CHAPTER VII

1973-1979: INTERNAL CHANGES AND EXTERNAL TASKS

"The agenda tackled by this dedicated group would have boggled the mind of one planning to devote at least a month to the task. As the discussions unfolded, it was clear that the work of the Board is not concentrated on just two meetings a year in exotic places but really consists of long-term, grinding, detailed committee activities which go on not only throughout the year, but in some cases represent several years of study. This effort seems to be paying off with an impressive list of accomplishments for Federal Probation, continuing influence in Congress and fellow governmental agencies, and growing impact on the correctional field in general."
William P. Adams, Supervising U.S. Probation Officer (CA/N), after a visit to the FPOA Board Meeting, October 1976

Constitutional Revision

A clear example of what William Adams meant about tasks extending over a long period was certainly the revision of the Association's constitution. The task was assigned to a committee headed by Roosevelt Paley (CA/C) and consisted of Richard Chappell and Louis Grout (co-counsel), Brayton Crist (NJ), Bertha Payak (OH/N), Arch Sayler, Fred Pierce (NV), Harry Schloetter (CA/N), William Woodard (NC/E) and Evan Sanchez (CA/N). The group worked on a number of significant revisions over a nearly three year period and the proposed new constitution was distributed to the field for a vote in late 1974.
The main changes in the constitution, which had been intact for 20 years, would permit the Federal Probation Officers Association to become a non-profit corporation; establish four categories of membership including Active, Associate (e.g. Probation Officer Assistants), Contributing (interested individuals and organizations) and Honorary; allow some needed minor modifications of regional boundaries; tie membership dues to a formula of not more than 2/10 of one percent of a JSP 9-1 level of pay; it would establish a Council of Chief Probation Officers, one of whose members would be elected to Executive Board membership; and, finally, separate the Board office of Secretary-Treasurer into two distinct offices.
The advantages in becoming a non-profit corporation were numerous. It permitted the Association to accept tax-deductible gifts and donations; it allowed the organization to enter into contracts to conduct research and training; it provided for ownership of real estate and property; it minimized liability on the part of members for debts of the organization; and it facilitated business transactions by conferring recognized legal status of a permanent nature on the Association.
Similarly, the proposed establishment of a Chiefs' Council also had valuable purposes. As subsequently outlined by the first representative of the Chiefs' Council to the Executive Board, Brayton Crist, the goals of the Council were to develop and promulgate policies, guidelines, and/or position papers regarding administrative matters within the Federal Probation System for the purpose of promoting more efficient and effective management practices, which, in turn, will further improve service delivery to the Courts, clients, and the community.
In order to meet its goals, the Council had several objectives:
1.      Maintain formal and informal avenues of communication between all Chiefs, through their Regional Representatives, and through their representative on the FPOA Executive Board. The Executive Board Representative would act as a liaison person between the Chiefs, the Executive Board, the Administrative Office, the Probation Committee and the Federal Judicial Center.
2.  Develop and promulgate a general management philosophy statement which addresses the issue of how to most effectively direct and supervise the work of competent, highly trained professionals.
3.  Establish a systematic means of identifying problem areas of mutual concern, eliciting a consensus as to a proposed solution, promulgating that consensus to all Chief U. S. Probation Officers, and receiving feedback as to the results.
4.      Establish and maintain an aggressive stance concerning any new legislation affecting the Federal Probation System, and, further, take the initiative to propose additional legislation as required to fulfill statutory and professional responsibilities.
5.  Develop continuing methods to maintain an "esprit de corps" throughout the Federal Probation System which would insure pride of accomplishment, commitment to mutual objectives, and dedication to attain program goals.
By February 1975 the members of the Association who voted had overwhelmingly ratified the new constitution (374-36). The matter of incorporation was handled immediately and the state of Georgia was selected as the site of incorporation. This was occasioned by the fact that the Association's counsel, Richard Chappell, practiced in that state. Since local law required that one of the incorporators be a resident of the state, Association member Patrick Murphy, Chief at Atlanta, agreed to be one of the officers. Ted Wisner (MI/W) and Paul Chandler (CA/N), as Executive Board officers, were also incorporators. The formal signing of the incorporation took place on April 21, 1975. In August of the same year, the field membership of the Association unanimously approved the Charter of Incorporation, ratification of the same bylaws as governed the Association and the election of all officers of the Association to the same position in the new corporation.
The constitution was revised once again in 1977 after work was completed by Harry Schloetter. The purpose of the second revision was twofold. First, it was felt that local chapters would broaden membership participation and facilitate communication between the field and the Executive Board. To create such chapters required a constitutional change. Second, it was believed that Probation Officer Assistants, who were associate members, and the newly-appointed Pretrial Services Officers in Probation Offices, should be accorded the opportunity for full active membership. These respective amendments were approved by the field membership at the end of 1977.

