Y CD

P E34110 lty-C

oft

9°-21 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

GOVERNMENT 

Storage k 1.4 Liarvi LIBRARIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

LNPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE

ru

OF THE

—2, COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

'44 USE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 6299 and S. 1028

BILLS TO EXTEND CERTAIN PAY, LEAVE, AND RETENTION

PREFERENCE BENEFITS UNDER TITLE 5, UNITED STATES

CODE, TO EMPLOYEES OF THE AGRICULTURAI, COUNTY

COMMITTEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 10, 1967

Serial No. 90-21

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

S5-313 WASHINGTON : 1967
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York, Chairman

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

JEROME R. WALDIE, California

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas

WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan

LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana

FRANK J. BRASCO, New York

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

DANIEL E. BUTTON, New York

WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia

PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan

JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho

FLETCHER THOMPSON, Georgia

CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Staff Director

B. BENTON BRAY, Associate Staff Director

JOHN H. MARTINY, Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

THEODORE J. Kin', Senior Staff Assistant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas

LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana

FRANK J. BRASCO, New York

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

EDWARD J. bERWINSKI, Illinois

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

Ex Officio Voting Members

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania
CONTENTS

Statement of:

Brown, John C., Jr., representing the National Association of Farmer- Page

Elected Committeemen •'`) ).,

Fitzgerald, Ray, Deputy Administrator of State and County Operations, accompanied by John P. Haughey, Director, Personnel Management Division, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Griner, John F., national president, American Federation of Government Employees 2:;

Jones, Woodrow, president, National Association of ASCS County

Office Employees, accompanied by Raymond Vanderhorst, vice

president 13

Macy, Hon. John W., Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission, as

presented by 0. Glenn Stahl, Director, Bureau of Policies and

Standards 27

Payne, Clyde R., secretary-treasurer, National Association of Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service County Employees 18

Udall, Hon. Morris K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Arizona 19

Walters, Thomas, legislative representative, accompanied by Carl K.

Sadler, assistant legislative representative, American Federation

of Government Employees 20

Wolkomir, Nathan T., president, National Federation of Federal

Employees, accompanied by Irving I. Geller, director, legal and

employee relations, and Elmer Ambrogue, assistant director, legal

and employee relations 24

Additional material submitted:

Text of H.R. 6299 2

Text of S. 1028 3

Civil Service Commission's reports on H.R. 6299 and S. 1028 3

Ell
N /
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m. in room 346, Cannon House

Office Building, Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today we are holding public hearings relative to the bills H.R.

6299 and S. 1028 that would amend title V of the United States Code

to extend certain benefits to former employees of the agricultural

county committees. S. 1028 was passed by the Senate on June 28

of this year. H.R. 6299 was introduced by a member of the full

committee, our colleague, the Honorable Morris K. Udall on

February 28, 1967.

Basically the two bills are similar and provide agricultural county

committee employees who separate from their positions to accept

appointments to positions in the Federal civil service system with

the following benefits:

1. The county committee employees moving to positions under the

Classification Act would have their rate of compensation set at a rate

which would eliminate or minimize reductions in salary now required

in many cases.

2. Annual and sick leave to the credit of the county committee

employees would be transferred with them to other positions on the

same basis as transferred within leave systems provided in the Annual

and Sick Leave Act.

3. County committee employee's service would be credible service

for seniority purposes in connection with the application of reductionin-force procedures.

The Senate-passed bill, S. 1028, would limit transfer of benefits to

general schedule positions only in the Department of Agriculture,

whereas H.R. 6299 would provide benefits to any job subject to the

general schedule.

The other major difference in the two bills relates to the retention

of preference benefits. The Senate bill does not limit retention preference to service performed before July 10, 1960, but includes all service

wherever and whenever rendered.

Today we have witnesses representing the Department of Agriculture, the Civil Service Commission and several employee organizations. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Ray Fitzgerald,

Deputy Administrator, State and County Operations of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, accompanied by Mr.

1
2 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

John P. Haughey for the Department of Agriculture. They are to be

followed by the president and secretary-treasurer of the National

Association of ASCS County Office Employees, Mr. Woodrow Jones

and Mr. Clyde Payne.

Next we will hear from the American Federation of Government

Employees, J. F. Griner, accompanied by Mr. Walters and Carl

Sadler.

Mr. Stahl, Director of the Bureau of Standards will represent the

Civil Service Commission this morning, since Mr. Macy cannot be

present.

Mr. Fitzgerald, it is a pleasure to welcome you and you may proceed

with your statement.

STATEMENT OF RAY FITZGERALD, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF

STATE AND COUNTY OPERATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN P.

HAUGHEY, DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DIVISION,

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left is Mr.

John P. Haughey, Director, Personnel Management Division, for the

Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Fitzgerald, I think the record should include

the official reports and any other documents the staff feels should be

inserted in the record at this point, and without objection, it is so

ordered.

(The text of H.R. 6299 and S. 1028 along with the Civil Service

Commission's reports are as follows:)

[H.R. 6299, 90th Cong., first sess.]

A BILL To extend certain pay, leave, and retention preference benefits under title 5, United States Code,

to employees of the agricultural county committees, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in. Congress assembled, That section 5334 of title 5, United States Code, is

amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(f) An individual employed by a county committee established under section

590h(b) of title 16 may, upon appointment to a position under this subchapter

and chapter 51 of this title, have his initial rate of basic pay fixed—

"(1) at the minimum rate of the appropriate grade; or

"(2) at a step of the appropriate grade which does not exceed the highest

previous rate of pay received by him during service with the county committee.".

