, and cannot be "proven" in the strict legal sense, the subcommittee believes that the use of this information is essential to give the most complete picture possible of the events described in this report.
Complete and thorough treatment in this report of each allegation or charge of merit abuse investigated by the subcommittee has not been possible. The subcominit tee has, however, evaluated the available material and information at its disposal, and presents in this report material which it believes is more than sufficient to permit a complete understanding of the events which were occurring, and the environment in which those events occurred.
The subcommittee has gathered and presented the material contained in this report to provide a basis for recommendations as to future actions, both legislative and administrative, which may be taken to strengthen the merit system. In this regard the subcommittee stresses that the mere fact that an individual is mentioned or an activity is del See. "Violations and Abuses of Merit Principles in Federal Employment.' hearings before the Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives, 94th Cong.. 1st sess.. Mar. 4, 5. and April 10, 1975 (Serial No. 94-19) : hearings before the Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Servie of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives. 94th Cong., 1st sess., June 25 and 26. 1975 (Serial No. 94-20) ; hearings before the Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives, 94th Cong.. 1st sess.. Sept. 9. 24. Oct. 21 and 30. 1975 (Serial No. 94-48) hearings before the Subcommittee on Manpower and (viil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives. 94th Cong.. 1st sess.. Dec. 11. 1975 (Serial No. 94-49) ; "Civil Service Commission Merit Staffing Review Team." hearings before the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives. 94th Cong.. 2d sess., June 9, 10, and 11, 1976 (Serial No. 94-S2) : "Documents Relating to Political Influence in Personnel Actions at the General Services Administration." Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives. 93d Cong.. 2d sess.. Oct. 7. 1974 (Committee Print No. 93-22) : Documents Relating to Political Influence in Personnel Actions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development," Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives. 93d Cong., 2d sess.. Dec. 12, 1974 (Committee Print No. 93-23) : "Documents Relating to Political Influence in Personnel Actions at the Small Business Administration," Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives. 94th Cong.. 1st sess., July 1975 (Committee Print No. 94-4) "The Merit System in the United States Civil Service." a monograph prepared by Bernard Rosen for the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, Dec. 23, 1975 (Committee Print No. 94-10) "A Self-Injury Into Merit Staffing reports of the Merit Staffing Review Team. United States Civil Service Commission, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives, 94th Cong.. 2d sess., June 8, 1976 (Committee Print No. 94-14).
NOTE Hereafter in this report, the above hearings and committee prints are referred to by serial number, i.e., "Hearings No. 94- ," "Committee Print No. 94- 2


scribed in this report should not by itself serve as the basis for inferring that the individual named engaged in improper activity or that the activity described was necessarily improper. In some instances descriptions of certain activities or events. may to the cursory reader appear unrelated to the primary subject of this report-violations and abuses of merit principles in Federal employment. The subcommittee believes, however, that the -description of these events is essential to understand not just what happened, but equally important, the environment in which the events occurred.
Some of the material presented in this report contains conflicts with respect to individual accounts of what took place, and, more importantly, individual perceptions -and opinions as to why certain events occurred. The subcommittee has attempted to set forth the material so that itmay speak for itself, and where possible, to suggest resolution f or some of these conflicts.


The Civil Service Commission is responsible for many diverse functions that relate to Federal personnel management. This portion of the report is concerned with two such functions: (1) providing for open competitive examinations to test the fitness of applicants for positions in the competitive service (i.e., positions subject to the competitive civil service laws) ; and (2) enforcement of merit system requirements.

CSC Chairman Robert E. Hampton has stated, and rightfully so, "Competitive examining is at the center of the merit system (Hearing No. 94-19, p. 10). The procedures for recruitment for Federal employment are designed to obtain the best qualifie-I persons through examinations which afford equal opportunity and equal treatment for all citizens. Appointments to positions within the civil service are made by agencies. An agency may decide to fill a position either by recruitment of a non-Federal employee through examinations, by promotion or reassignment of a person already employed. transfer from another agency, or- reinstatement of a person having competitive ctatus as a result of previous Federal employment. However, all actions taken by agencies must conform to qualification standards and other requirements established by the Civil Service Commission pursuant to law. In making appointments to competitive service positions, appointing officers in the various agencies request that the Commission submit, or "certify," the names of the best qualified available persons to fill positions in those agencies. These names are taken from lists of eligibles which are established by the Commission as a result of open competitive examinations.
Pt ring the mid-1960's, a fundamental change took- place in the examining and rating function. Prior to 1964, applicants for Federal positions -were examined and rated by 875 agency boards of civil service examiners. There were 60 agency boards of examiners in the Washington, D.C., area alone. In 1964 the Commission approved plans to consolidate and streamline these functions and establish inter-agency boards of examiners and job information centers. By 196 7. 65 interagency boards of examiners (TAB's) bad been established to replace the old agency boards. By 1970, these TAB's had been incorporated into what are now the Civil Service Commission area offices.
New examining techniques were developed as part of this fundamental change including "broad-band" examinations covering entire occupational fields, permitting an applicant to file a single application for a variety of jobs. Two major broad-band examinations (the MidLevel examination, grades GS-9 through 12, and the Senior-Level ex(1)


examination, grades GS-13 through 15) and the rating and certification procedures relating to each have been the cause of the most significant problems identified by the subcommittee's investigation of merit system violations and abuses.'
Not surprisingly, with greater agency dependency on the examining and rating system operated entirely by the CSC, the Commission, as a matter of policy, established the trend away from emphasis on paper processing and toward practical productive use of the flexibilities inherent in the merit system. Watch words within the Com.inission were "responsiveness" and "flexibility." Admittedly, the process of recruiting and examining is exceedingly complex and frequently involves the use of very imprecise and, at times, highly subjective techniques to determine who the best qualified and available candidates are for a particular position particularly at the mid and senior leVelS.2 It is at these levels, however, where there is the greatest incentive for the agencies to manipulate the examininor process. Because of the degree of subjectivity in examining, manipulation is inade possible.
The Commission's Bureau of Recruiting and Examining (BRE) is responsible for nieetincy the objective of the Federal recruiting and examining program, i.e., providing Federal agencies with the best available people and providing the public with the opportunity to compete equally for Federal jobs. The Commission has 10 regional offices and 65 area offices, including 110 job information centers. There are approximately 2,100 employees engaged primarily in recruiting and examining. In one year, the Commission will typically answer 4,000,000 inquiries, receive 2,500,000 applications, conduct 67,000 tests, evaluate 1,900,000 applications and refer 1,300,000 candidates all resulting in the appointment of approximately 220,000 new hires. Throughout this process, the vast majority of personnel actions are taken without the hint of impropriety or violation of merit principles.
To the extent this report documents abuses and violations, the seriousness of the violations is not diminished by the number of instances discovered but, rather, represents the pervasiveness of the manipulation of merit system procedures to provide preferential treatment for favored candidates for career appointments.
The subcommittee has found that such manipulation was an accepted practice by Executive departments and agencies, indeed, aided and abetted by the Civil Service Commission. The manipulations, though small in number in proportion to the total number of personnel actions taken each vear, have seriously damaged the integrity of the whole systeni.
Enforcement of merit system requirements is a key Commission responsibility. Though the principal responsibility for the proper operation of the personnel system rests with the head of each agency and each agency official involved in the personnel process, an outside
I Committee Print No. 94-14 Report of the Civil Service Commission Merit Staff Review Toam, pp. 15-24, discusses the characteristics of the examining program which invite manipulation.
2 See GAO Report to the Congress. "Improvements Needed in Examining and Selecting Applicants for Federal Employment," B-17980, July 22, 1974.


0or "over the shoulder" look is necessary to assure that the system is being operated in accordance with civil service, laws and regulations. The, degree to which investigations are required is evidenced by thet number and nature of allegations made that violations have occurred. The nature of the Commnission enforcement function and its evolution is synopsized in the Merit Staffing Review Team (MSRT) Report (Committee Print No. 94-14, pp. 61-64) and need not be repeated here.
Significantly, the evidence available to the subcommittee shows that the CSC enforcement function failed to adequately respond to specific allegations of violations and abuses of merit principles particularly during the period 1969-1973 when political influence assumed prime importance for providing preferential treatment to certain candidates for Federal service career positions. During that period the Commission consistently assumed an "ostrich-lIike stand in response to repeated and specific allegations of political influence. Clearly, "The Commission lacked . the will to act resolutely on allegations of political intrusions into the career service" (Committee Print No. 94--1,p. 82), and consequently failed to ensure that merit principles weeenforced.
The CSC investigations that began in 1973 did result in the abolishment of several agency speciall referral" units, and the Commission 's unprecedented actions of proposing disciplinary action against several agency officials did serve notice that the Commission meant business in stopping illegal political interference with the career service: however, the extreme reluctance of the Commission to put its own house inl order and the fact that top Commission officials, including the Commissioners, had severely compromised their roles as impartial administrators of the system by engaging in improper activities not unlike the activities with which agency officials were charged. considerably dampened the effect of the Commission's actions.

The Director, Bureau of Recruiting and Examining, is resnonsible for the Office of the Special Assistant who, in turn is the head of the Special Inquiry Office and directs the operation of the Congressional Liaison Office. The functions of the Special Assistant to the Director, BRFJ, have not been so clearly defined that a date can be fixed as to when the position was created and who has served in that~ position; however, employee listings for BRE show that sometime between March and May 1967 the Office of Special Assistant was established and Betty F. Walker was appointed IDirector. The. duties and responsibilities of that position have evolved with the changingr CSC examining and rating function. It can best be described as a "special problems" office handling a wide variety of special cases and "problems" for the Commissioners, Commission officials, and in some instances agency officials, relating to the general area of recruiting and examining.
The subcommittee's investigation has revealed that top officials of the Commission took little or no action to investigate the Bureau (-f Recruiting and Examining (BRE) or the Washington Area Office when it was known by several Commission officials, including the


Executive Director and probably the Commissioners, that there was a sufficient basis to question CSC rating and certification activities as early as July 197 3.
In response to serious allegations of political influence in making career appointments in various Executive agencies, the Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation (BPME), CSC, conducted a series of investigations which exposed widespread and systematic abuses of the civil service appointment system within several Executive agencies. The first such BPME investigation of the General Services Administration was triggered by oral allegations, then later, by a written affidavit given by Mr. Arthur (37 Palman, Personnel Officer, GSA Region III (and five senior personnel officials of GSA Region III) in June 1973. On June 12, 1973, Mr. John D. R. Cole, Director, BPME, prepared a memo for Mir. Edward A. Dunton, Deputy Executive Director, CSC, outlining how BPME proposed to proceed with an investigation of the allegations. Significantly, the tentative procedures for invest igating included, ". . For employees specifically named or based on folder review, check BRE or Area Office for certification record, etc." (A.:Xppendix. pp. 255, 261.) During the course of the investigation, BPME ivestigators received statements from GSA employees alluding to the cooperation of the Commission in getting must referrals certified. Cole had sufficient concern regarding CSC allegations that he included that information in a memo dated July 25, 1973, to Mr. Bernard Rosen, CSC Executive Director, providing a status re port on the investigation.
In interview [s], our investigators have been told "we don't trust you guys. Why are you looking at us; you've known for a long time what has been going on since you are a part of it."
We do not plan to take this up with BRE at this time. When we have cornp~leted our fact finding in GSA, to the extent we need to deal with BRE for the purposes of completing our report, we will do so and inform you accordingly. (A ppenidix, p. 261.)
This memorandum was forwarded by Mr. Rosen to Chairman Hampton. In an October 1, 1975, deposition, in response to questions posed by attorneys for the GSA, Mr. Cole responded as follows:
Question. . Mr. Moser [CSC, BPME investigator] . told you that the B.R.E. needed to be explored and he says he doesn't know what you did with that recommendation.
Answer. Okay.
Q question. Do you recall Mr. Moser making that application to you? Answer. Well, I recall Mr. Moser making that point to me. I don't remember it to be precise. I don't remember it as a recommendation, but I remember him pointing it out.
Question. What point do you remember him making? What is your recollection of the point?
Answer. Well, my recollection, it went something like this: That he had talked to DeTiincq and that DeTuncq had made some comments about Mr. Ryan, and that there were pretty clear implications on DeTuncq's part that perhaps some of the things that Mr. Ryan might have done would be of concern to the Commiss ion, and that therefore the B.R.E. involvement in handling of these so-called mustt cases," name request cases, was a matter that the Commission would have to reckon with.
Answer. (Sic) And did you do anything with that point? Did you carry that to anyone else, or did you have that investigated, or Mr. Ryan questioned? What did you do with that?
Answer. I (lid not have it investigated, and I did not have Mr. Ryan questioned because that's not in the purview of iny a ssigned functions and responsi-


bilities in this Bureau, but I did alert Mr. Rosen, and I suspect others, to the fact that that piece of information had come out of the investigation.
Question. What Bureau, Branch, or Division of the Civil Service Commission would investigate something like that?
Answer. That would be for the Executive Director to decide.
Question. So, you told him about it and left the decision up to him? Answer. Uh-huh.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of what he did on that recommendation; how he acted on it?
Answer. I don't have personal knowledge of what he did.
Question. Do you have any non-personal knowledge? Has someone told you what happened: has he told you what happened?
Answer. Well, what I remember of the conversation that I had with Mr. Rosen was something along these lines: This has come up and the B.R.E. involvement in these name request cases is probably going to be of concern to the Commission. I'm assuming that consistent with my Charter, if any part of the Commission needs to be investigated that will be done by the appropriate other part of the organization, and he said, yes, I think that's the best way to handle it and so I left it at that point.
Sometime afterwards, and I can't recall when, or what the exact conversation was, but I gained the clear impression that he had personally looked into it and asked for some information from the Director of that Bureau, and possibly others, to satisfy himself as to what the situation was.
These allegations centered principally on the Office of the Special Assistant to the Director, BRE, which since May 1970 had been headed by Mr. Charles Ryan. Mr. Wendell Mickle, then Deputy Director, BRE, has stated that he did not know about the July 25 memorandum and that he did not have information on Rvan's activities until the CSC investigative report of GSA was issued in October 1973. Mr. Mickle does recall that the GSA investigation was held "quite close" in the Commission by Mr. Rosen, Mr. Ed Dunton, Mr. John Cole and Mr. Anthony L. Mondello, General Counsel.
From the time these allegations surfaced during the CSC investigation and were presented to Mr. Rosen, no substantive action was taken to determine whether there was Commission complicity in the special referral operations being investigated in GSA. BRE was kept completely in the dark about the results of the investigation and the specific charges coming to the attention of the Commission investigators. Mr. Ryan was never questioned.
Mr. Rosen, in a subcommittee interview said, "Cole came to me and said someone in GSA made the comment to one of the investigators that Ryan's operation was pait of the problem [GSA referral system]."
Mr. Rosen called Mr. Ziv Remez, then Director BRE. and asked Remez to ". . look into it and if there was a problem to do what had to be done." Remez reported back to Rosen that all was well. Rosen did not pursue the matter and said that prior to the Ryan deposition given in September 1975 ". . there were no 'specifics' to investigate."
Throughout 1973-1975, BPME was investigating several agencies; however, as a result of the investigation of GSA, the Civil Service Commission proposed disciplinary actions against eight individuals in GSA ranging from 30 day suspensions to removal. As part of the individuals' and the agency's defense to the letters of charges, the respondents pressed further the allegations that the Civil Service Commission and certain specific officials of the Commission not only knew what was going on in the agency but had in fact condoned the practices by not taking action to stop the practices and by actually partici-


pating in them. On September 23, 1975, Ryan provided a deposition in connection with the Hlardgrove case more than two years following the initial surfacing of the allegations. That deposition ". . was widely interpreted as being a concession by Ryan that he had provided preferential treatment. to certain applicants as part of his officially assigned duties and that he personally had arranged 'must' placements on behalf of the Commissioners." (Committee Print No. 94-14, p. 3.) SFinally, on October 20, 1975 the Commissioners (on the recommendlation of Mr. Raymond Jacobson, CSC, Executive Director) established an internal review team t~o thoroughly explore the Commission's examining and rating practices.