The Chiefs' Council

The Chiefs' Council, briefly described above, was a short-lived affiliate of the Federal Probation Officers Association. It was not for lack of value that the Council ceased to exist but, rather, because of its value, it became the forerunner of the Chiefs' Management Council, an advisory group to the Probation Division of the Administrative Office.
The first Council consisted of the following Chiefs: Everett L. Poindexter (TN/M), John T. Connolly (NY/S)., James L. Hurd (KY/W), Harry W. Schloetter (CA/N), Richard J. Anderson (MI/W), Thomas D. Myrick LA/W) and Brayton Crist (NJ), the latter being the Council’s Representative to the Executive Board.
One of the functions of the Council was to assist the Administrative Office in the development of managerial training, assessment of needs and the development of programs. In November 1975 Brayton Crist was asked by the Board to obtain a consensus of opinion from the field as to the appointment, training and input of new officers into the System with a view toward what the Association could do to assist the field and promote communication of the System's needs to the Administrative Office and the Federal Judicial Center. The Council was also requested to look into the continuing problem of office space. At this same time, with respect to training, Crist and the Council took the position that all officer orientation training should remain in Washington, D. C.
A second Council was appointed in January 1977 and included the following Chiefs: William T. Hogan, Jr. (MA), Richard J. Anderson, James L. Hurd, Thomas M. Ferguson, Jr. AL/M), Thomas D. Myrick. and Harry Schloetter, the Council’s Representative to the Executive Board. The Council, in its second term, took it upon itself to promote increased membership in the Association and to encourage responses from all Chiefs to the Personnel Division of the Administrative Office with respect to revision of the Judiciary Salary Plan. The Council also concerned itself with problems related to the disclosure of presentence reports and to the consolidation of all hazardous incidents involving probation officers. The latter effort was for the purpose of providing statistics to justify hazardous duty retirement as well as to secure the protections afforded by Title 18 U. S. Code, §1114. During this same period the Council also prepared a formal response to a critical report of the General Accounting Office toward the Federal Probation System.
In 1979 a third Chiefs' Council was appointed with James Hurd as Representative to the Executive Board. During this year the Council prepared a response to the Probation Division's answers to Chiefs' concerns which were expressed in December 1978 at (the first) national Chiefs' meeting in Kansas City, Missouri. The Council also began to gather information on suits that were already or were being filed against federal probation officers, and, further, issued a position paper on placing the pretrial services function within probation rather than in a separate agency. Although the Chiefs' Council would not continue beyond 1979, its diligent efforts would be continued by the Chiefs' Management Council.

The Creation of Local Chapters

The development of local and regional chapters was essentially prompted by the discontinuation of the triennial regional training seminars of the Federal Judicial Center in 1974. Prior to that time, the regional meetings served as an opportunity for many probation officers from several districts to meet for Association business at the close of the sessions. When budget restrictions ended these regional meetings, a new alternative had to be devised. Local and regional chapters of the Association seemed to offer an answer. Prior to 1974, too, the personnel size of Federal Probation was relatively constant. However, with the later creation of numerous additional officer positions, the ability of officers to feel a part of the Association was more limited. If a local chapter was available, it was believed that officers would have a better opportunity to provide input into the Association.
Plans to establish local chapters in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark and Philadelphia were discussed in February 1976. Later in the year Harry Schloetter was given a committee assignment to prepare an amendment to the constitution to permit the chartering of chapters.
By May 1978, with the appropriate constitutional amendment ratified by the field, the Greater New York-New Jersey Federal Probation Officers Association Chapter received the first regional charter from the Association. This organization, commonly referred to as the TriDistrict Chapter, consisted of representatives of the District of New Jersey and the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. In the same year chapters in the District of Connecticut and the Northern District of Illinois also sought charters and they were granted as was one to the Eastern District  of Michigan. All sent representatives to the 25th Anniversary Board meeting in Madison, Wisconsin in November 1979, which commemorated the 25th year of the Association's beginning.
 
For the time that they existed, chapters provided a vital source of communication from the field to the Executive Board. Although most chapters did not flourish after 1985, the TriDistrict Chapter continued to be active in the metropolitan New York and New Jersey area for some time thereafter.

Recognition: Awards and Certificates

One of the long-standing and intense interests of the Association has been the recognition of excellence in the Federal Probation Service. Since 1964 and the creation of the Richard F. Doyle Award, a special committee of the Association selected, through nominations from the field, the officer who "made the most significant achievement in or contribution to the Federal Probation System or the broader field of corrections." The members of the Association knew, however, that there was always more than one officer who exemplified the excellence which the Doyle Award sought to honor and recognize. Therefore, in order to broaden the base of recipients so that at least one officer in each region could be recognized, the Executive Board established a committee in mid-1977 to develop such an award. This committee consisted of Richard L. Martinez, Chief Probation Officer, NM; Beal Kidd, Chief Probation Officer, AR/E; Arthur Schmidt, Jr., Probation Officer, FL/S; and Martin L. Kohr, Probation Officer, CA/C. It was anticipated that this committee would develop the concept of regional awards and distribute a questionnaire to the membership for their comments. Edgar Mallory, as Chairman of the Doyle Award Committee, had an integral role in the development of the award.
By March 1978 the concept of regional awards was approved by the Executive Board at its spring meeting and in March of the following year guidelines for the regional awards were published in the Association's newsletter. The objectives of the award are the following:

To commemorate and perpetuate the ideals of outstanding performance in the field of Federal probation.
To recognize and honor Federal Probation Officers who, through their own initiative, make significant contributions and provide outstanding services to their field of endeavor.
To recognize and encourage services that enhance the effectiveness of the Federal Probation System.
To acquaint the public with work being accomplished in the Federal Probation System.
Any line Federal Probation Officer, Pretrial Services Officer or Probation Officer Assistant who has demonstrated the worthwhile virtues of dedication, compassion, perseverance and integrity is eligible. The recipient should have exceeded the customary administrative requirements of work by giving unselfishly of time, talent, resources, expertise and energy to causes which enrich the lives of others. The recipient should inspire others by his or her communication of enthusiasm, leadership and professional standards. The recipient's responses to needs in situations has earned him or her the respect and praise of fellow workers and of the community at large.[i]

In addition to the national and regional awards, the Association always advocated Court sponsored awards in the form of incentive pay increases (Quality Steps) and recognition pins for years of service. By 1978 these latter two forms of recognition were a reality.
 