SEC. 2. Section 6308 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting

immediately after "The annual and sick leave to the credit of an employee who

transfers between positions under different leave systems without a break in

service" the following: "(including the annual and sick leave to the credit of an

individual employed by a county committee established under section 590h(b)

of title 16 who transfers without a break in service to a position to which this

subchapter applies)".

SEC. 3. Section 3502(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding

at the end thereof the following sentence: "In addition, in computing length of

service, a competing employee is entitled to credit for service performed before

July 10, 1960, as an employee of a county committee established under section

590h(b) ofi title 16 or of a committee or an association of producers described by

section 610(b) of title 7.".
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 3

[S. 1028, 90th Cong., first sem.]

AN ACT To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain benefits to former employees of county

committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act

and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 5534 of title 5, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(f) An employee of a county committee established pursuant to section 8(b)

of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) may

upon appointment to a position under the Department of Agriculture, subject to

this subchapter, have his initial rate of basic pay fixed at the minimum rate of the

appropriate grade, or at any step of such grade that does not exceed the highest

previous rate of basic pay received by him during service with such county

committee."

SEC. 2. (a) Subchapter I of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, is amended

by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"SEc. 6312. Service rendered as an employee of a county committee established

pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act

(16 U.S.C. 590(b)), or of a committee or an association of producers described in

section 10(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 37),

shall be included in determining years of service for the purpose of section 6303(a)

of this title in the case of any officer or employee in or under the Department of

Agriculture. The provisions of section 6308 of this title for transfer of annual and

sick leave between leave systems shall apply to the leave system established for

such employees."

(b) The analysis of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by

adding the following new item immediately after item 6311:

"6312. Accrual and accumulation for former ASCS county office employees."

SEC. 3. The second sentence of section 3502(a) is amended —

(1) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting

in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word "and"; and

(2) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:

"(C) who is an employee in or under the Department of Agriculture

is entitled to credit for service rendered as an employee of a county

committee established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation

and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)), or of a committee

or an association of producers described in section 10(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 37).'

Passed the Senate June 28, 1967.

Attest: FRANCIS R. VALEO,

Secretary.

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., August 15, 1967.

Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives,

Cannon House Office Building

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the

Civil Service Commission on H.R. 6299, a bill "To extend certain pay, leave, and

retention preference benefits under title 5, United States Code, to employees of

the agricultural county committees, and for other purposes."

This legislation would extend Federal Service credit for non-Federal service

performed with Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service county

committees. Section 1 would permit the Federal salary of a former county office

employee to be set at a higher than the minimum entry rate of the grade. Section

2 would authorize the transfer of accumulated annual and sick leave earned in

county office employment to the accounts of those who move to Federal positions.

Section 3 would authorize the crediting of county office service performed prior

to July 10, 1960, for employment retention purposes. All of these benefits and

privileges would be made available to any county office employee moving to any

Federal position in any Federal agency.

H.R. 6299 is the latest in a long history of proposals to extend the benefits

and privileges of Federal employment to ASC county office personnel. It is similar

to bills introduced in the last two Congresses. The Civil Service Commission has
4 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

considered all of the previous bills undesirable, and takes the same view with

respect to H.R. 6299.

This legislation would accord 'preferential treatment not available to any other

groups. Its enactment would open the way for other non-Federal personnel

employed in federally sponsored or federally assisted programs to claim similar

special advantages. Ultimately this could result in the establishment of a broad

precedent that any work financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government,

or carried on in close cooperation with it, provides an adequate basis to grant those.

who do the work any and all the benefits of Federal employment. It is noted there

are already close to 200 Federal grant-in-aid programs, along with a variety of

other Federal-State cooperative programs. The number of non-Federal personnel

employed in these programs is in the hundreds of thousands.

In raising this issue there is no intention to advocate a closed, rigid structure of

personnel policies and benefits. The Civil Service Commission is very much

interested in, and is working toward, facilitating mobility of personnel between

the Federal Government and other levels of government, and other organizations.

However, in facilitating these arrangements, the Commission is concerned to

maintain clear-cut distinctions between the systems involved, to establish relations

with other systems on a reciprocal basis, and to keep benefits consonant with the

rights and obligations of employment.

Aside from these considerations, the Commission has long been troubled

by the unclear status of ASC county office personnel. Ostensibly, they are nonFederal employees of farmer-elected, farmer-composed committees of private

citizens. Yet over the years a combination of legislation and regulation has made

it extremely difficult to determine what their status really is. They are treated

as if they were Federal employees for most of the benefits of Federal employment, but not for the rights, protections, and obligations of the veteran preference

laws, the laws restricting political activity, and others. They serve under an

employment system drawn up and controlled by the Department of Agriculture

which provides for review of individual personnel actions at the Federal level.

Yet they remain outside of the Federal Service in order to preserve a semblance

of local control by farmer committees. Because they are not actually Federal

employees, they receive no credit for their county office service in Federal employment and this acts as a deterrent to their recruitment for positions in the

Department of Agriculture.

The enactment of this legislation would probably ease whatever recruiting

problem may exist, but at the same time it would further complicate the unclear

relationship between these personnel and the Federal Government and have other

undesirable consequences previously cited.

