PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD MEETING
October 4-7, 1970 - New Orleans, Louisiana
The Board of Directors of the Federal Probation Officers Association officially convened their meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 4, 1970, at the Sheraton-Delta Hotel in New Orleans. The meeting was attended by Ben S. Meeker, President; Burrell G. Kilmer, Executive Vice President; Brayton B. Crist, Secretary-Treasurer; Vice Presidents Logan A. Webster-Northeast, Kennith O. Beighle-Central States; Lloyd E. Hubler-Great Lakes, Walter Evans-Western; Henry P. Long-Mid-Atlantic, Ezra E. Nash-Southeast; the Editor of FPOA NEWSLETTER, Vernon A. Heitman. Mr. Nash, the newest member of the Board, was welcomed to the meeting. Also attending part of the session were ex-officio guests Alfred LeBlanc, Chief of the New Orleans office and most congenial host to the Board meeting, and Marshall McKinney, who was in New Orleans to attend the post Board meeting and reunion of former Board members which had been planned by a committee chaired by former FPOA President William Woodard, who is currently a member of the United States Board of Parole.One of the major items of concern to the Board was, of course, the report of the Nominating Committee regarding the future slate of candidates for the positions of president, executive vice president, and secretary-treasurer. President, Meeker, who had previously indicated that he did not wish to run again for office, succumbed to the pressures of the Nominating Committee when a resolution passed by the probation officers assembled at the recent Northeast Regional meeting in Provincetown, Massachusetts, urging him to run again was presented. In addition, letters he had received from the members throughout the service also urging him to run and the encouragement of individual Board members made him reconsider, and he agreed to have his name submitted as a candidate for another two year term. The slate of candidates presented by the Nominating Committee is as follows:President John E. Hornberger, Jacksonville, Florida; Chester C. McLaughlin, El Paso, Texas; Ben S. Meeker, Chicago, Illinois Executive Vice President Walter Evans, Portland, Oregon; James A. Crawford, Memphis, Tennessee; Thomas W. Jones, Greensboro, North Carolina Secretary Brayton I. Crist, Newark, New JerseyTreasurer Bertha J. Payak, Toledo, OhioThomas D. Myrick, Shreveport, Louisiana The Doyle Awards Committee, formerly chaired by Vice President Elmo Turner and presently chaired by his successor, Vice President Ezra E. Nash, presented en excellent slate of candidates and following the usual balloting procedure of the Board, Mr. Eugene C. DiCerbo, Chief Probation Officer of the Philadelphia office was selected as the outstanding officer for the 1970 Doyle Award. Mr. DiCerbo was appointed United States Probation Officer in March, 1942, and promoted to Chief Probation Officer in May, 1957. He was elected president of the Pennsylvania Probation and Parole Association in May, 1969, and was appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Crime Commission Advisory Committee that same year. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia YMCA and has received a number of awards, including a citation by the Philadelphia Court of Special Sessions for outstanding service to the City Probation Department, and an award of merit from the Police Chief's Association of Southeast Pennsylvania. Mr. DiCerbo is a lecturer on the staffs of Temple, Villanova, and Pennsylvania universities, and has also lectured on the staff of the Philadelphia Police Training Academy. He has appeared on radio and television and at many civic organizations, spreading the word about the probation and parole services. In selecting Mr. DiCerbo, the Board believes that the high standards set by previous award winners are exemplified by his leadership and wide community participation in the developments of probation. Among the most important actions taken by the Board was a restatement of the Board's support of the Economics Committee's comprehensive proposal concerning certain revisions of the Judiciary Salary Plan. The Board again gave top priority to improvements in the basic salary classification of clerk-stenographers, an increase in the number of job titles for clerical personnel, and continuing support for a re-examination of the size classification of offices, and the need for added compensation of probation officers in charge of branch offices. The Board re-affirmed its support of the proposal for a senior probation officer category. The report of the Economics Committee on the modification of JSP is now in the hands of the Judiciary Committee on the Administration of Probation, which is chaired by the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman, of the Eastern District of Virginia. With regard to overall personnel needs, the Board again took note of Chief Justice Burger's continuing statements regarding the need for Congress to strengthen the Federal Courts by expanding the entire personnel of the courts. Your president was instructed again to circularize the Service along about February to remind Chief Probation Officers that the Chief Judge of every district has been asked to provide the Administration Office with a statement of projected staff needs each May. The Board believes that the goal of doubling the number of probation officer positions in the Federal Probation Service within the near future should be given strong field support. Caseload trends are moving upward, and it is