Minutes of the Board - 1969 - 10/12 - 10/15 REPORT OF THE BOARD MEETING FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION VIRGINIA BEACH, OCTOBER 12 -15, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Federal Probation Officer's Association held its Fall meeting at Virginia Beach, near Norfolk, October 12th through the 15th. Host for the meeting was Chief Probation Officer Carl Anderson, who arranged excellent hotel accommodations for the three day meeting. In keeping with our recent traditions, the Board selected the Norfolk, Virginia area as the site for this meeting, in order to facilitate a session with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Administration of Probation, Honorable Walter E. Hoffman, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia. In addition to meeting with us, Chief Judge Hoffman honored the Association by inviting the Board members and their wives to be his guests for a dinner at the Princess Anne Country Club, this was a gala event. The Board meeting was convened at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. A welcome was extended to Henry Long of the Alexandria, Virginia Office and Vice-President for the Mid-Atlantic Region, who had been elected to the Board at the business meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Region held in Nags Head last May, following a term of distinguished service by his predecessor, Leon Garber. The Board also received greetings from Editor Marshall McKinney, who was unable to attend the Board meeting, due to recent serious illness. An expression of appreciation was voted to Assistant Editor Vernon Hiteman for his excellent service in getting out the October issue of the Newsletter during Marshall McKinney's illness. Comprehensive reports from the Economics Committee and Legislative Committee were presented at this session. Meetings With Chief Judge Walter R. Hoffman and Probation Chief Merrill Smith On Monday morning, Merrill Smith, Chief of the Division of Probation, met with us and that afternoon, Honorable Walter Hoffman took time off from a busy Court schedule to meet with us. Chief Judge Hoffman presented an informal report on the work of the Probation Committee and reaffirmed the high regard in which the Probation Committee holds the Federal Probation Officer's Association. He noted that the Committee, at its last meeting, heartily endorsed the concept of voluntary lateral and promotional transfers of Probation Officers between Federal District Court jurisdictions when vacancies occur. He suggested that Officers who are interested in being considered for such openings submit their names to Merrill Smith so that a list might be compiled of Officers interested in possible transfers. He suggested that there may be Courts where the idea of looking elsewhere in the Federal Probation service for a replacement had not occurred. Judges generally, he thought, might be reluctant to encourage an Officer, who is making a fine contribution in one district, to move to another. However, in the event an Officer indicates an interest in locating in another district, the Committee believes that procedures should be available for such possibility. He noted also that the Probation Committee is fully aware of the potential personnel problems which might confront the Probation Office in the District of Columbia, should Congress enact current proposals for Court reorganization in the District of Columbia. Chief Judge Hoffman also reported on the Probation Committee's awareness of the continuing study being given by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, to a possible revision of Rule 32(c). He noted that the trend toward greater disclosure in pre-prosecution and pre-trial procedures has resulted in the focusing of attention by prosecution, defense and the Courts on the issue of disclosure of presentence investigation content. As was reported in our July issue of the Newsletter, he again pointed out that should an appeal be taken to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of disclosure, that the Court would, in all likelihood, rule in favor of this step. He commented that in the long run, it may be wiser for a revision of Rule 32(c) to be made through the orderly process of study in which some safeguards could be included, than to await a Supreme Court order, in which no exceptions might be permitted. As to the operation of the new Magistrate's Act, he indicated that reports, so far, from the Districts in which an experimental use of the Magistrate's Act has been inaugurated, are highly favorable. It is expected that by June, 1970, Magistrates will be operating in substantial number of districts. So far as can be determined at this point, the work of the Magistrates has not increased the burdens on the Federal Probation service. As to the matter of personnel needs, Chief Judge Hoffman indicated that the Probation Committee is aware of the need for continuing review of caseload standards. He commented that the Judges are at this time participating in a time-study of their own work. As to the adequacy of J.S.P., he suggested that the Association continue to submit suggestions and ideas for improvement to the Chief of the Division of Probation. He also assured us that the Probation Committee is endeavoring to keep in touch on any legislation which might affect the probation service. At our session with Merrill Smith, he reported