There is another approach which the Commission has felt would provide a

better way of accomplishing the objectives of this legislation. It would be to

enact legislation making county office employees full-fledged Federal employees

of the Department of Agriculture, subject not only to the benefits of Federal

employment but to all the obligations and protections as well. Such legislation

would end the "in between" status of county office personnel and place them

directly in the mainstream of career progression in the Department of Agriculture.

This same approach has been recommended for another group of non-Federal

personnel whose status is somewhat comparable—National Guard technicians—

and a number of bills have been introduced in this Congress to effect this.

Under the approach contemplated by the Civil Service Commission, county

office incumbents holding regular appointments would be automatically brought

into the competitive civil service as career-conditional or career employees depending on length of service without having to take an examination. However, future

appointments to county office positions would be made under competitive civil

service procedures.

It has been suggested that this approach would alter the concept of local

control over farm programs by county committees. Actually, under this approach

local policy and decision-making authority over farm programs would still be

left in the hands of the committees. All they would lose would be the limited

authority they now have over the employment and retention of county office

personnel.

The Commission, of course, recognizes that there are other viewpoints and

other considerations. Many of the benefits of Federal employment have already

been bestowed on these employees by act of Congress over a Presidential veto.

When viewed in this light, it can be seen how this bill can be considered an extension of previously established policy with respect to these employees. The fact

that legislation similar to this bill has been introduced time and again is evidence
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 5

of a deep and continuing interest in seeing that the benefits proposed are granted

without changing the status of the employees.

If the Congress decides to give favorable consideration to this bill, the Commission would strongly urge that a statement be included in the record to the effect

that this legislation is not intended to serve as a precedent for granting Federal

Service credit for non-Federal service with other groups. The Commission would

also urge, if this legislation is enacted, that at some future time the Congress give

further consideration to making these employees fully Federal.

In addition the Commission requests that certain changes be made in this bill

to bring it closer into line with its apparent objective and to limit the possibility

of other employees being adversely affected by its retention credit feature in

reduction-in-force situations.

The apparent objective of this legislation is to enable the Department of

Agriculture to recruit county office employees for ASCS positions at the State

and National levels. However, the benefits proposed under H.R. 6299 would be

granted without regard to the agency or position to which a former ASC county

office employee moved. In reduction-in-force situations this would mean that a

former county office employee who, for example, occupied a position in the

Department of the Interior or the Federal Power Commission or the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare or some other agency could use his county

office service to displace a Federal employee with longer overall Federal Service.

It is therefore suggested that H.R. 6299 be amended to limit its applicability

to county office employees who accept positions in the Department of Agriculture.

This can be accomplished by making the following changes:

On page 1, line 7, insert "in the Department of Agriculture" between "position"

and "under".

On page 2, the parenthetical clause starting on line 8 should be revised to read:

"(including the annual and sick leave to the credit of an individual employed by a

county committee established under 590h(b) of title 16 who is appointed without

a break in service to a position in the Department of Agriculture to which this

subchapter applies)".

On page 2, the last line of section 3 should be revised to read: "610(131 of title

7 as long as the employee holds a position in the Department of Agriculture.".

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr.,

Chairman.

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., May 8, 1967.

Hon. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of

the Civil Service Commission on S. 124 and S. 1028, bills to extend certain benefits

to employees of county committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act.

These bills would extend Federal Service credit, in varying degrees, for nonFederal service performed with Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service county committees. S. 124 would authorize the crediting of unused annual and

sick leave earned in county office employment to the accounts of county office

personnel who move to Federal ASCS positions at the State level, and would credit

county office service for leave accrual purposes. S. 1028 would grant salary, leave,

and retention credit for past county office service. Under S. 1028, leave and retention credit would be available only as long as the former county office personnel

remained in positions under the Department of Agriculture.

These bills are the latest in a long history of proposals to extend the benefits

and privileges of Federal employment to ASC county office personnel. S. 124 and

S. 1028 are identical to bills introduced in the last Congress and similar to bills

introduced in the 88th Congress. The Civil Service Commission has considered

the previous legislation undesirable and takes the same view with respect to the

current bills.

This legislation would accord preferential treatment not available to any other

groups. Its enactment would open the way for other non-Federal personnel em85-313-67-2
6 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

ployed in federally sponsored or federally assisted programs to claim similar

special advantages. Ultimately this could result in the establishment of a broad

precedent that any work financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government,

or carried on in close cooperation with it, provides an adequate basis to grant

those who do the work any and all the benefits of Federal employment. It is noted

there are already close to 200 Federal grant-in-aid programs, along with a variety

of other Federal-State cooperative programs. The number of non-Federal personnel employed in these programs is in the hundreds of thousands.

In raising this issue there is no intention to advocate a closed, rigid structure of

personnel policies and benefits. The Civil Service Commission is very much interested in, and is working toward, facilitating mobility of personnel between the

Federal Government and other levels of government, and other organizations.

However, in facilitating these arrangements, the Commission is concerned to

maintain clear-cut distinctions between the systems involved, to establish relations with other systems on a reciprocal basis, and to keep benefits consonant with

the rights and obligations of employment.

Aside from these considerations, the Commission has long been troubled by

the unclear status of ASC county office personnel. Ostensibly, they are nonFederal employees of farmer-elected, farmer-composed committees of private

citizens. Yet over the years a combination of legislation and regulation has made

it extremely difficult to determine what their status really is. They are treated

as if they were Federal employees for most of the benefits of Federal employment,

but not for the rights, protections, and obligations of the veteran preference laws,

the laws restricting political activity, and others. They serve under an employment system drawn up and controlled by the Department of Agriculture which

provides for review of individual personnel actions at the Federal level. Yet they

remain outside of the Federal Service in order to preserve a semblance of local

control by farmer committees. Because they are not actually Federal employees,

they receive no credit for their county office service in Federal employment and

this acts as a deterrent to their recruitment for positions in the Department of

Agriculture.