From October 20, 1975 to May 7, 1976 a CSC Merit Staffing Review Team (M.S.-RT) conducted a, thorough inquiry into the recruiting and examining operations of the Civil Service Commission and prepared a report, titled, "A Self-Inquiry Into Merit Staffing." Mr. Milton I. Sharon (formerly Regional Director, Philadelphia Region, Civil Service Commission), was appointed Director of the team made up of several Civil Service Commission employees (Committee Print No. 94-14, pp. 4-5).
The subcommittee requested custody of the files and documentation compiled by the team during the course of their inquiry. The files were delivered to the subcommittee on May 28, 1976. The full committee conducted 3 days of hearings, June 9, 10, and 11 (Hearing No. 94-82), on the contents and impact of the report and the back-up files.
The subcommittee's review of the files reveals far more serious questions relatingr to the subcommittee's investigation than those addressed by the Team's report.

The MSRT report indicates that "pink tags" attached to incoming applications from individuals for ratings as~ well as to requests for certification from the various agencies both expedited the ratings of selected applicants and monitored agency name request certifications through the Commission's examining process with special emphasis and frequently with favorable treatment.. Thoug h commonly referred to as "Pink tags," the, form is called "Request for Controlled Processing Senior Level Examination" and served two purposes; namely, controlled processing of (1) applications and (2) requests for certificates. (See app~endix p. 267.)
The subcommittee first discovered "pink tags" in November 1975 during a review at the Commission's Washington Area Office of senior level name requests made during 1972 and 1973 by the General Services Administration, while the subcommittee was reviewing the activities (of that agency as part of its ongoing investigation of poltical. influence in personnel actions. The subcommittee conveyed the use and probable significance of "pink tags" to the MSRT for its use in its internal investigation.
It is significant that in an earlier investigation conducted at the Washington Area Office by the committee in early 1973 of senior level


name requests by other agencies no such "pink tags" were found in the oases examined by the committee at that time. That subject. is discussed later in this report under the heading "Alleged Destruction of Records Prior to Committee Investigation." (See pp. 109, 110.)
While it is not known precisely when the "pink tag" system went into effect, Ryan, who was appointed as the Special Assistant to the Director, BRE in May 1970, said that it was in effect at that time. The subcommittee noted that all of the "pink tag" forms included in certification files it examined were shown to have been printed and/or approved in August 1967.
The "pink tags," when used. were attached by Ryan and were widely accepted by examining personnel of the Commission's area office as requiring expedited, if not favorable, action. This special rating treatment of applications resulted in "leap-frogging" over other applications on hand, giving the selected pink-tagged individuals a considerable competitive edge over others who previously had filed applications but which had yet to be rated.
The special treatment given pink-tagged name requests for certification at the Washington Area Office also resulted in favorable consideration of the individual so requested and the particular agency which made the request.
The MSRT report in addressing the role of Ryan stated:
In addition to expediting ratings, the Special Assistant also became involved in guiding agency certification requests through the examining process. Agencies with name-request cases they considered important, rather than submitting them to the Washington Area Office, would, at times, contact a Commissioner. the Director of BRE, or the Special Assistant directly. The case was then sent by the Special Assistant to the Washington Area Office for action. As with expedited ratings, these special certification cases were usually "pink-tagged." Name-requested candidates who did not already have civil service eligibility would be rated on an expedited basis, their applications leap-frogged over other unrated applications already on hand. In many cases, the examiner assigned to the case would be instructed that any communication about the case with the agency concerned would be through the Special Assistant. When completed. certifications were often released to the agency by the Special Assistant rather than by the examining office. (Committee print No. 94-14, pp. 29, 30.)
Rvan told the MSRT that he had heard that Commission emn~lovees in staff positions who received "pink ta-" cases felt they had to come ui with eligible ratings for the particular individuals. Rvan said that the assumption that "pink tag" cases must be rated eligible or must result in certification was erroneous and was based on actions taken by his predecessor. He said that under his predecessor, if a "pink taq" case came un with an ineligible rating the examiner would get a call from a Commission official's office and would be placed under pressure.
Rvan insisted that it was never intended that "pink tags. meant that a particular individual had to be rated eligible: that the "pink tag" system was merely a control device for expediting service. Ryan said that whatever he had done had been really no worse than anything before, and that le had not engaged in any "arm twisting."
The volume of expedited rating requests from offices within the
Commission may have been as many as 300 to 500 for the Tperiod 19701973 and at least as many cases from sources outside of the Commission. Approximately 50 reoliests to exi)edite certifications to a!Tencies were male annually during the same time period. While these numbers


are far from exact, they represent an indication of the level of activity in that office. It is significant to note that of the total volume of cases referred from offices within the Commission, approximately twothirds were generated from Commissioner Andolsek. Other cases handled by Ryan were referred from Chairman Hampton, and from former Commissioners Jayne B. Spain and James lE. Johnson.
Ryan said that the Directors of BRE (since 1970, Ryan had served as S pecial Assistant successively to Dunton, Remez, and Mickle), and other Commission officials did not necessarily have knowledge of every case he handled and that they were probably not aware of the specific cases which he was receiving from the agencies for expedited treatment. Ryan added, however, that everything he received from a Commissioner, Bureau Director, etc., received expedited treatment (except in rare instances where the official disclaimed interest), and "if any of those officials deny knowledge of the process of expediting treatment, they are liars."
The affidavits of two key Commission officials (Dunton and Ryan) given to the MSRT are significant with respect to many of the activities of the Commission that have been of concern to the subcommittee, including the use of "pink tags." The complete affidavits follow:
[Text continues on page 117.]

District of Columnbia)

I, Charles L. Ryan, being duly sworn, make this statement of my free will, without any promises or assurances:

Before my reassignment, I had worked for three separate bureau directors as Special Assistant. These bureau directors were Messrs. Mickle, Remez and Dunton. Each operated in a different style. ILr. Mickle ran a low key operation,and I had infrequent contact with him. At times, Mr. Remez came into my office three to four times per day on matters which he considered to be urgent. As far as Mr. Dunton is concerned, my frequency of dealing wilth him varied somewhat between that which I had with Mr. Remez andl that which I had with Mr. Mickle.

My position description fully describes my duties and responsibilities as Special Assistant, even with the usage of general terms.

Those files which now exist in my office and in the Special Inquiry Office and Legislative Liaison Office represent all of available documentary information on my activities. I have not cleaned out files for purposes of removing material pertaining to the Merit Staffing Review Team inquiry. That file destruction which has occurred took place in accord with the file disposal schedule published by the Bureau of Management Services. I have not maintained any other files at home or elsewhere related to the matters which the Merit Staffing
Review Team has been inv7 stating.

Whatever I hao Oone as Special Assistant to the Bureau Director
really hasIfeltaI have operated with more Klam than my predecessor. But, I have not engaged in arm twisting. What has transpired over the past few years has been going on since 1893. In essence, I have spent the last five years dealing with that two percent of Civil Service matters which represent the worst that could happen to the Civil Service system. I have never asked my staff to do anything I wouldn't do myself.

I discussed my GSA deposition with Mr. Scott from the General Counsel's Office and in a meeting -,,-"h M'essrs. Dunton and Cole. Mr. Jacobson also took 20 or 30 minutes to talk with me about the deposition. I have not received any instructions pertaining to discussions which I would have with the Merit Staffing Review Team other than a statement by Mr. Mickle that the Inquiry Team probably would be talking to me.

The pink tags that I used were essentially correspondence control devices. Staff people made erroneous assumptions about those tags based upon the actions which my predecessor Mrs. Walker, had taken. Those assumptions held that cases covered with a pink tag had to be rated eligible or had to result in certification. Under Mrs. Walker, if a pink tag case came up


with an ineligible rating, the individual responsible for the rating would get a call from aComisson official's office and would be placed under pesr- ~e

I had no set contact with the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, the Department of HfEW, ACTION, the Department of Commerce or the Department of HUD. Neither, did these agencies have particular individuals who contacted me regularly. Various individuals in each of the agencies would call me depending on the nature of the issue which they wanted to discuss.

I have seen two "MUST" cases during my time with the Commission. One case involved a matter in Chicago concerning the Department of HEW or HUJD which arose in the early Seventies. There I was asked during a post-appointment inquiry whether a particular individual was qualified for the job that she held. I had no involvement in the examining determination associated with her placement.

The second case took place in 1960. It involved a Senator from Arizona Announcing that an individual would be appointed District Director of the SBA. In that instance, the Commission was compelled to ratify the determination. Although these two cases represent the only ones where IrMUST" was actually stated, implied "MUST" cases occurred much more frequently. While the arm twisting which I was aware of in the Johnson Administration relative to career placements was not an element of the Nixon Administration,, the practical effect was the same in terms of placing people in competitive positions.

Q. What was the nature of your dealings with Mr. Sweeney of the San Francisco SBA office and .1r. West of the Washington SBA office?

A. I have known Mr. West since 1955, but I've had no dealings whatsoever with Mr. Sweeney. I dealt with Mr. West as a rating examiner, as a section chief, as a career service division employee and as a Special Assistant to the Bureau Director. There was nothing special about my dealings with M r. West except that he was a primary contact at SEA.

Q. What was your kowledge of and involvement in the attempt to place the daughter of Mr. Ziv Remez, former Director, BRiE?

A. I recall that Mr. Remez's daughter was moving to California. Mr. Remez came to see me t.o determine whether I kniew of any agencies in California which right. be -iilling to hire her. Mr. Remez said, "Any-thing you can do--I don't want to pressure it."

I called representatives of agencies with offices in San Francisco, including the Small Business Administration and the Department of HEW. I believe I talked to Mr. Bob West at SBA and Mr. Zimmerman at HEW. I explained to them that there was no pressure intended and that Mr. Remez was interested only in finding out the possibilities for employment. Mr. Remez checked back with me at least two or three times per day and seemed anxious. However, I did not continually call Mr. West or Mr. Zimmerman.

Mr. Zimmerman informed me that unless this were a pressure situation, that the Department had no vacancies. I was emphatic in saying that I wanted no pressure applied.

I followed up with Mr. West on a couple occasions because Mr. Remez was checking with me every single day. I had no knowledge of any discussion which may have taken place between Mr. Remez and Mr. West.

I-talked with Mr. Dunton about the case after Mr. Dunton had received a phone call from the Commission's Regional Director in San Francisco. Apparently, the SBA Regional Director in San Francisco notified his CSC counterpart of pressure being applied to place M. Remez' daughter. When Mr. Dunton asked me whether I had pressed SBA for placement, I said no. Mr. Dunton informed me that San Francisco SEA perceived themselves to be doing a favor for the Commission in the placement of Mr. Remez's daughter. I do not believe that Remez's daughter ever did go to work for SBA.

I had no discussions with Mtr. Rosen about the Remez case.

I also recall another situation involving the son of Mr. Charles Sparks who was then Director, Bureau of Manpower Information Systems. I recall that Spark's son was an outstanding eligible on the Federal Service Entrance Examination, was a college graduate and had extensive related experience with a steamship company. I talked with the Maritime Administration concerning Mr. Spark's son and sent him over for an interview. Later, he was name requested by the Maritime Administration. I do not believe that the M.aritime Administration was aware that Sparks was the son of a Commission official.

Q. Have you ever been instructed to place anyone or find anyone eligible?

A. I have never been told that I had to place anyone or find anyone eligible by an official of the Commission or by any Member of Congress.

Q. What do you recall about the case concerning the placement of Jimmy Moore in the Kansas City Veterans Administration Hospital?

A. I recall being sumnoned to Commissioner Andolsek's office where the Commissioner indicated that he would like to have Jimmy Moore placed at the GS-5 level. I told him that Moore was not qualified ?~or a 5. Mr. Andolsek's reaction was along the lines of "Dammit, the


guy is good and he'Is qualified. I maintained my position that he was not qualified and would have to take the Federal Service Entrance Examination. Commissioner Andolsek then told me to call Mir. Frank Yanak, the Commission's St. Louis Regional Director, and tell him that the Commissioner had the application and was sending it. The next thing that I knew, Mr. Yanak was calling to tell me that there were two FBI agents in his office checking into the case. But, the FBI never interviewed me and, as far as I know, never interviewed Commissioner Andolsek.

I attended a meeting with Mr. Andolsek and Mr. Mondello after we learned of the existence of the FBI investigation. At that meeting,. Mr. Andolsek said something along the lines of find out who leaked information about this case and fire him.

Q. How did an individual get to you from a Comimissioner's office?

A. Any applicant or employee who wants to see Commissioner Andolsek can always get into his office. On numerous occasions over the years, Commissioner Andolsek has brought people into my office to discuss appropriate examinations and prospects for employment. If the candidate looked promising, I would call someone in an agency and send the individual for an interview. If, on the other band, the individual looked like a loser, I would call the agency and say "I've got this real loser here--how about doing me a favor and interviewing him or her?" The agency would usually do this type of favor for me. Often, this was particularly true with respect to Congressional referrals. Of all the Commissioners, Comissioner Andolsek was my largest customer. But, I believe that about only 10 percent or fewer of all the people I referred for interviews were actually placed by agencies. All of this activity occurred prior to 1973 and, since that time, I have not referred people for interviews.

Q. What was the nature of your Congressional activity?

A. Most Congressional contacts which I received came through the Commission's Congressional Liaison Office or through the Commissioners. Almost all of these contacts were for expedited service on examination ratings, certifications, etc. Congressional referrals got better treatment simply because they got referred to me, whereas those off the street very rarely got to me. I considered the service which I provided to be more thorough and more knowledgeable than that normally provided through the Job Information Center of the Area Offices. Also, I have had some experience with Ramspeck conversions and often rendered services to Congressional offices, to the Commissioners, and to other agencies concerning such cases. To the best of my knowledge, no one was ever placed in an agency simply because of a referral, unless the individual was particularly qualified for the position.

Q. What was the nature of the matters presented to your office by Congressman Broyhill?


A. My office received many requests to expedite from Congressman Broyhill's office, as well as requests to explain one type of personnel action or another. From time to time, the Congressman's office would also send telegram to the Commission asking such things as: 1%1r. X is being considered at EPA for a job. That individual has filed in the Senior Level Examination. Please expedite the rating of this individual so that he may be properly considered for the job."

At-timae-y-peeple -p W e Pflee
gzame. HOWE-fe 2Ce Commission has always jumped at Congressional correspondence. I would not consider any of Congressman Broyhill's correspondence to have had a IIIAUSTII characterization. An expedite request did not change the nature of the basic evaluation of qualifications.

Q. Did you receive calls on particular case matters from the Regions?

A. Sometimes I would get calls from the Regions to check on such tl-dngs as Senior Level ratings. I received these calls rather than people in the Senior Level Office because I know more about the system than anyone else and was a natural contact for some of the RD's. All such contacts were perfectly legitimate.

Q. What was the nature of your dealing with the Area Offices?

A. I do not recall me or any member of my staff ever seeking special treatment from an Area Office.

Q. Has an Area Office ever refused to do something that the Central Office asked it to do?

A. I do not recall nor have I ever been involved in a Regional Office or Area Office ever refusing to do something that the Central Office requested.

Q. What was the nature of your follow-up system?

A. I had no live case list, although I did maintain a tickler control system of sorts. But, mine was not a very formal system. We didn't follow-up to check on cases unless we received a request from Commissioner Andolsek, Chairman Hampton or Commissioner Johnson. I did not have many dealings with Commissioner Spain. While all of the cases handled in my office were not pink tags, most probably would have been.

Do you know of any Commissioner involvement in blocking the certification of particular individuals?

A. I recall an incident involving Commissioner Johnson which concerned the certification of an individual who had been the top EEO official in the State of California. Apparently, the staff had received instructions to hold the eligible's name off the certificate, but slipped up and the individual was certified. The Commissioner called me and chewed me out for letting the certification go through. He stated that he would now have to explain to the California delegation why the person was certified.


Apparently, the Commissioner had promised the delegation that this particular individual would not be hired for the job. I asked the Commissioner if he wanted to call the delegation and explain the situation to them., but he said, "No, I wouldn't put you on that spot."

Q. What instructions did you receive when you took aver as Special Assistant?

A. I never received any special instructions relative to the Special. Assistant job. I recall having about a fifteen minute orientation session with my predecessor, but received no specific instructions from Messrs. Duntons Remez or Mickle. As nearly as I can recall, Mr. Remez told me to do just what had been done before. All of my superiors have been aware of my activities as Special Assistant and of the way in which I was doing my job. I have received excellent performance evaluations. But, I have become extremely cynical because of the reluctance of Commission officials to admit that the CSC practices which I discussed in my GSA deposition have prevailed in the Commission for years.

Q. How did you go about supervising the Congressional Liaison Office?

A. I would visit the office only once every sixty days or so. However, I had frequent telephone contact with Mr. Lawton checking on applications he sent over to me. Mr. Lawton would also call to say that he had received pressure from a Congressional office and$ occasionally$ that he had told off a Congressional office staff member. With all expediting now terminated,, my dealing with the Congressional Liaison Office has been less frequent.

