Page images
PDF
EPUB

factory answer, and we feel that anything less creates an unacceptable situation.

One provision of the pending legislation that we favor is that which provides for better informing Federal workers of their rights and their restrictions under the Hatch Act. We do not feel, however, that such legislation has to be part of a larger bill that would un-Hatch so many Federal workers.

We feel that first an attempt should be made to do far better in informing all Federal workers of their rights, and their duties under the Hatch Act.

It is not incorrect to say that many Federal workers are very confused currently about what they can and cannot do, and often tend to do nothing as a result, but we don't think that the first answer should be saying, therefore we will open the door to Federal workers to do anything they want in terms of electoral activities.

We think that first an attempt should be to make them better understand the types of activities they can engage in-I alluded to them earlier in my testimony. So, in the end, our feeling is that after the long struggle in this country that culminated in enactment of the Hatch Act. Our country has a Federal civil service that to the largest extent has been free of political pressures, and partisan activity. It should not be lightly discarded and though we feel the Hatch Act is not perfect, it has served us well. For these reasons, Common Cause opposes the legislation pending before the committee and urges the committee to move very cautiously in dealing with this legislation that, as I said at the outset, involves important competing values. Thank you.

Senator SASSER [acting chairman]. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole, for your testimony this morning, and for presenting the views of Common Cause.

I, frankly, have had contact with many members of Common Cause in my State of Tennessee, being a former member of the Tennessee chapter, and many of the Common Cause members there, at least a few of them, have indicated to me that they are not in agreement with Common Cause's position with regard to the Hatch Act reform, and I was just wondering if you could tell me exactly how Common Cause arrived at its official position in this matter? What percentage of those members contacted were in favor of reforming the Hatch Act? Mr. COLE. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

As on all its issues, Common Cause had its Hatch Act position determined by a meeting of our national governing board. At the board meeting in April, at which our position was adopted by 31 to 9 vote for us to oppose enactment of H.R. 10, one of the factors taken into consideration was a random sample poll of our membership, in the Washington metropolitan area and, as a balance for polling purposes, in some other areas outside Washington. Those results were, I would say, mixed on some questions, but not on the basic question of which value was seen to be of highest importance-the value of preserving an impartial Federal civil service or the value of enlarging the rights of government workers to further levels of political activity. On that question, which the board seemed to weigh most heavily in its decision,

97-222 78 - 20

who felt the higher value was increased level of participation in the 72 percent of those polled felt the more important value was preserving the impartial administration of government, as opposed to 28 percent political process.

Because some of our members, especially in the Washington metropolitan area, felt that perhaps all arguments on the Hatch Act issue had not been weighed fully, our board did a rather extraordinary thing at our July board meeting. I brought in some of these members to allow them to present their case, and then reconsidered the issue at length. After that, there was another vote of our national governing board which was somewhat more lopsided-35 to 3-for the position we continued to take in opposing H.R. 10. So we feel that our governing board has looked at this issue carefully. We recognize on this and other issues, there will always be some of our members who disagree with us. I would suggest that they are a relatively few-we have not had any outpouring of complaints from our membership about the stand we took on the Hatch Act.

Senator SASSER. I will defer to Senator Mathias.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cole, I want to thank you for your testimony. It raises disturbing questions, and not full questions. When I came to Congress, a number of years ago, one of the issues that I first supported was repeal of the Hatch Act insofar as it prohibited citizens from participating fully in local elections, and I have no question in my mind this would be a good thing, on the town level, the municipal level, the county level, and even up to the State level. The Federal employees should not be inhibited in any way from participating, because I don't see how their participation creates problems which are commensurate with deprivation of their activity. After all, that is an area in which a lot of the important elements of our life are controlled, how our schools are run for example, and how our children are educated. How our local police protection is provided, how basic utilities and sanitation are provided. All of these are things which impinge on our daily lives, and it seems to me the Federal employees ought to have an opportunity to participate at that level. But beyond that level, and into the area of Federal elections, I have had persistent concerns that have not been alleviated at this point.