The enactment of this legislation would probably ease whatever recruiting

problem may exist, but at the same time it would further complicate the unclear

relationship between these personnel and the Federal Government and have

other undesirable consequences previously cited.

There is another approach which the Commission has felt would provide a

better way of accomplishing the objectives of this legislation. It would be to

enact legislation making county office employees full-fledged Federal employees

of the Department of Agriculture, subject not only to the benefits of Federal

employment but to all the obligations and protections as well. Such legislation

would end the "in between" status of county office personnel and place them

directly in the mainstream of career progression in the Department of Agriculture.

This same approach has been recommended for another group of non-Federal

personnel whose status is somewhat comparable—National Guard technicians—

and a number of bills have been introduced in this Congress to effect this.

It has been suggested that this approach would alter the concept of local control

over farm programs by county committees. Actually, under this approach local

policy and decision making authority over farm programs would still be left in

the hands of the committees. All they would lose would be the limited authority

they now have over the employment and retention of county office personnel.

The Commission, of course, recognizes that there are other viewpoints and other

considerations. Many of the benefits of Federal employment have already been

bestowed on these employees by act of Congress over a Presidential veto. When

viewed in this light, it is clear how these bills can be considered extensions of

previously established policy with respect to these employees. The fact that legislation similar to these bills has been introduced time and again is evidence of a deep

and continuing interest in seeing that the benefits proposed are granted without

changing the status of the employees.

If the Congress does decide to give favorable consideration to either of these

bills, the Commission would strongly urge that a statement be included in the

record to the effect that this legislation is not intended to serve as a precedent for

granting Federal service credit for non-Federal service with other groups. The

Commission also wishes to emphasize that if this legislation is enacted, the Commission would continue to work toward the objective of making these employees

Federal, subject not only to the benefits of Federal employment but to the rights

and obligations as well.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 7

If these bills are given further consideration they should be drafted as amendments to title 5, United States Code, which has been codified into positive law.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) JOHN W. MACY, Jr.,

Chairman.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

I appreciate the opportunity to appear in connection with your

consideration of H.R. 6299 and S. 1028.

The primary objective of these bills is to eliminate the severe

hardship and inequity which ASC county committee employees now

suffer if they accept civil service employment in the Department of

Agriculture. Your committee in the 89th Congress favorably reported

to the House legislation, H.R. 2452, which would have accomplished

this purpose.

The Department of Agriculture strongly supports S. 1028 and

recommends the committee immediately approve it as passed by the

Senate.

S. 1028 would:

1. Permit the Department to appoint ASC county committee

employees to civil service positions at a salary step which does

not exceed their prior county salary rate.

2. Transfer the county committee employee's annual and sick

leave when he moves to a civil service position in the Department

of Agriculture.

3. Credit his county committee employee service for leaveearning and reduction-in-force purposes.

During the course of hearings in the 89th Congress, a proposal to

place ASC county committee employees under civil service was made.

We have given thorough consideration to the effects which would

result from such a change. It is our strong belief that moving these

employees into the civil service system cannot be accomplished without doing violence to the farmer committee system of local administration which has been so successful over the years.

I can personally assure you of the dedicated service rendered by

ASC county committee employees. They are a group which I am proud

to be associated with in serving the American farmer. It has been our

policy to see that they are accorded benefits comparable to employees

under civil service. We believe that they have earned, through outstanding service, the rights to pay and other fringe benefits on an

equal basis with civil service employees.

Many experienced county committee employees are and will, in the

future, be needed to fill more responsible positions within ASCS and

the Department. A few county committee employees have accepted

assignments in civil service positions. They were required to take salary

cuts and they lost their accumulated sick leave. Salary cuts can amount

to over $2,000 for an employee moving to a comparable level position.

Such a cut in salary would occur, for example, if a county office manager at step 10 of CO-9 is appointed to a comparable level civil service

position which is GS-9. A county employee advancing to a higher level

position may be required to take a salary cut of over $800. A county

employee with 10 to 15 years of service probably has over 1,000 hours
8 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

of sick leave. The loss of this leave is a serious loss of financial protection against future illness.

ASC county committee employees are a primary source of qualified

candidates to fill key positions in ASCS State offices. This source of

talented personnel with years of invaluable experience in the Department's programs at the grassroots level also provides the source for

filling many other positions within the Department. Without this

legislation, we will be deprived of the services of persons seriously

needed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you for your very pointed and effective

statement, Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sure that most of the committee

members, those who are most interested in this legislation, are cognizant and well aware of the two points that you make, the first one

being that to bring the county employees into the civil service system

would do violence to the farmer committee system, the local administration which has been so successful over the years.

Rather than to ask you or Mr. Haughey to expand on that for the

record at this point, may I suggest that you transmit in writing to me

for inclusion in the record and perhaps into the report for the benefit

of the other House Members a more detailed position. I think this

could also be helpful if you could spell out the second point that these

ASC committee employees are a primary source of qualified candidates

to fill the key positions in the State offices.

I certainly am in full agreement on that point. I know we all understand the point that you make, but I think if you could spell out and

expand those two points which you make in your statement by way of

letter, that it could be made available to the full membership of the

House and it would be most helpful as we might consider the legislation

on the floor.