on the recent reorganization in the Administrative Office, noting that the Probation Division will now be in the Legal Affairs Section under direction of Joseph F. Spaniol, Jr., Assistant Director for Legal Affairs. He also noted that the Director of the Administrative Office, Mr. Ernest Frieson, has announced that he will be moving his office over to the Lafayette Building and that eventually, the Probation Division will move to that building, The Federal Judicial Center will eventually occupy the space thus vacated. (The Business Management and Procedural Studies Sections of the Administrative Office are already in the Lafayette Building). Mr. Smith noted that the matter of future direction of the Federal Judicial Center will be up for discussion by a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Judicial Center, which will convene early in November. Under the able and aggressive leadership of Justice Tom Clark, the Judicial Center has made tremendous strides in its short period of existence. There has been a high degree of coordination of training objectives and programs between the Division of Probation and the staff of the Judicial Conference. He noted that eventually, training for all Court personnel will become the responsibility of the Judicial Center, but emphasized that the Division of Probation has and will continue to work very closely with the Judicial Center on current and future training plans. He anticipates that as the Judicial Center expands its staff and becomes more extensively involved in training, there will be a wider variety of training opportunities. It is quite possible that changes in the format and types of training enterprises may affect the frequency and nature of regional institutes. This is, of course, of keen interest to the Board. We have adjusted the structure of our regional divisions to coincide with the regional training institutes. Mr. Smith is keenly aware of this matter and indicated that the Division of Probation will wish to keep in touch with the Board on future regional plans which might affect our organization. The recent decision to hold two regional institutes in the central states area was based upon the nature of the program which was primarily devoted to the limited group training techniques of the N.C.C.D. Probation Management Institute personnel. As most of you are perhaps aware, the first training session in the central states was held at Custer, South Dakota and the second is scheduled for a meeting near Dallas October 26-29, 1969. Mr. Smith noted that one approach to retaining a regional institute structure would be to repeat a meeting with half the officers present during the first two-and-a-half days of the week, and the second half of the officers present during the latter half of the week. Some overlap in speakers and program might occur on the mid-week day. Coincident to such an arrangement would be the feasibility of continuing our regional organization structure. Mr. Smith also noted that the Statistical Division will soon release a District-by-District report of violation rates broken down into serious violations, minor violations and technical violations over a four year span. This will be the first such report broken down by Districts. Comments on the value or utility of this report will be appreciated by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith announced that Mr. Carl H. Imlay, Attorney and member of the Legal Affairs Section of the Administrative Office, has been named General Counsel to the Administrative Office. In the future, legal questions pertaining to probation will be referred to Mr. Imlay. For the time being, however, Officers are invited to submit any legal questions they may have to Mr. Smith, who will in turn refer them to Mr. Imlay. Legal questions concerning the administration of parole, however, should continue to be referred to Mr. Joseph Shore or to Mr. Eugene Barken, who is Legal Counsel in the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Smith also commented on the excellent liaison relationships which currently exist between the Division of Probation, the Parole Board and the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. George Reed, the recently appointed Chairman of the Federal Parole Board, has conferred in depth with Mr. Smith on matters of mutual concern and he looks forward to a continuous, cordial and constructive relationship with the Board of Parole. Collaboration with Bureau of Prisons personnel, particularly with relation to Title 2 cases under the Narcotic Administration Rehabilitation Act for which the Bureau of Prisons has special responsibility, is progressing well. Mr. Smith indicated that a plan for a specialized program of visits by Field Officers handling narcotic addicts to Bureau of Prisons facilities for their treatment is contemplated. One of the major items considered at our meeting with Mr. Smith related to caseloads. Mr. Smith noted that the caseload formula, which has been used in recent years, is in need of revision. The application of modern management techniques to the computation of an efficient caseload formula is believed to be necessary. He asked the Board and members of the F.P.O.A. to submit suggestions, and gave the Board the following specific assignment:
- On what basis should the Probation Officer's workload be computed?
- What should be the rationale for such workload computation?