Finally, in order to express appreciation and bestow recognition to Federal Probation Officers who were retiring, the Association decided to create retirement certificates. The responsibility to develop the certificate was taken up by FPOA President Paul Chandler and Supervising U. S. Probation Officer Evan Sanchez, who completed the task in 1977 at which time the certificates began to be distributed to retired FPOA members.

Training

Orientation and advanced training have always been a major concern of the Federal Probation Officers Association. It worked closely with the Chicago Training Center and its director, Ben Meeker, who himself was a founder of the FPOA. Later, with the creation of the Federal Judicial Center, the Association continued to participate in training and to offer its services. The period between 1973 and 1979 was no different. Every year, in fact, since the Center opened, the FPOA has met with representatives of the Federal Judicial Center at least once at its spring Board meeting.
In early 1973 Richard Mishke, of the Judicial Center, who was keenly interested in Probation Officer training, asked the Association for recommendations as to topics and speakers for orientation, refresher and regional training courses. Training for future managers was always one of the Association's particularly advocated recommendations as was training in drug abuse and treatment, supervision of organized crime figures and clerical training. In 1973 the Association's Research, Training and Projects Committee compiled a roster of probation officers with skills and interest in training so that the Judicial Center would have a field resource to draw upon. When regional training institutes were terminated by budget cuts, Richard Mishke approached the Association again in 1974 for suggestions on alternative training.
 
In 1975 the Research, Training and Projects Committee prepared a review of the educational opportunities for federal probation officers and surveyed the field to determine what formal District training was taking place. Later, Thomas Barnes (OH/S), FPOA Regional Vice President and committee chairman, submitted an extensive and comprehensive assessment of the current and future training needs within the Federal Probation System with numerous recommendations to the Federal Judicial Center, where it was very well-received. In the following year, 1976, the Center's Director, the Honorable Walter C. Hoffman, asked the Association to develop a ten day orientation program for new officers. In November of the same year, the program was submitted to Judge Hoffman and it was first implemented in 1978.
 
In its meeting with Judicial Center officials the Board of the Association not only has represented the interests of probation officers but those of support personnel as well. In the fall of 1977, for example, the Board asked the Center to consider structured training for clerical employees to which the Center agreed. In 1978 such training was instituted on a regional basis. In 1978 the Center was also asked to consider training in personal safety and self-defense which was prompted by a position paper developed by the TriDistrict Chapter. In this instance, too, the Center sought to assist the field, within its budgetary constraints, through funding of specialized defense training in the requesting Districts as well as through the development of videotapes on the subject.
In addition to its work with the Federal Judicial Center concerning training, the FPOA has also worked with the American Correctional Association during this period and sponsored several major sessions and cosponsored numerous workshops at the ACA's Congress of Corrections over the years.
 
In 1978, when the Probation Division invited the Association to participate, with a number of other individuals, in the development of a new supervision monograph and a canon of ethics, the Association responded. Chief Probation Officer Al Havenstrite (TX/N) worked on the supervision monograph and Chief Probation Officer Morris Kuznesof (NY/S) worked on the canon of ethics.
During this same period the Association had an interest in the concept of an exchange program of probation officers between England and the United States. It encouraged such exchanges and sought, briefly, to act as a clearinghouse between District offices and the Inner London Probation Service.

Personnel Issues

Salary inequities and retirement issues never seem to disappear. Revision of the Judiciary Salary Plan and the protection of hazardous duty retirement were issues, not only in the past, as has been discussed, but also during the period between 1973 and 1979.
With respect to revision of the Judiciary Salary Plan, the Probation Division, in early 1973, submitted a request for 340 officer positions, including twenty JSP 13 lines for twelve supervisors and eight special-function officers. The latter was included in direct response to the Association's requests. However, the creation of a line grade of JSP 13 was still in the future. William Cohan of the Probation Division suggested, in October 1973, that the FPOA emphasize upgrading clerical personnel as this was not only necessary but also more realizable at the time. In the following year, Probation Division Chief Wayne Jackson indicated, while meeting with the Association, that he had three priorities which were approved by the Judicial Conference. These included the reclassification of a number of offices up to "large", increasing the number of probation supervisors and increasing the number of clerical supervisors. In fact, later in 1974, thirteen chiefs were elevated in grade from JSP 13 to JSP 14, based upon a reclassification of office size, and nine chiefs were elevated from JSP 14 to JSP 15 for the same reason. Nine Deputy Chief positions were authorized at JSP 14 and 76 JSP 13 supervisors were added.
Despite some of the upgrading and creation of new positions, more reclassification work was still to be done. The history of the Association's work in that regard was summed up in a Newsletter:[ii]
 

The recent story begins in approximately 1976, when it came to the FPOA's attention that the Personnel Division of the Administrative Office was interested in undertaking a review of the Judiciary Salary Plan. This plan, adopted in the early 1960's, was long overdue for systematic review. Job duties and responsibilities had altered in the intervening years, with new positions being created, and changing responsibilities being occasioned by the dramatic increase in numbers of personnel in the Judiciary.
At the time the FPOA Economics Committee recognized the opportunity to provide input and make a significant contribution to the review of the Judiciary Salary Plan. Work was begun in approximately 1976 to produce a comprehensive and cogent position regarding the classification of jobs in the Probation Service. Much thought and effort went into this task, the overriding concern being to propose a salary classification that would be fair to all parties.