(The material requested is as follows:)

REASONS FOR OPPOSING CIVIL SERVICE STATUS FOR ASC COUNTY COMMITTEE

EMPLOYEES

The ASCS system of program administration was established by Congress over

thirty years ago. It is a unique system in that local farmers themselves directly

participate in local program administration. Their elected representatives, the

county committee, is charged with adapting national farm programs to the

specific needs of their locality. The county committee selects the county office

manager, who serves at their pleasure. The other employees are selected by and

serve at the pleasure of the county office manager.

The success of ASCS programs depends upon informing farmers, encouraging

them to participate in the programs and obtaining their compliances with program requirements. The nature of the programs makes these goals difficult to

achieve. The fact that we have been successful in the past is due in large measure

to the efforts of our county committeemen. These committeemen are elected to

their offices by the local farmers. Farmers have confidence in the ability and

integrity of the committeemen they elect to office. These committeemen in turn

are able to provide effective program leadership which assures maximum farmer

acceptance and effective administration.

We believe that placing county committee employees under the Civil Service

system would destroy the local control necessary for effective county committee

operations. Much of the strength and vigor of the farmer committee system is

attributed to the fact that it has great freedom in selecting and hiring its employees and expanding its force to meet seasonal needs. We believe the creation

of a straight-line organization from Washington through the counties would preclude the flexibility required for effective operations. It would also hinder farmer

acceptances and compliances with programs.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 9

Since the inception of the committee system of operation, both the Congress

and the Secretary have assigned many programs to ASC county committees. A

large number of these programs are subject to change from year to year. In prior

years there have been many instances in which it has been necessary to implement

new or significantly changed programs in a matter of days. Some of the programs

are or have been designed to provide emergency assistance in drought or other

emergency situations. In great measure the success which has been enjoyed in

adjusting quickly to meeting emergency or changing program requirements is due

to the flexibility inherent in the committee system of operation.

ASC county committee employees are covered by the Civil Service Retirement

Act, Federal Employees Health Benefits Act and the Federal Employees Life

Insurance Act. Congress in 1965 provided these employees with the rights to

receive severance pay. The Department, by administrative action, has provided

them with leave benefits comparable to those received by Federal employees.

County committee employees, therefore, have little gain in terms of fringe benefits

by obtaining Civil Service status.

COUNTY COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES-A PRIME RECRUITING SOURCE FOR ASCS—

USDA

A large majority of ASCS key career program positions in State offices and at

the national level are filled with employees who began their careers as county

committee employees. This past practice of advancing proved to be invaluable to

the overall success of the Agency. All large organizations recognize benefits derived

from providing for the career advancement of employees from the lowest echelons

to higher levels. The benefits of such advancement in ASCS are unique because of

the unusual nature of our organization and the types of programs administered.

ASC county committee employees are in direct contact with the farmer. They

explain our programs to the farmer and administer the many legal and regulatory

program requirements. The county office manager who manages the program

operations in the county must, by training and experience, master all programs.

His experience as a program manager provides him not only with technical knowledge, but with an insight into effects of programs on the individual farmer. By

experience, he acquires the knowledge necessary to anticipate farmer reaction to

program requirements and provisions.

At higher levels in ASCS, direct contact with the farmer in program administration is generally not available. Key program officials who design, develop, and

administer programs at the State or national level must understand and anticipate

possible problems of local administration and farmer acceptance and compliance.

He must develop program policies and procedural requirements that are reasonable

and which, in administration; are effective in achieving program goals. Much of

the knowledge required cannot be gained by training. It is gained by actual work

experience in a county office.

ASCS from the early 1930's until recent years had little problem recruiting

county employees for higher level responsibilities. During this period, the pay and

other fringe benefits enjoyed by Civil Service employees were much greater than

those received by county employees. In recent years, this situation has changed.

County employee salary rates have been increased to levels equal with those

received by Civil Service employees occupying positions with duties and responsibilities at comparable levels. In 1960 many fringe benefits received by Civil Service

employees were extended by Congress to ASC county committee employees.

Today, offers of advancement to higher level positions, in many cases, do not offer

advantages to the county employees. In fact, the current requirements call upon

the county employee to suffer sacrifices in accepting such advancements.

The problem facing ASCS is acute. A majority of our key career program positions are filled with employees who were hired in the 1930's when ASCS programs

were first initiated. Many of these key employees will be retiring in the near future.

The need for drawing upon the pool of trained manpower at the county level must

not be denied the Agency. Future effectiveness of farm programs depends upon

the success of ASCS in obtaining qualified and trained replacements for the many

vacancies which will occur in key positions at the State and national levels.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Fitzgerald, how many Agricultural Stabilization. and Conservation Service county committee employees are

there, and do you have it broken down by States, and is it available

for inclusion in the record?
10 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, it could be made available. We

have about 15,000 regular ASCS county office employees. We don't

have it broken down by State. This could be done.

Mr. HENDERSON. If you would submit that for the record, I think

it would assist us in our understanding of this.

