TITLE VI RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION AND OTHER PROGRAMS (continued)

Section

Item

Current

Proposed

Senator SASSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Raymond. I think we know what NFFE is against here. I may want to ask you some questions and see what you favor.

On pages 11 and 12 of the prepared statement, you mentioned that NFFE has advocated a split between the Civil Service Commission's appellate and personnel management functions. However, I think you have made it clear that you don't support the creation of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management. Exactly what type of division between the appellate and the personnel management functions would NFFE recommend to this committee?

Mr. RAYMOND. I think that question can better be answered by Mr. Geller, our legal counsel.

Mr. GELLER. Mr. Chairman, we do support the notion that there should be a separation between the management arm of the Civil Service Commission and the appellate function. However, the way it is structured in the bill, it gives you a barebones package for the appellate function in a very strong, one-person operation for the Office of Personnel Management. In the process, and in conjunction with Reorganization Plan No. 2, there is the concept of the establishing of a Federal labor relations authority so that we have one agency now, the Civil Service Commission, and we are talking about three agencies.

We believe it would be much more practical to establish two agencies; one, the Office of Personnel Management, however, headed by two members of one political party and one from another political party, and a Federal labor relations authority having under it a merit system protection board, or whatever you want to call it, an appellate authority, a strong organization, an organization which has equal status to the Office of Personnel Management.

As the bill currently contemplates, the head of the office-one person head of the office of personnel management, would outrank the person or the board members who head up the Merit Protections Systems Board. We think at a minimum there should be equal rank between the two organizations instead of having a small organization which doesn't have the power to issue its own regulations and administer its own programs, and is subject to challenge by the Office of Personnel Management. It should report to a higher Federal labor relations authority which would, in addition to its appellate function, have within it the ability to make impartial decisions concerning contracting out, the hiring of consultants, the Hatch Act oversight, code of ethics, and a myriad number of other considerations which are now vested in the Civil Service Commission.

We think that the appellate functions that now exist within the Civil Service Commission should be transferred in toto to the new agency and that agency should be broadened in scope and not be confined to appeals of adverse actions and the limited Hatch Act oversight that it now has.

Senator SASSER. Chairman Campbell has stated that this legislation will provide within the Merit System Protection Board a special counsel, as you also discussed in your statement, to prosecute

those who violate the provisions of the system and to protect whistleblowers from reprisals from within their own agency.

Obviously, Mr. Raymond, you and your colleagues do not feel that this legislation meets those goals, particularly in protecting the whistleblowers. Why do you feel that way, and what modifications would you make to insure that these goals were met?

Mr. RAYMOND. The problem with the special counsel, as we see it, is even after the investigation and his findings, he can only recommend to the agency the course of action to take. He has no enforcement power, if you please. He has no real authority to take any positive action to correct the situation. He refers it back to the agency and we all know what happens at the agency level.

I think that is our main problem. We have no problem with the investigation. However, we feel that he needs the authority to not only make the recommendation but to enforce the recommendation somehow.

Senator SASSER. How would you suggest we enforce that recommendation? How could we put that in the legislation? Do you have any ideas along that line?

Mr. GELLER. Just as the Civil Service Commission presently has the right to direct the agencies to take certain actions, it should have the authority; that is, the organization which is established should have the authority to direct the agency to take certain courses of action with respect to individuals who violate the law. And it may not be a criminal act. There is a provision which provides for referral to the Department of Justice and that, too, must be referred to the Office of Management and Budget, as I recall. So that for matters which do not involve criminality, but do involve violations, the minimum authority that that organization should have is the ability to take action against those people who have violated personnel laws.

And the bill is providing opportunity for greater violations since it delegates to the individual agencies the right to hire and recruit and examine its employees. This will even take away the controls that now exist in the Civil Service Commission.

Senator SASSER. On page 11 of the prepared statement you say, and I will just read it directly:

It would be unwise to eliminate preference for current Federal employee veterans because preference, veteran preference, may have been what prompted them to choose Federal employment.

I am not sure that I quite understand that statement. Would you elaborate on it? You could make the assumption from that statement that NFFE has no positions on veterans preference as it would apply to those who are not already employed by the Government. Is that correct?

Mr. GELLER. That is correct. As a matter of fact, it is our recollection that recruitment posters, recruitment information for people going into the military indicated that opportunities for employment within the Federal Civil Service was an incentive to enlist in the Armed Forces. So that if people served in the Armed Forces with every intention that by doing so that would give them certain preferential rights with respect to employment, I think the Government ought to honor those rights.

