Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the Hatch Act's coverage still extends in some measure to those in state and local government whose principal employment is in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by Federal loans or grants. As Federal grants in aid increase, touching more and more people, the thought occurs that someday, everyone could, to some degree, be covered by the Act. Who would run for office? Admittedly, that projected dilemma is whimsical at best, but the jist of the argument is viable. If one starts from the assumption that government employees have in principle the same political rights as any other group, one automatically becomes cautious about restrictions, weighing each one carefully in terms of the Constitution, the advantages to be gained for the public interest, the effect on the civil service. This viewpoint protects one against blanket prohibitions or the blind acceptance of past practices. And it is this viewpoint which the Hatch Act lacks. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate PATCO's complete support for this progressive piece of legislation. The House's passage of H. R. 10 by a substantial majority is evidence of the Bill's viability and necessity. Once again, I would like to thank this Committee for allowing the views of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization to be heard on these issues and this legislation. PREPARED STATEMENT OF SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come before you today and testify in favor of legislation which I have long supported-the Hatch Act Reform Bill. As a cosponsor of this legislation in the 94th Congress, I was greatly disappointed when the effort in the House to override former-President Ford's veto of the bill failed by a narrow margin of 26 votes. As a cosponsor of the same measure again this year, I am hopeful that this much-needed legislation will be enacted by this Congress. I urge the Committee to proceed as quickly as possible to report this legislation. Since President Carter has made clear his support for the measure, there is no prospect of a veto and the Senate would not be wasting its time by deliberating on the measure on the floor. I am certain that every Member of this Committee is well aware of the circumstances leading up to the enactment of the Hatch Act in 1939. At that time it was revealed that officials of the Works Progress Administration used their authority to force subordinates to support the re-election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the previous year. Of course, such occurrences had not been unknown to the American government bureaucracy previously, but the 1938 election scandal had catalytic influence on efforts to insulate civil servants from undue influence. Before detailing the reasons for my support for this legislation, I would like to emphasize that the legislation before this Committee today is a revision of the Hatch Act, not a repeal. This is evidenced by the most important provision of the proposed law, which states that no federal employee may use official authority to influence or coerce others with respect to the right to vote, not to vote, or to otherwise engage in political activity. This is the kernel of the 1939 law, which is retained intact in the bill before us today. Furthermore, the bill provides that there can be no solicitation of political contributions by superior officials, or making of any type of political contribution within any government office or building. In addition, employees while in uniform or on duty are prohibited from engaging in any type of political activity; and employees in certain categories, such as supervisory employees with audit, inspection, prosecutorial or contracting authority are prohibited from any political activity at any time. These, and other provisions of the bill, will be enforced by the Civil Service Commission itself. The Commissioners will be the adjudicatory authority, but all adverse decisions will be subject to judicial review. Strong penalties for violations are specified in the bill, as well. Today, I think we can all agree that the civil service system has "reformed in relation to practices that were common before 1939. But the "reform" is in fact a vigorous over-compensation for past errors. In fact, the federal employee who seeks information on the Hatch Act today is confronted with over 3,000 separate administrative decisions governing its enforcement. Quite naturally, there is widespread confusion on the part of employees as to how they actually can and cannot participate in partisan politics. For example, every election year there is much debate as to whether wearing campaign buttons or putting campaign bumber stickers on cars is legal under the Hatch Act. I am certain that most federal workers would say that these two means of expressing support for a partisan candidate for public office are illegal under present law. In fact, it is perfectly legal to wear buttons or put stickers on cars under the Hatch Act. On the other hand, such a seemingly innocent activity as driving friends to the polls to vote is forbidden by present law. It is misleading, Mr. Chairman, to point to these relatively minor infractions as decisive proof that the law needs updating. Looking at today's political scene, the question of corruption has been very much in the public eye recently. I am convinced, however, that wholesale prohibition of most political activities is not the answer. Instead, it would unquestionably be more effective to forbid only those activities that actually lead to abuse. One example which springs immediately to mind is that of officials using the income tax system to harass opponents both in and out of government. Such activities must remain illegal, and under the proposed legislation they would. In my judgment, this specific approach is much more efficient than the confusing, near-blanket prohibition to which public employees must now adhere. The solution to the problems of 1939 are not adequate for the problems of the 1970's and 1980's. It is obvious that the