State and that i was not to discuss with any members of the Division of Evaluations any case of any Department of State employee. Still another special assignment was in the works in April 1964, and it was a long step down from being deputy director of the Office of Security. He was to prepare a congressional guide on security problems. He describes the assignment to the Internal Security Subcommittee:3 Mr. OTEPKA. My present assignment involves the preparation of a catalog and index of the opinions and views and recommendations of Members of Congress with respect to the security program of the Department of State and security programs of other departments and agencies as they related to the Department of State. Mr. SOURWINE. Is this your sole assignment at present? Does it supersede the assignment you told us about earlier in connection with your original detail? Mr. Otepka. Yes. This supersedes my previous assignment. Mr. Otepka received written instructions about this assignment from Mr. Crockett, on April 30, 1964, as follows:1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, Memorandum for: SY, Mr. Otepka. April 30, 1964. Subject: Preparation of a congressional guide on security problems. Through the past years the Members of Congress in the various committees have conducted extensive inquiries and hearings on various phases of the security/loyalty programs of the Department of State and other Government agencies. During the course of these hearings the Members of Congress and the staff of these committees have expressed in the written record their concepts and opinions on a wide range of security problems. From time to time these committees have forcefully enunciated their criticism of and concern for the positions taken and the decisions made by the Department of State and some of the other Government agencies in discharging their security responsibility. It is requested that a comprehensive review be conducted of the Congressional Record, the studies made by these committees, and the published testimony taken during these inquiries for the purpose of attaining an insight into congressional attitudes, ideas, and thinking on security problems. The subject matter and the concepts or criticisms should be cataloged or indexed together with appropriate conclusions and whatever recommendations the Congress had made in such a fashion that it could be used as a ready reference and guidance to congressional interpretation of Executive Order 10450 and related procedures. It is anticipated that such a compilation of congressional expression and criticism would provide valuable body of precedent which could be of value in our security operations. This memorandum is intended to provide general instruction and authorization for you to undertake such a study and analysis of the Congressional Record and other publications emanating from the congressional committees. The overall organization and the methods used to index these problems and criticisms is being left to your professional discretion. However, it is recommended to you that emphasis should be limited whenever possible to the opinions, attitudes, and expressions formulated during the past 4 years that would be of value in the Department's security program. Completion of previous assignments made by your supervisors may be held in abeyance while your efforts are directed to this task. THE FREEZE-OUT IS APPLIED Added to other difficulties placed in his path, Mr. Otepka faced the business of being put into Coventry. He was snubbed, ignored, and given minimum aid, brushoff answers. He tells about it in a letter of protest and appeal to Raymond Laugel, acting Deputy Assistant * State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, p. 502. 4 Ibid., pt. 8, p. 503. 5 Secretary for Security, dated January 20, 1964. This had reference to the assignment to prepare a handbook for evaluators. But it was becoming symptomatic. He was put "off-limits." Among other things, he protested that his activities, conversations, and personal documents relating to his case were under surveillance; that one of his prospective witnesses was reprimanded for speaking to him there; and that since this first incident this witness and others who had promised to assist him had flatly refused to confer with him in his State Department quarters. COVENTRY IS INVOKED G. Marvin Gentile at the time of the congressional guide assignment was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security and was designated as Mr. Otepka's supervisor. But apparently he had influence with higher-ups for he took the assignment with the stipulation he would have nothing to do with Mr. Otepka. The testimony by Mr. Otepka confirmed this: Mr. Gentile refused to discuss any assignment subjects although Mr. Otepka was detailed to be under the supervision of Mr. Gentile." Mr. SOURWINE. Has Mr. Gentile in fact supervised you in this project? Mr. OTEPKA. No; he has not. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever have a conference with him about it? Mr. SOURWINE. During that conference did he discuss with you either your present or your former assignment or any future assignment? Mr. OTEPKA. I called on Mr. Gentile on June 30 of this year-this was at my request for the purpose of obtaining a clarification with respect to my future duties in that my previous detail which was limited through June 26 was expiring. Mr. Gentile told me that he did not wish to discuss any aspect of my present or future assignment because he accepted his position on the condition that he would have nothing to do with me, and we had quite a discussion concerning the unusual nature of his attitude in that I pointed out to him specifically the provisions in my job description which said that I was under the immediate supervision of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security. I felt that he had a responsibility then toward me as my immediate superior. He repeated to me a number of times during our conversation that he wished to have nothing to do with me, and he referred me for advice and guidance to the executive officer of the Office of Security who was a subordinate of Mr. Gentile's but certainly not a subordinate of mine. That gentleman, Mr. LaSelle,' is in a staff function. * * * * BIG BRUSH FOR LEAVES Under this state of contrived confusion there was difficulty even over an Otepka request for annual leave. Who should approve itMr. LaSelle or Mr. Gentile? Or should it be Mr. Grignon, or George W. French, Jr., a retired colonel called into play. The leave slip was shunted back and forth for a while but was approved, Mr. Otepka presumed, by Mr. LaSelle-not by anyone designated as Mr. Otepka's supervisor.8 Mr. SOURWINE. Have you every requested leave in a memorandum addressed to Mr. Grignon? 9 Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. I will tell you Mr. Grignon in testifying told us that such a memorandum was brought to him by Mr. LaSelle after he had instructed Mr. LaSelle in case anything came from you not to bother him, Grignon, with it but to take it up with Colonel French and that with regard to this matter which Mr. LaSelle did bring to Mr. Grignon, Mr. Grignon then instructed him to take it up with Colonel French. Mr. Grignon, however, stated that he did not contemplate and did not think his orders to Mr. LaSelle covered Mr. LaSelle exercising this authority himself and that he, Mr. Grignon, did not think Mr. LaSelle had authority to supervise you even to the extent of granting leave, that he had in mind that Colonel French would do this. Will you tell us, did Mr. LaSelle grant the leave or deny it or did Colonel French grant it or deny it or did someone else grant it or deny it? Mr. OTEPKA. The memorandum I have in my possession here indicates that the leave was granted to me by Mason C. LaSelle. Mr. SOURWINE. By him or merely that you were informed by him that it had been granted? Mr. OTEPKA. In his handwritten notation on his memorandum he indicates "Your request for leave is approved," and there is no further— Mr. SOURWINE. And his name? Mr. OTEPKA (continuing). -no further clarification. And his name. Mr. SOURWINE. Is that a customary form used by persons who grant leave requests? Mr. OTEPKA. That is correct. Mr. SOURWINE. Or do such persons ordinarily say, "I approve your leave request"? Is the third person the usual form for approving leave requests? Mr. OTEPKA. That is not the usual form; no. Mr. SOURWINE. What is the usual form? Mr. OTEPKA. The usual form is for the immediate superior of the person to say, "I approve your leave," if you submit a request for such leave in writing. Mr. SOURWINE. So this might be open to the interpretation that someone else had approved your leave and that Mr. LaSelle was merely informing you. Mr. OTEPKA. That is possible, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Since we know that Mr. Grignon did not approve it, if Mr. LaSelle was advising you of someone else's action in approving it, do you know who the other person would be? Mr. OTEPKA. No; I do not. Then there were some of the many shifts in command. William J. Crockett, the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, on July 7, 1964, issued instructions that Colonel French was to be Mr. Otepka's supervisor for the Congressional Guide project. Colonel French had been named a special assistant to Mr. Crockett. It was a move toward clarity but raised some additional questions:10 Mr. SOURWINE. Well, now, could you be supervised by a person not in the Office of Security while you are in the Office of Security? Mr. OTEPKA. I would say that this could be possible in some circumstances, but I did not think it was proper in this circumstance because it would be in conflict with my official job description. Mr. SOURWINE. Have you ever received anything to indicate that it was a memorandum or order intended to supersede your official job description in this respect? Mr. OTEPKA. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. All right. Now, with regard to your conference with Mr. Gentile, do we understand correctly that you repeatedly, a number of times during that conference, raised the point or a point which resulted in Mr. Gentile reiterating that he had agreed not to have anything to do with you and was not going to have anything to do with you? Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Were you ever told by Mr. Grignon that he had a similar agreement or that he had a similar attitude toward you? Mr. OTEPKA. I have never seen Mr. Grignon. State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, p. 508-509. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Gentile ever tell you or did you ever learn from any other source with whom Mr. Gentile had his agreement or from whom he had his instructions not to have anything to do with you? Mr. OTEPKA. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know where the idea of assigning you to study congressional reaction originated? Mr. OTEPKA. I believe on good authority that the idea originated as a result of a conversation between Mr. Gentile and Mr. Bernard Rosen that took place on April 24, 1964. Mr. SOURWINE. Is that Mr. Bernard F. Rosen who was or is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Personnel? Mr. OTEPKA. He was then in that position; yes, sir. Subject: Preparation of a congressional guide on security problems. This is in reference to my memorandum to you dated April 30, 1964, on the above subject. I have designated Mr. French of my office as your supervisor and contact on this project. I stated in my memorandum of April 30, 1964, that this project would have priority and all previous assignments made by your supervisors may be held in abeyance while your efforts are directed to this task. I would like a report on the status of this project as soon as possible. Mr. French will discuss with you the questions you have raised in reference to my memorandum to you dated May 18, 1964. WILLIAM J. CROCKETT. Mr. Otepka's initial contact with Colonel French, and Ambassador Flake was on December 26, 1963, when they were under an assignment to delve into security procedures in the State Department-partly at least as a result of the shocks that followed disclosure of the bugging of the office of Mr. Otepka, Chief of the Evaluations Division. When the Flake-French team proposed to discuss a list of specified subjects with Mr. Otepka he told them he could not go into matters. that would have a bearing on his own case. In this he was following advice which had been given to him by his attorney.11 Colonel French was startled to hear, Mr. Otepka said, that the latter had been barred from the premises of the Division of Evaluations." 12 Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever discuss with Colonel French the matter of your prohibition against going into the premises of the Division of Evaluations? Mr. ОTEPKA. I did. Mr. SOURWINE. You told him about it? Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Did he express any opinion with regard to it? Mr. OTEPKA. He was startled to hear about it, and he said that-he first asked me for copies of the memorandums. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you furnish them? Mr. ОTEPKA. Yes; I did. Mr. SOURWINE. Then what? Mr. OTEPKA. Then subsequently he told me that he had shown the memorandums to Mr. Crockett and that Mr. Crockett had not known previously that such memorandums had been issued. Mr. SOURWINE. You mean Mr. Crockett told him he had not known previously? Mr. OTEPKA. That is right. Testimony indicated that Mr. Belisle did not comprehend the import of his instructions to Mr. Otepka.13 11 State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, p. 510. 12 State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, p. 511-512. 13 State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, p. 512. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. French characterize these instructions or say whether he thought they were justified or did he indicate whether Mr. Crockett thought they were justified? Mr. OTEPKA. Mr. French said that he did not feel that such instructions were justified, and he also told me that Mr. Crockett expressed the opinion that Mr. Belisle, who issued the instructions, did not mean what he said. The instructions were not rescinded, Mr. Otepka testified, although there were questions about them. Mr. Crockett offered "special circumstances" as an explanation of having a Security Office employee supervised by a man in another division.' 14 Mr. SOURWINE. There is nothing unusual, is there about having an employee in the Office of Security supervised by a man who is not in the Office of Security? Mr. CROCKETT. There would be, were it not for the special circumstances under which Mr. Otepka is now employed. Mr. SOURWINE. Hard cases make bad law? Mr. CROCKETT. Hard cases make nonjudicial rules, I guess. Mr. SOURWINE. But unusual circumstance require unusual remedies? Mr CROCKETT. That is best. I accept that. Mr. Crockett also argued that it was proper to change Mr. Otepka's supervision without changing his job description. 15 Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether Mr. Otepka's official job description names his official supervisor? Mr. CROCKETT. I don't think it may by name; it may by title, perhaps. Mr. CROCKETT. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. If it designated his supervisor ex officio, that was then changed by your designation of Colonel French? Mr. CROCKETT. Yes; except that I am sure that we have never changed it on the official form. Mr. SOURWINE. Can such a change be made properly without amending the job description? Mr. CROCKETT. I think so; yes, sir. GENTILE, GRIGNON, AND OTEPKA Testifying August 14, 1964, Mr. Grignon said that Mr. Otepka's position was that of Chief of the Division of Evaluation-in name but not in fact.16 Mr. SOURWINE. I see. Is Mr. Otepka employed in the Office of Security? Mr. GRIGNON. I presume that he is holding one of the positions that is allotted to the Office of Security. Mr. SOURWINE. You do not know what his present position is? Mr. GRIGNON. Well, he is the Chief of the Division of Evaluations. Mr. SOURWINE. In name? Mr. GRIGNON. In name. Mr. SOURWINE. But not in fact? Mr. GRIGNON. Not in fact; no, sir. Mr. Grignon was unsure about several aspects of the case and agreed that he could not explain how a person not in the Office of Security could supervise one who was assigned there like Mr. Otepka. He was not Mr. Otepka's supervisor, Mr. Grignon said. he had instructions to the effect that he was not, he added. He said 14 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1645. 15 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1646. 16 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, pp. 1628-1629. In fact, |