evident to the Board that the current legislation pending in Congress will expand the regulatory law enforcement functions of the government, which, inevitably, will increase the caseloads of the probation services. The Board believes that it is imperative that Chief Probation Officers and other members of the FPOA furnish the Chief of the Division of Probation additional information on the problems being encountered, particularly in metropolitan areas where greater tensions, more difficult clients, and increased requirement for intensive supervision are placing added burdens on the already overworked probation staff. The Board also accepted the report of the Economic Committee, which has been further reviewing the problem of parking and costs of operating an automobile. The Chairman had received a report published in CHANGING TIMES, September, 1970, issue, which indicated the average cost to be 14.5 cents per mile, based on 10,000 miles a year. In the same article an Automobile Legal Association study found what it costs to drive a car depends on where you drive. The costs varied from 11.77 cents per mile in Portland, Oregon, to 15.06 cents per mile in Boston, Massachusetts. Gasoline, repair costs, and other related expenses continue to advance, thus strengthening our recommendations that mileage reimbursement be increased. The Board also instructed the Economics Committee to compile additional information which might make possible a review by the Comptroller General for reimbursement for parking costs. This is primarily a problem in metropolitan areas, but the factor involved in traveling to and from distant parking facilities, because cost of parking adjacent to federal probation offices is becoming prohibitive, requires a re-evaluation. The Legislative Committee, under the chairmanship of Henry P. Long, reported that the bill authorizing probation offices to use Community Treatment Centers appears to have no opposition. (Subsequent to the meeting of the Board, word arrived that the bill authorizing the courts to use CTC for probationers as a condition of probation has been passed by both Houses of Congress.) Further communication on this will, no doubt, be forthcoming from the Administrative Office. The E. P. O. serving Pittsburgh has been officially informed that this bill was signed on October 22, 1970. No word from the Administration Office has been received as of November , 1970. The Legislative Committee also reported that the bill to provide protection for probation officers who may be attacked while in the line of duty appears to have no opposition. However, as Congress approaches its adjournment, there is doubt as to whether it will be passed this session. The Legislative Committee commented on the proposed Rule 32(c), a draft of which was contained in the report of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The import of the change is to require disclosure of presentence investigation reports to defense counsel and prosecution. Mr. Long noted that a draft report of the Brown-Poff Commission for revision of Title 18, U. S. Code, also proposes disclosure, and there are at least two bills pending in Congress regarding special offenders for whom penalties may be increased beyond the ordinary statutory penalties. In both of these bills, the court is required to give reasons as to why the sentence may be expanded, and the bill further provides that when such action is taken, any information in a presentence report is to be made available to defense counsel and prosecution. It is evident that there is a strong trend toward disclosure, and although the Board again went on record officially as supporting Rule 32(c) as it now stands, the Board also recommended that the Administrative Office consider guidelines for the preparation of pre-sentence investigation reports in case full disclosure becomes the norm. The Legislative Committee reported that inquiries have been made from some members of the Probation Service regarding the rights of employees, particularly with reference to such matters as to tenure and the provision of any appeal procedure should an employee feel that he has been discriminated against, or that his rights have been otherwise infringed. The Board recommended that further study be given this matter and that perhaps certain other sections of personnel of the courts might be approached regarding any policy statements or procedures which may have been worked out in this regard. The Liaison and Legislative Committees were instructed to seek opportunities to examine any statement of policy which might be on file in the Administrative Office. Most government agencies do have standard procedures for the adjustment of personnel problems or ways to correct inequities, and the courts certainly should have some similar policy. The Professional Standards Committee reported on current progress being made toward drafting a statement on long-range goals for the Federal Probation Service. The Committee expects to have a definitive statement prepared for the Board in time for the Spring Board meeting in Washington.The Professional Standards Committee again urged the Board to approach the Chief of Probation to create a public relations and information service. Probation officers throughout the service are noting that the heavy emphasis on law enforcement, in terms of apprehension and confinement of offenders, has a tendency to restrict the use of probation and other community treatment efforts. The Board has agreed to explore with the Chief of Probation ways and means of implementing