Q. Did Congressmen routinely receive notices of ratings to mail to their constituents?

A. Such a practice was standard operating procedure prior to 1973 because it made the Congressman look good to be able to respond to a constituent in such a way. These applications receive expedited service. I changed this procedure in 1973 and do not think it has happened since that time.

Q. What was your involvement in the Federal Summer Intern Program and knowledge of any special White House clearance associated with the Program?

A. I was not involved with that program. I was not aware of any system for White House clearance of summer interns.

Q. What was your knowledge of the February 123, 1971 "EYES ONLY" memo entitled, "Information on Summer Interns"?

A. I have no knowledge of that memorandum.


Q. Have you ever heard the name Susan Haldeman or were you involved in her placement in the Federal service?

A. I have never heard of Susan Haldeman and was not involved in her placement.

Q. Havt you ever received any applications for employment from people outside the Federal sector?

A. No.

Q. Has a Congressman, hLs administrative assistant or case worker ever said to you anything along the lines of,, "We have to get this person certified"

A. Neither Congressmen northern staff would use such blatant terms. Rather, such interest might have been expressed along the lines of, "We have an interest in this person's case."

Q. What was your involvement in the Tiernan case which occurred in Boston?

A. I had no involvement in that case.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of White House contacts with other agencies or with Commission Area Offices to bring about any improper personnel actions?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any discussions with members of the White House Staff regarding filling career jobs?

A. In 1969, Mr. Wolk and I went to the White House to talk to Mr. Harry Flemming about Civil Service procedures. Mr. Flemming stated that he wanted to know if we could expedite White House referrals to get people placed. Mr. Wolk and I said no, that these people would have to go through the system. Mr. Flemming seemed to accept this statement. I never heard any more about this conversation with Mr. Flemming.

Q. Do you have any records of cases which might be categorized as "MUST" placements?

A. I have no such records, principally because I was never presented with any cases which specifically had a "MUST" designation. Furt,Ier, I have never seen any cases sponsored by the Republican National Committee or by the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

Despite the fact that I had never seen any case specifically designated as I)MUSTIS, there is a category of matters which is generically understood

,,1-315 0 7 3


to have preferential treatment characteristics associated with them. This type of case would involve (1) expedited rating; (2) expedited certification or (3) action to get a particular individual placed.

Q. Have you expedited applications since 1973?

A. No, and the pink tag system has not been used in the Special Assistara-'s Office since that time.

Q. What is your estimate of the volume of your activity involving expedited ratings?

A. Expedited rating was a relative common occurrence within the Commission. The largest group of these expedited ratings came on referrals from offices within the CSC. I would estimate that there were 900-500 cases covering the entire period 1970 to 1973. There have been no such cases since January 19740 on the basis of an orde-r of which I issued.

Commissioner Andolsek was the greatest source for these expedited rating cases. The Commissioner was responsible for approximately 213 of the 300 to 500 cases estimate generated within the Commission. The remainder were generated by other Commissioners, Bureau Directors., and other high-level CSC officials. At least as many came from sources outside the CSC. Congressmen were tIm greatest source of external reference.

Q. What is your estimate of the volume of your expedited certification activity and special placements in the 1970 to 1973 period?

A. In those years,, I dealt with approximately 50 cases of expedited certification per year. Approximately 2/3 of these were generated by Commissioner Andolsek. The remaining 1/3 came from other high-level Commission sources.

Certification expedite requests from Congressmen were relatively rare. All certificaUon expedite requests basically had an agency sponsor.

The third category of preferential treatment which I described earlier -that being to do anything to get a particular individual placed -occurred relatively infrequently. I cannot remember any specific cases of such preferential treatment. 1n addition$ I would have no idea why a particular person within the Commission was referring a matter to me for expedited treatment or other special service.

Q. How did you decide which agency requests warranted expedited treatment?

A. Any individual representing an agency who contacted me and cited an urgentjnatter of rating or certification got priority attention. In the 1970 to 1973 period, I estimate that I received a ball-park figure of approximately 300 to 500 pink tag referrals directly from agencies. At one


time or another, I processed an urgent request for every agency in town. I made the judgments on urgency. My criteria would look to such things as whether the request was from a new agency with a dynamic program. As an example I would cite the Air Marshall Program. An example of a request which would not warrant expedited processing would be an appl-ication for an individual who might not be available for the next five months and for whom the agency had no real purpose in expediting processing.

Some agency people came to me with increasing frequency citing urgent needs within their particular agencies. I finally put down Mrs. Powell from GSA in this regard and would not provide her with any further expedited handling. I also terminated expediting processing for Mr. Babcock of HUD.

Q. To your knowledge were any applications rated in the Bureau Directors Office?

A. I have no knowledge of any application being rated in a Bureau Director's Office. However, it was possible that such ratings occurred.

Q. Did you ever turn down a request of a Civil Service Commission official for action by your office?

A. I'm at a loss for specifies. I do remember that I said no to the Jimmy Moore case. I also remember having said no to Mr. Danton in cases where Mr. Danton may have come to me and saidy "Try to get this guy certified" after an individual had been found not to warrant certification. I did not have to say no to either Mr. Hampton or Mrs. Spain. However, in the case of Commissioner Johnson, the man knew-so Little that I frequently had to say no.

I also turned down several name recriests. As an example, there was the case of a daughter of a Congressman who was referred by the Congressman. The Congressman wanted a rating of GS-13 for the girl, but I could find her qualified only as a GS-7. As a consequence, I informed the Commissioner of this negative determination and the application just died. The Congressman was incensed when I called and informed him that his daughter was not qualified as a GS-13On another occasion, I dealt with an individual referred by the Chairmants Office who was interested in a job with DOT. I reviewed his application for potential qualification as a GS-13 and found that he might qualify for an 11. 1 said no to the C-S-13 rating.

Q. Were there activities of the Special Inquiry Office which were not known to the Bureau Director, Executive Director, Deruty Executive Director, etc.?

A. These individuals did not necessarily have knowledge of every case that I handled. They were probably not aware of specific requests which
was receiving from agencies for expedited treatment. However, everything that I received from a Commissioner, Bureau Director, etc., received


expedited treatment, except that rare piece that contained a comment that said something similar to, "I don't have any interest in this matter."

If any of these officials deny knowledge of the process of expediting treatment, they are not being truthful. These officials received Notices of Rating for forwarding to applicants, and they also signed responses to letters of complaint involving slow processing time. Both of these points testify to knowledge by these officials of the time saving associated with receiving expedited treatment.

Q. What was your policy on accepting late applications coming in after closing deadlines?

A. It was my policy to accept them if there were a written statement from a Congressman or other official stating that they had received the application prior to the filing deadline but forgot to send it along. I have also received several such applications from Commissioner Andolsek.

.Q. What do you know about the case of Karen Ellsworth?

A. I recall that this case involved acceptance of a late application for the Summer Examination. It is my recollection that the case was received from Commissioner Andolsek. I don't remember any details beyond that.

Q. What do you know about the acceptance of a late application from Joanne Kyros?

A. I do not know whether Ms. Kyros got a job. I knew that she was the daughter of former Congressman Peter Kyros, and I do recall scheduling her for a summer examination even though the application was received quite late. I never had any follow up on the case.

Q. Have you ever been called into a Commissioner's office or the office of the Executive Director or his Deputy and told that one of these people was interested in a particular case and wanted a particular individual certified?

A. No. I have been called into those offices and told of special interest, but have never felt any real pressure to do more than expedite a rating or certification. I have not been in the Chairman's office for probably five years.

Q. What were Commission practices prior to 1973 regarding providing advice on position description modification, etc.?

A. It was common practice prior to 1973 for agencies to come in and be told that they couldn't get the name request on the basis of the job sheet on hand. The Commission examiner would then tell the agency people what changes were necessary in the position description to qualify the


name request for selection. It would not be uncommon for an examiner to see three or four different position descriptions for the same candidate before he could be qualified and selected. I see no substantial difference between this advisory situation and the situation where we consider special selective factors geared to qualifications possessed by the name requested candidate.

Q. What discussions have you had w-ith anyone investigating possible merit system abuses?

A. My only merit abuse discussions have been with Messrs. Dunton,
Cole, Scott and Jacobson. These have all occurred since my deposition.

No one discussed anything with me about ongoing Commission investigations on political referrals with Federal agencies. I was amazed that Commission investigators did not talk with me. BRE certified these people to agencies, and BRE was knowledgeable of all the personnel people in town. At the same time, I never volunteered to provide any information to these investigators.

I had no knowledge of any discussions between Mr. Mickle and Commission investigators pursuing allegations of political abuse. I feel that Mvr. Mickle would have told me of any such discussions.

Q. What was the nature of your involvement in the Wade Burger case?

A. John Beckman and I rated the Burger application and found him eligible at the GS-14 level. It was not normal for Beckman and I to rate such an application, but we recognized the name. I am sure that either Beckman or myself or maybe both of us together showed the case to Mr. Dunton prior to the rat ing. p _Dntnfel
4J~Im 6 ( would not have processed an application on someone like Burger without notifying people at a higher level.

When discrepancies in the Burger application became known, I tried to defend the initial rating. However, I cannot disagree with the final determination which was made to call it Commission error. That decision was reached at a meeting which Messrs. Dunton, Mickle, Goodman, Rosen and myself attended. If we had been dealing with the application of someone else, that individual probably would have been removed from the position. However, I understand the Commission need to opt for the Commission error determination because the applicant was the son of the Chief Justice.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the 1972 Marguerita Turner case in Dallas?

A. I have no knowledge of this case.


Q. Did you have any involvement in the case of Bill Snyder, SSA, Assistant Director, New Orleans?

A. I have some vague memories of an SSA matter in the South, but the name Snyder rings no bells.
Q. Did you have any involvement in the case of J. L. Bellman which arose in Denver?

A. Apparently the case involves a question of qualifications. I believe that I must have been a member of the Examining Review Board which looked at the matter. Although the name sounds familiar, I do not recall specific details of the case. Given the interest of Senator McGee in this case, I probably would have opted to go along with the request if it were marginal or close and reasonably could have gone either way.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the case of Mr. Baer, Business Management Specialist in Helena., Montana?

A. I have no knowledge of this case.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the case of Sherman P. Lloyd, a former Congressman, duty stationed in Dallas but living in SaltTake City?

A. I was involved in the initial rating of this application. Former Congressmen automatically qualify for a GS-15. As I remember the case, the agency had difficulty in getting Mr. Lloyd certified. The agency went ahead and put Mr. Lloyd in a Schedule A position. I do not remember if anything was improper about the case. The matter came down from the Chairman's office for rating and that rating was fast enough, such that there was no follow-up by that office.

Q. Did you get involved in the Stuckey case in Denver?

A. I have no knowledge of this case.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the Partington case in Denver?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the Coleman case in Denver?

A. I have no specific knowledge of this case.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the Craig case in Philadelphia?

A. I have no knowledge of this case.,


Q. Did you have any involvement in the Bruten case in Philadelphia? A. I do not recall the case. But it is much easier to certify somebody at a higher grade level than it is to get a higher step for that person at a lower grade level. The basic reason is that fewer people are in competition at the higher level. In fact2 there used to be a rule in the Career Services Division requiring that an individual be number one or number two on a certificate to receive a higher step. Q. Did you have any involvement in the Elliott case in Philadelphia? A. J have no knowledge of this case. Q. Did you have any involvement in the Heath case in Philadelphia? A. I heard about the case2 but after the fact. Q. Did you have any involvement in the Pearl Fisher case in St. Louis? A. I have no knowledge about the case other than it demonstrates the impreciseness of the system.

Q. Did you have an involvement in the John Mask case in Atlanta? A. I have no knowledge of this case. Q. What were your dealings with Marlin DeTuncq? A. I do not know Mr. DeTuncq.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the Robert Case matter in the Des Moines field office of Commerce? A. I have no recollection of this particular case. Q. What was your involvement in FEA hires at senior and other levels in the St. Louis Region?

A. I had no dealing with St. Louis or any other region on FEA hires. Q. Who told Jim King to destroy background file material in the Washington Area Office2 BRE., prior to a GAO review? A. To the best of my knowledge, no formal records were destroyed. However, extraneous material and notes may well have been removed from the files. Although I know of the effort to clean up the files, I do not know what was removed or who actually removed items from the files.


Q. What was your knowledge of the Department of Labor letter referring to "easier" rating on the part of Boston Region examining personnel relative to their predecessors?

A. I am aware of-that letter. I advised the agency to go through the Hartford/Boston offices,, but I did not make any statement that the individuals responsible for managing the Hartford office and the Boston Staffing Division would provide a more favorable rating. I consider the communication which I had with the Department to have been routine. Mr. Dunton checked with me about the matter, and I told him the same thing. I have heard nothing more about the matter from anyone.

Q. What was your knowledge of the referral systems in operation for summer hires within the National Park Service and Forest Service?

A. I received names from Chairman Hampton and Commissioner Andolsek for placement in Park Service summer hire positions. I would call the Interior Department to inquire about job availability and would reference the Commissioners' names. From time to time, I would follow-up on a particular matter. I was not sure of my degree of success.

Q. What is your knowledge of matters covered in a note from Mrs. Marshall to Mr. Dunton in 1969 which discussed establishing a higher salary for a
Congressional aide in order to qualify the individual for a higher rate of pay within the Federal service after receiving a Ramspeck appointment?

A. I am not aware of the specifics of this matter. But) it is fairly common for a Congressman to raise the salary of his aide prior to termination. This enables the individual to receive a higher salary within the Federal service after a subsequent Ramspeck appointment. Many salaries are raised for one day to qualify for the higher salary treatment.

Also, a person may be brought back in to Congressional service for one or two days to retain his Ramspeck eligibility.

Q. What is your knowledge of the matters covered in the memorandum from Betty Walker to Edward A. Dunton and entitled, "Meeting with Chairman Hampton and Others on Monday, April 7," dated April 4., 1969?

A. The memorandum demonstrates that it was well known that certain career jobs over the years have been considered to have political acceptability factors associated with them. Everybody at the Commission knows about these situations and accepts them. I don't know why Mrs. Walker had to put these facts down on paper, since Mr. Dunton was well aware of these practices from a much earlier year. Acceptability factors were really unwritten but recognized in the examining process. For instance, in OEO, blackness was considered to be a necessary qualification for sound performance.


Q. What is your understanding of the policy set forth in the February, 1969, memorandum entitled "Certification to Small Business Administration" from Mr. Dunton to Chairman Hampton regarding a clearance process for GS-13 and above potential appointees?

A. I have no knowledge of the clearance process.

Q. Have you ever certified an individual you considered not to be qualified?

A. I only did that on one occasion. It occurred between 1963 and 1964 and was an Air Force case which came about because a representative of Air Force had sent a letter to an applicant for a job stating that the Air Force would like to hire the individual but could not get certification from the Civil Service Commission. I was incensed by this statement and called the Air Force when the applicant, letter in hand, came in and explained the situation. I considered the applicant to be unqualified and felt Air Force was merely putting the individual off. I called Air Force and conveyed my unhappiness with this ruse. I told them that I was going to certify the individual and let the Department tell the man that it didn't want him. Subsequently, I did in fact certify the individual on a one person certificate to Air Force for the position

Q. Have you ever provided advice to agencies to misrepresent travel, duties or working conditions or to encourage declination?

A. I have never advised agency personnel people or anyone else how to go about soliciting declinations. Neither have I suggested any other form of misrepresentation.

Q. Did you ever use a Commissioner's name in dealing with agency people regarding referrals?

A. I only did so occasionally and only when I thought that the agency already knew of the Commissioner's interest. Typically I would not have informed the Commissioners of the use of their names. I probably used former Commissioner Johnson's name more than any other because he often gave out incorrect information, and it was necessary for me to call the agency and set things straight. In addition, if I had bad news with respect to a Congressional referral, I might call a Congressman's office and say that a Commissioner had asked me to call and notify them that so-and-so was ineligible.

Q. What sort of reaction on your part would a statement from an examining official about a negative determination generate?

A. If Mr. Beckman, Mr. Driscoll, or Mr. Irvin came to me and said, "We can't rate this guy eligible," typically I would say, O. %.. I seldom sent such a matter back as a pink tag case. But if I disagreed with a pink


tag case rating, I would go back to the Area Manager and say, I don't agree with this rating, do you? I only went back on a very small percentage of cases$ but on those where I found it necessary to do so, I obtained a relatively high percentage of eligible ratings after discussion with the Area Manager.

