[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     THE NOMINATION OF SAM W. BROWN

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I want to share with the body the 
comments of Jack Anderson, writing for the Washington Post, when he was 
describing the management problems of Sam Brown, the nominee before 
this body next week with regard for the post of ambassador to the CSCE. 
I quote now from Jack Anderson under a headline that reads, ``ACTION 
Chief Labeled Inept Martinet.''

             [The Washington Post, Thursday, Dec. 14, 1978]

       Sam Brown, the tousle-haired anti-war activist-turned-
     bureaucrat, comes across as an easygoing, charismatic, 
     refreshing new face on the Washington political scene. But 
     his leadership of ACTION, which oversees such do-good 
     programs as the Peace Corps and VISTA, has drawn increasing 
     criticism from both inside and outside the organization.
       The recent forced resignation of Peace Corps director 
     Carolyn Payton was a monumentally mishandled affair. 
     Regardless of the merits of her firing, the circumstances 
     surrounding it were so messy as to give credence to charges 
     that Brown simply is not up to the job President Carter gave 
     him.
       Insiders told our associate Jack Mitchell that the Payton 
     firing was only the tip of the iceberg. They say Brown's 
     direction of ACTION's domestic and international programs has 
     been all thumbs from the very start. Mismanagement, 
     favoritism and plain incompetence characterize Brown's 
     regime.
       Brown's professed goal of an egalitarian ``workplace 
     democracy,'' which would have been unique in Washington 
     bureaucracy, could account for the slapdash, uncoordinated 
     administration of ACTION and the crumbling image of a once-
     respected government agency.
       But Brown is accused of more than just inept bungling in a 
     job that's too big for him. ACTION aides say he has become an 
     authoritarian martinet who brooks no interference from his 
     subordinates. He is, they say a bureaucratic dictator.
       Morale at ACTION is rock-bottom low. Bad publicity has 
     negated the positive achievements of the agency's programs. 
     Brown's response has been not to clean up his own act but to 
     look for a press aide who can give him a brighter image.
       The dismissal of Payton, one of the Carter administration's 
     few influential black officials, brought some of the agency's 
     dirty laundry out in the open.
       The conflict between the gregarious Brown and the more 
     reserved Payton appears to have been basically a personality 
     clash. At any rate, Brown was so eager to pressure Payton to 
     quit that her resignation was leaked to the press before she 
     had agreed to it.
       Caught by surprise and embarrassed by the report of her 
     firing, Payton denied it. She had to go to presidential 
     counsel Robert Lipshutz to confirm that her resignation had 
     actually been requested by the president.
       Brown's growing band of detractors claim that he and his 
     cronies have been trying to apply the anti-Establishment 
     idealism of their New Left days to the complicated task of 
     administering multimillion-dollar social programs. The result 
     has been chaos, the critics say.
       And starry-eyed idealism has not prevented ACTION brass 
     from squandering the taxpayers' money with an abandon that 
     would be envied by any entrenched bureaucracy in Washington.
       A case in point was ACTION's hare-brained scheme to send 
     unemployed inner-city black youths to Jamaica to work. ACTION 
     officials jetted off to the Caribbean resort to set up the 
     project.
       But Jamaican officials, faced with massive unemployment and 
     an inflation rate of up to 50 percent a year, put the kibosh 
     on the dizzy plan. They were appalled at the idea of America 
     ghetto youths being thrown in with resentful, out-of-work 
     Jamaicans on their politically troubled island.
       Cost-conscious watchdogs at the budget office have warned 
     ACTION's spendthrift poohbahs that the agency's travel 
     expenditures had to be reduced. ACTION staffers, for example, 
     have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 
     past few months attending meetings all over the world. At the 
     same time, workers in the field have been told there's not 
     enough money to fly them back to Washington for briefings.
       Taxpayers recently footed the bill for conferences in 
     Casablanca and Nairobi attended by no less than 31 ACTION 
     paper-shufflers. Each junket cost about $80,000. The 
     highlight of both meetings, sources told us, was the obvious 
     friction between Brown and Payton.
       Footnote: Brown was not available to talk to us at press 
     time, but this supporters at ACTION insist that reports of 
     his incompetence and tyranny are either untrue or 
     exaggerated. ``Sam's not that way at all,'' they say.
       An ACTION spokeswoman told us that Payton's resignation was 
     announced ``in response to media calls'' after she had 
     indicated she was quitting.
       The Jamaican project, she said, was an ``experimental 
     idea'' designed to improve minority participation, but was 
     dropped early this year after a negative response from 
     Jamaican officials.

