Minutes of the Board - 1955 - 11/11 (Special)

MINUTES - Special Meeting Executive Board - Nov. 11, 1955

Federal Office Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.

PURPOSE: This Special Meeting of the F.P.O.A. Executive Board was called by Pres. Doyle to handle general business, to hear a report by Mr. Louis J. Sharp, Chief of Probation, Administrative Office, and to plan F.P.O.A. action on two urgent matters which have recently arisen. These are: (1) The eligibility of Federal Probation Officers to retire under the HAZARDOUS OCCUPATION clause of the U.S. Civil Service Retirement Act is being questioned by the U.S. Civil Service Commission and, (2) The proposed program of RECLASSIFICATION for Federal Probation Officers which will come before the next session of Congress needs support.

Richard F. Doyle, President (CPO, Detroit) Claude L, Goza; Exec, Vice-Pres. (CPO, Atlanta); Arch  E.  Sayler,  Sec.-Treas. (CPO SDNY, N.Y.C.); Logan A. Webster, Vice-Pres. for N.E. Area (CPO, Pittsburgh); William C. Nan, Vice-Pres. for S.E. Area (CPO, Greenville, S.C.) Drexel H. Martin, Vice-Pres, for S.W. Area (CPO Shreveport)

Marshall K. McKinney, Vice-Pres. for N.Cen, (CPO, E. St. Louis 110) Calvin H. Meador„ Vice-Pres. for Western Area (CEO, Los Angeles); Louis J. Sharp, Chief of Probation, Washington, D.C. Raymond H. Clark, U.S.P.O. Cincinnati, Thomas L. Barnes, U.S.P.O. Cincinnati.

All members of the Executive Board as originally constituted were present. Drexel Martin, William Nan and Marshall McKinney were each re-elected by their respective Area groups to serve additional two year terms

PROCEEDINGS: Pres. Doyle, in compliance with provisions of the F.P.O.A. Constitution had prepared an Agenda for use at this meeting. However, since it was necessary for Mr. Sharp to leave early, it was decided to breach the Agenda after the reading of the Minutes and the Treasurers report in order to hear Mr, Sharp.

Mr. Doyle opened the meeting with a brief review of the period since the first Executive Board meeting, Feb, 4, 1955. He pointed out that several of the objectives of the F.P.O.A. named in the Feb. 9, 1955 letter to Mr. Sharp had been realized. As a result of increased appropriations authorized by Congress, reimbursement for official travel has been increased from 7¢ to 10¢ per mile. =Per diem has been increased from $9, to $12. for overnight travel and the Probation System was able to secure 71 additional officers and 18 clerk-typists. This relieves excessive case loads in several of the districts.

Pres. Doyle then called for the reading of the minutes of the let Regular meeting of the Executive Board held at Lexington, Kentucky, Feb. 4, 1955.

A copy of the minutes had been sent to all members of the Executive Board, The Sec.-Treas. proposed one correction in the figures for the expense of the

Feb, 4th meeting. After returning to Los Angeles, Calvin Meador received a re­fund on part of his ticket and reimbursed the Treasury $22.12. This reduced the total cost of transportation to the Lexington meeting from $548.69 to 526.17

and the total cost of the meeting from $728.69 to $706.27.

Sec.-Treas. Arch Sayler reported a. TREASURY BALANCE of $467.18 representing $449.18 in the bank and $18. undeposited.  He also reported a total of 262 paid-up members of the "old" Probation Officers and 7 paid up members from recent appointees for total membership of 269. Report accepted, Goza moved, Webster seconded. Unanimous.

MR. SHARP: Mr. Sharp commented on the F.P.O.A. letter of Feb. 9th and mentioned the gains pointed out by Pres. Doyle in relations to mileage, per diem, and additional personnel. He explained the method used by the Administrative Office in determining the districts which were to receive the additional officers. Work loads were calculated by giving a weight of one work unit per month for every case under supervision and a weight of 4 work units per month for every pre- sentence investigation made. Allowing 75 work units per month as a fair work load per officer, the personnel needs of each office were calculated on the basis of statistics submitted on the Form 5 monthly report, and the critical offices were allocated additional help. Mr. Sharp said the Administrative Office also tried to maintain the ratio of 3 officers to 2 clerks in allocating clerical help.

The matter of OVERTIME PAY for Federal Probation Officers had been considered by the Administrative Office, but the short study conducted last Summer did not in­dicate any serious hardship. This study showed that Federal Probation Officers put in about 14 or l5 hours overtime per month which was not considered sufficient to justify further effort at getting appropriations for overtime. Mr. Sharp felt that extra effort might better be spent at securing more money for additional personnel. He pointed out that the overtime provisions were originally intended for those government employees who were not on a regular tour of duty, or who were required to work through an emergency, such as hourly laborers and snow shovelers. After some discussion of the difficulties which would be encountered in attempting to administer overtime assignments for the Federal Probation Officers, it was agreed by the Board that F.P.O.A, efforts should be directed toward securing more personnel so that regular overtime would not be necessary. Marshall McKinney moved that the matter be left in the hands of the Economic Committee, Seconded by William Nau. Unanimous.