The first FPOA milestone was contained in the President's letter of August 3, 1977, to Mr. Glenn Johnson, the chief of the Division of Personnel at the Administrative Office. This was a comprehensive position statement, with numerous accompanying and supporting documents, including detailed position descriptions for many of the jobs in the Probation Service. FPOA's basic proposal had six major points, which were as follows:

1) The possibility of a Grade 13 classification for line probation officers, under certain specified conditions.
2) A revision of the salary track for probation officer assistants, to lead to a classification at the Grades 7 and 8 levels, as contrasted with the then current and remaining classification at the Grades 5 and 6 levels.
3) Reclassification of supervising probation officers and small district chief probation officers from Grade 13 to Grade 14
4) Reclassification of deputy chiefs and chief probation officers in medium districts from Grade 14 to Grade 15, and reclassification of chiefs in large or metropolitan districts to Grade 16.
5) Revision of the classification scheme for supervisory clerical personnel.
6) Appropriate reclassification for positions in the Probation Division.
 

The FPOA position was predicated upon an analysis of the basic requirements of each job, as it existed in 1977. In many instances there were substantial changes over the job duties in existence some fifteen years before. Central to the whole FPOA position was the opening up of a possible Grade 13 for the line officer position. This was always circumscribed, and was never advocated as an across the board reclassification of all line probation officers. Rather, certain specified criteria of education and experience combinations, along with duty assignments, were given as the rational basis for this reclassification. Nonetheless, the Grade 13 line officer possibility was the keystone of the whole FPOA proposal, and it was carefully buttressed by detailed position descriptions.
 

During 1977 and 1978, whenever possible, the FPOA Board met with representatives of the Personnel Division to keep in touch with the developing Judiciary Salary Plan Review. For a variety of reasons the Personnel Division was unable to keep to its original schedule of field visitations, and progress was slow. Developments at this stage were reported in the appropriate issues of the Newsletter.

In March 1979 the Board met with various representatives of the Administrative Office, including the chief of the Personnel Division. As a result of those meetings and subsequent discussions, it was the Board's impression that the FPOA proposals would be presented to the relevant committees of the Judicial Conference. These developments were reported in detail in the May 1979 Newsletter.

During the summer of 1979, however, there was a development that caused us great concern. In an apparent shift, the Personnel Division produced a massive document, which was an interim proposal at restructuring the entire Judiciary Salary Plan, on the basis of factor evaluation scoring (FES). This was something that was foreign to us, and quite frankly, was initially very confusing.

At Madison, the Board met with Darryl Schenk, the chief of the classification and survey section in the Personnel Division. Mr. Schenk explained how FES worked, and the rationale behind the apparent shift in direction. He also explained that no firm decision had been made at that stage to adopt the FES system, but that the proposal was very tentative. Though the classification of the line probation officer position had not been definitively figured out, there were strong indications that it would be classified squarely in the middle of the Grade 12 range. At the time it appeared that there was no room for the possibility of a Grade 13 line officer. However, this position was not cast in granite, and intensive work resumed after the Board meeting.
The FPOA Board clearly regarded the possibility of a Grade 13 line officer position classification as the centerpiece of our concern. The 1977 position descriptions were extensively reworked in the light of new developments since that time, to reflect new line officer duties occasioned by such legislation as the Narcotic Aftercare responsibility which the probation system took on in October. Having done this, the argument was made that the FES system itself supports a line officer 13 classification for the positions of senior probation officer and narcotic officer. It is the Board's present understanding that both the Probation Division and Mr. Schenk are in agreement with that conclusion.

Though the possibility of a line officer Grade 13 was the centerpiece of the FPOA proposal, another aspect of the proposal was getting a fair amount of publicity during this time period, and seemed to be the focus of attention. That aspect had to do with the classification of the chief probation officer's position, and derivatively with other administrative positions. The Board recognized and understood that there was a problem known as the "compression factor" which must be addressed. Basically, this means that as long as there were chief probation officers and supervising probation officers classified at the Grade 13 level, as a practical matter it was unlikely that line probation officer positions would be classified at the same level. For many reasons there was an effort underway from numerous sources to reclassify the chiefs' positions. This effort was greatly buttressed by developments in recent years with respect to the positions of clerk of court and clerk of bankruptcy. However, the primary focus of FPOA never shifted. Contrary to the concerns of some that FPOA is an organization representing only chiefs (in point of fact, of the eleven current voting Board members five are line officers, three are supervisors, and three are chiefs) the FPOA position has always been one of representing the entire field of probation.
 

In recent weeks and months it has come to appear more likely that the classification of chiefs will be changed. This is not inconsistent with the FPOA's proposals; indeed, it is a part, but only a part, of those proposals. One of the organizations influential in working on the change of chiefs’ classifications is the newly formed Chiefs Advisory Council. However, it is important that people throughout the system also realize that it was the Chiefs Advisory Council which was also responsible for achieving the determination that the FES supported the possibility of a Grade 13 for line probation staff.