  Madam President, that is not an article written by a critic of the 
administration, nor, indeed, by anyone who is a Republican. That is an 
article written by Jack Anderson of the Washington Post. It recounts, 
in very direct and blunt language, some of the management experience of 
the nominee to head our very important CSCE delegation. It is but one 
of many, many reports pointing out the management blunders and the 
management problems that Sam Brown brings to his job.
  I emphasize, this is not partisan. This is not from a Republican 
source. But it does, I think, reflect on the concern that 41 Senators 
have expressed to the President in asking the President to reconsider 
this nomination and find a different post for Sam Brown.
  Madam President, let me go on, because the mismanagement was noticed 
and reported on by many people other than simply Jack Anderson. The 
House, controlled by a Democratic majority in those years, commissioned 
the staff of the Appropriations subcommittee in this area to prepare a 
report on Sam Brown's management practices at ACTION. It details, in 
that report by the committee staff, mismanagement in a wide-ranging 
number of areas. I commend it to the reading of the Members of this 
body.
  On page 88, it outlines improper procurement practices followed under 
Sam Brown. On page 105, it details financial mismanagement. On page 35, 
it details grants awarded without competition. On page 40, it reports 
training programs with materials attacking Government agencies, 
politicians, and utilities as enemies. On page 43, it relates 
involvement in restricted activities. On page 22, it details improper 
use of experts and consultants. On page 16, it reports ignored legal 
requirements in setting pay levels. At page 112, it details the 
abolition of the independent inspector general.
  I might add, the effort to do away with the independent inspector 
general was done at a time when it appeared that the independent 
inspector general may well be active in pointing out the mismanagement 
practices of the agency itself; in other words, doing exactly what an 
inspector general is supposed to do. It appears the attempt was to 
reward him with dismissal.
  Madam President, I hope every Member of this body will read this 
report. This is not written by Republicans. This is written by a staff 
employed by the Democratic majority of the House of Representatives. It 
details in specifics major mismanagement mistakes. We have a 
responsibility, I believe, to help the President. The Constitution 
states it clearly: To advise and consent.
  The fact that now and then you have a nominee come forward who is not 
qualified is not unique to this administration. It is not unique to the 
Democratic Party. It is a problem that has plagued both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. I am one who believes that we do the 
executive no favor if we approve officials who do not have the ability 
and the background to perform adequately. Sam Brown has been tried and 
tested, and the results are in. They speak clearly and eloquently to 
the fact that he is not able to handle these important 
responsibilities.
  The vote on this nominee should not be partisan. Democrats should not 
feel an obligation to support a President when he has made a bad 
nomination, just as Republicans should not have felt obliged to support 
Republican Presidents when they named a bad nominee.
  This Senator has voted for over 99.3 percent of the nominees sent 
forward by this White House. I have voted for every single nominee from 
the State of Colorado from this White House. But Sam Brown simply is 
not qualified for the job, and his past experience speaks clearly to 
that.
  Let me go into a summary of the charges that are detailed by the 
House Democratic staff.
  ``Improper procurement practices,'' quoting from the Democratic 
report.

       The Advanced Procurement Planning directed by order 2620.1 
     is virtually nonexistent, and administrative lead time and 
     contract delivery requirements are often unrealistically 
     compressed. The insufficient lead time [plus other factors]. 
     . . Contributes to questionable procurement practices.

  That is from page 88 of the report.
  Violation of ACTION regulation:

       Order 2620.1, promulgated May 7, 1973, established ACTION 
     procurement and contract planning policy to eliminate or 
     reduce unnecessary crises caused by late requests and last-
     minute negotiations.

  That is the regulation we are talking about. The report notes a 
violation of that commonsense regulation. I quote further, this from 
page 90 of the report:

       Although formally advertised procurement (the sealed bid) 
     method is preferred by the Government, the negotiated method 
     of contracting may be used in exceptions as described in 41 
     U.S.C. 252(c).

