History 1948 to 1954

CHAPTER I

1948-1954: THE BEGINNING

The need is very great for a national association of federal probation officers which should include every federal probation officer in the country...

 -Richard B. McSweeney
  Chief U.S. Probation Officer
  Boston, Massachusetts, 1936

Initial Organizing Efforts

Nine years after the appointment of the first federal probation officer on April 25, 1927 the Chief U.S. Probation Officer in Boston was calling for a national association to meet the critical problems of the system which he saw at the time.[i]  Periodically, thereafter, efforts were initiated to form a national group.  But it was not until August 1948, during a meeting of probation officers at the in-service training institute of the North Central Region at Madison, Wisconsin, that a resolution was adopted as follows:

            Whereas collective representation would promote the interests and betterment of
                 the service, BE IT RESOLVED that we recommend organization of a National
                Association of Federal Probation Officers.

At the time of this conference Elmer J. Krueger (WI/W) was the President of the North Central conference group, and he appointed a committee to carry out the wishes of the conference as contained in the resolution as well as to draft a proposed constitution and by-laws.  Making up that committee were Marshall K. McKinney, Chair (IL/E), Charles H.Z. Meyer (IL/N), Ernest J. Meili (MN/E) and William G. Zastrow (WI/E).[ii]  During the year that followed, the committee worked diligently at its task and subsequently met again in Chicago on May 13, 1949 to review their initial draft of a constitution and by-laws developed in the months before.  A final draft was prepared before the committee’s departure from Chicago.  It was the group’s decision that the final draft should be sent to the other four in-service training areas for their consideration and comments.

With the initial work completed, the committee decided that a forthcoming meeting of probation officers, to be held in Fort Lee, Virginia, would be an appropriate time to present the idea of a national association.  Here would be the representatives of all regions of the country in a large, important session.  The significance of the Fort Lee gathering in July 1950 lay in its being only the fourth time in its history that the Federal Probation System met as a national group. The first “national” meeting was held in Washington, DC in about 1928.  Eight officers in all gathered together under the auspices of the Department of Justice.  The second meeting occurred in Louisville, Kentucky, having been called by Joel R. Moore, then Supervisor of   Probation.  The third national meeting was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota in June 1932.  After Fort Lee, none would be held again.  It was also significant that the initial committee had previously informed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of its intention to form an association and that a letter of approval was forwarded to the committee as early as May 11, 1949 from Richard Chappell, Chief of Probation.  Thereafter, the Administrative Office was continually informed of the progress to establish an association.

The Fort Lee conference marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the creation of the Federal Probation System.  During that conference a group of officers met to consider organizing an association.  The committee, composed of Jim Fitts (TN/M), Chairman, Marshall K. McKinney (IL/E), Edward Garrett (DC), Luther Griffith (TX/S), Elmer J. Krueger (WI/W), Calvin Meador (CA/S), Henry “Doc” Mowles (PA/M), George O’Brien (PA/W), Roy Nelms (TN/W), Robert Stewart (WA/W) and Joseph Swafford (TN/E), reviewed the draft constitution but were not in agreement over the methods to be used to establish such an association.  There was also some concern expressed that the proposed association might become a union rather than a professional organization.  While the majority of the Fort Lee committee desired an association, the feeling was not unanimous and further efforts had to be made.

In the months following the Fort Lee Conference, several officers encouraged the formation of a national association in their personal and business-related travel across the United States.  Thus, for example, George O’Brien, who took an extended camping vacation between Illinois and Washington, announced his intention (and carried through) to publicize the value of a federal probation officers association through discussions with officers of the various districts through which he passed.  Ben Meeker (IL/N), too, who was a major proponent and guiding figure of a national body, would take time after participating in training sessions across the country conducted by the Division of Probation, to expound the value of an association.                   

In the fall of 1951, following another in-service conference of the North Central Region at Madison, Wisconsin, Elmer Krueger’s committee again recommended that an association of officers be formed.  A draft constitution and by-laws were also presented.  This time, the officers of the region reconvened and voted to constitute themselves a Federal Probation Officers Association!  This action, albeit tentative, was seen as a necessary step in the process of forming a national organization.  Until there was an opportunity to ballot all officers of the service for the election of regular officers, the interim association elected the following temporary national officers: President, Ben S. Meeker; Vice-President, Marshall K. McKinney; and Secretary-Treasurer, Richard Johnson (MO/W).  It was also decided that the interim officers would not seek office in the first regular election.  On December 14, 1951, Interim President Ben Meeker sent a letter to all officers in the probation system, informing them of the actions of the North Central group, enclosed a copy of the draft constitution and by-laws, and asked that officers reply with their comments.[iii]  It was anticipated that once there was sufficient support, a nominating committee would be appointed for the purpose of holding a national election.