current law is a haphazard aggregation of individual decisions, entirely without benefit of oversight or analysis of present and future conditions. Consequently, I am pleased that the proposed legislation provides that the Civil Service Commission must conduct education programs for all employees, advising them of their rights and explaining to them the prohibitions in the law. Each office would be required to establish a counseling office for employees with questions or problems. This appears to me to be an excellent way of continually emphasizing the importance of preserving the merit system and the neutrality of the civil service. Mr. Chairman, opponents of Hatch Act reform point out that the Roosevelt era which gave rise to the original Hatch Act was characterized by an unprecedented growth of government bureaucracy. From this they conclude that corruption rises in direct proportion to increases in the number of employees in the federal service. Those who hold this cynical view, however, ignore the fact that only one third of all federal employees in 1939 came under the civil service system. In other words, the merit system was in its infancy. Now, the vast majority of all federal workers come under the system. Further, it is important to remember that in 1974 the Hatch Act was amended to exclude state employees. The "unhatching" of state employees has not led to the rampant abuse of the merit system as today's detractors would have predicted. In fact, in states, such as Hawaii, where limited political activities are permitted state employees, the system has worked remarkably well. Undeniably, the very nature of the federal bureaucracy has changed, a point that cannot be over-emphasized. The number of positions which are filled by direct political appointment has steadily dwindled over the intervening years until the present, when the “plum book” listing such positions for the incoming Carter Administration was remarkable chiefly for its small size. The neutrality of our civil service is, in my view, not surpassed by any other nation on earth. But the large part of this success is attributable to the growth of the merit system, not the suffocating prohibitions in the Hatch Act. Unfortunately, debate on Hatch Act reform has focused on the relaxation of prohibitions. I hope that equal consideration will be given the first section of the measure we are discussing today. That section states, before all other provisions of the bill, “It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to fully exercise, to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their rights of voluntary participation in the political processes of our Nation." The Hatch Act Reform Bill which is before this Committee today takes into consideration the fact that some government jobs do not fit easily into the premise of equal rights for all. Some jobs are thus exempted from the bill. At the same time the measure recognizes that the potential for abuse can never be entirely eliminated, and provides adequate enforcement procedures for the bill's restrictive provisions. In summary, this legislation equitably balances the need to continue the merit system with the need to ensure the participation of all Americans in our political system. I therefore respectfully request that this Committee act favorably to speed the bill toward enactment. Thank you very much. PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARLOF D. (PETE) HEWSON I am Pete Hewson from Springfield in Fairfax County, Virginia. I am an Operations Research Analyst, in the competitive civil service, for the Department of the Army working at the Pentagon where I have been employed for nearly six and a half years. I am not, and never have been, a member of a union. I was also associated as a Common Cause activist for nearly five years and prior to my resignation from that organization on July 24, 1977, I was one of seven elected members of the Virginia Executive Committee and one of six elected members of the mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Committee. The basic reason for my resignation from Common Cause was related solely to their stand on Hatch Act revision. Since Common Cause is strongly opposing any revision and, of course, speaking for its nearly 250,000 members, my purpose in testifying here is to indicate that my opinion on this issue is more in line with the opinion of the majority of the Common Cause members than is the current Common Cause leadership. In order to prove that I am speaking for the majority of Common Cause members concerning this one issue, I would like to refer you to Common Cause's only membership poll on the subject. This survey was sent to 1500 members in late March 1977 and was answered by nearly 400 respondents. This survey had a covering letter which did not indicate any of the great confusion about the Hatch Act as presently defined by nearly 1900 Civil Service rulings and also did not indicate any of the safeguards specified in the pending legislation. Despite this, the critical question concerning Hatch Act revision was still answered as noted below: On balance, do you believe that Common Cause should: (a) Support removal of Hatch Act restrictions_. Percent 40 43 17 These results clearly show that only 43 percent of those responding were in agreement with the action ultimately taken by the Board. Indeed, a substantial portion of those responding to the poll indicated support for relaxation of the Hatch Act, and did so in spite of the fact that the survey's cover memo did not mention any of H.R. 10's strong points-in particular, the stringent sanctions against coercion. In my opinion, the Common Cause leadership and National Governing Board is making a serious error in their stand concerning the Hatch Act for the following reasons: 1. Although Hatch Act reform has been before Congress for two years, Common Cause did not see fit to show any interest in the matter until the eleventh hour. The drive to "take a stand" so late in time has led to hasty action by the Board without full consideration of the basic rights in question and without adequate consultation with the membership. In taking action so precipitously on a matter long in the arena of public debate, Common Cause has violated its own principle of insisting on full consultation with the membership and broad consensus before taking a position on a new and controversial issue. Furthermore, in the case of H.R. 10, Common Cause took a strong stand on the final draft of a bill without ever having presented testimony on it when it was still in House Committee. 