Q. What was your involvement with Civil Service Commission Veterans Federal Employment Representatives? A. I had no involvement with these people. Q. What was your knowledge of the "Malek Manual" A. I never heard of the Manual prior to the newspaper revelations of its existence. I have never seen it and don't know if one ever existed in the Commission. I have no knowledge of anyone in the Commission assisting in its preparation or being involved in the Malek Manual training course.

Q. What do you know of the case of Robert H. Breeden? A. I do not recall any specific details of this case. Q. What do you know about the case J. Cudd Brown? A. I remember that Mr. Brown was in to see me about 18 times. Brown told me he was referred by fir. George Dwyer, but I did not give him any special assistance and was not impressed by him. I never had any calls from Mr. Dwyer about the status of the Brown referral. Q. What do you know about the Daigneault case? A. I have no specific recollection cf this case. Q. What do you know about the case of Harry D. Leech? A. I believe that Leech was a Navy Officer and that I interviewed him. I did not send him out on any agency interviews that I can recall. Q. What do you know about the case of Lelia West Lende? A. I remember the name, and I'm sure that it involved an expedited rating. I do not know if that rating was eligible or ineligible. I never talked to the woman.

Q. What do you know about the case of Torbert H. MacDonald? A. I remember receiving MacDonald's application, but I just let it die. I made no effort to place MacDonald.


What do you know about the case of Susan MacKenzie? A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. What is your knowledge of the case of Peter Gill? A. I believe that the Gill case involved a Federal Service Entrance Examination eligible who was, at the time., an emergency temporary employee trying to get converted. I believe that Gill was not within reach for certification from the register. I have no more specific recollections about that case. Infrequently, however, Commissioner Andolsek might call me and say something along the lines of, "call the agency and tell them I would like a full explanation," or "tell the agency that if they can't hire the applicant here, they should try to appoint him to a position in the field." I never called an agency and said, we can't hire him here, hire him in Philadelphia, etc. Q. What is your knowledge in the case of Harold M. Hanson? A. I have no specific recollection of this case. Q. What is your knowledge of the David E. Henr case? A. I have no specific recollection of the case. The notation "Help" on the referral memorandum from Commissioner Andolsek probably meant interview, review the application, state what agencies might hire an individual of his background, etc. It might also mean that the Commissioner wanted the individual sent on an interview with an agency, Q. What do you know about the case of Charles J. Mangan? A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. What do you know of the case of David H. Marshall? A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. What do you know of the case of Francis W. Mulcahy? A. I know nothing of the case, except that we were not expediting ratings in 1974.

Q. What do you know about the Maurice Stack case? A. I may have interviewed Mr. Stack but did not do anythinR further, except possibly suggest the exam for which he should file and give him the proper forms.

Q. What do you know about the case of Nancy Starnes? A. I have no specific recollection of the case.


Q. What do you know of the case of John J. Thaler? A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. What do you know about the case of Charles H. Thames? A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. Do you know of the case of Joseph R. Tremul? A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. What do you know about the case of Brigadier General Fred W. Vetter?

A. I remember the name, but no specific information concerning the case. It would have been a routine rating since there were no expedited ratings in 1974.

Q. What do you know about the James Jeffers' case in the Social and Rehabilitation Service, IEW? A. I have no specific recollection of this particular case. Q. What is your knowledge of the case of Margaret Irving A. I have no recollection of this case. Q. What is a reasonable estimate of the volume of your referral activity which involved you in positive placement efforts on behalf of specific individuals?

A. I would estimate that I made contacts with agencies about specific individuals in approximately 75-125 cases between 1970 and 1973. Most of these represented fifth floor referrals. I would estimate that Commissioner Andolsek was responsible for about twothirds of the 75-125 cases. There were literally hundreds of people who came into my office as referrals or off the street for whom I would not make such contacts.


Q. Do you have any specific knowledge of any manipulation of hearing examiner or administrative law judge examiningprocesses to provide applicants with preferential treatment?

A. All I have is hearsay. I have no specific knowledge.

Q. Have you made any designation of priority on cases sent to regions?

A. No. The only situation of this type which comes to mind involves the establishing of a two week deadline on correspondence referred by the Special Inquiry Unit to regional offices about two years ago. I never told a regional office that it had to place somebody. Moreover, I am not personally aware of any instances where regions were involved in such dealings.

Q. Are you aware of any pressure for placement for people within the Commission itself?

A. No.

Q. What was the nature of your dealings with Federal Regional Councils, FEB's, etc?

A. I was not involved at all with Federal Regional Councils. only involvement with FEB's came with a call from Mr. Seymour, a Personnel Director of the Department of Commerce, who asked whether I knew of anybody who was looking for a secretarial position and would go to work for the FEB in Miami.

Q. In 1973, Mr. Cole wrote a memorandum to Yx. Rosen which talked of the possible involvement of the Office of Special Assistant to the Director, BRE, in improper placements in the General Services Administration. Did anyone talk with you about the content of this particular memorandum?

A. I do not have any knowledge of this memorandum from Mr. Cole to Mr. Rosen. No one discussed its contents with me at any time.

Q. A number of individuals have stated that you independently changed ratings outside your role as one member of a multi-member Examining Review Board. Are these statements accurate?

A. I never changed a rating by myself in my function as Special Assistant to the Director, BRE. The only time I made such changes was when I was assigned to an examining section in a supervisory position prior to my assumption of the position of Special Assistant to the Director, BRE.


Q. In the Burgess case the ability to deal with the Legislative Branch was approved as a selective factor for a position of Research Director, GS-301-15, in the American Bicentennial Commission. Was this an appropriate designation as a selective factor?

A. I do not remember the specific case, but it is possible that legislative interaction would have been a legitimate selective factor. This was a Betty Walker case. My only involvement in this matter was as ERB Chairman.

Q. In the Strong case there is a notation that "Charlie Ryan deserves the credit for coming up with the kind of job that matches the candidate's interest." What is the meaning of this statement?

A. I don't remember this case by name. It may have originated as a consequence of a telephone call to Mr. Remez. The date of the case (March 1970) would indicate that it was one of the first ones that I was involved in as Special Assistant to the Director, BRE.

There was more high level interest in summer jobs than in virtually any single category. Interior caught hell as a consequence of this.

Q. Do you have any recollection about Mr. Dunton involving himself in the placement of a neighbor?

A. I recall a referral from Mr. Dunton by the name of Midgely. I sent her for an interview at Wolf Trap Park. It is my understanding that she never got a job. Mr. Dunton came back only to ask what had happened, and I felt no pressure to place the individual.

Q. Who was the Dunton neighbor mentioned in your conversation with Messrs. Dunton and Cole subsequent to the Federal Times articles related to your affidavit?

A. I do not remember the name of the Dunton neighbor other than the Midgely case. I do remember talking with the son-in-law of Mr. Dunton at one point about placement in the Federal service. However, we provided no placement assistance to this individual.

Q. In the Dick case, the Examining Review Board made a change of one point in a rating which brought a particular candidate within reac-h. What was the justification for such a rating change?

A. The individual who was involved in the original rating was Bob Stokes who was an intern at that time and is now an employee of the Department of Transportation. Here, we are dealing with a situation of fine distinction. In fact, since Mr. Dick was a name request, we may have been bending over backwards to keep him off


the certificate. Further, the documentation presented to me indicates a tie situation at 94 at one point in the rating process. You must remember that the Examining Review Board sometimes performed a function of verifying Area Manager judgment. In this case, certain documentation appears to be missing from the file. That documentation would have included the results of a review performed either by Mr. Shuck or Mr. Wright of Yx. Stokes' rating.

Q. In the Grosnick case, there was an apparent disparity between the amount of credit accorded to police captains and the amount of credit accorded to a former assistant chief of the Pennsylvania State Police. Do you have any knowledge of this case and what could have been the basis for the discrepancy?

A. I do not have any recollection of this case. However, either or both of the police officials might have been involved in such functions as community relations which would have been out of line of normal police activity. We would have to see more records.

The difference in rating found in this case might have been based upon reasonable judgments. However the rating schedule used in this case is very rudimentary. it is a bad rating schedule. But five examiners would produce five different rating schedules.

I am sure that there are some other Pennsylvania State Police cases. I remember one involving a position in Region 3, GSA, where the agency wanted a retired D.C. police chief. For some reason, they got a retired Pennsylvania police chief.

I am not aware of the Palman phone call to Mr. Beekman in this case. It could have been a contributing factor associated with examining judgment. I can't say one way or another. One point is really a meaningless distinction between candidates, and we can't defend such fine judgment.

Q. What were the bases for overturning Examining Review Board judgments?

A. Whenever a determination was reversed by higher level Commission officials, it was my natural reaction to feel that such reversal was erroneous or inappropriate. 1 based this feeling on the fact that reversal was, in effect, questioning my judgment. But, such reversal was not an uncommon procedure. Vx. Dunton probably reversed more than anyone else. This vias probably because he was always in the position to do so--as Director of BRE and Deputy Executive Director.

Q. What is your knowledge of the override of the Examining Review Board's determination in the case of Mr. James R. Tanck by Mr. Dunton in January of 1970?


A. I have no knowledge of that particular case. However, between 1969 to 1973, Mr. Dunton overrode only four or five ERB determinations, and in each case he held for the applicant.

Q. What was your knowledge of the Peter Gagarin case of August 1970?

A. I have no knowledge of that case.

Q. What do you know of the Snow-Orzel case involving a Vermont FHA Insuring Office job?

A. I have no knowledge of this case. Further, I have no recollection of any discussions with HUD on this matter. It is interesting, though, how the rating panel came up with two veterans to block
Mr. Orzel.

Q?. What do you know of the placement of Mr. Mondor's daughter as a Protection Assistant, GS-4, at the Hirshorn Museum?

A. I remember Mr. Mondor coming to me and bringing up the subject of placing his daughter. I told him I couldn't do anything, because this was past my time of referring candidates. I remember seeing Mr. Desmond from the Smithsonian, and I took or sent him to see
Mr. Mlondor.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of the Van Engelen case?

A. The certification of ten names for a single job as was done in this case encourages the seeking of declinations. But, I have seen 25 names certified for a single position. At the same time, I have no recollection of this particular case.

This type of multiple certification is no longer a part of BRE examining processes. When we engage in one point differentiations as we did in this case, we are just inviting agencies to play games with the system.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of the McKee case in the FCC?

A. I have no recollections of this case.

Q. Is it reasonable to accept that the Bureau Directors, BRE, and other Commission top staff were unaware of leapfrogging practices within the examining system?

A. It doesn't surprise me that they denied any knowledge of leapfrogging. The time frames associated with the service that these people were receiving makes it inconceivable to me that they didn't know that leapfrogging was going on.


I told Mr. Jacobson just before the Merit Staffing Review Team was created that no one asked me how I was doing my job or told me to do it any particular way. I told Mr. Jacobson that these things were going on since 1883. When the Administration changes in November, the same type of practice will continue. There will be cases in Vermont, New Hampshire, and other states involving GSA and HUlD positions. These cases will get through, especially if the party changes. The next Administration may have to be more subtle, but the actions will occur. The only hope for improvement is to use more Schedule C's without conversion privileges or some form of five year excepted appointment for politicians.

Q. What was your involvement with Schedule A, B, or C appointments and noncompetitive actions?

A. I had very little to do with excepted appointments. Infrequently, I might have pink tagged such excepted appointment cases, waivers of the 180 day requirement for military, requests for above minimum pay hiring rates, etc. Requests for expedited services in this area generally would come from top Commission officials. At the same time,
I might have received calls from any number of sources concerning whether there was a request pending on a particular case and the status of that case. The caller often would not have known the
-nature of the case but would simply have asked for the status of the John Doe case.

Q. In your role as Special Assistant to the Director, BRE, did you have any dealings with Mr. Oganovic?

A. I had no dealings with 1[r. Ozanovic as Special Assistant.

I have read the above statement consisting of 23 pages, which is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and which has been made by me without a pledge of confidence and with the understanding that I may be requested to be a witness at a hearing in this matter and that my statements may be used therein.

Subscribed and sworn to before Me this day of ,1976.

-77- 4


Washington, D. C.
District of Columbia )

I. Edward A. Dunton., former Deputy Executive Director of the U. S. Civil Service Commission, being, duly sworn, make this statement of my own free will, without any promises or assurances:

Q. When you were BRE Director, how did you expect the Special Assistant in the Office of Special Inquiry to function?

A. I expected the Special Assistant to do four things: (1) handle technical questions on BRE's title 5 concerns; (2) handle .case work which I asked to be handled by the Special Assistant;
(3) supervise the Office of Special Inquiry and the Liaison Office; (4) be a member or chair the Examining Review Board. In time, agencies dealt directly with the Special Assistant. However, certain individuals always dealt directly with me -for instance, Mr. Will of Commerce and certain other personnel directors and agency regional directors.

The BRE Director could spend all of his time on case work if he so chose. My practice was to ask the Special Assistant to find out about a case, and either take appropriate action or discuss it with EAD
me, and identify any system problems needing attention. The Special Assistant (SA) job was absolutely necessary.

In addition to the four basic duties described above, the Special Assistant performed ancillary duties in keeping with the individual's qualifications. For instance, Mrs. Walker had a broader and deeper background in CSC work than Mr. Ryan, and I would ask her judgment on certain memoranda coming in from other parts of the Bureau. She also cleared certain memos mostly from BPS. She was a perceptive reviewer and a good writer. When I became BRE Director, correspondence in'the Bureau was quite heavy. The rule at that time was that the Bureau Director had to sign off as reviewer on most correspondence going out of the office. I sought agreement from the Office of the Executive Director to allow Mrs. Walker to release correspondence for the Bureau. Because of her qualifications, she was given this authority. I can't recall whether Mr. Ryan had this authority initially, but he did possess it eventually.

Q. What were the case work responsibilities handled by the Special Assistant?

A. Case work responsibilities handled by the Special Assistant meant dealing with people as well as handling correspondence and applications. EAD For instance if I couldn't see an individual referred from a Commissioner's office, or other official's office, or referred from a Congressional office, I would send such people to Mr. Ryan.

Page I of 16 pages Initials EAD


Q. In the course of performing his case work, did Mr. Ryan get involved in expediting matters?

A. Certainly. For example, such expediting typically could involve cases where there were unwarranted system delays which were caused by the Ccwmission and which could not be defended. In such cases, I expected quick problem resolution.

Q. What did "clearing the pipe line" mean to you?

A. "Clearing the pile line" was used only with the major unassembled examinations -- the Senior Level and the Mid-Level. As an example, when I was BRE Director, Senior Level rating was on a 30-day cycle. BRE had initiated the practice of "clearing the EAD
pipe line" to deal with those situations where jobs in agencies needed to be filled in a hurry. This practice is typically associated with a receipt of a name request from an agency. To expedite examining, we would pull and rate all applications on hand up to the date of receipt of the name request.

Q. Were you aware of any practices which resulted in a name request being rated in front of applications already on hand?

A. I was not aware of any practice which included placing an application in front of other applications to achieve a fast rating at the expense of consideration being denied to applications received earlier. "Clearing the pipe line" was as far as the Commission could, or did go in terms of providing expedited treatment. Jim unaware of any BRE practice of taking a particular application for which expedited treatment was sought by one source or another and rating that application ahead of applications previously received. In cases of expediting, all applications which were on hand prior to a cut off date were rated prior to the rating of the application for which expedited treatment was sought. At times when the Commission received pressure, papers for certain individuals might be rated quickly, but this occurred only in cases where the individual would never be in reach for certification. This would include the Summer Employment Exam.

Q. Are you familiar with the "pink tag" system?

A. I have known of "Pink tags" only since the Ryan deposition, and only in the last couple of months. I was not aware of "pink tag" connotations now attached to the system when I was in the Bureau. I understand that certain people in the Commission assumed that a pink tag meant to handle and handle without delay. However, this understanding of mine has arisen only in the last couple of months, and is based solely and entirely upon a discussion which I had with Messrs. Rydn and Mickle about "pink tags." I want to make it clear, however, that all the time I was in BRE "Special" or "Expedite" EAD markers were used to insure that deadlines were met.

Page 2 of 16 pages Initials EAD


Q. What was your understanding of, and involvement in, the preparation of a draft report produced by the Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation on the administration of name requests within the Bureau of Recruiting and Examining's Washington Area Office?

A. I do not recollect having seen this particular document. I remember discussions with Mr. Mickle and Mr. Cole about an examining disagreement, but I don't believe that had anything to do with this document. I seldom return items to a Bureau after review without having pencilled in some reactions to-the document. I note that there are no such pencilled-in notations on this particular document. Moreover, I seldom reviewed draft products, because I had no time for such reviews.