With the election of interim officers, the probation officers meeting at Madison also decided to expand the representative nature of the Executive Board by including representatives from each of the regional associations. It was anticipated that these regional representatives would act as ex-officio board members, but, in fact, they became full-fledged members.[iv]

The Field Responds

In a letter dated June 19, 1952 Interim President Ben Meeker reported on the field’s response to his letter of the previous December. Of approximately 300 officers, 205 replied, of which 190 were in favor of an association, 12 were in opposition and three took no position. One can almost sense the elation and historic moment as Ben Meeker wrote: “Since 190 constitutes a majority of U.S. Probation Officers, the temporary officers of the Association deem the Association to be in fact in existence, and plans will proceed for further strengthening and development of the Association.”

The official tally of votes by Circuit, as provided in Ben Meeker’s letter, is as follows:

Circuit	In Favor	Opposed
1st – Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico	6	0
2nd – Vermont, Connecticut, New York	19	3
3rd – Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey	14	0
4th – West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina	20	4
5th – Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas	28	2
6th – Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan	22	3
7th – Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin	19	0
8th – Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota	17	0
9th – Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii	25	0
10th – Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming	12	0
District of Columbia	8	0
Total in Favor	190
Total Opposed		12

Although the initial field response to the proposed constitution was received within several months, it took about two years for the officers to fully discuss the constitution and propose certain modifications. The time lapse was occasioned by the fact that the five regional in-service conferences occurred every two years, and it was only at these meetings that officers from the varying regions could meet and talk together. By August 1953 the proposed constitution had been presented to all five regions and was voted on favorably by four. It was decided, therefore, to mail out the revised constitution with a ballot to each officer in the country. (On March 20, 1954, the fifth conference, the Southeastern States Federal Probation Officers Association, having recently met, notified Ben Meeker that its members voted overwhelmingly in support of a national association.[v]) The major change in the revised constitution over the initial draft was in a provision calling for an expansion of the executive board from three executive officers (President, Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer) to eight officers including five vice-presidents, one from each of the five conference areas.[vi] When a sixth region was created later, a sixth area vice-president was added to the executive board.

The New Constitution At Work: The Process Toward The First National Elections.

Following the good news of support for a national association and ratification of the constitution by the Southeastern States conference in March 1954, the interim officers of the Association, in accord with the by-laws of the new constitution, appointed a nominating committee two months later to seek out candidates for the three national positions of President, Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer. Serving on this committee were Reynold M. Lee (U. S. Probation Officer, MN), Chairman; Walter Evans (U. S. Probation Officer, CA/S); Charles R. Paine (U. S. Probation Officer, OK/W); Lloyd C. Hendricks (Chief U. S. Probation Officer, SC/E); and Logan A. Webster (Chief U. S. Probation Officer, PA/W). The election judges, both of the Minneapolis, Minnesota office, were Ernest J. Meili and Earle V. Nordquist.
The election ballot for the first regular election under the constitution contained the names of officers who were and would be involved in the significant history of the Federal Probation Officers Association, individuals such as Richard F. Doyle (MI/E), Albert Wahl (CA/N), Claude L. Goza (GA/N), Henry J. Mowles, Howard N. Scott (OK/N), Wayne L. Keyser IL/N), Rob R. Macgregor (KS) and Arch E. Sayler (NY/S). By December 1, 1954 the votes were in and the election judges announced the first regularly elected national board: Richard F. Doyle, President; Claude L. Goza, Executive Vice-President; and Arch E. Sayler, Secretary-Treasurer. The Federal Probation Officers Association was now in place. The next order of business would be an Executive Board meeting and confrontation with the issues facing the Federal Probation System. The site selected was Lexington, Kentucky; the date determined, February 4, 1955.

---

[i] Actually, there appears to have been one earlier attempt at organizing federal probation officers.  According to Richard Chappell in a letter to the author, an effort was made in 1930 at a national meeting in Louisville, Kentucky.  “George O’Brien and I were put forward as candidates for President.  Politicking took place for each of us.  Veterans of World War I supported George, a veteran.  Several non-vets were for me.  Colonel Moore nipped the whole thing in the bud.”

[ii] Although Ben Meeker (IL/N) was not on this committee, the amount of work he exerted in drafting the document led Charles Hosner to comment, “In a way, Ben was the father of our constitution...all (through the years) he was a great force, in the beginning as well as later years as our President.” Letter to the author.

