Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 25]
Mr. William P. RogersDeputy Attorney GeneralDirector, FBIMay 14, 1953## EXECUTIVE ORDER 10450SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENTReference is made to this Bureau's memoranda dated February 6 and 26, 1953; April 6, 10, and 14, 1953, and May 1, 1953, regarding the captioned Executive Order.Your immediate advice as to what agencies have the responsibility of conducting investigations abroad under this Order will be appreciated. It can be anticipated that this problem will immediately present itself upon the effective date of the Order. For example, this Bureau may receive a request to conduct a full field investigation regarding an employee who in the past has spent considerable time in foreign countries. Upon the receipt of such a request, it will be necessary to know to what agency a request to conduct the investigation abroad should be directed. As previously stated, you may wish to continue the arrangements perfected for handling this problem under Executive Order 9835. For your information, these arrangements are set forth in a memorandum dated April 7, 1948, from the Attorney General to the heads of all departments and independent agencies of the Executive Branch of the Government. The thought occurs that you may desire to issue similar advice to all departments and agencies in connection with Executive Order 10450. (66-6200-121-290 & Part I, Section 2, Serial 87 of the Loyalty Policy File)Another matter that may cause some difficulty after Executive Order 10450 becomes effective is the question of what agencies have investigative responsibility with respect to the conduct of the further investigation that may be considered appropriate in connection with the re-adjudication of cases of those employees concerning whom a full field investigation was conducted under Executive Order 9835; however, their cases have not heretofore been adjudicated under a security standard commensurate with that established under Executive Order 10450. As previously stated, this Bureau feels it should conduct such investigations only when the purpose is to develop information of a nature described in Section 8 (a) of the Order. It would be appreciated if you would advise whether you are in agreement.NW 88326 DocId:32989603 Page 26
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 26]
with this. Should you agree with this policy, you may wish to soadvise the heads of all departments and agencies as unless such isdone, this Bureau may receive a large number of requests forinvestigations solely for the purpose of bringing the previousinvestigations up to date or to develop some allegation of anonsubversive nature.Your attention is invited to my memorandum of May 1, 1953,wherein I urged that the provisions in Section 9 (k) of the "SampleSecurity Regulations" be amended to preclude the possibility of anydepartment or agency furnishing a copy of this Bureau's reports tothe individuals investigated under the Order. It is believed thisshould be done prior to the effective date of Executive order 10450,and I would appreciate being advised of what action is contemplatedin this regard. It is observed that in connection with ExecutiveOrder 9535 the Attorney General under date of December 11, 1947,directed a confidential memorandum to all department and agencyheads of the Executive Branch of the Government wherein he includedinformation regarding the use of this Bureau's reports underExecutive Order 9035. The Attorney General's memorandum stated,"The information appearing in Federal Bureau of Investigationreports is available for the consideration of the employing agencyin preparing charges against the employee and for appropriate useby the hearing boards. The Federal Bureau of Investigation isopposed to making copies of its reports, in whole or in part,available to individuals as such, and particularly to personsinvestigated under the Program." Part III, Section 1, Serial 31 ofLoyalty-Policy file)It was noted in previous memoranda to you that this Bureauunder Executive Order 9835, through an agreement with the Civil ServiceCommission, followed the policy of sending all its reports to theCivil Service Commission for dissemination to the appropriatedepartments and agencies. It was expected that as Executive Order10450 requires the Civil Service Commission to maintain a securityinvestigations in or regarding persons investigated under the Order,the policy of this Bureau sending all its reports to the CivilService Commission be continued. Unless advice to the contrary isreceived from you, this Bureau contemplates following this policy.