2. Common Cause's Issues and Election Ballot mailed out earlier this year did not indicate to the membership any interest in the proposal before Congress to revise the Hatch Act. If there was any significant sentiment within Common Cause for taking a strong stand on so controversial a matter, there should at least have been some general testing of membership feeling prior to Board action. The limited survey of 1500 members was wholly inadequate to serve this purpose. 3. Little or no notice of intent to consider taking a position on Hatch Act revision was indicated to state or local leaders, not even to those in jurisdictions with large federal employee constituencies. Such notice would appear necessary, not just as a matter of courtesy, but to allow for full comment and discussion prior to Board action. 4. The limited survey of 1500 CC members (381 responses) concerning Hatch Act revision was barely discussed at the Board meeting. If it had been, it would have become celar that the opinion of Common Cause members is extremely divided on Hatch Act reform. It would seem inappropriate for the Board to act on so controversial a matter without some indication that at least a majority of the membership favored the position to be taken. 5. Many Common Cause members and activists deeply believe that the organization should be in the forefront of efforts to expand citizen participation in the political process. They should not become part of an effort to perpetuate the denial of full political rights to some 21⁄2 million Americans. I am convinced that if the leadership of Common Cause and particularly of the National Governance Board was fully accountable to its membership, and if they had not acted so precipitously and become locked into an issue posture, Common Cause would at least have withdrawn from the Issue. In closing, I would like to inform you that there is no great membership groundswell in support of Common Cause's current position on Hatch Act reform. David Cohen, the President of Common Cause, admits the current Hatch Act regulations are, at best, confusing to federal employees and required careful review by the organization. It is unfortunate that they couldn't have done that earlier when they had plenty of opportunity. The only poll membership question from the survey Common Cause is currently quoting (72 percent to 28 percent) indicates that passage of Hatch Act revision would automatically result in civil service political pressure-hardly an impartial option. Every organization occasionally makes a mistake and I trust Common Cause leaders will eventually reverse their opinion. But to claim that they have massive membership support for their current stand is ludicrous-to say that they even have a majority is erroneous and to even try to indicate to this Committee or to the public that Common Cause members consider Hatch Act revision to be against the best interests of the democratic election reforms Common Cause generally stands for is a tragic example of entrenched unaccountable leadership in the organization. With deep regret I resigned from Common Cause over this issue but I see a positive aspect: the leadership was confronted and has promised internal reforms. The Board will soon be made more accountable to state and locally elected leaders—and most importantly—the right to internal dissent was upheld overwhelmingly. I hope this Committee will not be influenced by Common Cause's current position and each member will look at the poll which I have referenced. I thank you for the privilege of presenting this information to this Committee of the Senate. Attachment. COMMON CAUSE, Washington, D.C., March 17, 1977. DEAR COMMON CAUSE MEMBER: We need your help in developing a Common Cause approach to possible revision of the Hatch Act. This law, which places restrictions on the partisan political activities of federal employees, was enacted in 1939 by a Congress fearful of the development of a powerful political machine in the hands of the existing Administration. The Act now covers over 2.5 million federal workers. Under the present law, employees are not permitted to take an active part in support of candidates in partisan elections. While the statute is drafted somewhat vaguely, its prohibitions on civil service employees include: serving as officers of a political party, soliciting contributions for a partisan political purpose, actively participating in partisan fund-raising, serving as delegates to political conventions, circulating a partisan nominating petition, and becoming partisan candidates for public office. Federal employees are permitted, however, to make partisan campaign contributions, be "rank and file" members of political parties, and work in nonpartisan political activities (e.g. Common Cause). Hatch Act restrictions have been challenged as infringing upon constitutional rights of free speech and association; however, the Supreme Court has upheld the law. Congress is considering various measures to relax Hatch Act restrictions and provide more opportunities for civil service employees to engage in partisan political activities. Some fear that such steps would inappropriately "politicize" the bureaucracy. Common Cause is studying this issue, which clearly involves striking a careful balance between rights of political expression and responsibility for impartial governmental administration. By answering the questions that follow, you can help us formulate Common Cause's approach to the issue. Please answer the questions and reply by April 4. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, DAVID COHEN, President. |