In approaching such an assignment, thought must be devoted to such matters as what weight should be given to the various items which go into computing the optimum workload of the average Probation Officer. To facilitate work on this assignment, the Board set up an ad hoc committee of three members, Lloyd Hubler, Dayton, Ohio Chairman, Walter Evans of Portland, Oregon, and Henry Long of Alexandria, Virginia. Other Probation Officers may be asked to serve. In the meantime, members of F.P.O.A. are invited to submit suggestions to members of this committee. This is a vital matter and the Board urges widespread assistance on this assignment. Mr. Smith also asked the Board to consider the establishment of a set of long-range goals for the probation service. The Professional Standards Committee, under Walter Evans' chairmanship, has been given responsibility for undertaking this important challenge. Suggestions from our membership-at-large should be channeled through this committee. During our meeting with Mr. Smith, considerable time was devoted to a discussion of the Judiciary Salary Plan. Mr. Smith reported that at the time the Judiciary Salary Plan was inaugurated, it was contemplated that within five years, a review of the plan would be conducted. He advised us that the Director of the Administrative Office is inaugurating such a review, which will examine the operation of J.S.P. in all divisions of the Supporting Personnel of the Courts. He urged the Board of the Probation Officer Association, however, to continue to submit recommendations and suggestions on improvement of J.S.P. to the Division of Probation. Committee Reports The report of Economics Committee, presented by Logan Webster, was comprehensive in nature and again reflected a need, first of all to review the basis for classification of probation offices as to large, medium and small, and secondly, the need for additional job descriptions and salary levels, particularly for clerical personnel. The plight of personnel in one-man probation offices was well documented. Additional job descriptions relating to the duties of clerical personnel are being drafted and will be submitted to the Administrative Office. The Board extended the time for further work on this matter and authorized the Chairman of the Economics Committee to avail himself of additional technical assistance if needed. The need for parking at official headquarters was again brought before the Board and is still being pursued by the Economics Committee. The Economics Committee also reported that certain recent studies, particular in private industry, suggest that in many areas the operation of an automobile on official business can not be accomplished for less than 14.3e per mile. Your Board has again gone on record in support of an increased mileage allowance, should any other Government agency so determine. The Legislative Committees, under the Chairmanship of Henry Long, presented an excellent summary of current legislation pending in Congress, relating to such matters as retirement, pay scales, per diem and other employee benefits. At present, there appears to be no specific legislation which would affect the organization and administration of the probation service at large.However, Senate Bill 2601 proposes a reorganization in the District of Columbia Courts (See Page 2, October Judiciary Briefs), and Mr. Long reported that this Bill apparently has considerable support. Of particular interest in this Bill is the fact that there is written into it a stipulation protecting the salary and seniority of present Federal Probation Officers serving in the U. S. District Court in the District of Columbia, whose tenure might otherwise be interrupted if this Bill is passed. As reported above, this matter is of continuing concern to the members of the Probation Committee and the Administrative Office. The Board of the F.P.O.A. has again affirmed its desire to be of any assistance possible to the staff of the Probation Office of the District of Columbia, should there be any reduction in the number of professional positions in that office. The Legislative Committee is also continuing to follow the work of the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Law (Title 18), of which Congressman Toft of Virginia is Vice-Chairman. In its report, the Professional Standards Committee, under the Chairmanship of Walter Evans, emphasized the importance of communicating the work of the Federal Probation Officers to the communities in which they work. The public information document, "Guide To Community Relations", provides excellent direction, but is of no value unless it is used. This Committee also emphasized the value of Chief Judge Hoffman's excellent address on the philosophy of sentencing, which was duplicated and distributed by our Association last year. These two documents should be in the hands of every newly appointed Probation Officer, along with the Probation Officer's Manual. It was also noted, by the Professional Standards Committee, that the Federal Probation service needs a basic public information document in the nature of a readable handout for public distribution. This might include a statement on history of the Federal Probation service, what the duties of the Federal Probation Officer are, and a description of the career opportunities provided by our service. The Membership Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Bieghle, reported that our organization is continuing to grow and at present, has the highest membership in our history. There were 583 members as of the 14th of October, 1969. Two of our regions, the