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 27]
The "Sample Security Regulations" prepared by the Dopertmentconteins infomation ro regarding the manner in which he hearings are to beconducted by the Eccurity scaring Soares under Executive Creer 10450.Thoso resulations, however, do not state whether these hearings aroto be opened or closed το του public. For your information, theLoyalty Revicu Coard in connection with the matter of nearings heldunder Executive order 9035, issued a cirective to all departmentsand spencies advicing teat such hearings should be in private andattendance limited to representatives of the agency who are alrectlyconnected with the adjudication of the case, representatives of theLoyalty review Lourd, and tue employee or applicant concerned, hiscounsel or representative, and the witness who is testifying. Youmay wish to issue appropriato advice to all departments ana agenciesreguraing who swall.bo permitted to be present during hearings heldunder Lxecutive cruer 1050.It is also noted that the "Sample Security Regulations"state that the employee shall be permitted to cross-examine anywitness offered in support of the merges against aia. Thisraises tno question as to whether focity erring boards may beallovca, won the recuost of a witness, to a bit witness inthe coronce of the coloyce or ais counsel. In concesion watathis proolen under saxecutive ever 35, the Loyalty eview boardissuea a circctive to all ixccutive departcoats and agencies per-mitting loyalty oaring coarua to near winstos in to anscnce ofthe exployee and als counsel ir tuomitacases so requested. In thisrezara, mis urzu uns er ·κοσυτίνο vrcer yo35, at the roquess ofט נס בש leyovic Joura, accurtainsviduals who permit tein nama, to be used, kao zive nartanontimation haverse to the oployco cua vào do not exrossly indicatean unwillin ness to tes testify, tacir cosires Po regarding the fo Followingq.cssions:1. Lhether they will testify before a Loyalty   Hearin ars in סקר שנעnce of the incivicual   uncer investition ana ais councol, mich would   subject taom to cross-czanination;2. If not, mether they will testify before a   Lority in; card not in the resenso of the   inuividual under investigation and pis counsel.- 3 -NW 88326 DocId:32989603 Page 28
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 28]
3. If they are unwilling to appear at a scheduled hearing or unable to be present, whether they are willing to have their statements read verbatim to the individual under investigation and his counsel;4. If they do not appear, whether they aro willing to have thoir names disclosed at the hearing.This Bureau will continue the above policy under Executive Order 10450; however, should you determine that Security Hearing Boards may hear witnesses only in the presence of the employeo and his counsel, it will be appreciated if you will immediately advise this Bureau so that all individuals interviewed who may later be requested to testify before a Security Wearing Board will clearly understand that such testimony must be in the presence of the employee and his counsel and they may be cross-examined by the employee or his counsel.It can be anticipated that, in connection with some hearings held under xecutive Order 10450, the hearing board may request agents of this Pureau to appear and testify. In this connection, this Duronu would acciate it if the policy followed in this respoet under sent-- Order 9535 could be continued. This policy was set forth in a confidontics mmorandum from the Attorney General dated December 11, 1947, to all department and arency heads of the Executive Brench of the Government, which stated that Special Aconts of this Curcan will testify before hearing boards where they are in a position to furnish cometent evidance. They will not, however, perticinate otherwise in the proceedings nor will they to made avcilable merely to interpret information appearing in their investigative reports: 1t in succestod you may wish to furnish such information to all departments and agencies of the Executive Branch of the Government.Previous momorenda to you observed that as Executive Order 10:50 is en Executivo Order, it is assumed its coverage is limited to the Executive wrench of the Goverment. In this commotion, the question mer arise as to whether the Ceneral Accounting Office, the Goverment Printing Office, and the Library of Congress might be per- mitted to participate in the procedures offected under Executive Order 10450. You may recell that they have verticipated in the proceduros of Exccutive Ordor 9035. You may chorofore desire to ascertain from the General Accounting Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress whether they wish to particinate in the procedures prescribed by Executive Order 10150, and if they do desire to participato, determine whether the provisi Hong Of ócutive cutive Order 1050 authorize such particination. It would bo appreciated if you would mediately. adviso this Durcểu thất action it should the if the names and fingerprinta of such employees are submitted to this Bureau for checking through its
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 29]
files or if requests for full field investigations are received concern-ing such employees prior to a final determination as to whether theyare to participate in the procedures under Executive Order 10450.It would be appreciated if you could furnish an early replyto the questions posed in this memorandum.-5-NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 30
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 30]
# UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMICONWASHINGTON 25, D. C.May 18, 1953DC 709 (1)DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR NO. 709TO HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTSSUBJECT: Designation of Officials to Whom Reports of Full Field Inves-tigation Under Executive Order 10450 Should be Delivered1. Forms requesting investigations under Executive Order 10450 should bear the address of the Personnel Security Officer to whom the reports of investigation should be sent. Forms for this purpose will be provided with a space for the address of the Personnel Security Officer.2. Reports of investigation will be forwarded to the Personnel Security Officer except when a full field investigation is conducted by the Commission or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Commission will deliver these reports of full field investigation to a designated official in the central office of your department or agency.3. In order that the reports may be delivered properly, please furnish the Commission with the names and addresses of central-office officials of your department or agency to whom reports of full field investigation should be delivered. You should name one or more alternates to receive these reports in the absence of the first official. These names should be submitted to the Chief, Investigations Division, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Washington 25, D. C., within ten days of receipt of this letter.4. Since some of the reports of full field investigation will contain security information, you should show with respect to each official designated the highest category of classified security information he has been cleared to receive.5. Inquiries concerning this circular may, be made by telephone to Code 171, extension 3111 or 3112.By direction of the Commission:![signature of C. L. Edwards]C. L. EdwardsExecutive DirectorNW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 31IN DC
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 31]
# Office Memorandum • UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTTO: Mr. J. Edgar HooverDirector, FBIFROM: William P. RogersDeputy Attorney GeneralDATE: June 25, 1953SUBJECT: Executive Order 10450:Security Requirements for Government Employment.This is with reference to your memoranda of May I and May 14, 1953, relating to the administration of Executive Order 10450.1. Your opinion that there should be no abuse of the privilege granted by section 3(b) of the order in filling sensitive positions in emergency cases prior to the completion of full field pre-appointment investigations is well taken. So, also, is your suggestion that the Civil Service Commission, in respect to section 3(a), should utilizė extreme care in permitting less than the minimum investigation with respect to per diem, intermittent, temporary, or seasonable employees and aliens employed outside the United States.2. I agree with your assumption that the coverage of the order is limited to the Executive Branch of the Government. However, I do not believe it will be necessary to make specific provision in the regulations to that effect. Inasmuch as they are to be issued separately by and in the name of each executive branch, department or agency, it will be made clear that they relate only to the administration of the particular department or agency concerned.You also make reference to the fact that certain of the non-executive branch agencies, such as the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office, participated in the procedures prescribed by Executive Order 9835. I understand this resulted, not because that order was necessarily applicable to those agencies, but because they voluntarily adopted procedures similar to those prescribed by the order. Executive Order 10450 does not prevent them from adopting a similar policy in relation to it. The main question is whether the appropriations of the FBI are sufficient to pay for the investigations required by such agencies. I understand that the appropriations are sufficient with respect to some of the agencies whose employees are part of the classified civil service, such as the General Accounting Office, but not for others, such as the Library of Congress. In the past a system of reimbursement was worked out with respect to investigations for agencies not covered by existing appropriations. I would suggest that the Bureau
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 32]
work out similar procedures with the Civil Service Commission and other interested agencies with respect to Executive Order 10450.3. In reference to the problem of the responsibility of conducting investigations abroad, the Departments of State and Army were requested by letter dated June 5, 1953, to continue the same arrangement under Executive Order No. 10450 for investigations abroad as existed under Executive Order No. 9835. The letter stated that in the absence of any indication of disagreement with this plan, it would be assumed that the existing arrangement would remain in effect. To date no expressions of disagreement have come from either Department.4. In respect to the re-adjudication question arising under section 4, I agree that the Bureau should conduct additional investigations only when their purpose is to develop information of the type described in section 8(d). However, I believe the Civil Service Commission, rather than this Department, should issue direct instructions to all departments and agencies as to proper procedures in connection with requests for investigation. I would accordingly recommend that you work out a plan with the Civil Service Commission to so advise the interested departments and agencies.5. As you point out, the last sentence of section 9(k) of the sample security regulations is subject to possible interpre- tation requiring the employee to be given a copy of the investigative reports in connection with his case. In order to preclude this possibility, an appropriate amendment has been transmitted to all departments and agencies... Many of them have also been informally advised of the matter. In addition, since they are supposed to submit their regulations to this Department before issuance, proper precautions will be taken at that time.6. I agree that your existing policy of sending all Bureau reports to the Commission for dissemination to the appropriate depart- ments and agencies should be continued.7. You note that the sample security regulations do not state whether the hearings are to be open or closed and that under Executive Order 9835 the Loyalty Review Board issued a directive to all departments and agencies requiring hearings under that order to be private. In accordance with your suggestion, an amendment to that effect. has been transmitted to all executive departments and agencies.8. You point out that the sample security regulations provide in section 9(c) (4) that each employee shall have the right "to cross-examine any witness offered in support of the charges"; whereas under Executive Order 9835 the Loyalty Review Board issued.