If reclassification of probation officer positions comes to pass, it will be as a result of strenuous efforts by many groups and individuals. Not the least of these groups is the Federal Probation Officers Association, which strives to enhance the professional stature of our service.

Reclassification of probation officers did come about within a relatively short period of time thereafter, and the position of JSP 13 became available to the field. It is important, therefore, for the field to see some of the work involved in developing the JSP 13 by the Association. In that context, the position description (one of many) that the Association submitted to the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts is provided in Appendix K.

Hazardous Duty Retirement

With respect to the issue of hazardous duty retirement, it remained intact through 1979. However, there were periodic challenges to it up to that year. In late 1973, for example, a House of Representatives' subcommittee was reviewing the value of such a retirement program. The Association immediately became aware of this development through its legislative oversight committee and President Walter Evans sent a telegram to the subcommittee supporting the concept of hazardous duty retirement and offered to testify at any hearing.
In April 1977 the General Accounting Office completed a study and prepared a report which was quite critical of the special retirement benefits for hazardous duty personnel. The Civil Service Commission was also opposed to such special retirement at this same time. In response, Association President Paul Chandler corresponded with Congresswoman Gladys N. Spellman (D-MD), Chairperson of the House Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and requested the opportunity to testify at any future hearing. Meanwhile, Thomas W.  Jones (NC/M), Chairman of the Legislative Committee kept the field aware of all current developments in the new attack on hazardous duty retirement through several field memoranda. A survey of field opinion conducted in August 1977 reflected strong support (733 to 22) and firm application of the special retirement provisions.
Eventually, on October 31, 1977, President Chandler testified before Congresswoman Spellman's subcommittee concerning the Comptroller General's report on the Special Retirement Policy for Federal Law Enforcement and Firefighter Personnel. During the following month Tom Jones' Retirement Bulletin, sent to all members, described the special retirement provisions, outlined the opposition and provided the names and addresses of subcommittee members for correspondence by the field.
For nearly two years after the General Accounting Office Report, there were numerous conferences with Congressional staff members by Association representatives, a great deal of correspondence with House members and testimony before Congress by the Association's President. By November 1978, it appeared that the Congress was convinced about the hazards involved in probation work and Federal Probation Officers were not included in the act eliminating mandatory retirement for other federal employees. In the following month, on December 22, 1978, United States Probation Officer Edmundo Ramirez was brutally murdered on the steps of the United States Court House in Laredo, Texas.[iii]

 Other Activities and Events

While revision of the Judiciary Salary Plan and the preservation of hazardous duty retirement were significant issues for the Association during the period between 1973 and 1979, there were also other personnel areas of concern. Certainly, mileage allowances, government cars and availability of parking were among those priorities. The Association sought a pilot program on the use of government vehicles in April 1973. That study was initiated and completed in the Central District of California by May 1974 and found that government vehicles could be an asset. In October of the same year, however, Ted Wisner of the Research Committee polled the field with a questionnaire on the value of government vehicles. The results reflected that 378 officers preferred their own vehicles while 197 opted for government cars. Throughout the period, the general tendency was toward the use of privately owned vehicles.
Use of an officer's own vehicle, however, involved a number of costs the reimbursement of which, through mileage allowances, never seemed to be adequate. In November 1978 the Association entered into a contract with the Runzheimer Company for a study of automobile operating costs nationwide in order to determine the adequacy of the then current reimbursement allowance. The study was completed the following year and the results were turned over to Edward Garabedian of the Administrative Office's Division of Financial Management. He indicated an interest in the study and agreed to present it to the General Services Administration. While GSA remained rather inflexible, the Director of the Administrative Office, within the limits that he was authorized, raised the mileage allowance for probation officers.
Another personnel-related issue arose in early 1974 when the Civil Service Commission evaluated the position of federal probation officer and found it to be inadequate as a qualification to become a hearing examiner for the United States Board of Parole. The matter was assigned to the Research, Projects and Training Committee of Ted Wisner for the development of a model position description of the duties and responsibilities of a probation officer. Meanwhile, in October 1974, the Association's Executive Board met with members of the Board of Parole in Washington, D. C. The Parole Board informed the Association that there was no intention to exclude federal probation officers from eligibility for the position of examiner and that they would, henceforth, review the criteria for the position every six months and communicate their findings to the Civil Service Commission. Thereafter, federal probation officers were determined to be qualified to apply for the position of hearing examiner.
Not all goals of the FPOA have taken years to attain. One example of rapid change came in October 1973 when the Executive Board expressed its concern over inadequate prisoner-interviewing facilities in District Courthouses. Guy Willetts of the Probation Division, in response, met with the U. S. Marshals Service who agreed to help. The Bureau of Prisons offered to incorporate adequate interviewing facilities in its new building plans and by February 1974 the Marshals Service had also included upgraded standards in their manuals.
One of the many interests of the Association during this period concerned the use of volunteers. Ted Wisner and his Research, Training and Projects Committee studied the use of volunteers in 1973 and conducted a survey on their employment and value. Late in the year the committee decided on a pilot project with the American Bar Association relative to a pilot project for volunteers. In May 1974 the Association's Executive Board discussed with the ABA a National Volunteer Parole Aid Program wherein young lawyers would act as advisors to parolees. (At this same time the Association also worked with the ABA on the latter's Offender Employment Restrictions Project). During the period between 1973 and 1979 the Association met several times to discuss volunteers in the criminal justice system and several district courts set up programs with volunteers in mind.
In the six years following 1973 several benefits were developed by the Federal Probation Officers Association, not the least of these being the securing of professional liability insurance, up to $1,000,000, for all Federal Probation Officers. The Association also worked diligently to develop a group life and health insurance benefits program for officers but found, on several occasions, that the membership was not as interested in these areas as much as in the area of personal liability coverage. There was even a lack of overwhelming response to questionnaires concerning liability, but the Association persisted in its efforts and, eventually, several hundred officers have sought the protections offered through Wright and Company.
In addition to liability insurance, the Association was also able to arrange for discounts on extracurricular activities such as Disneyland and Disneyworld reduced prices, discounts on Howard Johnson motels, Bostonian shoes, Hertz Rent A Cars, the Federal Prescription Service for pharmaceuticals and Arrow shirts.
Several position papers were issued by the FPOA during this period and certain papers ought to be mentioned because of their importance. The first was a report on the Ways and Means of Strengthening the Administrative Structure of the Federal Probation System. It was submitted to the Administrative Office in 1973. The second paper was prompted by the American Correctional Association and concerned the National Advisory Commission On Criminal Justice Standards and Goals' Report on Corrections.
The ACA had requested that the Federal Probation Officers Association respond to the report in some detail in May 1974. The Association did respond later in the year. There were some reservations about the Advisory Commission's report, so that the FPOA qualified their reply with the proviso, "To the extent that the Standards and Goals of the (Commission) conform to the principles and standards presently and previously endorsed by the Federal Probation Officers Association, we heartily encourage their adoption."[iv] 