I have not made up my mind what I will do on this question, if it comes to a vote this year, but my concerns, many of which you have expressed this morning, are there, and I have seen in my years of service in the Congress abuses, even with the Hatch Act in place, where the director of some Federal office or agency, would say, would it not be a wonderful thing if we had 100-percent participation in this office in buying $1,000 dinners to the President's fundraising dinner. Some would not be satisfied if one or two people kept us from having 100 percent, and that is a subtle kind of pressure, and we will remove the shield which protects Federal workers which I think is important. My first question to you, and I am sorry to make a speech, my first question to you is what information do you have as to the feelings of Federal workers themselves?

Mr. COLE. Well, as you may know, there have been a number of polls on the subject, and some of them are undoubtedly self-serving.

For example, a poll taken by a union of Federal workers, in our view, by the mere wording of the question, turned out with an overwhelming number of the union members favoring lifting of the Hatch Act restrictions.

On the other hand, more of the polls we have seen-and I don't want to overstate the polls because I am not sure that any of them are definitive-in more of the polls show that Federal workers feel that retaining the protections of the Hatch Act are the more important value. For example, Congressman Joe Fisher in Virginia's 10th District about a year and a half ago took a poll of his constituents, and his district has more Federal workers than any other in the country, and 59 percent favored continuing the Hatch Act as is; and 34 percent favored a variety of different changes, including some who I believe were in favor of strengthening the act.

I myself am a former Federal worker in the Department of HUD and from my contacting people in organizations like the International Personnel Management Association, the Civil Service League and others, it is our sense that there is a respectable and probably majority opinion within the Federal work force for retaining the provisions of the Hatch Act.

Senator MATHIAS. Congressmen, including former Congressman Gude had a poll a year or so ago, I don't recall the precise statistics, it came out against.

Mr. COLE. I believe Congressman Newton Steers', Gude's successor, has had a similar poll. I know he takes the same view and I know he bases his view on his constituents.

Senator MATHIAS. Would it be possible to obtain these polls for us? Mr. COLE. I would be happy to, and insert them in the record.

Senator MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent those polls be put in the record, and I think we ought to put it, for some of my good friends at the union leadership here dispute them, but I still think they are an important effort.

[The material follows:]

EXCERPT FROM QUESTIONNAIRE OF CONGRESSMAN STEERS, APRIL 1977

Should Federal employees be allowed to campaign actively for candidates for Federal, state and local partisan elective offices?

Yes, 47 percent; no, 53 percent.

Excerpt from Congressman Derwinski's remarks on the floor during the debate on the Hatch Act, from the Congressional Record, March 30, 1976.

For example, Representative Elizabeth Holtzman, of New York, said the results of her 1976 poll showed her constituents were against weakening the Hatch Act by a 2 to 1 margin. Senator J. Glenn Beall of Maryland said 70 percent of the approximately 130,000 persons who responded to his poll were opposed to liberalizing the Hatch Act. The president of the Federal Executive Institute Alumni Association, Clayton Jones, said a survey of 3,000 civil service employees showed only two who supported H.R. 3617. A poll by Representative Joseph L. Fisher of Virginia showed that 59 percent of 20,000 respondents were against Hatch Act revisions.

Senator MATHIAS. Let me ask you this, Mr. Cole. Do you feel there are protections, and procedures, either in the bill that is before us or in the body of law which governs election practices, and personnel practices in the Federal Government, which taken together are sufficient to provide the kind of shield that Federal employees obviously need in the absence of the Hatch Act?

Mr. COLE. No, we don't and that is at the root of why we are testifying in opposition to this legislation.

As I said in my testimony, we think ultimately it is an impossible job to create a system that can deal effectively with the kind of subtle pressures that can be exerted on Federal workers. Again, reflecting on my own the experience when I worked in the Department of HUĎ for 3 years I think it would have been very difficult, if I had not had the protection of the Hatch Act, to prove the reason I was passed over for promotion, or was reassigned to a undesirable office, was because 4 months or 1 year before I was the only one in my division that had not gone out and stuffed envelopes for candidates after work.