Mr. Sharp then reported that the U.S. Civil Service Commission was apparently in the process of reversing itself with regard to Federal Probation Officers who apply for retirement under the HAZARDOUS OCCUPATION clause of the U.S. Civil Service Retirement Act. Eight former U.S. Probation Officers have retired under this law. Their retirement annuities were approved by a former Commission made up of Democratic Appointees. Since the change in Administration there has been a complete turn-over in Commission personnel and the present U.S. Civil Service Commission is very much more conservative in their interpretation of the law. Mr. Sharp then gave his personal observations on the meaning of this and stated that the Administrative Office first became aware of the new U.S. Civil Service Commission attitude when a letter was received in December, 1954 asking that no further applications be sent under the Hazardous Occupation clause, as, they plan a complete study. Mr. Sharp and Mr. Chandler immediately prepared a statement in support of Federal Probation Officer retirement under this clause and presented it to the U.S. Civil Service Commission in January, 1955. So far, no ruling has been received. There were no retirement applications throughout the System until July, 1955 when Pat Swaim of Ft. Smith, Arkansas and Martin Brown of Grand Rapids, Michigan submitted applications under this clause. The Administrative Office asked the U.S. Civil Service Commission for permission to forward these applications, which was granted as was the application for E. Fred Sweet, former Chief Probation Officer, SDNY New York City. So far no decisions have been reached on any of these applications. Mr. Sharp was of the opinion that the applications would probably be denied under the Hazardous Clause. Both Pat Swaim and Martin Brown are eligible for standard Civil Service Retirement (the 1 ½% per year method of calculating pension) as they are old enough and have enough years in service for this. The test case will be supplied by E. Fred Sweet who is only 60 years old and is not eligible for the regular 1 ½% Civil Service retirement for another two years. Mr. Sharp pointed out that Mr. Sweet may apply for Disability Retirement at a reduced rate but that the resulting pension would probably be about 30% less than that granted under the Hazardous Occupation clause.

Mr. Sharp then advised that if the applications under this clause are denied, he expects the denial to come from the Commissioners direct, rather than from some subordinate as a Commission decision is final and cannot be appealed by the Administrative Office. The next move in his opinion would then be for the Officers who were denied to take the case into the U.S. Court of Claims at Washington. This would involve hiring an attorney. In the cases of Swaim and Brown, Sharp thought they could apply for their regular pension and sue for the difference, which, because of their many years of service, would not be very great, In the case of E. Fred Sweet, Mr. Sharp thought his move might be to apply for the Disability Pension and sue for the difference on the grounds that he was being discriminated against in view of the 14 other men who had been granted the pension.

As the future plans of every Federal Probation Officer are effected by this turn of events, the board gave serious consideration to plans to combat it. Mr. Sharp reported that two Washington attorneys, Mr. Abe Fortes and Mr. Tim McInerny had been successful in prosecuting such claims. It was the consensus of the Board that the F.P.O.A. should stand ready to back up any appeals or suits started by the applicants even to the point of providing for an attorney to represent the Association and the interest of the members. The name of Richard A. Chappell, former Chief of Probation, was suggested as the logical person to undertake this assignment and the Board voted by acclamation to ask Mr. Chappell if he would do it. The executive Committee of the Board was authorized to investigate to see if Mr. Chappell is available, and to engage his services with the understanding that, at a later date, when the financial needs of the situation were more clearly defined, the entire membership of the F.P.O.A. would be solicited for funds for a War Chest. The Board felt, that a minimum contribution of $10. per Officer would probably be asked. There are about 385 Officers which should yield about $3500., assuming some fee did not come along. Tile matter was left with the understanding that Exec. Vice-Pres. Goza would get in touch with Mr. Chappell immediately upon his return to Atlanta and would report Mr. Chappell’s answer to Pres. Doyle. (Mr. Doyle reported to the members of the executive Board on Nov. 17th that Mr Chappell had accepted, even in the face of

our depleted treasury, and was planning a trip to Washington immediately.