The third major position paper of the Association during this time concerned sentencing. In late 1976, the Judicial Conference Subcommittee on the Administration of Probation and of Criminal Law came out strongly opposed to the concepts of a "United States Sentencing Commission" and the determinant sentence as it was being discussed in Congress. The FPOA, in support of the Judicial Conference, conducted a scientific field survey of opinion, set up a "watchdog" committee and decided to develop a position paper.

In March 1977 an FPOA position paper, authored by Walter Evans and Frank Gilbert, both of Oregon, was prepared. It called for the need for flexibility in sentencing; it recognized the disparity in sentencing in any case where a judgmental decision is required; and it recognized the need for the Courts to provide an explanation of the sentences imposed. Concerning those sentences, the Association recognized certain goals to be achieved. These included the neutralization of the offender, general and specific deterrence, preclusion of the depreciation of the seriousness of the offense, opportunity for self-improvement and the possibility of expiation through restitution. During the summer of 1977 the Association's position paper was distributed to the Senate and included in their hearing records. In addition, Congressman James R. Mann (D-SC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice was informed that the Association was ready to contribute expert testimony on any revision of the criminal statutes concerning sentencing, especially HR 6869 which, at that time, called for revision of sentencing practices.

The seven years between 1973 and 1979 included other work of the Association which, though not trivial, can only be mentioned in brief form. In early 1973, the Association developed and recommended a consolidation of forms for the preliminary parole revocation hearing. The Parole Board's response was a revised form which included those changes. In addition, the FPOA also suggested a uniform format for reporting violations of parole and a pilot project was initiated in one district. Similarly, work was also undertaken by the Association for revision of the Parole Supervision Progress Report.
A major initiative of the FPOA in 1974 and 1975 was the creation of a nationwide organization which would represent the interests of all probation and parole officers at all levels of government. Toward this end the Association joined with Merrill Smith and Wayne Jackson, together with a number of others, in promoting the new organization. For the FPOA, Paul Chandler did a substantial amount of groundwork. In August 1975, at an American Correctional Association meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) was created with the moral and financial support of the FPOA. A new organization was now in place which could take over the role that the National Council on Crime and Delinquency held prior to a change in their goals.
The Executive Board of the Association, throughout its existence, has sought to maintain numerous contacts with influential and significant figures who have had some prominence in influencing the criminal justice system. Routinely, at the spring board meeting in Washington, D. C., the members have spoken with numerous individuals including Congressmen and women, Congressional Aides, the Judicial Conference, the Probation Division of the Administrative Office, and the Parole Commission, the Judicial Center, the Bureau of Prisons together with other criminal justice professionals. During the period between 1973 and 1979 the Association was also fortunate in being asked to meet with the Office of Policy and Planning of the Attorney General's Office. That office, in the person of Edward Dauber, had requested in 1976 that the Association provide advice on several issues including plea bargaining, expansion of the U. S. Magistrate's role, sentencing guidelines, functioning of the Parole Commission and the expungement of records. That assistance was quickly given.
The work done in its contact with these other agencies, which also included for several years, the American Bar Association, has been presented in the Association's newsletters. These newsletters have acted as a means for communicating up to date information to the field concerning any developments which might effect probation officers. Until 1976 the newsletter was the only vehicle which provided the latest personnel information to the field. Late in that year, however, the Probation Division developed its own excellent newsletter, News and Views, which began to carry the personnel data that the FPOA had presented since 1955.[v] Thereafter, the Association's newsletter was able to concentrate on other issues and problems, acting as a forum for opinions and as a vehicle for needed surveys.
In concluding this chapter on the history of the Federal Probation Officers Association, it seems fitting to note two presentations which were made, one in 1977 and one in 1978. In the first instance, Emerson Watchman, Probation Officer Assistant for the District of New Mexico, presented a beautiful Navaho sand painting of the FPOA emblem to Paul Chandler, President of the Association, as a gift to the organization. The presentation was made during a Board meeting in Albuquerque in September 1977. Another presentation occurred on July 14, 1978. At that time, Judge Albert C. Wollenberg, Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of Probation had announced his retirement. As a token of appreciation for his guidance and support of probation over the course of fifteen years with the Judicial Conference, Judge Wollenberg was presented with lifetime honorary membership in the FPOA in the form of a resolution. That resolution was given to the judge by Chief Probation Officer Robert B. Lee, Western District of Washington, at a dinner held by the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference in the judge's honor, in Olympia, Washington.