Q. What are your recollections about the Lyle Hutchison case in GSA?

A. I remember a memorandum prepared in the Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation and sent to the Bureau of Recruiting and Examining which dealt with the Hutchison case. I also remember participating in a discussion involving Messrs. Cole, Mickle and myself concerning the contents of the memorandum. In the discussion, my role was that of referee. In terms of the specifies .of the meetings, I can only remember that I agreed with the BRE rather than with the BPNE judgments.

Q. Do you remember any comments which you may have made to Mr. Cole about reducing to writing criticism such as that found in the BPME memorandum on the Hutchison matter?

A. I do have such a recollection. I remember expressing my opinion that rather than sending a memo to Mr. Mickle, Mr. Cole should have talked with Mr. Mickle first. It is my view that Mr. Cole's behavior in this instance was not the manner in which to deal with a fellow Bureau Director. I brought this point home to Mr. Cole, emphasizing that the matters covered in the BPUE memo were within BRE's zone of responsibility. In matters such as this, conversations should have taken place between Mr. Cole and Mr. Mickle because the matter was within the purview of BRE.

Q. Did you ask any third partyto look at the difference in judgment between BPM and BRE on the Hutchison case?

A. I cannot remember asking any third partyto look at the difference in judgments between BPNE and BRE on this case. I'm confident that I made the decision all alone to accept BRE's position. However, any one of the three staff people who were working for me at the time (Cohen, Brassier, and Dooley) might

Page 3 of 16 pages Initials

3 5

have taken a look at this matter for me. I informed Mr. Rosen of my discussions with Messrs. Mickle and Cole, and of the decision I made in this matter. But, if what you are asking me is whether I checked with the Chairman in this matter, the answer is no.

I looked upon this matter really as a human relations problem involving Messrs. Mickle and Cole. I simply did not feel that the expertise resided in BPME to rate individuals. Mr. Cole's conduct represented a poor way to get along with a peer.

I have a very clear recollection that Mr. Cole defended himself vigorously in this meeting. His position was that BPME had to judge the quality of agency evaluations of people when on-site, and that the Bureau did have the necessary expertise to present an opinion in the Hutchison matter. My rejoinder to Mr. Cole's argument was that it was still a BRE responsibility.

Q. When you were Director of BRE, did you maintain any kind of tickler control system?

A. At one time, the Bureau used a 3x5 multi-part form for control EAD
purposes, but I abolished that during my directorship of BRE. I maintained no special tickler file or control system for matters referred to Mr. Ryan's office other than those controls typically applied to correspondence in any part of BRE. You might check with Mrs. Lowry or Mrs. Hartwick if you wish more information on that subject.

Q. Have you received any explicit instructions/guidance from your superiors regarding the handling of cases that may have involved special interest?

A. I have received no general instructions of that kind. In my role as Director of BRE, I received requests only with respect to particular cases. For instance, Mr. Oganovic might have EAD
called and said "Somebody is in my office. This individual has been referred from Congressman X's office. Would you please interview him?" This would simply be a matter of a courtesy interview.

In terms of the instructions which I may have received from Chairman Hampton, such instructions-would only have been to the effect that the Chairman wanted to be able to defend any decision which BRE or any element of the Commission had made. I received no general instructions from my superiors within the Commission as to how I should handle particular aspects of the Commission's business. I have developed certain perceptions and understandings during my long tenure with the CSC, and most of my actions were based upon these background factors.

Page 4 of 16 pages Initials EAD


Q. What was the nature of your courtesy interviews?

A. These interviews would be in the nature of giving an individual general information about his opportunities for Federal employment. If I were interviewing an individual who possessed a scarce skill during the 1969-1971 period, typically I would have presented EAD
the individual with an optimistic assessment of his opportunities for Federal employment. This was a time of tight labor market conditions.

Q. Would you arrange for an individual who possessed a scarce skill to be interviewed by an agency?

A. I would direct such an individual to specific agencies which could make use of these skills. On a couple of occasions, I picked up the phone and called someone in an agency to let that person know that an individual possessing specific skills qualifications was in my office and available. As an example, there was a case in the Commerce Department where I referred an individual whom I considered to be a highly qualified editor for an interview. At a future point in time, Mr. Will, Director of Personnel for the Department of Commerce, called and indicated his great satisfaction with this individual as an employee. On the other hand, if an individual referred to me for interview had not possessed skills to any substantial degree (e.g., shoe salesman) I would inform the individual that he had a relatively poor chance for placement in the Federal service.

Q. Would you have referred for interview one of these persons that did not possess the scarce skills that you mentioned?

A. It would depend on the individual case, but I have referred such people for interview. The persons to whom I referred these individuals for interview knew that I expected nothing more than a courtesy interview for them.

Q. What constituted "positive placement" activities?

A. I might go to an IAG meeting and discuss the great potential possessed of interns for future management positions within a department or agency. My intention would be to inspire departments to hire interns. As another example, I issued standing instructions to Area Office personnel to take affirmative action with respect to shortage category stenographers and typists. We also had positive EAD
placement programs for displaced employees, Vietnam era veterans, and the handicapped.

Q. What is your knowledge of Mr. Ryan's telephone referral activities?

A. I would guess that Mr. Ryan had a fair amount of telephone referral activity with agencies and would ask agencies to interview particular people. Most of these cases would involve individuals with scarce skills or with excellent backgrounds. But, in the

Page 5 of 16 pages Initials EAD


case of some Congressional referrals, people would be sent out on interviews by Mr. Ryan when they were only of average background. These referrals typically would be hardship cases, such as an individual who had received an inquiry of availability, thought it was an offer for employment, resigned from his present position and came to Washington to take advantage of the perceived offer, or individuals with scarce skills. On any of these referrals of individuals EAD with average backgrounds, the agency would realize that they were only performing a courtesy for the Commission.

Q. Do Job Information Center personnel engage in setting up interviews for applicants who walk in off the streets?

A. I am not certain. Job Information Center personnel would probably refer scarce skills and Vietnam Vets for such interviews.

Q. Did you provide Mr. Ryan with criteria specifying how to handle particular interview situations?

A. I do not recall talking over any instructions with Mr. Ryan setting forth criteria for handling particular interview situations. I probably would have discussed such instructions or criteria orally with Mr. Ryan. But, Mr. Ryan was an old timer in the Bureau, and I doubt if I ever provided precise instructions.

Q. Has a Commissioner or an Executive Director ever requested special treatment for a particular applicant?

A. I have received requests for expedited action from these people. Also, I have received a request which might run along the lines of "Ed, can you look at this matter personally?"

Q. Have you ever had to tell one of these individuals "no" concerning a requested action?

A. I have told Chairman Macy, Chairman Hampton, and Mr. Andolsek, among others,, that particular applicants whom they or their assistants EAD .may have asked BRE to evaluate were not qualified. Final responsibility for rating resided in BRE. I have not, to my knowledge, been circumvented by people above me in the organization. On at least one occasion, when a particular Commissioner disagreed strongly with me in a decision, my reply was that the Commissioner had one vote if he wanted to present the matter to the whole Commission for a determination.

Q. What was your first knowledge of "MUST" hires in 1969-1973 period?

A. I first learned of agency "MUST" hires in the course of the Commission's GSA investigation.

Page 6 of 16 pages Initials EAD


Q. Have you interceded on behalf of agencies in name request cases?

A. I do not consider carrying out my official responsibilities for EAD
the operation of the examining program as "interceding". I remember that I had calls from personnel directors when I was in BRE complaining that we had certified persons, other than their name requests, whom they did not feel met their requirements as well as their name requests would. In such circumstances, I would review the certificate. There is the example of a Secretary of State of one of the United States who had been rated ineligible. The rating had been based principally upon the low salary which the individual had been earning. I viewed the particular rating as incorrect and overturned it.

Q. In the 1969-1973 period, did you ever learn of CSC offices being told by agency people that they had to place particular

A. I would guess that there were occasions between 1969-1973 when I learned that Commission offices had been told by agency people that they had to place particular individuals. In such circumstances, if the Commission official learned that the individual had already been rated, the appropriate practice would be to check the rating to assure its accuracy. In cases where Commission officials became aware contemporaneously with the submission of an application, these officials would make sure that the rating assigned could be defended. In "hot" cases, the only thing that you can do is to follow the book as closely as possible.

Q. Do you remember instances of examination manipulation?

A. The only cases of intentionally false ratings that I have been aware of were the Kansas City Jimmie Moore case and the examining problems detected in our Memphis Area Office and in our Syracuse EAD
Office. I have seen indefensible ratings but have overturned them and always made it a part of the record.

Q. Have you had any discussions with members of the White House staff regarding the filling of career jobs?

A. There have always been contacts of one type or another with various representatives of the White House staff. While Director of BRE in the 1969-1971 period, most of my contacts with White House staff related to summer employment, the Federal Summer Intern Program, detainees through Mr. Wolk, and other such matters. From 1971 forward, as Deputy Executive Director, I dealt with the White

Page 7 of 16 pages Initials EAD


House staff only on such administrative matters as early snow releases. I cannot recall having discussed career jobs with White House staff in the 1969-1973 period. There have been situations in which White House staff people have indicated to me that a particular person was looking for career work. In these cases, we would have provided a courtesy interview.

Q. Have you made any designations of "priority" on cases sent to regions?

A. I am sure that I must have. I would, for example, have made phone EAD
calls to regional directors talking of the urgency of staffing VA installations as a top priority matter. I or my office also would have followed up on cases where regions had not responded. Finally, I dealt with regions on cases where persons had lost consideration as a consequence of Commission error; e.go, when an individual had misfiled because we were negligent in directing the individual to the appropriate office.

Q. Have you had any dealings with Federal Regional Councils, Federal Executive Boards, etc.?

A. I have had little contact with these organizations as far as staffing and examining matters are concerned. After OM took over management of the FEB operation, the Commission maintained a responsibility for liaison with OIMB. On occasion I have addressed FRC's. I have no knowledge of any allegations of political staffing of FRC secretariats.

Q. Did you get involved in pushing through non-competitive actions in the central office and reasons?

A. "Pushing through" is not how I would describe carrying out my EAD
responsibilities which included setting schedules and deadlines and seeing to it that things got done on time. Non-competitive actions were basically handled by Mr. Wolk in the Career Services Division. I got involved in almost all aspects of IMr. Wolk's actions, but the frequency of my involvement varied. For instance, I was rarely involved in RAMSPECK cases. On Whitten waivers, I was involved with greater frequency. These matters were much more controversial, and 'Mr. Wolk was sometimes overly rigid. Therefore, I vould often review these actions. Finally, I was frequently involved in advanced in-hire rates for individuals with superior qualifications.

Q. Since 1969 has anyone asked you to do anything related to examining or staffing which you considered to be improper?

A. There have of course been hundreds if not thousands of requests or EAD
recommendations that could not be approved or granted, but I take it you mean something different. Since 1969, no one has asked me to do anything either competitively or non-competitively which I considered to be improper. The only exception to this related to what I term a nunc pro tunc matter which involved the backdating of a

Page 8 of 16 pages Initials EAD


certification request for an agency personnel director. The amount of backdating was two days and concerned a situation which probably occurred in the Commerce Department between 1969 and 1971. The case at issue was one where an individual had been brought on board two days prior to certification. I assured myself that the certificate that would have been issued two days previously would have been the same certificate issued two days later, and consequently authorized the action. Some people in BRE would probably have disagreed with my action in this particular matter.

Q. Since 1969, in your role as BRE Bureau Director or CSC Deputy Executive Director, has a Bureau Director or Deputy, Regional Director or Deputy$ Staffing Division Chief, Area Manager or Assistant, or any other official said "no" to any direct order which you issued relative to an examining or staffing matter?

A. There has never been a time when I ordered anyone to rate an individual either eligible or ineligible. When, as Director BRE, I EAD
disagreed with case decisions I took personal responsibility for the ultimate decision. There have, of course, been times when staff was not persuaded of my views.

Q. Has any attempt been made to remove items from your files in the last four to six weeks?

A. I have recently sent a couple of files back to BRE. These were principally matters relating to affidavits which I had completed. Ilve also thrown out outdated budget information, as well as some labor management relations material relating to the Old Executive Order. However, let me be unequivocal in saying that I have not removed any material relating to integrity matters, to cases, or anything which I perceived as being remotely related to the MSRT inquiry. There might be one exception. That exception would relate to materials which I unknowingly and unintentionally disposed of after applying this criteria, but which MSRT members themselves might have found relevant had they reviewed the information. In this regard, I would cite handwritten notes which I threw out relating to the first phone call that I received in the Memphis matter.

During the following described sessions, Mr. Dunton was presentedwith a number of documents which the MSRT had acquired from various files, principally within BRE. The MSRT informed Mr. Dunton that it had not researched the circumstances surrounding the various documents, but felt that his imminent departure required his insights into the matters earlier than they would normally have been required in the inquiry. All documents presented to Mr. Dunton are in addendum to this affidavit marked Attachments I XVI.

Page 9 of 16 pages Initials EAD


Q. Would you please discuss the information set forth in Section D of Attachment I?

A. The Commission received a tremendous number of requests for fast service during the transition. New cabinet officers were bringing their industry people with them, and there were a number of RAMPECK cases. An example of the type of matter involved would be bringing on board the secretaries whom cabinet officials had employed in private industry, at approximately the GS-13 grade level with advance in-hire rates. Some of these individuals would be in Schedule C jobs, although a number were in the competitive service. For instance, positions in information, Congressional liaison activities, etc., would be at issue. The Commission would engage in "clearing the pipe line" to provide expedited service. However, the Commission would do nothing else along these lines. We did not ignore the rights of other individuals.

As far as the item pertaining to "regularizing" commitments made by political officials is concerned, I think that many cabinet officials came on board thinking that they had more leeway in hiring than they actually had. For instance, I received phone calls from such officials saying, "Mr. X is here and has brought his family--we've made a commitment to him." The Commission would be confronted with somehow dealing with the situation. There were many calls of this type, and I might have suggested using a Schedule C or other excepted service appointment authority. I might also have "cleared the pipe line." In many cases, however, the Commission was in a position to do nothing because an individual simply was not within reach or was not eligible on the Senior Level or other register. I had no reason to feel that competitive procedures were not being followed in all cases. In fact, on many occasions I called the official involved and said that there was no way that the agency could get the individual unless the individual were to receive a Schedule A or Schedule B position. I am sure., though, that 30-day special needs appointments were used in many cases to provide people with income while their employment situation was being resolved.

Q. How majV people were on the Senior Level register during the 1970 transition?

A. There were approximately 15,000 people on the Senior Level register at that time.

Q. Would you please discuss the content of Attachment II?

A. I cannot recall the specifies of this memorandum. However, this might have been a case involved with the HUD investigation or somehow involved with a long-term training issue in EPA. The most likely action would have been referrals to BPNE.

Page 10 of 16 pages Initials


Q. Would you please discuss the content of Attachment III?

A. I am aware bf the circumstances surrounding the events described. The "screening" performed by the White House was targeted upon determining whether people selected from the register had been arrested, had been involved in campus disturbances drugs, etc. I had opposed the White House performing such a screening and remembered the situation as a stupid move and that it had the possibility of hurting the Administration if it had become known. At the same time, I was aware that in 1970 some summer hires would come here to raise hell. This was the period when things were out of control in HEW. I don't know if political checks were involved, but I accepted the word of the White House that all that the White House was doing was calling campuses and police departments in college towns to check on backgrounds of individuals. I was of the old school that felt that it was better to take some chances with these people, rather than to institute such a clearance process. My recollection is that Commission top staff had been apprised of what the White House had been doing and that the top staff had opposed these White House activities. The "legal review" traditionally applied by the Commission to summer employment was not extensive.

Q. Did the Commission do anything to stop this screening process when it was detected?

A. I don't know if we did anything to stop this screening process. But, there is no White House clearance involved in the current Federal Summer Intern program.

Q. Did the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission know of the clearance system in the sianer of 1970?

A. I do not know if the Chairman knew of the clearance system in the summer of 1970.

Q. Would you please discuss your knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Attachment IV?

A. These materials might have been related to the White House Conference on Children in Youth which was going on in Denver at that time, or to su=er employment, but I am not sure which. I recognize the Veneman name and associate Mr. Phil Bohart with the Conference. The term "confidential" meant that the White House did not want the material opened in the mail room. I don't recollect any dealings with tr. Lissy. I don't deny them; just don't recollect them.