Senator SASSER. How do you feel about veterans preference with regard to individuals who are not currently in the Federal service? Mr. RAYMOND. Sir, I think we have no problem with halting the veteran's preference for those who have not been promised a veterans preference, but the problem we have with the veterans preference section is that you are taking away a right that the employees had prior to the enactment of a piece of legislation, all of a sudden. To take away something that no one has to begin with is something else, which is what you are referring to.

The people who are entering the service, say, 2 years from now, know before they enter the service that there is no veterans preference for those people and we agree with that. But we don't think you can just cut off veterans preference right now for those that you promised it to years and years ago.

Senator SASSER. In other words, the position of your organization is that veterans preference ought to be extended to all those who would be entitled to veterans preference under present law. If we intend to cut off veterans preference, NFSE, we ought to cut if off at a certain date, so that everybody who enlists in the service after a certain date would not be entitled to veterans preference. Is that a correct statement of your position?

Mr. GELLER. We don't know that it should be cut off entirely. We think that it is a reasonable issue for debate at that time and the social consideration should be argued out. I think it is unfortunate that we pit one group against the other. I think the administration ought to be concerned about having adequate opportunities for all people and not try to have these competing forces of minorities, veterans, women, et cetera. This is an unfortunate approach to the problem and we suspect diverts attention from the real issue.

I think the administration has raised a phony issue, that there are too many incompetents in the Federal Service and we believe that this is simply a fabrication, an exaggeration of the Government employee performance.

Senator SASSER. Gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing here this morning to give your views on this legislation. We appre ciate your views very much. I suspect that we may have additional questions to submit to you later in writing.

Mr. RAYMOND. Thank you, Senator.

Senator SASSER. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Robert L. White, national president, the National Alliance of Postal & Federal Employees.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. WHITE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF POSTAL AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. WHITE, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AND JOHNNIE LANDON, SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Senator SASSER. Mr. White, as I understand it, you are accompanied this morning by Mr. John W. White, director of legislation for your organization, and Johnnie Landon, special counsel to the National President of the Postal Alliance.

Mr. R. WHITE. That is correct, sir.

Senator SASSER. We look forward to your statement, and you may proceed.

Mr. R. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Robert L. White. I am the national president of the National Alliance of Postal & Federal Employees, an independent, national, industrial labor union whose membership is comprised of postal workers and other Federal employees. The opportunity to testify before this committee is warmly appreciated by our members throughout the Nation.

I am accompanied by the director of legislation, Mr. John W. White, and my special counsel, Prof. Johnnie A. Landon.

Mr. Chairman, we have prepared a statement for the purpose of expressing the views of the National Alliance of Postal & Federal Employees on S. 2640, a bill titled "Civil Service Reform Act of 1978." With your permission, I shall read the contents of this statement to this committee.

Senator SASSER. You may proceed.

Mr. R. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform this committee that the national executive board of this union prepared an open letter to President Jimmy Carter during its biannual meeting in Washington, D.C., January 26-30, of this year. This letter contained some of our deep concerns on several of the recommendations that were about to be issued by the Personnel Management Task Force on Reorganization. Our executive board was so deeply concerned in regard to some of these proposals that it authorized the purchase of space in several leading Washington newspapers, for the purpose of informing the better than 21⁄2 million Federal employees of some of the recommendations from the task force which it felt would work to the disadvantage of these Federal employees, should such changes be implemented as they were being recommended.

Since this "open letter" in the form of a paid ad appeared in the aforementioned newspapers on February 6, 1978, Reorganization Plans 1 and 2 have been presented to the appropriate congressional committees for consideration. In Reorganization Plan No. 2, or S. 2640 the bill presently in front of this committee, we find now in legislative language the same recommendations that we expressed deep concern about in our open letter to President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Chairman, the national alliance's position has not changed in its complete opposition to any proposals designed for the purpose of "making it easier to fire" so-called incompetent employees; nor have we changed in our position of opposing any modification of provisions relating to veterans preference.

Mr. Chairman, it has taken many years of hard work and cooperation between various organizations and Members of Congress to just bring about the safeguards that Federal employees presently enjoy against oftentimes unjust and unwarranted disciplinary actions and/or removals from their jobs as civil servants of the U.S. Government. It is almost unbelievable that any responsible employee organization would go on record, for any reasons, in support of some of the anti-employee language contained in S. 2640, particularly as it relates to removing or modifying any of the hard-won rights and protections that presently cover Federal employees. In fact, Mr. Chairman, rather than giving up any of the present protections, we should be taking forceful steps in an effort to

29-894 O- 78 - 45