Great Lakes and Central areas, boast 100% membership, which is a rare achievement. The Northeastern area for years was 100% but can claim only 99% in the last few years as well as this one because one officer has steadfastly declined to join. However, we are above the national average of 95%. This is a tremendous tribute to the work of the association's committees and representatives in each of our areas. The Chairman of the Training and Research Committee, Lloyd Hubler, submitted a thoughtful report analyzing the excellent research conducted by Mr. William Eldridge, Research Director of the Federal Judicial Center, on the research and training interest of Federal Probation Officers. The Committee suggested that a breakdown of the difference in the responses between administrative personnel, that is, Chief Probation Officers, Supervising Officers, and the Line Officers, would be of value. The Board authorized the Training and Research Committee to serve as the liaison with the Federal Judicial Center on future research projects, and Mr. Hubler was directed to confer from time to time with Mr. Nugent and Mr. Eldridge on possible follow-ups on the results of the questionnaire tabulated and distributed in August. The Doyle Awards and Probation Projects Committee, under the Chairmanship of Elmo Turner, submitted a superb slate of six candidates, all of whom were highly deserving of consideration for the annual Doyle Award. The final announcement on the person selected will appear in the January issue of the Newsletter. Since only one person can be selected, those who have submitted the names of candidates this year end the prior years are invited to resubmit the name of their candidate, if he is not selected this year, and also to think of additional candidates for next year's award. The Projects Committee is continuing to work with Southern Illinois University on a revision of the so-called "Rosner Report" on the civil rights offenders. This project is under the direction of Robert H. Dreher, J.D., on the staff of the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency and Corrections at Southern Illinois University. The Projects Committee and the Board of the Federal Probation Officers Association urges all members of F.P.O.A. to respond to any questionnaires or inquiries they may receive from Professor Dreher. The value of this forthcoming publication, which will contain a description of the laws affecting the civil rights of ex-offenders in all fifty states, must rely on the accuracy of the returns on the inquiries initiated by Professor Dreher. The Association is pleased to co-sponsor this research and the Board has assured Dr. Dreher of our continuing assistance and support. The Chairman of the Projects Committee reported that consideration has been given to the feasibility of F.P.O.A. serving as joint sponsor of certain national meetings. Following considerable discussion, the Board voted to be a co-sponsor of the 1970 Annual Meeting of the National Institute on Crime and Delinquency, which will convene in Chicago, May 31st to June 3, 1970. Co-sponsorship involves no financial or other official responsibility for the institute, but merely indicates support and interest in the professional goals of the National Institute. Several Federal Probation Officers are or have served on the Professional Council of N.C.C.D., and last year a number of Federal Probation Officers were authorized to attend the institute at the expense of the Federal Judicial Center. In voting to serve as a co-sponsor, the F.P.O.A. recognizes the National Institute on Crime and Delinquency as a valid educational opportunity, attendance at which may further the professional skills and knowledge of Probation Officers. It is our hope that funds from the Federal Judicial Center may again be available to underwrite the cost of attendance by selected Officers at this institute. Federal Probation Officers are urged to watch for further announcements of the program content of this institute and if you are interested in attending, communicate such interest to Mr. Hugh Nugent, Director of Education, Federal Judicial Center. This does not mean that your application will be approved, as the amount of funds available and the number of applications will, of course, govern. However, as those of you who have recently attended the Chicago Training Center or a regional institute know, Mr. Nugent has indicated that one of the aims of the Federal Judicial Center will be to provide tuition for courses directly related to the work of probation and to the cost of attendance at educational institutes and training program. During the final session of the Board meeting, committee assignments were made and action was taken in support of increased mileage allowance; approval of the Economics Committee's recommendation for clarification of the criteria by which offices are classified as to size; approval of additional job descriptions and improved salary ratings for certain clerical positions; support and cooperation in the current official Administrative Office review of the Judiciary Salary Plan; continued study of criteria for a senior officer grade; retention of the provision of Rule 32(c) as now written, which reserves discretion on disclosure to the Judge; allocation of $1,000 to the F.P.O.A. contingency fund in keeping with prior policy; approval of committee study of an amendment to the By-Laws clarifying membership categories; and approval of certificates of appreciation for past services of former Board members Albert Wahl, Kirk Hanrahan, Leon Garber and Leslie C. Reed. Signed Logan A. Webster |