Page 11 of 16 pages Initials


As far as the "Haldeman" notation is concerned, I was certain at the time that there was a relation with Mr. Haldeman of the White House and thought that his referral of a relative to the Commission presented a risk for him.

The word TAPER was in my handwriting, but I do not recollect the circumstances surrounding the use of the term in this particular instance. The "A". "C" notations could have referred to appointment consideration, or a level of rating.

Q. Would you please discuss your knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Attachment V?

A. This was an*averseas placement case. On many occasions, our registers were not used for overseas appointments. "Affirmative placement assistance" meant that I would have wanted calls made to see what opportunities might exist overseas for Mr. Thigpen. "Affirmative placement assistance" was used where there was a scarcity of skills situation or where somebody had come to town, possibly seen a Congressman, had no job possibilities, no way to get home, etc., and the Commission would take some sort of action to see what it could do to put the individual to work. I remember Nobles, but do not remember the specifics of the Thigpen case.

Q. Would you please discuss the content of Attachment VI?

A. I became Director of the Bureau in 1969, and asked Mrs. Walker to come up with agencies where trouble had arisen. This "trouble" typically involved political qualification for particular positions. My intention was to tell the new Chairman where problems existed. Referring to the specific jobs cited, I remember that they had been EAD
brought into the competitive service at the insistence of certain high level officials. BRE staff, agency staff level people, and I did not want this conversion. Merely designating the positions as competitive did not change the predilections of those making the appointments. These people would still apply political considerations, and the same name request pressure would exist.

Even in the 1950's. the Commission knew that the agencies cited in Attachment VI were problem agencies. A study done in October 1970, arose in part from the information set forth in Attachment VI. Entitled "Report on Comprehensive Review of the Examining System", the document discussed the examining system thoroughly. Even now, some of the recommendations are being implemented. I had a personal interest and personal participation in the development of this report.

Page 12 of 16 pages Initials EAD


We also took other steps as a consequence of the information found in Attachment VI. For instance, we tried to assure that bona fide recruiting occurred in these agencies. On occasion) we even went to war with the agencies on a couple of cases,, but I cannot recall the specifics of those cases.

Q. Were you aware of the 1969 proposed memo, Attachment VII?

A. The document came to my attention in the late summer or early fall of 1973. Messrs. Rosen, Mondello, Cole and myself were holding regular meetings at that time regarding the GSA investigation. We decided that a memo should be preDared for the President to go to heads of departments and agencies prohibiting special referral systems. Mr. Mondello stated that he had prepared a similar memo some years earlier. He provided me with a copy of that memo. I have no knowledge of the circumstances in 1969 that resulted in Mr. Mondello preparing the memo, although there were rumors in 1969 about political overtones in appointments. One that I seem to remember was in FHA.

Q. Do you know of any particular cases or other matters under investigation in BPME in 1969 that might have generated Attachment VII?

A. I do not know what was going on in BPME in 1969 that might have resulted in the memo.

Q. Do you know whether the memo was ever sent to the White House?

A. I do not know whether the memo was ever sent to the White House.

Q. If such a memo were sent to the White House and the President decided to take no action in the matter, what could the CSC do?

A. Some Commissioners in the past might have felt that they should surface the problem before some kind of Congressional oversight Committee. However, this would not be too realistic. Chairman Hampton's policy is one of handling problems with the White House on a somewhat informal basis. The Chairman may have phoned the White House to raise the issue in the 1969 memo, rather than sending the memo itself. However, I have no personal knowledge that this happened. You should see Mr. Mondello, Mr. Oganovic, and the Chairman for that information.

Q. Do you feel that the advice given by yourself and Mr. Ryan to Mr. Gifford (Attachment VIII) was appropriate for CSC officials to give?

A. There's a fine distinction between recommending an action vs. making an agency official aware of what the law and regulations allow. In this case, I was completely within my bounds.

Page 13 of 16 pages Initials


Mr. Gifford asked how this person could be appointed at step 5. I told him that the only way it could be done was to have the Congressman increase Mr. Smith's salary. I consider that as strictly advising an agency official of what the laws and regulations allow, and I do not see anything inappropriate in that kind of advice.

Q. Would you explain the circumstances that resulted in the letter to you from Richard Young? (Attachment IX)

A. He is apparently tl eson of Washington Star Columni st Joe Young. 1967 was one of the early years of our summer employment examination and there were serious problems. Many of the persons who competed in the exam and gained eligibility were found to be not available for work when the agencies contacted them after receiving the list of eligibles from us. In some cases, an agency would have to go through five or six hundred names to fill six to twelve jobs. After an agency had made considerable effort to fill the jobs through the listed eligibles and were unsuccessful, they would sometimes be granted a hiring authority.

Does this mean that you contacted an agency with such a hiring authority in order to place Young?

A.- I do not know if Young got a job. I cannot recall any specific efforts I may have made in his behalf.

Q. What was your involvement in the Joseph E. Kernan case? (Attachment X)

A. I don't have any specific recollections of this case.

Q. Is there anything in writing from Chairman Hampton requesting tthat all GS-12 and higher name requests from SBA go through him?

A. I don't know. I don't know how long the practice was in effect.

Why did he ask that this be done?

A. Over the years, various Commissioners have wanted to be involved in one thing or another such as in-hire rates, premium rates, or exceptions to the six months restriction on military employment in DOD. It was not unusual for a Chairman to develop an interest and get involved in a certain amount of case work.

Page 14 of 16 pages Initials


Q. What was your rationale on overruling the Examining Review Board in the case of Peter Gagarin? (Attachment XI)

A. It was my police and practice, dating back to 1948, that if I disagreed with a rating and felt that the rating was indefensible, I took the responsibility for the rating. I never asked people to change ratings that they had made. I do not remember the Gagarin case specifically. I was, as a rule, liberal with veterans in the interpretation of their experience. I feel that sometimes we, as an organization, are inflexible, particularly in unassembled examinations that have little validity. I do not think that we should mechanistically apply a standard without common sense, particularly with regard to length of experience. If there is any doubt about a veteran's qualification, particularly with regard to length or quality of the experience, it should be resolved in favor of the veteran. In this case (Gagarin), the examiner was comparing grades to ranks mechanistically. Since Gagarmn was a first lieutenant, the examiner didn't feel he could rate him above a GS-l1. You cannot make a decision like that. You must look at the total job. In my ow1n personal philosophy, I do have some bias in favor of veterans.

Q. What was your rationale on overruling the ERB in behalf of James R. Tanck? (Attachment XII)

A. I have no recollection of this case.

Q. Are you familiar with the memorandumm from Mr. Oganovic to Mr. Jacobson (Attachment XIII)?

A. Executive Directors, Deputy Executive Directors, the Bureau of Policies and Standards, and the Bureau of Recruiting and Examining have all wrestled with this problem over the years. I am not surprised at all at th'-ne concern expressed in the memorandum. I do not have individual knowledge of the particular memorandum and do not know what happened with it.

Q. Were you involved in the dec-ision in the Byron V. Pepitone case (Attachment XIV)?

A. I do not recall being involved in this case. These kinds of requests are fairly unusual. Decisions are made by the Commissioners. Considering the facts that a man of Pepitone's caliber could probably get much more money outside of the Federal Government and the position is the head of an agency, I do not feel that the request is unwarranted.

Q. Could you explain the statement in Attachment XV that these cases would have been disapproved if they had been presented by any agency other than 0MB?

Page 15 of 16 pages Initials xJ


A. Some of the most difficult questions relate to exceptions for time-in-grade restrictions. No matter what the agency was, when I looked at a request for time-in-grade exception and that agency had requested very few of these exceptions on an annual basis, my
inclination was to concur. A personnel system that is going to be effective requires flexibility. I have seen many instances in my career where time-in-grade restrictions didn't make sense when applied to particular individuals. Some people can attain a level of accomplishment in ten months which would take someone else five years to achieve. Mr. Wolk tended to be very strict in these cases. I do not attach much meaning to the statement
in the memorandum with regard to 0MB.

Q. Do you recall your involvement in the Mrs. Irene Izumi case? (Attachment XVI)

A. I have no clear recollection of this case, other than a phone conversation which I may have had with A. T. Briley. I doubt if I ever found out how the case was resolved.

I have read the above statement consisting of 16 pages, which is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and which has been made by me without a pledge of confidence and with the
understanding that I may be requested to be a witness at a hearing in this matter and that my statements may be used therein

Subscribed and sworn to before me this $.Qday of 1 97

C.. ivi Service o7mmssion

Pagre 16 of 16 pages Initials

79-315 0 77-5



of H)e Transition tO tbO NixOn Administratlon MAR 2 0 1970
c. v ; L p.
;,k2 n nn re NJ
of arvi i4t) n p

t.rm c fr o:i
Inito fcur bro.nA 1-,ut not
-y or t'io nrr, hl br 1 vw n.rc

inr Cr,!ct:7t In varvlng t,11"

r,! n r%,, krc, r; i;:

l7cir 1.,ortv,nsterv rth(i rurnI

n 1,1L t*o nl 11 v! on n
of r,:w itpv-vdnr.-.!,, 4

rcv;sel ,rn-Snirr. provlra., anncmncz Ak nts,

CT d,,cl-Ot. yn to
at r,,-Jurth cl n 1 s p-ld Tor ruriil carric.r por;ftlum,.,

Im.;I-IrLict-innal rnd trninin,, matcrip.lF,; ti, rc!n I-iizay fl.olcl tro rt;r -,. '-rld on t-1-c
of tllc n Ll n

to f:7 A -M) in
FAoctlon b-nrOs ror irc locnl rt-.xll,-w lwardf; for rural. r! v r I t n n. -! .

n1l. ,-)-r-nJln 7 ior
n, -A- 5 ter ; 4ind runil cnrrl.,. rn rum-11 a Inwgt,,-),cnt (:ffor m-z4 -A-31nat1cmt, on,.!


5ovvrn,ent-NlIde Bjdf,-t and P r o n-l r I c t I on.,;'

n7"' is incr, aslnR its resource cormilt-nrtr, tn
rffr .,CtiV(jnF.7,7 of tjn re-VISCJ
Our rrlm.ary nbjf,.ctivc; Is to ,, ,nl. v5 z c t
a iwvz(- iqi;mcv for employers tV: j lb,'A 1 iclnrure pro-ra i.

czitbacl.s anzi A f ,,ncrAl daon-trenJ In new IbIrs-r, by
o",er ba] to rcaJJust its cor pr.tltlve

vcl li rln 'Das r-lv, -rsely (Ifftcti-I t1"?
position ns, a continuln,- r"AgniffCant

C. ? mspcnl 1 nf- t c t rat ion Frc,,- ram Pr I orl t 1. c

V I c L nA -i Vs- t f rq n 1 s vlr r$*- 1, n wl t 1- r r! r n s f n t a t I v7-. p () f
t Ur s I d, n t I t t,: r o n t 1 V 1 o t n cl, V e a n -I rcll n
al-J6ftionz-0 rvFourr, ,- to i.r.rov,- t!.( progrni-, for t-c V!,rtnrvm er
2. 711lom-f-11 Y,:jtztz stafr v-scurces !-votwl tr-,
;rprcving c, i .-,J'cnrionq and
-inzpu ,", r; Imlorn prcl-rnr ,,, cav-r-r
stur ,rit z aml c2 A 6
cnn lcratlvi Dr .-ztuJy prnpra, i3.

.3. 'Youtl c(-n r* s,; jrcc to pr-pvi znettial tr, inrJtlnn Y)k7rlc,-! Janlliry 16')
--Jvr,' 4C rc ei.- from tl.-- outncimIt ral- 1 r) n to ccnliort P.7T,-Anti: i3n Into
n crtabl f ql ted an 7,.xs;.Anlnf- RvitW ly-ar-1 to
!3rc!-. to
in.; tnn

2. Cl act:i In a ll.-ii;on cp,?nc4ty- t
i7f ,U-c P.nj nc-, nc-ics on F-.uc,-. as:

f urnishing dotallees from' various agencies to staff
Iihilte Hocust- operations

-providing expedited service to argencics for Vbite~ House

Examnaion orocc alng and ex eelte~d advanced I-I-IrIng
rat~e determintio'ns

-fuirnishing advice and1 assistance~ to agencies In order to~

/unfamiliar vithx A-plfcable civil' service reuIre-onts.

EPP :110 er: lag 3-V'-70

cc: Bernard Rosen


40e 'oe
/- -Z2 lol .44

A: T T A C ff livi E N T I I



NO0TEt Indicate Clooanco and/or Approval on Official Fifle py (Yeo odIlsA TO: NAME -ROOM,,,/-\

:~1 ~f~~n 3-~c5518

Chai rmtan Hampton >5A09 3*i


'Kl -- I


Copk-t o Mr. R


\1r. Dunton 40


GPO 9 19- 732 CSC FORM 357




From 4t Edward A. Dun ton Director

-r 7 -7 'Z z

- - - - -

77 Y!7


Various agencies performed their reviews in different ways and it was reported to us, to illustrate, that in one agency the only guideline given for conducting oral interviews was the dictum, "just make sure they don't have long hair." The potential for such a system to backfire and seriously impede the Commission's college relationsand student employment efforts is high, especially in view of the attention now being given in the press to allegations of political clearances. We feel, therefore, that the clearance procedure proposed by Mr. Lewis should be headed off, if at all possible.

The situation is made more complicated this year inasmuch as the procedures for the operation of the 1971 Federal Summer Intern Program provide for nominations from the colleges to go directly to the Federal agencies that solicited them. Thus, the source of applications to be referred for clearance will be the various agencies participating in the program, not a central point such as the Commission. While not all applications received from colleges would be involved in the clearance process, we estimate that over 300, and possibly well over 400, applications (to provide for declinations) would need to be looked at.

If you think it would be helpful, under the circumstances, to discuss this matter with the appropriate White House staff member, we suggest you consider doing so. We feel that with the screening done by agencies, the pre-employment reference checks that are made, and the personal interviews that will be conducted, coupled with the fact that colleges are asked to nominate those whom they consider outstanding representatives of their institutions additional screening by White House staff serves little useful purpose. Further safeguards are provided through use of BPI investigative files and through FBI name checks. In fact, some agencies will conduct pre-employment fullfield investigations on intern candidates. Our hope is that, with a full understanding of the pre-employment procedures that are followed, it will be concluded that additional screening of the type apparently contemplated is unnecessary

Since the President has not yet acted on the proposed memorandum you sent him announcing the Federal Summer Intern Program to the heads of departments and agencies, you may want to defer any contact you plan to make with White House staff on this aspect of the program until we receive further word on the action taken by the President on the pending memorandum.

cc: Mr. Rosen


presidential Sumer Intern Program 1969

Ed-jard A. Ounton, Dfm.to4,
Bureau of recruiting and

Thru: Nicholas J. Cgarxmvic xx E-xacutive Director
To: Maiman Hanipton

lie %,nve btaa informicid C-at a lresldl-ntial Suvimsr Intern ".rc,,-' r im r s
boon *pprcv,:.d end is b,:An 71ta. pro.-rrm will L,! mavy-ntially
t tmt denzribed In my ,.pril 11 th, ,.",%-:!cutivj Iri ctor
rcuLod to you for inforrnt1c,!-.. A c!escri;ption of the pro3ran And tivi
procoveuress in-:IuJ1n3 clhan-c: Viat bave b:c-m v,-ido, in tta pl,n einza ;,!y
April 11 mevioranc'lum is rs- follovs:

1. A letter is t-?Inn sent from tho Ctiinct F-.ocreterint, to tha 12 Cabinet d-pnrtrienta plua t%;e (Iffie-i ct Scleac P.nd 'EaD and AID. This latter will 4zscribe the prezram vnd
raqtviit that suitable Inter-n pozsitlon.3 be identified. Thcra will be no rcqulrei.- mt I-or a qpf-cific nu-ber of rCs1tIrn3. na maxv:um to ss-_W, e. to ba ica.

2. ',,e Itclva ialrc,, ,dy Infom--tion includivIL,,
intertvta, 1,onorh ai ,-l 4 vards# extivicurrimilar vctfvitlv, j F -,i p.:)Int nvorc(-,,
pro-t-Imatv!l '70 Ir, I L jbile ftV G3-4 A, r.-,i
th:! top of tia ;:tv,-V,.!r %x;!m roitcr. Tlr v,? rtud,:rsts vill 1.0 thro--, -.1i a pre) ir. 1r.i.y szm!!nin7. -hUra Nou, tr[f If Ly tlie I I ; 1 C.
vill Ov n tevid nf tt lettcr3 to c.nch dcscrfbip,, Ozt nnkt- fer Oret ref,?roncos im.21ujin- a faculty ,qnj Sictint, Otit the snljoctlona vill be r4rde as voon a3 rDr niblo.