---

[i] A summary of those officers receiving Regional Line Officer of the Year Awards is detailed separately on this website. Please see the Index.     

[ii] November 1979

[iii] Ironically, it would still be years before the Association was finally successful in bringing federal probation officers under the statute protecting certain federal law enforcement officers and requiring Department of Justice investigation.

[iv] The full response may be found in Appendix L. In the November-December 1974 issue of the American Journal of Corrections an article appeared concerning the principles expressed by the FPOA pertaining to presentence reports and probation practices under the title "A Statement of Professional Standards and Corrections for the United States Government".

[v] The FPOA had long urged the Probation Division to publish just such a newsletter.

With respect to the issue of hazardous duty retirement, it remained intact through 1979. However, there were periodic challenges to it up to that year. In late 1973, for example, a House of Representatives' subcommittee was reviewing the value of such a retirement program. The Association immediately became aware of this development through its legislative oversight committee and President Walter Evans sent a telegram to the subcommittee supporting the concept of hazardous duty retirement and offered to testify at any hearing. In April 1977 the General Accounting Office completed a study and prepared a report which was quite critical of the special retirement benefits for hazardous duty personnel. The Civil Service Commission was also opposed to such special retirement at this same time. In response, Association President Paul Chandler corresponded with Congresswoman Gladys N. Spellman (D-MD), Chairperson of the House Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and requested the opportunity to testify at any future hearing. Meanwhile, Thomas W.  Jones (NC/M), Chairman of the Legislative Committee kept the field aware of all current developments in the new attack on hazardous duty retirement through several field memoranda. A survey of field opinion conducted in August 1977 reflected strong support (733 to 22) and firm application of the special retirement provisions. Eventually, on October 31, 1977, President Chandler testified before Congresswoman Spellman's subcommittee concerning the Comptroller General's report on the Special Retirement Policy for Federal Law Enforcement and Firefighter Personnel. During the following month Tom Jones' Retirement Bulletin, sent to all members, described the special retirement provisions, outlined the opposition and provided the names and addresses of subcommittee members for correspondence by the field. For nearly two years after the General Accounting Office Report, there were numerous conferences with Congressional staff members by Association representatives, a great deal of correspondence with House members and testimony before Congress by the Association's President. By November 1978, it appeared that the Congress was convinced about the hazards involved in probation work and Federal Probation Officers were not included in the act eliminating mandatory retirement for other federal employees. In the following month, on December 22, 1978, United States Probation Officer Edmundo Ramirez was brutally murdered on the steps of the United States Court House in Laredo, Texas.While revision of the Judiciary Salary Plan and the preservation of hazardous duty retirement were significant issues for the Association during the period between 1973 and 1979, there were also other personnel areas of concern. Certainly, mileage allowances, government cars and availability of parking were among those priorities. The Association sought a pilot program on the use of government vehicles in April 1973. That study was initiated and completed in the Central District of California by May 1974 and found that government vehicles could be an asset. In October of the same year, however, Ted Wisner of the Research Committee polled the field with a questionnaire on the value of government vehicles. The results reflected that 378 officers preferred their own vehicles while 197 opted for government cars. Throughout the period, the general tendency was toward the use of privately owned vehicles. Use of an officer's own vehicle, however, involved a number of costs the reimbursement of which, through mileage allowances, never seemed to be adequate. In November 1978 the Association entered into a contract with the Runzheimer Company for a study of automobile operating costs nationwide in order to determine the adequacy of the then current reimbursement allowance. The study was completed the following year and the results were turned over to Edward Garabedian of the Administrative Office's Division of Financial Management. He indicated an interest in the study and agreed to present it to the General Services Administration. While GSA remained rather inflexible, the Director of the Administrative Office, within the limits that he was authorized, raised the mileage allowance for probation officers. Another personnel-related issue arose in early 1974 when the Civil Service Commission evaluated the position of federal probation officer and found it to be inadequate as a qualification to become a hearing examiner for the United States Board of Parole. The matter was assigned to the Research, Projects and Training Committee of Ted Wisner for the development of a model position description of the duties and responsibilities of a probation officer. Meanwhile, in October 1974, the Association's Executive Board met with members of the Board of Parole in Washington, D. C. The Parole Board informed the Association that there was no intention to exclude federal probation officers from eligibility for the position of examiner and that they would, henceforth, review the criteria for the position every six months and communicate their findings to the Civil Service Commission. Thereafter, federal probation officers were determined to be qualified to apply for the position of hearing examiner. Not all goals of the FPOA have taken years to attain. One example of rapid change came in October 1973 when the Executive Board expressed its concern over inadequate prisoner-interviewing facilities in District Courthouses. Guy Willetts of the Probation Division, in response, met with the U. S. Marshals Service who agreed to help. The Bureau of Prisons offered to incorporate adequate interviewing facilities in its new building plans and by February 1974 the Marshals Service had also included upgraded standards in their manuals. One of the many interests of the Association during this period concerned the use of volunteers. Ted Wisner and his Research, Training and Projects Committee studied the use of volunteers in 1973 and conducted a survey on their employment and value. Late in the year the committee decided on a pilot project