In reviewing whether ACTION had properly used the services of experts hired under its appointing authority, the Investigative Staff selected over two dozen individual positions. Review of these positions disclosed that ACTION used its expert/consultant appointment authority extensively to facilitate the early placement of personnel hired incident to the change of national administrations, hired experts to serve in staff positions, set pay rates at levels not commensurate with past earnings, and improperly designated all employees hired under its appointment authority as "experts."

As a matter of convenience, ACTION designates all of its upper-level temporary or intermittent help as "experts," regardless of the purpose for which the individual is hired or the duties he performs. This practice is both careless and misleading because it conveys an impression that all of ACTION's hires are higly specialized practitioners from whom a work product is expected rather than highly qualified persons whose services are of a purely advisory nature. This distinction between an expert and a consultant was highlighted by the aforementioned OMB report which requested information only on consultant-designated positions. Implicit in the requirement was the idea that consultants are being misused in Government but experts are less of a problem. Based on the review of the Investigative Staff, it is believed that ACTION has been hiring advisers for both expert and consultant services, and more effort should be made to title such positions properly.

Pay levels for experts appointed by ACTION are set at either the "competitive rate," which was defined as the going rate in the Washington, D.C., area for the services of retired Federal employees in various occupational fields, or at a level a "few dollars" over the employee's best prior earning rate. In several of the cases reviewed by the Investigative Staff, the "few dollars more" standard was badly abused. Illustratively, three experts hired at the daily rate of $100 reported previous earnings reflecting daily rates of $38, $55, and $58, respectively; another employee appointed at $85 a day had been earning $10,000 a year ($38 a day).

The Federal Personnel Manual outlines proper and improper uses of consultants. Among the latter examples of employment described are: "To do a job that can be done as well by regular employees, do a full-time continuous job ***." The Investigative Staff found the most glaring examples of abuse of this policy in the ACTION personnel office, itself, where two employees served from November 1977 until early summer as employment specialists. Both experts were subsequently appointed to the same positions as permanent full-time employees,

a development which was probably not surprising to the other employees also interested in competing for the positions.

In a similar vein, ACTION used its expert/consultant appointing authority extensively to hire NEA, Schedule C, and other excepted employees pending official clearances and approvals. The Investigative Staff is aware of at least 20 top-level ACTION employees who were initially appointed as experts. Some of these appointments were only for 2 or 3 days, while others extended over several months. One such employee acted as chairman of several Project Review Boards reviewing national grant proposals while still serving as an expert. This general misuse of expert/consultant appointing authority was rationalized on the basis that it is common practice throughout Government for agencies to place senior management officials on the rolls initially as experts or consultants pending official confirmations.

The Investigative Staff looked further into an incident reported in the FY 1978 hearings before the House Appropriations Committee involving one John Parr. Parr had served as an expert with ACTION from December 14, 1977, to January 18, 1978. He worked a total of 20 days, at a daily rate of $100. The implications of the questioning at the hearings were that Parr had been hired in return for favors rendered the Director of ACTION. Parr reportedly had a van and had moved some of the Director's household effects to the Washington, D.C., area. The Director denied the allegations.

The Investigative Staff found no evidence to substantiate the report. At the same time, little evidence was found of any expert qualifications in Parr's background or that he made much of a contribution while serving as an expert. All of Parr's work experience (a total of 4 years) prior to the ACTION appointment was acquired working either as a campaign organizer for the Governor of Colorado or on his staff at a midmanagement salary level. Nothing in this background remotely suggests that he had the credentials which the Civil Service Commission normally considers necessary for an expert or consultant, namely, that he was "* * * regarded as an authority or as a practitioner of unusual competence and skill by other persons in the profession, occupation or activity."

As for his accomplishments, his supervisor advised that his main responsibility was to assist in the reorganization of the Office of the Inspector General. This involved reviewing audit reports and making assessments about how and where staff time should be spent, evaluating investigative procedures and recommending improvements, and reviewing the organizational structure to recommend changes. In this regard,

it was stated that Parr had prepared the mission statement for the soon-to-be-established Office of Compliance, and the Investigative Staff was shown a copy of the document represented to be Parr's work.

Since another employee's name appeared on the document as its author, the Investigative Staff also interviewed this individual. She appeared to be taken aback when it was even suggested that Parr had prepared the mission statement, which she claimed to be exclusively her work. This employee, too, had been detailed to the newly appointed Inspector General to help him get started, and she cited the reorganization proposal which included the mission statement as one of her main accomplishments. The extent of Parr's contribution had been to sit in on a critique (with two other officials) of the final draft. To the extent of this employee's recollection, Parr did little besides review audit reports during his tenure with ACTION.

VI. PEACE CORPS EMPLOYMENT POLICY

The

In the course of this study, two ACTION employees approached the Investigative Staff with a similar personnel problem. problem related to an ACTION policy on the treatment of employees or prospective employees with a prior intelligence agency involvement.

One of the employees had worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for a time prior to 1960. The other employee married a woman who had unknowingly worked on a CIA project while employed by the State Department overseas. Because of these past associations, both employees are currently barred from any assignments or activity involving the Peace Corps.

An ACTION spokesman stated that the policy was established by the first Director of the Peace Corps. The purpose was to avoid giving any credibility to charges that the Peace Corps was serving as a front for the CIA or other intelligence activities. The policy has been reaffirmed by each succeeding Director. The present Director not only reaffirmed the policy but has revised it to clarify some of the details and to provide for uniform treatment of both volunteers and staff. The revised policy was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1978.

It might be noted that the revised policy covers only the screening process for new employees (or volunteers). The cases of onboard employees who are found to have had associations with intelligence activities will continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The policy is currently under review by a Federal court. ACTION's Office of General Counsel is of the opinion that the agency has enough precedents to prevail. While the matter has been discussed before Congressional committees, no effort has ever been made to obtain Congressional sanction for the policy.

By memorandum dated August 22, 1977, the Director of ACTION informed all agency personnel of his views on how the "new directions" for the agency should be implemented. These views were based on information provided by the Citizen's Review process, discussions with employees and employee representatives, and senior staff policy recommendations. In brief, the main elements of the plan were the following:

1.

All ACTION programs should emphasize "meeting basic
human needs."

In the Domestic Operations area, program decision-
making authority should be delegated to the State
office level.

Program offices should be given increased authority
in the budget and training areas.

Organizational changes should be made including establishment of a new Office of Voluntary Citizen Participation, an agencywide Task Force on Innovation, and an Office of Demonstration Programs within Domestic Operations. In addition, the Recruitment Office should be taken from under Domestic Operations, merged with some of the functions of the Office of Public Affairs, and reestablished at the division level (thereby going back to the same organizational structure existing prior to July 1976).

A Commission on Workplace Democracy should be
established to involve ACTION employees more fully

in decisions affecting their work lives.

Reorganization Task Force

It was generally recognized that some of these proposed changes had organizational implications. Accordingly, in September 1977, an official was appointed as the Project Manager to develop a plan and coordinate the reorganization.

The structure established to facilitate the process consisted of a coordination unit to manage the reorganization, a number of work groups, and a technical review committee. Only the coordinating unit was staffed with employees working full time on the reorganization. It consisted of the Project Manager and five other employees plus a number of technical consultants.