3. It In understood thit t1io 4bite Eouae staff will cl;; Ick by tolePonk, vith at lei!zt the faculty mimLer vl,.o, vas given es a

4. !"bit Bo!tart -nd his stnlU ara to f:,,et tot;aflher with tb Mkite ( Ar_-ve !,tricklaml vnd Jerry u-, to vork out the preceano

5. 1*o Lni-ip 11,1,vill ba In tnuclh with Whita Rouse staff to rlin tl-vi pro,-ra" for t1laaa interns.

!"a vill --,,u inlromcd of furtbar davelop-,ents.

Ef1D:J1'Bohart:mgc 4-25-69


J- .'' A ,

It fi




AMlrno randum Summer Intern Programs Dat,, .t '
In Reply Refer Tot
Frofm Donald L. Holum, Acting Director
Program Development Division Your Refetence:

To: Edward Dunton, Director
Bureau of Recruiting and Examining


The only summer intern program I am personally familiar with is the Cornell Summer Intern Program. This program is administered
by Dave Cullings, a Placement Director at Cornell. Dave writes
letters to Federal agencies and private employers soliciting summer jobs for Cornell students. Undergraduate students interested
in Federal employment are instructed to- take the Summer Employment
Examination. Dave is a strong supporter of the Summer Employment
Examination Program and has told me that the examination is much better than past practice at Cornell where students felt they had
to "know" the appropriate faculty member to get a summer job.

When I was with NASA, we had a Cornell intern working with us in the Personnel Division. He was an excellent employee and I know he wrote glowing reports about his Government experience back to
his faculty advisors at Cornell.

/Tom McCarthy says that Princeton has a program that is substantially ,i~i [the same as the Cornell program and they also advise their students to take the Summer Employment Examination.

/- L .



June 11, 1970 1 2 JUN 1970
oece Director
Ottice of Buiea tig ad Esablo CONFIDENTIAL an

MEMORANDUM FOR N. J. Oganovic Room 5518
Civil Service Commission

Enclosed are Form 171's or other resumes for the following:

Charles Christian Schmidt A,4- VA Donald Swanson Swanson -1? SBA Ann Margaret Veneman- ^'" DOT
Raymond C. Groth v& VA
Joet Rosow t GSA
Randall Clissold Bolten 6 GSA Franklin Delano Raines c__-* GSA
Anne Ginsberg bal- DOT
Joyce Donna Alexson o-' DOT
Bryan Edgar Brumley 'r VA "
Renard J. Kolasa -i, SSA Elizabeth Mironas SBA

These are the people we discussed with regard to the White House Conference on Children and Youth. A few more resumes will be forwarded to you shortly.

I would like a full status report on this matter on Monday morning.

, ( Thank you for your assistance.

S' .David H. Lissy



June 16, 1970 //I


MEMORANDUM FOR N. J. Oganovic Room 5518 (2 ~
Civil Service Commission .

Enclosed are four additional Form 171's, as per our several conversations. Ed Dunton has been most efficient and cooperative in processing these for us.

Information is enclosed on:
('Randal Ray Bowman
CJohn Frederick Runyan
'-!Maurice Kirby Collette Wilcox' "George Brian Wolfe C

David H. Lissy




June 17,1970


Enclosed is information on Richard Slipsky whom we discussed
this afternoon. He is to replace Schmidt at VA.

Also enclosed is information on Susan Haldeman to be processed
as the others have been up until now.

Thank you for your continued assistance.

David H. Lissy

63 wit

t A.79-313 0 77 6




Hle is sure you haven't done anything
on the matter he spoke with you about,
after BRE staff please call him OR
Mr. Wvolk leaves staff before you do tase ask Mr. Wolk to call him.

bl 6/12 2:20
:DARO FOPJd 63 apo: e-o-a-1-6e-eoa34-1 32-e 63-03 ;ED AUGUST 1967
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6



I/ / & L

---FromEdward A. Dunton Director


41 I. t
Septemer 281 1967


John, could we please enter this in the Senior Level Examination?

I would like to know what our determination is and if it's eligibility, the areas in which we have Mr. Thigpen coded before notices of ratings are released.

Mr. Thigpen is interested in administration of education programs and in overseas service related to education.

If you have any ideas on affirmative action we might take to place Mr. Thigpen, including
the excepted service, I would be interested in having them too.

/f Lw EAD
-~ > ,- .7;
S*/ ,, / I
""~, I ;
t //
/ I / / I .
/ / / I & r

:' ', -, 7...
I---- -" / I"//
" # / I-"



September 25, 1967

Ed Dunton

SUBJECT: James I. Thigpen

Per our telephone conversation.


Attachment Form 57 SEP 2 6 L

r ,,e ,, "
0jw o!rj 0j po --It .-','


Kind of pos.iwsal app~ird for. or ra-row of e" , iAnnf,umccrutn1 N.V. Do No~i WRittE IN THIIS BLOCK
Administrative and/or Foreigyn IFor Use of
Service and/orEducationRelated 1Fa~nncO~eOl
Op.;ons for wh;ch you %;s to1 be considered (ifj fite ii exam:;e EJo Apo. taertal Ened esr
a r-, ElSubmitted
ElReturncd 0.
P;Mmar; Plice(s) of emnopluynenr ap'.cd for (Cut ,11td.Tttte) Notitions:

Name (First, mdte, maiden, 13sc) Ej Mr. jj] Mrs. 0 iss App. Rcviewed; z
.J mn~JvnL h Rge______n_____ App. Appro~ed: 17_____ _Adiftesi (N,'twher. Strorut, City, State and ZIP Code) Eand1um
2 2 0 7 E. WashingtonOmin-_[Gde End Prtree
Harlingen, Texas 78550 jJ Ratin El

512-4233531 5 4 36 6__ _ __ __ Cm.Dil.
Le;4I or voting residenceI-fre Side)

Tex~S.... ~ ____ Point
*Heght withot.u shoes 10. Wriuht
6 feet ...7 nches 180 E i.l
L. Sew32.16I3rsIt1 status [jCfarri,:d I
L. St ~ foal El Sinsle (Int. twjkuywd. ditr.'ed) El eMr
6. Birthplace (Cie'y adSor eig opir)

D.itncrefletldrc Yer 15. Social Security Number.5. If )0u have ever been employed by the Federal Gov erment. indicate last
grade and job 6.tle:

Datm of service in that grade
Iroan To Initial$ n II

11. A%'AfLk3Ba.!4T INFORMlATtON
.Lo-orst grade or piy you B. Will you accept te-roriry appuincrncne? (.4~tceln~r or re/isa of sempor) r mpIvy,,.,rnt trill #;-)tf, ),ir cosiaI,ti-t
will accept Pe S1 for other appointi'mnr..) [Li Yes No li 'cs7. indicate by -X- in appropriate box or boxes

r grade El 1 Mo. or less El 1 t04 month:V El to 12 months
Wt.V you accpt less than full-ri employ ment (Itss than 40 hoors 0.A Ay' illir; to) tr.vge?
per %eek)? El Yes EdNO_ ~ No at all [L- (h'ca;3nly ~JFreqVcnlV
LWill )ou accept employment; In Washingron, D.C? F. W1you zccepc appeinmment only in certain locations? El Yes E No
P-C Yes CJ'No Outside U.S.? Q Yes E] No I "Ys* fll lo:Ar'oir:Prefer S:5anis h-speaking, coiu try18. ACTIVE MILITARY SErAVICE AND) VETERAN PREfERFNCE ol. List Direts, ~anc. and 5-rial or Scrvitis Number a' All Actise Semie
From~ TO Branch of Service Strill or senic Numr-ber


3. Have yr..u eser been di3Charfed from the armed forces unJe.- ort-rr thin horooraS'e conditions?
[1Yes (Gh-e detaif, in Item 319) j]No
C. Do yrn. claim 5-point preference based on AC;i'e duty Fn the 3.rmvi forces?
1See at!arhed i'rifr5tiole for ,Allipts ourd your applis.ation.) ZYes Eg NO
D. Do you clirn to-puint prtercrice? C3 Ycs rJ No. It *Yro.'- check 1jpr ot Pref!erencte eItsi~q.-. -.J complte'e apd .gttuch sti.r err I,.
for IYP'of Preference.- TYPEi: [] Corn pen sab;-c ofsibii ty 1E Disability F Wile EWidow Mothcr

TIS 3E*ACE FOP. USF OF~ APPOINTING 0,WFCER ONL Thre nornv~on gite:n in al,sr to, Qu-ti,:- 14 hit iv.n %erd~;il- thc 110og cet'iret 3n~or other prnrof sthith shows
that the separation vvas under gr.r.r''!. nrJotiun. o
VETERAN PREVERF.NCE ALLOW~Rt:E prn o;'~ Comp. I:iab. ElOch.-r 10opuint El r
Signature an.J c~flc Agtncy )ate

-1.1 ..* t". I I,,' rrrx'rrvett (-1qfVFt


I A y intiojry be made of )our 1-rcwnt entplo)er rvgjrJ!ng your i. li.sricti-r. quAb fil, a; ions. znd itcord it( rinplo% Ir% nt. Yes
Dates of craploymirrit (mw.ik. yor) E,%ict t;tlr of Po5ition Nlimber and kii-A of empleleew
I ou supervise
-L!!L-A-u ust 1962 _p __ To present time Sji erijitendent 725 teachers Lsl-TiDorting
;.alary or earnings 0aisificition Grade PiAce of enployrient (Cier & Sixt.) I Kind of busintU01irganiration.
ing. alcounfing. imi"O'
citing 5 per Harlingen, Texas pite, fre.)
$6000 r r J--ublic schools
,ne and at:dress (including ZIP Coje) of cmplo)cf ffm, tie.) N3me and title of imructlime supervisor. and present address including ZIP
I-Tarlinoen Independent School District Cod' Mr. Marshall W. Graham, President
__Bgard Of Trustees. Harlin2en. Texas ,son fee wanting to leave IntejLestedjx3. foreJgn service or other federal employment
z\gtctlijive ofpqblic school qrg. jniK.2,tiqn, administering schools
lictiptk,, of %urk e
-Undez--t) y--a--civ-il-iaa3-B.oax-d-oLT-r-tiste.e-s.-thr-Qugh--; -.5si-4-ta-i-ts
nd--bu-ilding--pr-i nc4-pals.-Dates of employment (mGpilh. jrcjr :v of position Nundirr and kind o(cmployees YOU sup'Levi"
F-Sept. 1950 To Aug. 1962 :her, then Princir)al! 30 teachers
ary or earnings Classi cation Grade FlAct tf cmploymcnt (Cit) 4 sta.e) Kind of business or argartiration,
(If .,, reins! lrrti.e) ;ffsorS 2, 600 Per year (6st Falfurrias, Texas..,r,
CL, per Public Schools
me and address (iorlieding ZIP Code, ;/ knoun) oi cmployct (firin, (orgoittiza- N3mc and title of imintdiate supervisor. and P;05frit address filknou-101 inI. etc.) cludi I V? p "d'Strona Superintendent
Brooks County Ind. School District r. 3' C2, I
T:alfj,,rzja Texa s
--Falfurxias, Te s- js-aison. We caving Promotion
t.iption of %ork Administration of senior high school

)ymcnt Ejcc tidt- If position N'utijlKr anJ kin,] of unipInvect %ou surwrvised
1947 To A sign fabricators
..Rg,._ 950 __, yper-MAnqgeK
ity or earnings I 0.11 lficjiion Grade Place of et.ylov or.rot (Gri, & Start; J-k .t -.i ;usincss-or -s.anization.
rting S per i
lKingsville, Texas 1"Nlebril sign mfg.
S e-rviiij'ngs
in, and adircss ZIP C,)de. if kioui:) of cmir-'el)-cr (firm, nrgjPii.a- I N4wtc cni ;iAe of 4nmcdimc su-crvisnc, and prts". Jr 01 knouw) in1, tie.) Self 1017 W. Kinf- linr ZIP Colle
K-;- ngsville, Texas Self
$$on 'or lviinf. To return to public school work
cri tion of work Manuf at- pi rin s e rvi c ing -neon s igns




Knd of L, rose r Ccr:.F: jic t f-, rvample. Ww. tea 4er. Is. %tige t-r 1,41ter hsrn kn. Jullintiq C. Yeir nt hrst I.C nw D. Ytit of t'C'Ir I.M'.1 "d a" _r. Jau)tr. J- rw.A. et, I ori Vic C.C; or Ccr:,Mrc
Teacher a Counselor, State 4 rren
---P-r.incipal,-Superintendent---Spvcial skills you Fw ))srss and rnichins JnJ rqwrment )OU cars UC, (For example. JA0,1 Mato, radr V Approitmarc number of %fjrJs pvt mirutcmadidsiA. tomptowt.w. -try po-ih. Im"of Ialkt. rrjm.,Aii r or-hint. j.trwirir or
Typing Short'hind

Special qualifications not covered in app!icatie-%. (ror exa;pdr, your aroft importad put'licatiout (Jo -it i:, copity twItti rIque;ted); )*.r or inrcul;,94s; Public spra*;N. a".: P.hfi:J:;0,I mep"he'ship ht pr*Jet;;0haI or irien6fic jitirtiti, tic.; oo:d bo)rorr arl rceiret.)

Member of various professional organizations; served as delegate from U. -S. to
KXXth International Conference on Public Education in Geneva, Switzerland, 1967

Place -X- in column inidtcaring highest grade comp! J K if You rrJJJ red trom C. Name and lucitort of la t high school act:ndtd
7 8 9 to hgh schoql.-r:.%c dice
lf 2 13 411116!T Daingerfield High School
ILL -IVay 19-37 rfiela,-Tex
ainge, a.-,
Name of college or university,. and city, Stitt. and (i! known) ZIP DAtes actendcd T eArs completed c.!it hour, Codz I rrCe"ed
From TO

E:ast 1Pxas._Stt,,_Co1nmexce,_Te as .1937 4 4 Al i
ZxaLs A Ar T _Kinesvill-. "%F 19-0. 19t;2

Ccdic hours Cre,;it hours
E Chief ts dergmduate college sub1cc(s Semester Quarter F. Ch'ef graduate college subjects

chemistry 4
bioloRA 18

Scale major held 6f stuJy at hiyhru level of college -ork education

i, Other schools ni,'training (for twovplr trade. t4ratioind. Armtd Forves. *r bvtipttrs) Give for each the name and location oi school, d t" jt.enJcJ. subjects studied. certificates. and any other Fvrtvnent dstt.

Ave juti Lived or trjuc!ed tit an* foreign Enter fvr .gn lznXu,. an,! ndi- I Rcjdw, SrwJ;,tng 1 L V ra rtt
our kno,, 1,,dg If rich by
Cate t --4pi.ming '*X'* in prurrr co!urnn' I FJ, r FAc, PUL'4 Fir F_%C_ ID F w Exc. r".1
Ycs O 'No I
Spanish X x ix
Jwf IN Iffw J9 xaff J r1wrl'ies. clairi
rd J Is~ JwqI IAer N-J ta;*ft of pur.
-e J ,bfwy wri.t. hmme". ed".att-N. up 7
ral J L


is# three potions hing in the United Swes or rernto:ies -)f rKc Unircd S jrts -ho ire NOT RELATED TO YOU AND \VH0 HAVE 'EHMIF
_*%',O%'LED4GE of our quih6cArioni, and fitness for t. it 9 j,.nnn for -htS %uu are appl, ng Do no, reptAt n4MCS und I

(,Nur, er, Steer.,, Cry, St-at and ZIP Codr)
john H. Rathrke 1409 E. Harrison Business Mcr.