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 33]
a directive permitting Loyalty Hearing Boards to hear witnesses inthe absence of the employee and his counsel, if the witness sorequested.I understand the provision of section 9(6)(4) to be adeliberate policy judgment that witnesses, other than confidentialinformants, shall be subject to cross-examination. Accordingly,persons giving testimony will not have the choices set forth inyour memorandum. I therefore suggest that you advise prospectivewitnesses that their testimony will have to be in the presence ofthe employee and his counsel and will be subject to cross-examina-tion.9. I consider the Bureau's policy of permitting Special   Agents to testify at the hearings only "where they are in a position   to furnish competent evidence," to be sound and suggest that you   undertake through the Civil Service Commission to advise the agencies   concerned that this policy will be continued.10. Serious consideration has been given to your suggestion    that dismissals without prejudice to applicants in cases before the    Regional Loyalty Boards may effect the Civil Service Commission's    register of eligibles. The Commission has already advised that it    believes that, under the basic Civil Service Act, it can establish    criteria with respect to the register of eligibles similar to those    set out in the order. The Department has advised the Commission    that the order does not preclude it from so acting under the authority    of the Civil Service Act if it is satsified as to the existence of    such authority.11. I also go along with your view that it will be    necessary that agencies use a standard form containing sufficient    identifying data in checking individuals! names through the Bureau's    files and in connection with investigations conducted under the...    Executive Crder, and suggest that you work out a procedure for    Jestablishing such a form with the Civil Service Commission.12. With relation to section 5 of the order you state that    the Bureau, on receipt of information of a nature necessitating    investigation by it, intends to follow the policy of immediately    initiating the investigation rather than awaiting a request from    the department or agency concerned, but notifying the head of the    department or agency that information of a nature requiring investi-    gation by the Dureau has been received and an investigation is being    conducted. You also mention that upon request the interested.agency...    will be furnished with the basis for the investigation. I do not    lieve this policy to be in conflict with any provision of the order    and see no reason why you should not follow the policy you suggest.
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 34]
13. You point out that section 3(a) of the order requires    "a check of the fingerprint files of the Federal Bureau of Investi-    gation", but that section 4(b) of the sample security regulations    dealing with the same subject matter omits the quoted language.    In accordance with your suggestion, an amendment to the regula-    tions along the lines you suggest has been transmitted to all executive    departments and agencies.14. You note that the abolition of Regional Loyalty    Boards and the Loyalty Review Board will affect procedures pursuant    to Executive Order 10422 relating to United States citizens who    are United Nations employees. As you suggested, amendments to    cover this situation have been promulgated to all executive depart-    ments and agencies.
[124-10183-10279_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 35]
Date: July 2, 1953To: Mr. James E. HatcherChief, Investigations DivisionU. S. Civil Service CommissionWashington 25, D. C.From: John Fdgar Hoover - Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationSubject: EXECUTIVE ORTER 10450SECURITY RECUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENTWith the inception of the cantioned Executive Order it became evident to this Bureau that certain problems would arise which have been encountered in the past in this Cureau's operations under the provisions of "recutive Order 98335. Several of these have been posed to the Department of Justice and the latter has now furnished tris ureau its advice regarding them.One consideration is just what agencies in the Federal Government are to be included in the operations of Trecutive Order 10350. As your files will reflects by letter dated August 21, 1947, the Honorable arthur. Flerining, then the Acting President of the Commission, furnished this Jureou a list of cil such agencice to be included within the provisions of Executive Order 99956 ambered aroon these were the General Accounting Office and the Government printing Office, neither neithe of which were agencies of the recutive Pranch. The thought occurred ce to whether these agencies are to be included Hader the noo program and is as hether your cotinetes of cases to be handled for these evencies in the current and succeeding fiscal years which you have furnished this Aureau include the ceneral Accountin Office and the Government Printing Office.It is understood that the Commission considers playeខន of these agencies within the provisions of rzecutive Or since they are competitive employees as are the bulk onNW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 36