[iii] In his December 1951 letter to all field officers, Interim President Meeker provided two examples reflecting the need for a national association.
Ben Meeker noted:

            You will also remember, I am sure, the great difficulty experienced in obtaining support for the vital 20 year retirement rule because there was no organization through which that issue could be placed directly before all federal probation officers for consideration.  Without an organization we can act in piecemeal fashion only and many sound ideas and conclusions drawn from experience and originating in the field may die for lack of a sounding board which such an association might afford.

            Perhaps a further concrete illustration of the need for an association to support a long-range objective would be of interest.  As I think all of us are aware, early in 1950, representatives of the Division of Probation and the Administrative Office worked with the Committee on Supporting Personnel of the Judicial Conference in the preparation of a plan for revising the current classification salary schedule.  Honorable John Biggs, Jr., Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, Wilmington, Delaware, is the Chairman of this committee, which is the committee of Judges charged with the responsibility for studying personnel needs and making recommendations to the Judicial Conference on such matters as classification, salaries, standards, etc.  This committee supported the recommendations of our Director concerning the need for changes in our classification plan.  I am not familiar with all the details of that plan but I know it was directed towards replacing what our Administrative Office has termed the ‘obsolete classification program’ under which we now operate.  However, as you are also no doubt aware, when this matter was brought to a vote before the Judicial Conference in 1950 it failed to receive majority support and was rejected.  We were subsequently informed that apparently the only way this matter might be placed on the agenda for the 1951 Conference would be through the direct motion of one of the Chief Judges of a Circuit Court.
                At that time I discussed this entire matter informally with the Chief Judge of my own Court and another of our judges who is a member of the Committee on Supporting Personnel and found that not only were they willing to assist us in securing some further action of the reclassification matter, but that all of the Judges of this Court would support us. I then prepared a report for the Judges of this Court pointing out some of the discrepancies in our classification program, particularly with reference to salary levels and ceilings beyond which probation officers of long experience and valuable service could not advance. This report was brought to the attention of all the Judges of the 7^th Circuit during their Annual Seventh Circuit Conference which convened in Chicago on June 14, 1951, and a resolution was unanimously passed by the Judges at that conference recommending that the Chief Judge of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals introduce the matter of reclassification of federal probation officers at the forthcoming annual meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference which was to convene in Washington on September 24, 1951.
                The action of the Judges of the Seventh Circuit was informally reported at our Madison meeting, and many officers there suggested that widespread support from other areas be sought. As a result, as some of you know, I circulated a memorandum to Chief Probation Officers throughout the service urging them to further our goal by gaining support for the reclassification plan through personal contact with their district and circuit court judges prior to the Judicial Conference. This was done and a great many of you reported favorable reactions in your circuits.
                Subsequently, on September 22, just before the Judicial Conference convened, Honorable J. Earl Major, Chief Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, granted a generous interview to Chief U.S. Probation Officer Basil W. Ogg of the Southern District of Illinois and President of our Regional Probation Officers’ Association and myself to further explore the matter. Mr. Ogg and myself reviewed in considerable detail with Judge Major the needs of the federal probation service with reference to salaries of probation officers and staff under the current classification program. We again called his attention to the action of the Judicial Conference in 1950, which disapproved the report of the Committee on Supporting Personnel and Judge Major assured us that in accordance with the desires of the Judges of the Seventh Circuit, as expressed in their prior resolution, he would press for a review and adoption of the recommendation of the Committee on Personnel. Incidentally, when Mr. Ogg and I entered Judge Major’s chambers one of his first questions was “Do you represent a Federal Probation Officers’ Association?” When we replied in the negative he indicated surprise and commented generally on the value of such associations (Emphasis added).
                Shortly after the Judicial Conference meeting I received a communication from Judge Major informing me that although he was unable to secure sufficient support for outright approval of the reclassification plan, he was sustained on a motion to have the previous action of the Judicial Conference rescinded and the matter of reclassification of probation officers referred back to the Committee on Personnel for further study and report at the next Judicial Conference. As had been anticipated, the matter of reclassification was not on the official agenda and had it not been for Judge Major’s motion this item apparently would not have been considered. Thus, thanks to his motion the matter is now back in the hands of the Committee a year earlier than it otherwise would have been.

[iv] Regional Federal Probation Officer Associations, although antecedent to the national association, seem to have developed primarily as a means to promote a national group in the 1940’s. Their meetings always coincided with, and were dependent upon, the biannual regional training conferences of the probation system.

[v] Part of the delay in support in the Southeast Region was a strong fear of unionism. However, much work was done by J.O. Swafford (TN/E) and “Buddy” Nau (SC/W) to allay this concern.

[vi] See Appendix for initial constitution and sample ballot.