  Violation of the statute:

       With some consistency, however, ACTION contracts reviewed 
     authorized use of the negotiated method of procurement only 
     after negotiations had been underway or were completed. . . . 
     Concurrent signings of the documents posed serious risk of 
     noncompliance with the statute.

  That is from page 91 of the report.
  The report goes on:

       [ACTION's] nonsynopsis of sole-source procurements as a 
     customary practice raises questions as to the concealment of 
     such awards from public awareness and conflicts with the 
     statutory requirement to synopsize procurements.

  What is the violation of the statute here?

       It is a statutory requirement to synopsize procurements in 
     the Department of Commerce Business Daily, exceptions 
     permitted when less than 15 days are allowed for proposed 
     submission.

  That is from page 91 as well.

       Contracts for which the required certificate was not 
     obtained include awards of over $101,000, $274,000 and 
     $495,000.

  That from page 91 of the report.
  What is the violation of statute:

       The truth in negotiating law (Public Law 87-653) requires 
     the contracting officer to obtain a certificate of current 
     cost or pricing data on each contractual action exceeding 
     $100,000.

  Madam President, these are clear violations of a statute. These are 
not irresponsible charges. These are documented charges, an official 
document of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

       Questionable activities of program officials include 
     encouraging contractors to commence work without a contract, 
     developing statements of work jointly with contractors, and 
     obtaining budgets (estimated costs) from contractors for use 
     as in-house estimates.

  That from page 92.
  Violations of Federal procurement regulation:

       Program office ``authorization'' was a violation since only 
     a contract officer can bind the Government and costs claimed 
     did not meet the criteria for precontract costs.

  Questionable contract practice:

       Development of statement of work is the responsibility of 
     the program office; ACTION often jointly developed the 
     statement, in some cases even before the authorized official 
     determined the contract would be a sole-source contract.

  Let me repeat that:

       . . . ACTION often jointly developed the statement, in some 
     cases even before the authorized official determined the 
     contract would be a sole-source contract.

  If that is not inside dealing, I do not know what it could be 
described as.
  Again, questionable contract practice:

       Program office personnel used numbers derived from 
     contractors such that estimates proposed by sole-source 
     contractors exactly matched those estimated in-house.

  Madam President, I want to ask this body if anyone thinks these are 
good practices? They clearly violate the regulations and statutes, and 
they are not one-time affairs, but indications of many frequent 
violations.
  The document goes on, this summarized under financial mismanagement:

       Lack of management attention to ACTION's budget procedures 
     caused approximately $417,000 to be obligated without  
congressional approval.

  That from the report on page 105.
  A violation of statute:

       Obligations occurred when ACTION was without appropriation 
     or continuing resolution.

  In other words, the rules were simply ignored.
  Quoting again from the report:

       . . . an overobligation . . . was discovered by ACTION, and 
     the offending employee reprimanded. However, the violation 
     was not reported to the Office of Management and Budget or to 
     the Congress, as required by statute.

  From page 105 of the report.
  Violation of the statute:

       Overobligation, beyond congressionally approved amounts 
     illegal without congressional notification and approval.

  For those interested, that is found in section 3679(b) 31 U.S. Code 
665.
  Quoting further of areas of financial mismanagement:

       During an audit of Peace Corps operations in El Salvador in 
     the fall of 1977, auditors from the former Inspector General 
     Division found that the acting country director had, on three 
     separate occasions, violated the antideficiency statute . . . 
     involving the execution of three contracts in September 1977 
     citing a nonexistent fiscal year 1978 appropriation.

  That is found on page 198 of the report.
  What is the violation of statute?

       Execution of three contracts with improper cite was the 
     violation of the Antideficiency Statute.

  That is 31 U.S.C. 665.
  Another violation of statute:

       According to 31 U.S.C. 665, any employee who violates must 
     be subjected to appropriate discipline and the violation 
     reported by the director of ACTION through OMB to the 
     President.