with the American Bar Association relative to a pilot project for volunteers. In May 1974 the Association's Executive Board discussed with the ABA a National Volunteer Parole Aid Program wherein young lawyers would act as advisors to parolees. (At this same time the Association also worked with the ABA on the latter's Offender Employment Restrictions Project). During the period between 1973 and 1979 the Association met several times to discuss volunteers in the criminal justice system and several district courts set up programs with volunteers in mind.In the six years following 1973 several benefits were developed by the Federal Probation Officers Association, not the least of these being the securing of professional liability insurance, up to $1,000,000, for all Federal Probation Officers. The Association also worked diligently to develop a group life and health insurance benefits program for officers but found, on several occasions, that the membership was not as interested in these areas as much as in the area of personal liability coverage. There was even a lack of overwhelming response to questionnaires concerning liability, but the Association persisted in its efforts and, eventually, several hundred officers have sought the protections offered through Wright and Company. In addition to liability insurance, the Association was also able to arrange for discounts on extracurricular activities such as Disneyland and Disneyworld reduced prices, discounts on Howard Johnson motels, Bostonian shoes, Hertz Rent A Cars, the Federal Prescription Service for pharmaceuticals and Arrow shirts. Several position papers were issued by the FPOA during this period and certain papers ought to be mentioned because of their importance. The first was a report on the Ways and Means of Strengthening the Administrative Structure of the Federal Probation System. It was submitted to the Administrative Office in 1973. The second paper was prompted by the American Correctional Association and concerned the National Advisory Commission On Criminal Justice Standards and Goals' Report on Corrections. The ACA had requested that the Federal Probation Officers Association respond to the report in some detail in May 1974. The Association did respond later in the year. There were some reservations about the Advisory Commission's report, so that the FPOA qualified their reply with the proviso, "To the extent that the Standards and Goals of the (Commission) conform to the principles and standards presently and previously endorsed by the Federal Probation Officers Association, we heartily encourage their adoption."  The seven years between 1973 and 1979 included other work of the Association which, though not trivial, can only be mentioned in brief form. In early 1973, the Association developed and recommended a consolidation of forms for the preliminary parole revocation hearing. The Parole Board's response was a revised form which included those changes. In addition, the FPOA also suggested a uniform format for reporting violations of parole and a pilot project was initiated in one district. Similarly, work was also undertaken by the Association for revision of the Parole Supervision Progress Report. A major initiative of the FPOA in 1974 and 1975 was the creation of a nationwide organization which would represent the interests of all probation and parole officers at all levels of government. Toward this end the Association joined with Merrill Smith and Wayne Jackson, together with a number of others, in promoting the new organization. For the FPOA, Paul Chandler did a substantial amount of groundwork. In August 1975, at an American Correctional Association meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) was created with the moral and financial support of the FPOA. A new organization was now in place which could take over the role that the National Council on Crime and Delinquency held prior to a change in their goals. The Executive Board of the Association, throughout its existence, has sought to maintain numerous contacts with influential and significant figures who have had some prominence in influencing the criminal justice system. Routinely, at the spring board meeting in Washington, D. C., the members have spoken with numerous individuals including Congressmen and women, Congressional Aides, the Judicial Conference, the Probation Division of the Administrative Office, and the Parole Commission, the Judicial Center, the Bureau of Prisons together with other criminal justice professionals. During the period between 1973 and 1979 the Association was also fortunate in being asked to meet with the Office of Policy and Planning of the Attorney General's Office. That office, in the person of Edward Dauber, had requested in 1976 that the Association provide advice on several issues including plea bargaining, expansion of the U. S. Magistrate's role, sentencing guidelines, functioning of the Parole Commission and the expungement of records. That assistance was quickly given. The work done in its contact with these other agencies, which also included for several years, the American Bar Association, has been presented in the Association's newsletters. These newsletters have acted as a means for communicating up to date information to the field concerning any developments which might effect probation officers. Until 1976 the newsletter was the only vehicle which provided the latest personnel information to the field. Late in that year, however, the Probation Division developed its own excellent newsletter, , which began to carry the personnel data that the FPOA had presented since 1955. Thereafter, the Association's newsletter was able to concentrate on other issues and problems, acting as a forum for opinions and as a vehicle for needed surveys. In concluding this chapter on the history of the Federal Probation Officers Association, it seems fitting to note two presentations which were made, one in 1977 and one in 1978. In the first instance, Emerson Watchman, Probation Officer Assistant for the District of New Mexico, presented a beautiful Navaho sand painting of the FPOA emblem to Paul Chandler, President of the Association, as a gift to the organization. The presentation was made during a Board meeting in Albuquerque in September 1977. Another presentation occurred on July 14, 1978. At that time, Judge Albert C. Wollenberg, Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of Probation had announced his retirement. As a token of appreciation for his guidance and support of probation over the course of fifteen years with the Judicial Conference, Judge Wollenberg was presented with lifetime honorary membership in the FPOA in the form of a resolution. That resolution was given to the judge by Chief Probation Officer Robert B. Lee, Western District of Washington, at a dinner held by the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference in the judge's honor, in Olympia, Washington.