Mr. Sharp then took up the matter of RECLASSIFICATION and reported on a memo­randum which he had sent to Mr. Chandler in July recommending a general reclassification upward. This would provide that U.S. Probation Officers start at grade GS 9 and move through grades 10 and 11, with corresponding increases for Deputy Chiefs and Chiefs. Mr. Sharp reported that his memorandum had served as a basis for the recommendations made to the Judicial Conference by the Committee on Supporting Personnel, and had been adopted substantially as written. Mr. Sharp warned that these recommendations could not be made public until the formal printed report of the Judicial Conference was published, probably in February. All present agreed to keep the matter confidential.

Mr. Sharp then stated that the Budget Request for fiscal 1957 would include an estimate to put the reclassification into effect and would also include a request for 118 new officers and an appropriate number of clerk-typists. If this were granted, it would reduce the over all national case load to a reasonable figure. He described the difficulties usually encountered in the hearings before the Congressional Appropriations Committees and especially emphasized the need for House of Representatives Committee support. The Chairman of this Committee, Rep. John J. Rooney (D.N.Y.) has been antagonistic to the whole idea of probation. The Board felt that this antagonism may be due to lack of knowledge and recommended that some method should be found to show him the value of the probation service. Other members of the House Appropriations Committee are: Prince B. Preston, Jr, (Dem. Georgia); Robert L. F. Sikes, (Dem. Florida); Don Magnusen, (Dem. Washington); Frederic R. Coudert, Jr. (Rep. NY); Frank T. Bow, (Pen. Ohio); Cliff Clevenger (Rep. Ohio).

It was suggested that U.S. Probation Officers should use all legitimate means of showing these gentlemen and the public the value of probation and parole, such as speaking to attorneys who might commend Federal Probation Officers work, have bar associations make statements, law school deans make statements and so on. The F.P.O.A. Newsletter is to contain a request that all U.S. Probation 0fficers help "sell" the service to Congress.

Mr. Sharp reported that all but one of the new appointments of Federal Probation Officers met the minimum requirements as set up by the Judicial Conference in 1942. There was some discussion on the advisability of striking the words "or its equivalent" from Sec. 4 of Qualifications for Appointment. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Sharp if the Administrative Office would welcome a recommendation from the F.P.O.A. regarding standards. Mr. Sharp said such a recommendation would be accepted and the Board voted to leave this in the hands of the Professional Committee. Wm. Nau, Chairman of this Committee reported on the difficulty he had had in securing cooperation from those appointed, pointing out that it was practically impossible to get anything done and agreed to by mail. (This was supported by Calvin Meador, Economic Committee and Drexel Martin, Legislative Committee.) After discussion, Mr. Nau asked if the Board would approve his drawing up a set of standards with the aid of a new officer in his district, Heywood Hudson, and submit these for approval. This suggestion was approved by acclamation and the entire matter was referred back to the Subcommittee.

Another matter which has come up for discussion in Area conferences is the need for a closer supervisory and counseling relationship with the Administrative Office. Mr. Sharp reported that he and his two Assistants, Mr. Evjen and Mr. Smith had been so rushed during the past two years, that they had only been able to spend 18 days in the field, exclusive of Area Training Institutes, in 1955. The Washington Office is very conscious of the need for closer contact and

favors the suggestion of Area supervisors or counselors working out of Washington. However, Mr. Chandler has always been very conservative in his budget requests and has not favored increasing the Probation Office Personnel. In the preparation of the 1957 budget estimate, Mr. Sharp and others have been able to show the need for additional clerical help and to secure Mr. Chandler's approval. They felt that asking for 5 Area Supervisors would be too much at this time. They have asked for one more professional person for the Staff at Washington, however.

In a law passed in 1950 there was established the Advisory Corrections Council which has on it members of the Judiciary and representatives of the Bureau of Prisons, the Parole Board and the Probation System. Mr. Sharp is a member and stated that the main function of the Council will be to propose research  and support legislation for the improvement of the Federal Corrections
System. If the F.P.O.A. has any ideas, the Council will welcome formal resolutions.

Mr. Sharp was asked what mould be the most appropriate time for the F.P.O.A. Executive Board to meet in order to fit into the Judicial Conference schedule. As the agenda for the Judicial Conference is prepared 30 days in advance, any meeting of the Executive Board should be held at least 6 weeks in advance if resolutions are to be considered.

Mr. Sharp then departed with the thanks and good wishes of the Board.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Professional Committee: William C. Nau, Chairman. Report partially recorded previously. Mr Sharp indicated that when Congress re-convenes in January, there will be an effort to revise the Federal Probation Act to include a statement about standards. Mr. Nau was urged to have his formulation ready in time to be considered by Congress.

Legislative Committee: Drexel Martin, Chairman. Has been following laws effecting salaries and retirement benefits through the :Federal Employees Digest. Experienced difficulty in securing committee cooperation through the mail.