  Madam President, no violation was reported, a direct violation of the 
guidelines of the statute.
  I hope Members will ask themselves if this series of mismanagement 
practices is something that commends one for a higher post? I think to 
move someone up with this kind of background raises serious questions 
as to whether this Chamber is even paying attention. It is one thing to 
make a mistake, it is another to have the facts pointed out and to 
simply ignore them.
  The report continues:

       The investigative staff examined the vouchers of 10 ACTION 
     officials . . . and found they had claimed full per diem on 
     their vouchers for the periods in question [when actually 
     they had stayed in the homes of other ACTION officials during 
     their travels.]

  Let us be clear what happened here. Ten action officials claimed per 
diem when they did not have the expenses. They just stayed in someone 
else's home. The report continues:

       It is likely the violations were much more widespread.

  That is from page 109.

       The Uniform State/AID/USIA Foreign Service Travel 
     Regulations require that travelers must deduct fixed 
     percentages of their per diem for services (food or lodging) 
     provided by U.S. Government agencies or installations.
       Separate trips were made to Cuba and the People's Republic 
     of China by two staff members who were officially carried in 
     the ``Time and Attendance'' logs as being at their official 
     duty sites in the United States.

  Not bad if you can get it.
  The report continues on detailing the mismanagement practices, this 
under the summary of grants awarded without competition:

       All of the national grants approved through September 30, 
     1978, were awarded without formal advertising or requests for 
     proposals.

  That is from page 35.

       . . . all 12 grants were awarded noncompetitively.

  That conclusion is drawn from the summary.
  Madam President, this did not happen once. It did not happen twice. 
It did not happen three times. It happened on numerous grants.
  What are the violations of policy guidelines?
  The rules governing the selection of VISTA sponsors are spelled out 
in the VISTA policy guidelines:

       . . . six [of the total of 12 that were approved] were 
     awarded to organizations represented at the roundtable 
     discussions at which the ACTION director met with a number of 
     nationally reputed community and social activists to discuss 
     the agency's new directions.

  That from page 35.
  What are the violations of the policy guidelines?

       During the first year of the national grant program, ACTION 
     awarded 12 VISTA grants to national sponsors on a non-
     competitive basis. A number of these awards were made to 
     friends and former associates of the VISTA director.

  Madam President, let me repeat that last line because I think it is 
an important part of the report.

       ACTION awarded 12 VISTA grants to national sponsors on a 
     non-competitive basis. A number of these awards were made to 
     friends and former associates of the Vista director.

  That found on page 45.
  Continuing on with the simple summary of the mismanagement practices 
found by the House Democratic Appropriations Committee staff, 
``Training Materials Describe Government Agencies, Politicians, 
Utilities as Real Enemies.'' I think it would shock some taxpayers to 
find this kind of material being printed up by the Government they 
support.
  This document was made available to VISTA volunteers, presumably, as 
recommended reading. Some examples of the questionable passages 
contained in the Midwest training document follow:

       The Third Principle of Direct Action organizing is that it 
     attempts to alter the relation of power between people's 
     organizations and their real enemies. The enemies are often 
     unresponsive politicians, tax assessors, utilities, 
     landlords, government agencies, large corporations or banks.

  Madam President, I ask the Members of this Chamber to consider if we 
ought to be as a Federal Government advising people who their enemies 
are and stirring up discontent. Discontent is appropriate at times; it 
is a mover; it is a changer. But is it really this Federal Government's 
responsibility to pay people to go out and organize and identify 
enemies in society?
  The report continues. This is again from the passages published under 
VISTA: ``Give people `a taste of blood.' Push your opponents so hard 
you can see them squirm.''
  Does that sound like a policy that we ought to be advising Americans 
to follow? But continuing:

       You may want to assign some people to be ``inciters'' and 
     move about to heat up the action, getting people angrier and 
     angrier and encouraging them to show their anger. You may at 
     other times want some ``calmers'' to stand near people who 
     may be disruptive to the focus of the action.

  The examples go on.

       Your power is your ability to hurt the target or withhold 
     something the target wants. The hurt can be immediate, as in 
     a strike or a boycott, or it can be a potential.

  The examples of passages put out by VISTA and Sam Brown continue:

       Stunts can help * * *. If for example, a politician won't 
     meet with you, tape a sign across his office which says, 
     ``This Office Closed to the Public.'' If someone won't come 
     into a debate, put a dummy in the chair and debate for 
     dramatic effect.