Right now, and previously, the answer a Federal worker has, if asked to go out and stuff envelopes after hours, is "It's illegal, I cannot do it." In the absence of the Hatch Act, you could say, "I prefer not to do that," but I think, then you would start finding subtle ways in which your resistance was taken into account, conversely in the case of those who did go out and stuff envelopes or did go door-to-door and doing polling for a candidate, you might see them rewarded. The problems we feel are insurmountable.

Senator MATHIAS. I, for one, would like to have as much detail on this question as you could give us on the question of whether or not the shield for Federal employees will be adequate. So if you have further information that you would like to supplement your statement on the question of adequacy of the shield, I for one member of the committee would find it extremely useful.

Mr. COLE. I will be happy to, and I will provide any other materials that come to mind. I will be glad to send them along.

Senator MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I have several brief questions submitted by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and with your permission, I will pose them very briefly.

In your statement, you put a lot of emphasis on the appearance of impartiality of Federal servants. This sounds like you are worried about apparent conflicts of appearance. Have you given any thought to a code of ethics?

Mr. COLE. Certainly we have, and I think that the Hatch Act is premised on trying to set up, in the area of political activities a code of conduct for Federal employees. We would like to see the Civil Service Commission provide a greater guidance, as I said in our testimony, to Federal employees on what they can or cannot do.

I think the efforts of notifying Federal employees in this area are insufficient, and we certainly are interested in working with this committee on the broader question of codes of conduct for Federal employees.

the

Senator MATHIAS. Senator Stevens' next question, as you know, Federal Campaign Act was amended in 1974 to permit previously prohibited political activities by State and local employees paid from Federal funds. Have you seen any change in the evidence of widespread coercion or set back.

Mr. COLE. The answer to that is no, we have not seen that. Some would cite that as evidence to support further changes that the Hatch Act, but I don't think that is necessarily relevant. Our feeling is that

it was a correct decision in 1974 to lift the restrictions on those State and local employees who received some funding from Federal programs.

We think that such State and local employees are distinguishable, and should be distinguished, from people who are actually Federal employees, and who are responsive to the Federal Government. We do not regard that as a reason to further extend opening up and relaxing the Hatch Act.

Senator MATHIAS. The next question Senator Stevens asked is your official stand on the Hatch Act provisions act as a reflex of the general membership of Common Cause, and you have already answered that in your response to the chairman.

Would you favor allowing White House staff members to participate in politics while off duty, assuming there could be a suitable definition of off duty?

Let me say, I have never known the White House to participate in politics on duty.

Mr. COLE. I have indicated that our concern is with one of the provisions of the legislation that seems to contain an implicit authorization for White House employees to engage in on-duty political activity. Distinguishing between when someone is off duty, and on duty, and whether acting in an official or nonofficial capacity, or whether political and official responsibilities are involved, are all very difficult questions.

Mr. Morrison, who will be the next witness, will be testifying at length on this question. We worked closely with Public Citizen, which he represents, and we will be backing the type of approach that he will be suggesting in his testimony.

Senator MATHIAS. Do you feel that Federal employees are more subject to political pressure than employees in the private sector?

Mr. COLE. I would say that whether they are or are not more subject to political pressure is not the relevant question. I think the appearance created, if Federal employees are subject to pressures, is much more harmful to public confidence in our political processes than anything that goes on in the private sector.

Clearly, whether it is the corporate world or the union world, there are people in the private sector who at times engage in political activities because they feel their superiors want them to. But we think that is a different kind of issue than the type of problem created for the public when they see those people charged with administering Federal laws, engaging in partisan political activity. At a time when respect for the executive branch and for Government in general is perhaps at a low ebb, we think that further relaxing the restrictions on Federal workers would be a mistake.

Senator MATHIAS. Senator Stevens asked do you really feel the Hatch Act has been successful in depolitizing the Federal service?

Mr. COLE. I think in the main; yes. One can always cite isolated examples of problems that have occurred, and they will probably continue to occur, and we would favor taking steps to try to minimize. them. But we feel that compared to whatever problems occur now under the Hatch Act, relaxing it along the lines suggested by H.R. 10, or S. 80 would be an invitation to compounding the problems we have had up to this point.

« PreviousContinue »