(The material requested is as follows:)

NUMBER OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES IN ASCS STATE AND COUNTY OFFICES

State State

employees

County

employees

1. Alabama 39 456

2. Alaska 4 4

3. Arizona 15 51

4. Arkansas 43 369

5. California 35 205

6. Colorado 26 192

7. Connecticut 4 17

8. Delaware 4 14

9. Florida 28 155

10. Georgia 77 655

11. Hawaii_ 10 5

12. Idaho 27 144

13. Illinois 52 615

14. Indiana 49 455

15. Iowa 54 736

16. Kansas 54 637

17. Kentucky 46 432

18. Louisiana 40 292

19. Maine 9 36

20. Maryland 15 74

21. Massachusetts 5 21

22. Michigan 40 343

23. Minnesota 43 533

24. Mississippi 41 439

25. Missouri 46 644

26. Montana 32 181

27. Nebraska 50 563

28. Nevada 8 19

29. New Hampshire 5 18

30. New Jersey 9 33

31. New Mexico 21 106

32. New York 29 199

33. North Carolina 59 688

34_ North Dakota 40 400

35. Ohio 50 438

36. Oklahoma 39 45.9

37. Oregon 22 120

38. Pennsylvania 27 216

39. Rhode Island 5 6

40. South Carolina 46 340

41. South Dakota 40 380

42. Tennessee 58 547

43. Texas 114 1,373

44. Utah 17 73

45. Vermont 8 24

46. Virginia 45 302

47. Washington 25 132

48. West Virginia 17 95

49, Wisconsin 32 308

50. Wyoming 20 73

Total 1.624 14,622

Mr. HENDERSON. Could you tell me how many Federal employees,

that is the classified employees, that we have at the various State

levels? Do you have a total over the Nation and a breakdown of those

by States?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We can get it. It is around 1,500 to 1,700 Federal

employees in State ASC offices and we can give you the list.

Mr. HENDERSON. So, relating the point you make that the county

employees are your best source of recruiting, you have approximately

10 to 1?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 11

Mr. HEN DERSON. What kind of work do the county employees

perform?

Mr. FITZGERALD. They perform all of the functions which are delegated to the county ASC committees by the Congress and the Secretary, which means they serve the farmer on a day-to-day basis helping

him to make application for each and every program which we administer in the various States. This would range from taking an application for an ACP cost-sharing payment, approval of the practice by

the county committee, and the submission of the practice perhaps to

the Soil Conservation Service for technical service and paying of the

cost share by the Government to the farmer or to the vendor. All of

the way from that to issuing to the farmer his allotment, telling him

how he might participate in the program and what benefits will accrue

to him if he does participate—signing him up and seeing to it that

his farm is in compliance during the season, and transmitting to him

his loan receipts, diversion payments and certificates.

Mr. HENDERSON. The county employees are supervised by a count

i 

y

manager, and he also would be included in the provisions of this bill.

He is not a Federal employee?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No, sir. He is an employee of the county ASC

committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next step of supervision above the county

manager and county employees is what level?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Well the county committee is an elected county

committee for policy purposes. A farmer-elected committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. In carrying out the Department's policies, they

are supervised 

Mr. FITZGERALD. By a farmer fieldman.

Mr. HENDERSON. And he is a regular civil service employee?

Mr. FITZGERALD. He is not. He is a schedule A. And he is appointed

by the State ASC committee, which in turn is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. HENDERSON. And your lowest level of the classified system is

at the State level?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. How would you say that a county employee of

the ASCS differs from a State employee in that service?

Mr. FITZGERALD. The work they do is different in that the county

employee directly serves the farmer, where the State employee is a

technician, a man who interprets the forms and the procedures in such

a way that the county people can readily use them in serving the

farmer on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. HENDERSON. And they are appointed in different ways. Obviously if they are not Federal employees at the county level they are

Federal employees at the State level.

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is true. Most of the employees in the State

offices by far are civil service employees.

Mr. HENDERSON. What kind of annual or sick leave benefits do

the agricultural county committees' personnel now have.

Mr. FITZGERALD. They are almost identical with the civil service,

sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. I believe that is all of the questions I have at

the moment.
12 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

- Mr. Fitzgerald, is there any difference in the treatment of the

county employees by State or is there a uniform system in Californ ia,

North Carolina, and the different States?

Mr. FITZGERALD. So far as I know, they are treated the same.

• Mr. WILSON. Insofar as the two bills are concerned—H.R. 6299

and S. 1028—do you have any preference between the two bills? Do

you find one more acceptable than the other?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We prefer S. 1028 for some technical reasons.

Mr. WILSON. Technical reasons?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILSON. You feel it is a better written bill and it takes care

of problems more effectively?

Mr. FITZGERALD. A little more effectively; yes, sir, though they

both have the same philosophy and intent, I believe.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you.

Mr. HEND RSON. Mr. Hamilton?

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fitzgerald, you commented there were about 15,000 county

employees and perhaps 1,500 to 1,700 State employees.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAMILTON. How many employees would transfer from the

county level to the State and become Federal employees in the course

of a year?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We believe about 50. We think, Mr. Congressman, that this bill would give us a pool of talent of about 500 people

per year to draw from.

Mr. HAMILTON. One thing I noted in S. 1028 is that if the county

employees would accept civil service positions, they must do so at a

salary step that does not exceed his prior county rating.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAMILTON. Suppose you have a very good man at the county

level and you want to attract him into the Federal service. Isn't this a

kind of an arbitrary provision to write into a piece of legislation? You

couldn't attract this man with a higher salary then, could you?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Could I ask Mr. Haughey to answer the question?

Mr. HAUGHEY. Mr. Hamilton, the provision of the Senate bill to

which you referred makes direct reference primarily to lateral tra nsfers. This would impose the limitation that he could not come in at a

rate exceeding his salary in the county.office. There would be, however,

the regular recognition for high-quality employees who come in at

grade promotions and then, of course, the limitation would not apply.