  As previously set out, Midwest was awarded a grant of more than 
$500,000 to train volunteers.
  Madam President, the full text of these remarks comes from page 40 of 
the report.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary 
of the House Committee on Appropriations report on ACTION be printed in 
the Record. Furthermore, I would like to make available to all Members 
of the Senate and their staffs the full copy of the House report in my 
office. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Mismanaging Practices Identified by the House Appropriations Committee, 
                                  1978


                     improper procurement practices

       ``The Advance Procurement Planning directed by Order 2620.1 
     is virtually nonexistent, and administrative lead time and 
     contract delivery requirements are often unrealistically 
     compressed. The insufficient lead time [plus other factors] . 
     . . contributes to questionable procurement practices.'' 
     (FCR, p. 88)
       Violation of action regulation: Order 2620.1, promulgated 
     May 7, 1973, established ACTION procurement and contract 
     planning policy to eliminate or reduce unnecessary crises 
     caused by late requests and last-minute negotiations.
       ``Although formally advertised procurement (the sealed bid) 
     method is preferred by the Government, the negotiated method 
     of contracting may be used in exceptions as described in 41 
     USC 252(c).'' (FCR, p. 90)
       Violation of statute: ``With some consistency, however, 
     ACTION contracts reviewed authorized use of the negotiated 
     method of procurement only after negotiations had been under 
     way or were completed . . . Concurrent signings of the 
     documents pose serious risk of noncompliance with the 
     statute.'' (FCR, p. 91)
       ``[ACTION's] Nonsynopsis of sole-source procurements as a 
     customary practice raises questions as to concealment of such 
     awards from public awareness and conflicts with the statutory 
     requirement to synopsize procurements.'' (FCR, p. 91)
       Violation of statute: It is a statutory requirement to 
     synopsize procurements in the Dept of Commerce Business 
     Daily, exceptions permitted when less than 15 days are 
     allowed for proposal submission. (FCR, p. 91)
       ``Contracts for which the required certificate was not 
     obtained include awards of over $101,000, $274,000 and 
     $495,000.'' (FCR, p. 91)
       Violation of statute: The Truth in Negotiation Law (PL 87-
     653) requires the contracting officer to obtain a Certificate 
     of Current Cost or Pricing Data on each contractual action 
     exceeding $100,000.
       ``Questionable activities of program officials include 
     encouraging contractors to commence work without a contract, 
     developing statements of work jointly with contractors, and 
     obtaining budgets (estimated costs) from contractors for use 
     as in-house estimates.'' (FCR, p. 92)
       Violation of Federal procurement regulation: Program office 
     ``authorization'' was a violation since only a contract 
     officer can bind the Government and costs claimed did not 
     meet the criteria for precontract costs.
       Questionable contract practice: Development of statement of 
     work is the responsibility of the Program office; ACTION 
     often jointly developed the statement, in some cases even 
     before the authorized official determined the contract would 
     be a sole-source contract.
       Questionable contract practice: Program office personnel 
     used numbers derived from contractors such that estimates 
     proposed by sole-source contractors exactly matched those 
     estimated in-house.


                        financial mismanagement

       ``. . . lack of management attention to ACTION's budget 
     procedures caused approximately $417,000 to be obligated 
     without Congressional approval.'' (FCR, p. 105)
       Violation of statute: Obligations occurred when ACTION was 
     without appropriation or continuing resolution. [Sec. 
     3679(b), 31 USC 665].
       ``. . . an overobligation . . . was discovered by ACTION, 
     and the offending employee reprimanded. However, the 
     violation was not reported to the Office of Management and 
     Budget or to the Congress, as required by statute.'' (FCR, p. 
     105)
       Violation of statute: Overobligation, beyond 
     congressionally approved amounts illegal without 
     congressional notification and approval [Sec. 3679(b), 31 USC 
     665].
       ``During an audit of Peace Corps operations in El Salvador 
     in the fall of 1977, auditors from the former Inspector 
     General Division found that the Acting Country Director had, 
     on three separate occasions, violated the anti-deficiency 
     statute . . . involv[ing] the execution of three contracts in 
     September 1977 citing a nonexistent FY 1978 appropriation.'' 
     (FCR, p. 108)
       Violation of statute: Execution of 3 contracts with 
     improper cite was violation of Anti-Deficiency Statute (31 
     USC 665).
       Violation of statute: According to 31 USC 665, any employee 
     who violates must be subjected to appropriate discipline and 
     the violation reported by the Director of ACTION through OMB 
     to the President. No violation was reported.
       ``The Investigative Staff examined the vouchers of 10 
     ACTION officials . . . and found they had claimed full per 
     diem on their vouchers for the periods in question [when 
     actually they had stayed in the homes of other ACTION 
     officials during their travels]. It is likely the violations 
     were much more widespread. . . .'' (FCR, p. 109)
       Violation of regulation: The Uniform State/AID/USIA Foreign 
     Service Travel Regulations require that travelers must deduct 
     fixed percentages of their per diem for services (food or 
     lodging) provided by U.S. Government agencies or 
     installations.
       Separate trips were made to Cuba and the People's Republic 
     of China by two staff members who were officially carried in 
     the ``Time and Attendance'' logs as being at their official 
     duty sites in the United States. (FCR, p. 110)


