History 1955 to 1956CHAPTER II
1955 – 1956
FIRST CHALLENGES – FIRST TRIUMPHS
I have never attended a meeting where there was such unanimous sentiment toward the things in which we stand in need, nor where a more congenial group was discussing them.
Calvin H. Meador
The “congenial group” of which Calvin Meador spoke were the officers who met at Lexington, Kentucky on February 4, 1955 and formed the first National Executive Board: President Richard F. Doyle, Executive Vice-President Claude L. Goza, Secretary-Treasurer Arch E. Sayler and Regional Vice-Presidents Logan Webster (Northeast), William C. “Buddy” Nau (Southeast), Marshall K. McKinney (North Central), Drexel Martin (Southwest) and Calvin H. Meador (Western).
There were a number of issues addressed at the first FPOA meeting: excessive workloads;[i] insufficient travel funds; a low mileage reimbursement rate ($.07) for the use of privately owned automobiles; low per diem rates ($9.00); inadequate parking at work sites; the failure to include U.S. Probation Officers within the hazardous occupation clause of the Civil Service Retirement Act; the similar lack of inclusion in federal protection statutes in the cases of false statements, homicide and assault; the need for professional standards in appointments; and a need for an upward salary classification in order to attract and retain qualified personnel.
In order to come to grips with these issues, three standing committees were formed: Professional Standards, Legislation and Economics. Within five days of the Lexington meeting a letter was sent from Secretary-Treasurer Arch Sayler to the then Chief of Probation, Louis J. Sharp. In that letter, the issues that were discussed during the first Board meeting were outlined and a request made that attention be given to them. The letter also included a statement of the philosophy that has obtained throughout the history of the Association, i.e., a spirit of cooperation with the Washington leadership: “I have been asked to assure you of the desire of the Federal Probation Officers Association to be constructive and helpful at all times in our relationship to the Administrative Office.[ii]
At the time of the Lexington meeting, there were only 132 members in the association out of a possible 314. The three-dollar annual dues was hardly sufficient to fund even one Board meeting. As a result, a substantial period of time passed before officers were reimbursed for their expenses for travel. The fact of delayed compensation was a perennial problem for a number of years, and notably, in order to keep the organization functioning, all Board members had agreed to accept only fifty percent reimbursement for their travel to meetings.
Several months after the first meeting of the Executive Board, the Secretary-Treasurer distributed a newsletter to the field in order to report on the work of the association to date. It was to have been an occasional publication, printed and circulated as the need arose. However, it was the only informative letter in existence for field officers, and so, within a very short period of time it began to be eagerly sought by all officers. In fact, between 1955 and 1976 (when the first issue of News and Views was released), it was filled with a plethora of items of interest to the field, not limiting itself solely to matters of association business.
It was anticipated that only one Executive Board meeting would be held annually, especially in view of the lack of sufficient dues income. Nevertheless, President Richard Doyle felt an urgent need to call a second meeting of the Board on November 11, 1955 in Cincinnati, Ohio.[iii] The meeting was prompted, in part, by the Civil Service Commission’s decision to reconsider their position that Federal Probation Officers were eligible for hazardous duty retirement. It was also prompted by the decision of Congress to evaluate an upward reclassification of officers’ salaries. The decisions made by the Executive Board at the November 11, 1955 meeting were critical, and the results, long lasting, for solely through the efforts of the association was hazardous duty retirement preserved, and partly through its efforts did there come about an upgrading of salaries. Because of their historical importance, these areas will be examined in more detail.
Preservation of Hazardous Duty Retirement
Louis J. Sharp, Chief of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, attended the special Cincinnati Board meeting. He reported to the members that as early as December 1954 the United States Civil Service Commission had begun to consider reversing their position that Federal Probation Officers were eligible to retire under the Hazardous Occupation clause in the retirement statutes. Although up to December 1954 eight Federal Probation Officers had retired under hazardous coverage, the Commission requested that the Administrative Office not submit any further applications under this coverage until a decision had been reached. Shortly thereafter, Henry P. Chandler, the Director of the Administrative Office, and Louis Sharp submitted a statement in support of hazardous duty retirement and asked the Commission for an early reply. None came. For several months no officer submitted retirement applications. Then, in July 1955, Patrick Swaim (AR/W) and Martin Brown (MI/W) filed. Two months later, E. Fred Sweet (NY/S) filed. The Administrative Office asked the Civil Service Commission for permission to forward the applications and again requested an early reply. Again, none came.
Sharp told the Executive Board at its meeting in November that he believed that the Civil Service Commission would deny the applications. Such a denial would mean that Swaim and Brown, both over the age of 62, could secure a reduced pension by filing for standard Civil Service retirement for which they were eligible. Sweet, however, was only 60 years of age and would receive no benefits for two years unless he contested the decision of the Commission. Since a Commission decision was not appealable by the Administrative Office, Sharp believed that it must be contested in the courts. This would require the affected officer to retain an attorney and take the case to the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, DC. It was believed that E. Fred Sweet’s situation would provide the test case.