Mr. HAMILTON. Do I understand then, if you have such a good

man it is possible to get him into the Federal service at a better rate

of pay than he is earning as a county employee?

Mr. HAUGHEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think the problem is if today a CO-9 county

office employee were to transfer laterally into a GS-9 in the Federal

service he would have to drop back to the beginning of the grade GS-9.

He might be CO-9, step 8, in the county service and he would have

to drop back to GS-9, step 1, thereby losing several hundred dollars.

Mr. HAMILTON. As a point of clarification, on the salary cut you

speak of on page 2, you mention an example where one takes a $2,000

cut and an $800 cut. That is a per annum cut as I understand it?
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 13

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAMILTON. I also understand the Bureau of the Budget is

opposed to this procedure and they would prefer to federalize the

employees at the county level. Is that right?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I really don't know their position, Mr. Hamilton.

They authorized us to submit the report which we have submitted in

support of the legislation.

Mr. HAMILTON. When you state on page 2 of your statement that

moving these employees in the civil service system cannot be accomplished without doing violence to the farmer committee system of

local administration, can you elaborate on that a little bit for me?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir. Since the inception, almost, of the Federal

farm programs the Congress has seen fit to endow certain privileges

and authorities on a county committee which must be an elected

county committee, elected by the fellow farmers in the county. These

committeemen have the right to perform certain functions in regard

to policy, make policy decisions. One of those functions is to employ an

office manager, the top man in the county office. The county office

manager then employs the clerks, the employees in the office. Specifically, it seems to us that to deprive the county committee, elected by

the fellow farmers in the community, of the authoiity to hire the

office manager, whom they deem to be best, within the guidelines we

have set at the national level, the minimum qualifications, we think

this would do violence to the county committee system in itself.

Mr. HAMILTON. It would take out the democratic procedures that

now exist in the selection of the office manager.

Mr. FITZGERALD. And derogate their authority; yes, sir.

Mr. HAMILTON. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Fitzgerald, thank you very much.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our next witness is Mr. Woodrow Jones, president

of the National Association of ASCS County Office employees, and he

is accompanied by Mr. Clyde R. Payne, secretary-treasurer of

NASCOE. We are delighted to welcome both of you to the committee.

Mr. Jones, I have personal knowledge that Mr. Roberts, the

president of your North Carolina organization, is in attendance this

morning and if there are other National or State officials you would

like to recognize and have recorded in the record, we would be glad for

you to do that at this time.

STATEMENT OF H. WOODROW JONES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND VANDERHORST, VICE PRESIDENT,

NASCOE

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, there are. First I would

like to correct the record. Mr. Payne is unable to be here due to serious

illness in his family and we have filed his statement with your counsel.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, his statement will follow

yours, sir.

Mr. JONES. We also have Mr. Ernest Inman with us from your fine

State, Mr. Larry Smith from Arizona, Mr. Dillard Lasseter, our counsel in Washington, and I have on my left Mr. Raymond Vanderhorst,

the vice president of our organization, from Iowa.

85-313-67--3
•

14 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Lasseter is known to the members of the

committee for his long years of service. We are delighted to welcome

the gentleman from Arizona whose Congressman introduced one of the

bills we are considering this morning. Mr. Udall called me yesterday

to explain his inability to attend and testify in support of the legislation

but has presented a prepared statement. And I would suggest to

counsel that Congressman Udall's statement immediately follow that

of Mr. Payne.

You may proceed, sir.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Woodrow Jones. I am employed as office manager of

the Bowie County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

office in New Boston, Tex. Today, however, I am on annual leave to

petition your help in another capacity.

I serve as president of the National Association of ASC County

Office Employees. We have members in each of the 50 States. Over 96

percent of all employees belong to and support the efforts of our

association. I am pleased to be here once again to speak on behalf of

all the people working in the county ASCS offices of this country.

During the past 8 years, we have come to your committee some nine

or 10 times. Each time you have been nice enough to hear us, consider

the merits of our case, and to grant our request.

You have provided for our participation in retirement, life insurance,

health insurance, and severance pay benefits just like all other Government employees. Also, you have helped us by including language in

all pay bills since 1960 making their provisions applicable to our people.

And, in the 89th Congress this committee approved a bill embodying

the same provisions as the one you are considering at this time. We

want to express our thanks for this consideration and the opportunity

to appear at this time.

We are hopeful you can help us, again.

Since our status is somewhat different from others in Government we

always feel it necessary, when appearing here, to explain some of the

conditions of our employment.

We work for the agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that

reaches into every farming community in the Nation administering

programs the Congress makes available to our farmers. All activities

of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service are a part of

a Federal function provided by you and directed by the Secretary of

Agriculture. The administrative structure of our agency is made up of

national, commodity, area, State, and county offices. Employees in

national, commodity, area, and State offices are a part of the Federal

career service. We in the county offices of the agency are not. Other

than the fact we work at the county level applying law and regulation

to the individual farms there is no distinction between our status and

theirs. We are the ones who deal face to face with the people on the

land—the people you wish to provide for in the first place—the only

excuse for the existence of the agency.

We have no connection with any State, county, or local governing

body. We are referred to as county office employees because the area

of our responsibility is limited to the county where the office is located.