                   grants awarded without competition

       ``All of the national grants approved through September 30, 
     1978, were awarded without formal advertising or requests for 
     proposals (FCR, p. 35). . . . all 12 grants were awarded 
     noncompetitively'' (FCR, Summary)
       Violation of policy guidelines: The rules governing 
     selection of VISTA sponsors are spelled out in VISTA policy 
     guidelines.
       ``. . . six [of a total of 12 that were approved] were 
     awarded to organizations represented at the roundtable 
     discussions at which the ACTION Director met with a number of 
     nationally reputed community and social activists to discuss 
     the agency's new directions.'' (FCR, p. 35)
       Violation of policy guidelines creating appearance of 
     impropriety: ``During the first year of the national grants 
     program, ACTION awarded 12 VISTA grants to national sponsors 
     on a non-competitive basis. A number of these awards were 
     made to friends and former associates of the VISTA 
     director.'' (FCR, p. 45)


training materials describe government agencies, politicians, utilities 
                            as real enemies

       ``This document was made available to VISTA volunteers, 
     presumably, as recommended reading. Some examples of the 
     questionable passages contained in the Midwest training 
     document follow:
       `The Third Principle of Direct Action organizing is that it 
     attempts to alter the relations of power between people's 
     organizations and their real enemies. The enemies are often 
     unresponsive politicians, tax assessors, utilities, 
     landlords, government agencies, large corporations or banks.
       `Give people a `taste of blood.' Push your opponents so 
     hard you can see them squirm.
       `You may want to assign some people to be `inciters' and 
     move about to heat up the action getting people angrier and 
     angrier and encouraging them to show their anger. You may at 
     other times want some `calmers' to stand near people who may 
     be disruptive to the focus of the action.
       `Your power is your ability to hurt the target or withhold 
     something the target wants. The hurt can be immediate, as in 
     a strike or boycott, or it can be potential. . . .
       `Stunts can help. . . . If for example, a politician won't 
     meet with you, tape a sign across his office which says, 
     `This Office Closed to the Public.' If someone won't come 
     into a debate, put a dummy in the chair and debate that for 
     dramatic effect.'''
       ``As previously set out, Midwest was awarded a grant of 
     more than $500,000 to train volunteers.'' (FCR, p. 40)


                  involvement in restricted activities

       ``The Investigative Staff found a number of volunteers who 
     are engaged in staff-related activities such as employment 
     interviewing, teaching assistance, and sales work.'' (FCR, p. 
     43)
       Violation of action policy: Under ACTION policy, a VISTA 
     was not permitted to perform staff work. (FCR, p. 43)
       ``VISTAs assigned under both the CORAP and Midwest grants 
     were participating in union organizing drives until 
     instructed to discontinue the activity by the ACTION Office 
     of Compliance. Other volunteers under the CORAP grant had 
     actively participated in lobbying and other political 
     activities.'' (FCR, p. 43)
       Violation of statute: The Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
     prohibits VISTAs from engaging in labor organizing or 
     political activities. (FCR, p. 43)
       ``The Investigative Staff understands that one of these 
     organizations . . . provided both financial and other support 
     to the Farm Labor Organizing Committee in that organization's 
     recent effort to disrupt the tomato harvest in Ohio and 
     organize the workers. It is difficult to conceive of a VISTA 
     being part of such a scene without taking sides and getting 
     involved.''
       Violation of statute: The Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
     prohibits VISTAs from engaging in labor organizing or 
     political activities. (FCR, p. 85)