The association’s Executive Board felt that the decision of the Civil Service Commission struck at the heart of the personal interest, welfare and future plans of all Federal Probation Officers, and the Board decided to support any retiring officer who was denied the benefits of the hazardous duty statute. In order to provide such backing, however, it was necessary to retain the services of an attorney. Richard A. Chappell, former Chief of Probation and later a practicing attorney in Georgia, was suggested as the best person possible since he had an intimate knowledge of probation and had, as well, a wide acquaintance in Washington, DC. Soon after the meeting ended, Claude Goza contacted Chappell in Atlanta, and Chappell immediately agreed to undertake the assignment. He made plans to leave for Washington without delay.
It never became necessary for Chappell to proceed to the Court of Claims because during December, he addressed the association’s arguments before the Civil Service Commission itself. As Chappell later wrote,
I promptly went to Washington and called on my good friend, Representative Robert Ramspect, of Atlanta, who, at the time, was Chairman of the Civil Service Committee in Congress. Bob kindly telephoned the Chairman of the Commission and made an appointment for me to see him. I was given a very cordial hearing in which I argued that Federal Judges had employed probation officers with the understanding that retirement under the Hazardous Act was a perquisite of the office. I also presented several incidents where officers had been threatened or attacked and one in which the son of Probation Officer Dobbins, of New Jersey, had been murdered by a parolee at Dobbins’ front door.[iv]
On December 28, 1955 the Civil Service Commission reinstated their earlier position that Federal Probation Officers were eligible for retirement under the Hazardous Occupation Clause. The Federal Probation Officers Association had attained a significant achievement in their first major endeavor.
Salary Reclassification and Other Matters
During the year 1955 prior to the Executive Board meeting, members of the association had been engaged in an educational campaign designed to provide as much information as possible about the value of probation and the need to recruit and retain highly qualified officers. Upward salary reclassification was seen as one method for meeting this end. Speeches were given during the spring and summer of that year to judges of circuit and district courts, as well as to other significant groups. In this regard, Charles Hosner described the work of Richard Doyle who gave a very important talk at the June 1955 Judicial Council meeting of all federal judges in the 6th Circuit. All of the judges were in attendance, but “most importantly, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was also there…the Chief Justice was most impressed with Doyle’s presentation…and made notes during the talk…After the formal meeting, Dick had an opportunity…to talk personally with the Chief Justice. Our case could not have been presented at any higher level.”[v] The Executive Board in November called for an even greater increase in public relations work by officers, including what was to become an important and useful device in the history of the association, a letter-writing campaign to Congress. The success of the association’s initiative taken at the meeting was described by President Doyle writing in early 1957: The year 1956 will long be remembered; for during this short span of time, more progress was achieved for the Federal Probation System than during any other period of our history. The strengthening progress advocated by this Association since its inception as a national organization two years ago has been nearly fulfilled. This was brought about, to a large degree, by Congressional action this past June, when a record budget for the fiscal year, 1957, was approved. In this measure were provisions for ninety additional officers and a similar number of new clerks, an upgrading in salary classification, and substantial increases for travel, equipment and supplies necessary for an enlarged system. While sufficient time has not elapsed to garner the full benefit of these advances, decided improvements have been noted through the more prompt handling and thorough treatment accorded both investigative and supervisory demands, our ability to secure better qualified officers, and finally, the striking boost in morale throughout our system.[vi]
The specific gains referred to by President Doyle in his letter to the field included the officer and clerical positions mentioned above, but also the upgrading of officer entry positions to GS-9, upgrading of Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, creation of a Supervising Officer position[vii] and enhanced mileage and travel allowances.
While many individuals have been responsible for the gains made in behalf of Federal Probation Officers, it is important to note the support given the system by Lyndon B. Johnson when he was Senate Majority Leader. His assistance in the passage of the 1955-1956 appropriations bill provided for the much-needed increase in the number of officer positions authorized. Kennith O. Beighle of Tyler (TX/E), an association member, played a prominent role in having this need brought to Johnson’s attention.
During the early years of the association, many officers contributed both of their time and money. Indeed, financial problems beset the organization for some time after its formation. The $3 dues of 1955 could barely pay for half of each Executive Board member’s travel during the year and little for the services of Richard Chappell who waited quite patiently for many months for reimbursement of the very modest fee he charged. In 1956 dues were increased to $5 yearly, but even this amount proved barely adequate for the challenges that lay ahead.
[i] In fact, it was the unrealistic workloads that prompted Richard McSweeney to call for a national association in 1936. [ii] Letter of Arch E. Saylor, February 9, 1955. That spirit of cooperation is evidenced in the cordiality and camaraderie displayed when Chiefs, both current and past, of the Probation Division meet with former and active members of the Association’s Executive Board in annual reunions. [iii] The sites with the most central geographic location were selected for the first meetings by Doyle in order to save the greatest amount of travel money. [iv] Letter of Richard Chappell to Philip Bigger, August 5, 1986.
[v] Letter of Charles Hosner to Philip Bigger, August 25, 1986.
[vi] Letter to members of the FPOA, January 8, 1957.
[vii] In June 1956 the Executive Board met in Washington, DC with members of the Probation Division in order to establish standards for this new position.
|