an improved public relations program. The Professional Standards Committee also recommended that there be a follow up meeting between representatives of the Division of Probation, Social Rehabilitation Service, and the Bureau of Prisons on the federal offenders rehabilitation project. This project, conducted in some eight federal probation offices, appeared to demonstrate certain values in the greater use of vocational rehabilitation resources, and a top level conference to build on the findings of these projects is recommended. The Professional Standards Committee also reported that the ever increasing drug abuse problem suggests the need for top level conferences with field representatives on NARA and other related programs. There appears to be a general feeling in the Service, particularly in the metropolitan areas, that the eligibility requirements for Title II are so narrow that many federal offenders who might benefit from the NARA programs are barred because of the restrictions. It was believed that sufficient experience has been accumulated to merit some assessment not only in Title II cases, but also of how Title I and III are functioning. The Professional Standards Committee also proposed that the Chairman of the Research and Training Committee keep in touch with the developments of the Federal Judicial Center, particularly when a new director of education is appointed, at which time we would like to offer our services as consultants on future research and training programs affecting probation. The Professional Standards Committee recommended that an expression of appreciation be made to the Director of the Judicial Center and to the Chief of Probation on the recent management institutes. It was further proposed that the Chief of the 4Division of Probation authorize participants at Clerk's management institutes to remain au extra day to discuss Division of Probation personnel inter-agency Administrative problems. This would involve only an additional per diem, and it vas believed that this would be a good investment. The Professional Standards Committee also recommended that a special session be convened at the Chicago Federal Training Center or in the Judicial Center to discuss the potential impact of the change in Rule 32(c). Another recommendation of the Professional Standards Committee was that an expression of support be directed to the Chief of Probation on the development of field supervisors. It was suggested that this statement: also include a suggestion that the field supervisors be given more time to spend in individual offices. The Secretary-Treasurer commented on the problem of meeting the budget of the Association. It is becoming more evident that in order to maintain the program of the Association, with two annual meetings of the Board and other committee expenses, that an increase in dues from $10 to $12 is imperative. Treasurer Crist pointed out that there has been no dues change since 1959, which is a period of more than ten years. He further pointed out that publication, postage, hotel, and travel expenses have increased which requires an adjustment of the dues. The Board is working on a number of projects in which continuous committee support and continuity of Board meetings is essential. It is hoped that members of the Association will recognize the need for this small added annual dues increase. From time to time, the issue of incentive awards, such as certificates or monetary recognition, or the value of service pins arises. The Board believes that further efforts to secure support of the Administrative Office and the Courts at large for such incentive and recognition awards should be sought. The Projects Committee, therefore, was authorized to confer with representatives of other branches of the court's supporting personnel to determine whether or not there is an interest among the personnel for a general court program of employee recognition. A number of government agencies do provide monetary incentive awards, as well as certificates and service pins, and the Board believes that if this matter is properly studied and brought to the attention of the United States Judicial Conference, that favorable action might result. Last year the FPOA served as a co-sponsor of the annual National Institute on Crime and Delinquency Conference which convened in Chicago. This year the Board again voted that the FPOA serve as co-sponsor of the NICD meeting which will convene in Philadelphia in June, 1971. The Board also approved the motion to become a permanent co-sponsor of future NICD meetings. We believe it is important for the FPOA to become more and more active in national organizations and conferences.The Chairman of the Professional Standards Committee recommended that we seek a closer affiliation with the American Corrections Association, particularly since that Association has recently received a grant to develop position papers and revised Sections of the ACA manual on training and standards in the field of corrections, which also includes the area of probation. Lloyd Hubler, Chairman of the Research and Training Committee, was authorized by action of the Board to attend the meeting of the ACA in Cincinnati to explore ways and means of continuing constructive relationship with that organization. One of the continuing problems which confronts probation officers, particularly in metropolitan areas, is the matter of an emergency welfare fund for use by impecunious probationers or parolees which would save time and eliminate problems of referral to regularly