Dr. Kenneth McIntyre University of Texas Professor

--Dr. v university I Professo


e-~o grxtoantr) cf i, hrin I'~ st a kt.,ti !1

.re '.o., u or ba'e Nou %: tr been, a mtrmber fir -he Corssinunisg ?4-v U.SA., the Communist Political Association, the YoungOmn',nst Leagu. Or any, Crn munist o tgn t n ~to n ? ............. ... ...... x

.re *.ou now or have you .-cr biten a memberr of any- foreign or dosrresic organization, association, rmosement, group. or cognbinati~sn -1 prisons -isich is torlitirtan. Fa~ciig, ust. or su.hscrwiv, or ..hch has aJ,'sted. or ihoixs, a policy of .od~ocating or Approv.
rtg tne comm-ission of .sct, of for or violence to deny other persons their rights undcr the Constitution of the L'rtited States, or IX
.hich seeks to alter the frt- of Fuseronmert of th Untel Statr" bw uncorn'tit.."onal means?. .............................

anjuv-r to 26 and/,' 2"' al'se if -Ve.. itate on i eup~raae s ~ref aftached 12 and mrn a part cf this application ii',' names ofaol I
b, F org;am,:atsant. ass~clafic?1. rn9, emr,,fs. sporpf or tomb-,,ation r/ -( srnrs a,;.j date; of metthlersikip. Get e complete dltajlt of )ourV arth tie,
b~teit and mnake any e)~~~ta ou. doirr regarding yssar mcsmiser*Pop or .aclitiii. (Sef last' rnction S/sert)

.lave you any ph) sia haocirap, chronic distee or other disability'.............................................................. x

iHAse ) ou evrr hid a tier our breakdou-n". .......... ....................................................................... x
AA'e you ever had tuabcrculasis? ........ .........................................................................
eu' 'rr to 28. 29. a, JO0 a/sos, is *lVs." ghie de tail, in Itenm 39.

-As'e '.oj ev-er been I,a:red by the U.S. Civil Sersice Conrnission from talkirs exartsinations or acceptirng civil service appoitment? (if
.rue .anstuc it **Yes.-git e dti of and reafons fsor isa/s d~bas-sisnq ir Itens 39.1

Dcei t!ye Un~ted States Goiurnment employ in a -ivriin capacity any ri:atise of )turs (by blood or rntrriage) witb usomr you ltve or
:;s.isd within the pa : 12 months?................................................................
3: s-:, a,- is -Yiz,- e~i, e i-; tic-,~ 39 f,,r EACH such reas e (1) ,'aIl .7aine; (2) p-rst adidreii (ninlaisg ZIP Ccdr); (3) re.'ationi;
f. d..:~.rstor a/eeve) ti-bob cmrpt,ser; irod (5) kind of apposstment.
Do }oc ,rcc,,e or ha.e 'ou applied for An innuitv from the United Stares or District of Cvlumnbia Goecrnmtnt ur-.Jer as y retirement x
act ot any pension 11)r Other comrpensation for military or rasal service?... .....................................1.......
11 )c-r ..,rt ccs *'Ys." cit, det~silt in Iless 39.____________________________Are lciz an official or empi 53cc of any State. territory. county, or miiniipality? ..............................................x
If youar answer it '~"gi.e deiailt in Item .39. 1 1

flasc you ever been discharged (fired) from employment for any reason? .. ........ .............
I-~ase )ou ever resigned (quit) after being informed that your employer intended to discharge (fire) you for -.:iy reason? ... L...
lf) .rinr~- 1. 35 o, 36 a/sore is "Yes," gitve details ie Item~~ 49. Skew the rimse and address frhisdsdini; ZIP Co~de) of employy, a % (,rcxi- 1
mrt, date, assa reasons in each cast. This infrsa'iwi ~ uslbl a~e it sisnis inale ~ Item 19-Expelesee. I

Ilae yu eerbee cos ite .s anotense acairrst Ehe law or turfeitid collzttsrzl, or are )ou now unzer chargers for any offense against the
12-? (You nsay ornit: (1) Triffic violations for ns ids )ou Flid A fine of $30.00 or less: and (2) any Offensr commsittcd before y ur 21st
!sirthilay whichs was finally adjudicated it, a juvenile coust or urder z youth offerdcr law.). ...............................

W3~ein the rjilitary ser-v.ce uere sou ever Lons-icted by general cour-martial?.~ .............. -0

It 1-,'asr answer to 37 or 38 is "Yes," give dtfails in Item,, 39. Show f ,r each offense. (1) Date. (2) charge. (3) place. (4) court, and (5) ac5PA.-* FOP, DEi'AILED ANSVVERS TO OTHER QUEST'fr)NS. ltt-2icate itcem numnLcrs ro %hich anss'ers apply.
N o. Item No.

lore___________________ spc ____ rej ___sefl_____oaerprvi__:%______sz p~.Wit nc-c be ou ae.dt o ith n eai

Aor ;'t;-2cr is rer'uurrd. us f' o ser~t io ui-s pe psnst ie s m :s b' s Wieon rn-ybrgo i c ~hrtfc o .t-n. at'e fr and cam

,r fr s.Zs'.'merss, cc 01'r ,Pi c, :,-r. wcy b.2 pu~s.,l by fimts or- miriprimlmcl (U.S. oa
Th Z 13, '- :c. iGl D All s!clmcnitl rnoac sin thc ct:!csj s!,.? rb-ct~ r n/2to iricludirsg a <':heck of your
5K-iii$, !cc rcc,:irds, or'Jfs'nc m's All it tcrino'n will Ze Cfl5Wiicd in e~emrrning your present
s cr cd-rc-l ca-,p!oymnt.

I ~~C T tC A Ti 0N

il CFRYI-Y that a:1 of the statements maede iii this appltcasron .v, 'r..e, cortiplete, arid corect to the betst of my kno-e lcdte -and be~ef and arc niade inr goo>d [ ith.

(5t<'t in irk) '
-77 c. P~. ~o I5-75119-5


fcr Fc-:12;-al [u.P!.:)vrrcnI"

I NSTRt:c*no.Ns-wt ow ri,;, ftrit, on I y ul!en tit c--ss-try- 6br cvoq-:vtiiir- of I trot 19. -EXPEP I EN CL.- on Stanched Form 5 En-,Iost wi.1i itout
ipphic3tio". I rc. rir 4- rite L lv..rly in dirk ink.

Natne IFirit. e-hIdle. ifiny. last) 2. hirth dAtr (M nth. .i.y. yar)
James I. Thigp April 13 1920
Kind of f itsitioll 21%,lied for. or nirre of qrAtninvion 4. Dice of thiv cowinuition shtet

Admini 9-19-67

.10 n..r.t Exut cirie or Nurnltr and of eir.10(tyt-cs )o-j su!, r.j
at To M y 147 sa -, -r 1 5 Route Salesmen
1945 les Man4crt
..aljry or carintrip C14tsiriciii.-in GrAc I Pi, :, of C'nrIvV-e"t (Cite I 5tt:e) of bui;sIrls 0.
ifin Fidenif jrti,:e)
'urting S Pte r 11C 5
Hot Spriiias, Ark. Drink Mfg. L Sa.
s 5,000 pir year 0 t
Iiiarnir 3n.1 iddrvss uf tmpltivv. flirm. Nante. tidt-, jod prrww addrv uf initorJive s;ip r% i;r-r
Dr. Pepper Bottling Company W. L. Bundy, Manager
-Ho, U-g r-in g s,- -A r ka n s a s Ho p ri n a S -- Ax ka ns. a. s.
ica.lon tor I,
:)QWri;KiGr. Uf WU hecome-s-elL--emplo-y
"k --3:x-ain-arid-s.upe-r-vis-e-route--sa-lesrn2n--,--DA9Cj of vntpIi9yrr,:nc (wvIeb. ycir) Ezct wti of &Nirnbcr and kirtil of tpplo)-in, yo-.j 5uj r isrd i i1qigi I
To Technical Engineer directly
iAlAry Or IeZ.ninglt Clj ,ifizjrion Grade III-cc or vnipl-nmrit (City & Rite) Kind of business or organization
(if it jers ice) in'!".
icarcing S per ame. etc.)
Fi,,,' s 3600 Per year Texarkana, Texas Ammunition loading
and Jjd- I) of C"y1"te. (firm, OWiffiwIA"I. tric.1 Naine,
Nw fid.. 30i I-rc"w address of rnn-di.,c. stif irisor
Lone Star Defense Corp. L. M. Surnmers, Director
Texarkaj att Texas 1 Technical Service Division
ReAwn for s-tarted to reduce pro.duc.ti resicrqed to ioin Dr. Pepper
Descrip(ium of work
ite -op e ra-Lin a -p-r-o c eduze s.- fo r-a-mrnunition-loa ding .sup e-r-vi s e4=1 Cr,--supervise-and,-di-rect-experin-f;,c,"I,d---te-rrn--nc-that-proper-procedure7s--,,.,trre--followinc7-in-loadin- --asse-mbtlin-T-and--,
pac ammunition and zoriponents.

of cn-I'l.-wolent (I 04"t/s, Year) Ex,.:t tide ti(piii(ion Nunib r in(i kind oi tr rplotee you stip rt;cd
S V 42 ifeacher None
Sji3ry ur Cla sjfi,.ttin Gr,,!,: P:jcr of efnialo)mcm (Cit 4- tjte) I Ki-id of buin s% tr vtgjoi7.,rw,,
Pee (If 1,r Federal Ifritce)
'I"ce, etc)
FinAl S 990 Per 9 mos. Falfurrias, Texas Public Schools
NArric ind aNres of e"tp!.3%rr ffirm. Ninic, c dc, And ft (;c jt!Jr ,-. or sxncdwe %uper, i5or
Falfurrias Public Schools H. Lee Clifton, Supt.
Fal furrias, Texas Austin, Texas
bz ome-Irx LQlxed i-n--tbe-war--effort.Telcriptio" of %ar
of high s hool pupils in chemistry and biolog]E. I


fleeting with Cbairman Hampton and others on Monday, PR4 1B

LCetty walker

Ldwa~rd A. Duntcon f"; Tv
OJirector, fR

I. I.vrtclesq follow of jobs in the coiiptitive service with relativoly c(c!-'i)f charncterist-ics that have over the years cn-ucd
frctcrs other tlvan merit and fitness-to enter into tho ep;'oAntinig nro~css. Generally r.aeigtbese johs bave unique local
interest, sensitivity, arnd It-r2nct req~uiring that the fncuxbent
be tho lcaccl kcrifor current aj,;-ncy prooraris and !eolfcfes
that aire often roliticalliy controversial and represent c han ,'!
ft-i thiut of a precious a&Ai~tratV_-n. In addition, ill -.ny instanrces~ the positions vre formerly outside the co-49-petitive
service nnd were broutlit in bIy Cr~m'nlsioin action against
rcouwiendcition o~f the agency.

1. Directors, Insuring Offices, Federal Housing
Achain istratbtn

2. Regional Directors, "wafll Business Administratib.n ( supergraices)

3. Certain Stato Dircctor ty: e Jobn in the Detpartnment of Agrftculturp., notably Federal Crop Insurance Corporation arnd Soidl Cr.onservation
Service. Othcr similir type jobs In Agriculture
are exceptcd.

4. Top f ield positions, rconriotic L-velcptnent
Admiuni tra Lion, Comnerce

5. Regional Directors, General Services Admidnistration (superf.,rades)


11. There are a wide variety of jobs in somne agencies which seemn
to permit political ccn.,ideratir1I to enter into th2 hiring process. Aucng them are Sm~all iEusiners Acdrdnstraticn, 't
Off ice~ Dc'-artamint, Lconmzric Develo-rient Adutinistration, an~d Off ice for ir-iur3ency Pl1anning. IncludedI are such poAticns
as Congressional Liaison Officer, R~ealty Officer, Loan
Specialist, Marketing Specialist, etc.

111, In recent years there are p~ositins in many agencies where the
s ituat jon "requires~ ap,;ointruent of individuals meietini."
sz, vcial "a1cceptabi lity factors." F-;avip1es are jobs requirinlg
acc~tbility to certain m~in~rity Croups, particular labor
or-iizaticns, and the like.

ESA:EWalker:pjs 4-4-69





I have received reports-from several reliable sources that high-level Federal off icinla have made inquiries of employees in the competitive service that are distinctly political in nature, These inquiries, which have been made to employees in both high ($28,000) and medium ($14,000) level positions$ relate to their political affiliation; whether they have donated money to either major party; and, when affiliation or donation to the Democratic Party is known, whether their reliebility to the present Administration can be depended upon.

The most distressing facet of these inquiries is the statement that they are being made at the request of the White House or in the name of the President.

Inquiries of the type referred to are prohibited by Civil Service Rule IV. They are completely incompatible with the operation of the civil service merit system. Because of this it is essential, in order to prevent public daxmwge to the Administration's support of the civilservice system, that prompt action be taken to halt these inquiries and "set the record straight".

I cm attaching a draft Presidential Directive which will correct the situation. I urge that you sign it and release it at the earliest date possible.




The proper administration of the civil service merit system

requires complete adherence to the Civil Service Rules and the

regulations of the Civil Service Commission.

One of the most important Civil Service Rules is Rule IV,

"Prohibited Practices", section 4.2 of which read& as follows;
"No person employed in the executive branch of the
Federal Government who has authority to take or recommend any personnel action with respect to eny person who is an
employee in the competitive service or any eligible or
applicant for a position in the competitive service shpll
make any inquiry concerning the race, political Pffiliation,
or religious beliefs of any such employee, eligible, or
applicant. All disclosures concerning such matters shall
be ignored, except as to such membership in political
parties or organizations as constitutes by law a disqualification for Government employment. No discrimination shall be exercised, threatened, or promised by any person in the
executive branch of the Federal Government against or in favor of any employee in the competitive service, or any
eligible or applicant for a position in the competitive service because of his race, political Pffiliation, or
religious beliefs, except as vmy be authorized or required
by law."

I expect each officer and employee in the executive branch to

comply with both the letter and the spirit of Rule IV. I am directing

the Chairman of the Civil Service Comission to be particularly alert

to possible violations of Rule IV and to investigate and take appropritlite

action to enforce it completely. Moreover, I am directing the Commission's

chairman to promptly issue a bulletin expressly describing the nature


of inquiries that constituto violations of the Rule, I am certain that issuenceo end the advice available froza the Civil Service Co~uisalon, will prove Invalueble in preventing any infringem6'nts of our merit-systema principles


September 290, 1969

Mrs. Marshall L1969

Helen, as you requested in your note of September 22, I am returning to you Mr. Gifford's letter to the Chairman. Sorry about my notes on it.

I talked to Mr. Gifford on the 22nd, explained the
salary problem to him, and found him quite knowledgeable, namely, he understood that the only way the salary could be solved was by getting Congressman Cleveland to increase Mr. Smith's salary. He indicated he would undertake to accomplish that.

We have also advised Labor on how to effect a
"Ramspeck" appointment of Mr. Smith.

Since the position involved is a Schedule C position, all actions must be taken by the Labor Department. W'e do not need to get into the case or give any approval of any kind.

Labor will advise us of Mr. Smith's EOD date.



Subjct:Timohy mitDot,: Sept. 26, 1969

From: C.L. Ryan, AL isant Chief ECS:EXR
Career Service Division Your Reference:

ji Edward A, Dunton, Director

Bureau of Recruiting and Examining


On September 22, you talked to Mr. William L. Gifford, Special
Assistant for Legislative Affairs, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Labor, concerning the appointment of Mr. Smith in the Office of Legislative Liaison, Department of Labor at GS-15,
Step 5.

On the same day, I told Jack Ready, Labor Personnel, that they should attempt to "Ramspeck" Mr. Smith from his current position as Administrative Assistant to Representative Cleveland. On September 23, Ready informed rue that they were proposing to appoint Mr. Smith to a Schedule
C position at GS-15, Step 5. They were waiting, however, until Representative Cleveland had increased Mr. Smith's salary. Mr. Gifford
indicated to Ready that he had been in contact with the Representative regarding this matter. On September 25, 1 requested Ready to advise me
when Mr. Smith's EOD date has been determined.

As I advised Mrs. Bowers on the phone, Interior has indicated that
Mr. Burgess will enter on duty with the American Revolution Bicentenial
Commission on October 5.




From the Office of the Chairman

September 22, 1969 MEMO FOR MR. DUNTON
Bureau of Recruiting and Examining RE: Timothy Smith Chairman Hampton does not want the attached letter addressed to him from William L1. Gifford, to be made a part of the official file. Please return to our office after you have finished with it. The Chairman will be out of town until Wednesday. If this case is acted on before his' return, he asked that you notify the agency in his absence. Thanks,,

Helen Marshall

79-315 0 77 7


Omtce of ft'roauDwvc ew- *~c ]Remuitig nd aw ,1706 Hollinwood Drive Alexandria, Virginia
June 10, 1967

E.A. Dunton 4
Deputy Director 48
Bureau of Recruiting and Examining 4t
United States Civil Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20415 Dear Mr. Dunton:

Enclosed you will find my form 57.

I am most grateful to you for your help in your effort to get me a summer job. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Young