Economic Committee: Calvin Meador, Chairman. Reported on his personal efforts to promote reclassification of U.S. Probation Officers as exemplified in a resolution presented to and adopted by the Conference of Judges of the 9^th Circuit, (Copies previously furnished all members of Executive Board.) Mr. Meador had also experienced difficulty in securing complete cooperation from his committee through the use of the mails.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS FROM FEB, 4th MEETING:

a) Overtime Pay: Tabled. Referred back to Economic Committee.

b) Retirement under Hazardous Occupation Clause:      Nau moved and Webster seconded that the matter be referred to the Executive Committee of the Board with authority to act. Passed unanimously.

c) Scheduling Board Meetings: Meeting's should conform to schedule of Judicial Conference. Meetings should be held in most economical method possible. All members of Board should be present. After discussion, it was decided that there should be one regularly scheduled meeting of the Board on the 3rd Friday of January (1956 excepted) at such a place as the President shall select, keeping in mind the cost of transportation Special meetings shall be at the call of the President. It was thought that Mr. Sharp might invite certain members of the Board to serve on the faculty of Area Training Conferences and might invite other members as exchange Probation Officers, thus reducing the travel cost to the F.P.O.A. which might hold Executive Board meeting at an Area Conference.

d) News-Letter: This publication to continue as often as needed. To simplify distribution the Sec.-Treas, will send copies in bulk to the Area Vice-Presidents who will send out the copies to their own area members. This will reduce the typing, and mailing cost.

e) Parking Facilities.      It was decided that this is a local matter and there is nothing the F.P.O.A. can do to help at this time,

COMMUNICATIONS:

Regional Conference Reports. Not discussed.

NEW BUSINESS:

a) Reclassification Plan: There was considerable discussion on means of approaching the members of the Civil Service Committees of Congress and the Appropriations Committees. Through one of the U.S. Probation Officers in his area, Wm. Nau can secure an introduction to Sen. Olin Johnson. The advisability of using this contact was discussed fully, but no final plan was decided upon. The need to "sell" the System was set forth earlier.

b) Increase of Dues: The need for more funds in the Treasury is urgent. Drexel Martin and Marshall McKinney reported that their Areas voted for increase of dues to $5. per year. Arch Sayler said he had polled his staff which was unanimously in favor of such an increase. As an increase can only come through an amendment to the F.P.O.A. Constitution, it was agreed that such an amendment should be submitted to the membership as soon as possible, preferably at the same time the next issue of the F.P.O.A. Newsletter goes out. The ballot will read: “effective on and after Jan. 1, 1956, Sec. 2 of Article III of the F.P.O.A. Constitution shall read.: ‘The dues shall be payable if and when needed not to exceed five (5) dollars a member per calendar year. Non­payment of dues shall result in loss of membership after 60 days.’"

------------Yes            --------------No

Marshall McKinney voiced some dissent to this motion on the grounds that even $5. dues will not yield sufficient money for the organization to operate, without being constantly in debt to the officers. Mr. McKinney pointed out that we had received dues from 263 of a possible 315 officers, or 86%. If this proportion joined next year, and there are now about 385 officers, we could expect about 331 members. At $5, each this yields $1655. which is not enough to cover our present year's deficit and provide for an Executive Board meeting and contingencies next year. While Mr. McKinney voted for the raise in dues, he wanted to go on record as not favoring deficit financing.

c) Matter of Qualifications: Referred to Professional Committee.

d) Probation Act Amendment to Include Institutionalization: Being handled by a committee of the Judicial Conference.

e) Area Supervisors: Marshall McKinney and Wm. Nau reported that at their Area meetings, resolutions had been passed expressing the need for additional personnel in the Probation Division, Administrative Office for the purpose of improving standards and uniformity of procedure throughout the Federal Probation System. The Administrative Office should be urged to provide such personnel as soon as possible.

BILLS: In view of the depleted condition of the Treasury, all Board members present agreed to charge minimum per diem and to accept 50% reimbursement on expenses pending collection of next year's dues.

Per Diem at $9. per day.

(1) Claude Goza: An error was made in calculating Goza's check and he was paid .32.43 instead of 31.43. His second check will be 30.43.

(2) Wm. C. Nau reported later that he would charge only actual expenses which came to $65. As his check was for $35, his second check will be for $30.

(3) Arch Sayler did not arrive at Cincinnati until Nov. 11th and stayed only one night, so expenses were light. Charging only actual expenses.

Actual money paid out for Nov. 11^th meeting was $372.17. Nau's reduction brings total cost down to $737.114. Balance owed to members of the Board $365.27.

RESOLUTIONS: The Board voted unanimous thanks to Raymond Clark and Tom Barnes for their excellent accommodations and hospitality during the meeting.

Arch E. Sayler Sec.-Treas,

AES/fs

November 29, 1955