constituted welfare agencies. In some jurisdictions, emergency welfare funds have been set up by private donors or interested citizens, but the Board believes the time has come when some official effort be made to set up an emergency welfare fund which could be tapped by any probation office. It is quite apparent that individual probation offices are constantly doling out small amounts of money for carfare, lunch, or other emergency needs, which could be handled with a minimum of cost by a small emergency fund. It was suggested that the resources of the Prisons Industries or Vocational Rehabilitation Services might be channeled into such a fund. The Board recommended that a joint committee comprised of representatives of the Probation Division, the Bureau of Prisons, and Board of Parole be established to explore this matter in this vein, and a resolution on this matter is being presented to the Chief of Probation. The Board also endorsed a resolution adopted at the Regional Probation Officers meeting in Provincetown on September 14, 1970, urging the Administrative Office to seek Congressional funds to meet needs of clients-probationers and parolees‑not otherwise provided for. Noting the comprehensive funds available under NARA and other similar specialized programs, the Board believes that greater efforts to secure funds for medical, psychiatric, vocational, or educational needs of probationers, generally should be available. The Board also adopted a resolution prepared by our former Board member, Marshall McKinney, recommending the re-establishment of three regional joint committees of field service representatives of the Probation Service and Bureau of Prisons classification and parole officers to evaluate and suggest improvements in procedures which involve the day-to-day work of our two services. These committees would serve both an educational and information exchange purpose. One of the most stimulating sessions of the Board meeting was a session at which Parole Board Member William Woodard presented a report on some of the current projects and developments in the area of federal parole. One of the Board of Parole's committees is continuing to work on a set of guidelines for parole supervision. An attempt is being made to develop criteria for maximum, medium, and minimum supervision and it is expected that eventually a classification schedule will be devised which will assist the field probation officer to anticipate the degree of supervision required of a parolee upon his release. These guidelines are being jointly developed by conferences between personnel in the Division of Probation, Bureau of Prisons, and Board of Parole. Mr. Woodard recognized that guidelines of this type may add certain responsibilities to the duties of probation officers and believes that the Parole Board will use its influence and resources to support the Division of Probation in making whatever manpower expansions may be necessary to handle these added responsibilities. Mr. Woodard also mentioned that the Parole Board is reviewing the recommendations of the Brown-Poff Committee for revision of the Federal Criminal Code as the proposals in the current draft virtually establish mandatory parole periods. The proposals in this draft are far-reaching and will, if approved, necessitate major revisions of Parole Board policy. Mr. Woodard further reported that the Parole Board is preparing a booklet to be issued all prisoners which will cover Parole Board policy and in addition include a section on the role of the probation officer in the field. Of particular interest was Mr. Woodard's report that the NCCD has recently been given a one-half million dollar grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for a three-year project to study the decision making process in the grant or denial of parole. A review of some fifty percent of Parole Board cases during the specified time will be made. It is hoped that the results will provide the Parole Board, for the first time, a scientific evaluation of its decision making policy and experience. Mr. Woodard also reported that a recent court decision in the District of Columbia modifies the "Hyser Decision" in that district. In effect, this decision requires that funds be made available to pay costs of witnesses and counsel in parole revocation cases. He also mentioned that the pending Criminal Justice Act, as currently written, also provides funds for payment of costs of counsel in revocation proceedings. We can, therefore, expect that the time will come when paid counsel will probably be available to impecunious parolees routinely on revocation cases, except where guilt is acknowledged without a contest. In another D. C. case, the court has ruled that bail can be granted to alleged parole violators pending disposition of the alleged violation. Current Parole Board policy has not regarded parolees as entitled to bail, but now that the courts have entered this area this policy may have to be modified. In conclusion, Mr. Woodard assured the FPOA Board of the Parole Board's continued desire to support and strengthen the relationships between the Probation Service and the Board of Parole.At the final session of the Board meeting plans for the Spring meeting in Washington, D, C. were discussed with a recommendation that our Legal Counsel, Richard A. Chappell, be invited to attend and bring us up-to-date on the progress he is making on the history of the Federal Probation Service, as well as counsel on certain changing legal aspects of probation, parole and corrections, generally.