                improper use of experts and consultants

       ''. . . ACTION used its expert/consultant appointment 
     authority extensively to facilitate 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.''' (FCR, p.22)
       At least 20 top-level ACTION employees were initially 
     appointed as experts, pending official clearance and 
     approval. ACTION rationalized misuse of expert authority as 
     ``common practice'' throughout the Government.
       Violated policy: May 12, 1977 presidential memorandum 
     issued citing excessive volume of consultants and experts and 
     requiring report on all consultative arrangements (no report 
     required on experts).
       ACTION circumvented concern by designating all of its 
     upper-level temporary or intermittent help as `'experts.''
       Abused policy: Policy for expert pay levels was a ``few 
     dollars more'' than employee's best prior earning rate.
       3 ACTION ``experts'' hired at $100/day reported previous 
     earnings reflecting daily rates of $38, $55, and $58. (FCR, 
     p.22)
       1 employee hired at $85/day had been earning $38/day. (FCR, 
     p.22)
       Violated Federal regulation: Federal Personnel Manual 
     outlines proper & improper uses of consultants. Improper use 
     defined by the manual: ``To do a job that can be done as well 
     by regular employees, do a full-time continuous job. . . .'' 
     (FCR, p.22)
       Most ``glaring'' example: 2 employees in ACTION personnel 
     office from Nov 1977 until early summer 1978 as employment 
     specialists. Both ``experts'' were subsequently appointed to 
     the same positions as permanent full-time employees.


   ignored legal requirement to use past earnings in determining pay

       ``The Investigative Staff found that ACTION, with 
     concurrence from the Civil Service Commission, largely 
     discounts past salary in making appointments to excepted 
     positions.'' (Full Cmte Rpt, p. 16)
       Violation of regulation: the ``Pay Comparability Policy'', 
     approved by the Civil Service Commission, provides that 
     Federal salaries should roughly equate with the salaries for 
     positions of comparable responsibility in the private sector.
       ``The Investigative Staff can find no evidence that ACTION 
     ever did pay any attention to previous salaries as a factor 
     in making qualification determinations.'' (Full Cmte Rpt, p. 
     16)
       ``The maximum salary increase as a result of employment 
     with ACTION (among cases reviewed) went to a high-level 
     management official in the field organization. * * * As a 
     result of the appointment, the employee realized a salary 
     increase of over $20,000. That appointment was to a GS-15 
     position.'' (FCR, p. 17)
       ``Six other cases were reviewed involving salary increases 
     of $15-$17,000. * * *'' (FCR, p. 18)
       ``* * * three of the appointees to regional director 
     positions did not even bother to report salary information 
     for prior employment in their applications.'' (FCR, p. 18)


               abolition of independent inspector general

       ``In July 1975, ACTION established an Office of the 
     Inspector General (OIG) to provide the Director of the agency 
     with an independent and objective focal point to review the 
     integrity of agency programs * * * In February 1978, the 
     agency abolished the [OIG] and in its place established an 
     Office of Compliance * * * consist[ing] of an Audit Division, 
     an Investigations Division and an Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Division.'' (FCR, p. 112)
       Creation of conflict of interest: When passing PL 95-452 
     (Inspector and Auditor General Act), the Congress intended 
     that the Inspector General offices would have no program 
     responsibilities. The EEO has significant program 
     responsibilities, such as affirmative action and awarding 
     grants and contracts to minority firms. Putting the two into 
     one office created a clear conflict of interest.
       Thwarting the will of Congress: The Office of Compliance 
     and ACTION's General Counsel moved responsibility for 
     determining whether a case should be referred to the 
     Department of Justice from the Inspector General to the 
     Office of the General Counsel. PL 95-452 seeks to prevent 
     just such delays resulting from agency clearance processes.
       Violations of Law/Potential Violations of Law Not Reported: 
     Forbidden union organizing in Rhode Island conducted by VISTA 
     volunteers not reported by the Office of Compliance. 
     Violation of Anti-Deficiency Statute not reported to OMB.

                          ____________________