All our actions are controlled and directed as a result of Federal

mandate but we are not covered by civil service statute. I suppose

this fact has been responsible for it being said we are not Federal

employees.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 15

Although we are told we are non-Federal or nongovernment, our

every act—on and off the job—is covered by Federal statute or

directive. We work only on Federal programs. We are paid with

Federal funds. We are supervised by Federal appointees. The Secretary

of Agriculture—through employees subordinate to him—issues regulations setting conditions of our employment. He delegates authority to

those who issue instructions implementing his regulations. Under

this authority there has been issued a series of handbooks—commonly

referred to in the agency as the CA series—dealing with administrative

matters.

In addition to implementing regulations, these handbooks are

manuals of instruction for county office employees. They cover every

administrative aspect of county office operation. This includes employment and removal of county office personnel, budgeting of funds,

record handling, administrative services, and so forth. They set

standards for classification of all positions in the county office, establish rates of pay, spell out procedure for filling vacancies and minimum

qualifications for county office managers and subordinate positions.

In addition, standards for conduct off-the-job are set.

Mr. HENDERSON. Could I ask you to speak a little more detailed on

that? I am not familiar with what those standards might be.

Mr. JONES. Well, in times past it has been brought to the attention

of the committee that we are not subject to the Hatch Act provisions,

but those provisions have been embodied in the Secretary's regulation

that does about the same thing as I understand it as the Hatch Act

does to classified people.

Mr. HENDERSON. I was going to ask you specifically if you were

covered by the Hatch Act, but of course your answer is responsive to

that. Thank you very much.

Mr. JONES. As far as Federal direction is concerned, no agency

supervises its personnel more adequately than ASCS. We receive

instruction from the State offices daily. District fieldmen working

under supervision of the State office visit each county office from 15 to

25 times each year. He supervises to the extent necessary to see that

all directives are being observed. A representative of the performance

section of the State office visits each office several times a year to

direct fieldwork. Operation assistants from the State office may visit

the county for periodic review of all operations. In addition, an

auditor from the Office of the Inspector General—outside ASCS but

within USDA—usually spends about 3 weeks each year in each county

office checking all records and all programs. All these people serve

under Federal appointment.

There are other facts to establish we are as "federal" as any part

of Government but I will not enumerate. You are acquainted with

our offices in your areas. I believe you can make a proper deduction

without me taking up your time.

The legislation being considered would extend to a group of loyal

Government workers equal treatment to that enjoyed by other

Government employees. It would give those in our offices—who

through initiative and training become eligible for promotion to

another level of the agency—an opportunity to accept without facing

the penalties they now have to submit to.

In business and in all other Government work most management

people began their service in and advanced from the lower levels. In
16 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

ASCS—under present work rules—this advance cannot be made

without serious loss of benefits earned over the years.

To move from county office employment to State, area, commodity

or Washington office employment, improper sacrifices are necessary.

All accrued sick leave is forfeited. Any accumulated annual leave

must be liquidated by lump-sum payment. Any past service does not

count for annual leave or retention purposes. Even though the individual may be one having 33 years of exemplary service and might

even have received USDA's Superior Service Award, he must begin

in the same category as one who might be hired "from the street."

The situation concerning salaries is just as ridiculous. Salary rates

for corresponding grades and steps are now the same for county office

employment as is the case in other levels. As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed

out, when we transfer many times it is necessary we take a reduction.

His explanation of that, I think, covered it better than I could here.

Other Government employees in our sister agencies do not face

such deterrents. When a clerk in a smalltown post office transfers to

another level, or an employee at the arsenal in my county transfers to

the Pentagon, no loss results. And, even when one of those employees

transfers from employment in other branches of the Government to

ASCS they do so without being penalized. This is the case even

though the employee transfers from the county level of another USDA

agency. The same is true in case of a transfer from Washington, State,

or commodity office to a county office.

I want to also call your attention to other reasons for your favorable

consideration. County ASCS employees need this legislation. The

Department of Agriculture estimates that some 50 to 400 county

office employees would be appointed to positions in the Department

each year if this bill becomes law. Of course it would benefit these

people materially but it would also assure those of us who are not,

accepted of having people directing our efforts who have been promoted through the ranks. They would be people who are acquainted

with and appreciate the problems encountered in the face-to-face

dealing with our farmers at the local level.

The Department of Agriculture needs this legislation. Secretary

Orville Freeman says the county offices can be a prime source of

candidates to fill positions in our State and Washington offices. Our

agency came into being in the early 1930's. Many of the key positions

are presently occupied by employees nearing retirement age. The

serious recruitment problem existing now will surely be intensified

very shortly. Approval of this bill would help alleviate these circumstances. Employees trained at the county level of our agency would

find it possible to accept promotions into these positions.

The American farmer needs this legislation to assure him that his

farm programs will continue to be administered by those having

experience at the grassroots level. Each person moving from a county

ASCS office to a State office or one at the Washington level would

carry ideas originating close to the basic problem. Farmers, by nature,

are independent and tend to resist program provisions they feel are

handed down by those not familiar with their problems. Enactment

of this bill into law would assure them that people having firsthand

knowledge of local problems are given an opportunity to advance into

policymaking positions.

1

•
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 17

We believe enactment of this legislation would be in the public

interest. We feel the taxpayer is entitled to an employee most likely to

need the least amount of training. County office people work face to

face with the farmer and his problems on a day-to-day basis. We

believe people advancing from more recent contacts with the basic

elements of agriculture can most likely- be relied upon to do a better

job at the program formulating and policymaking level of the agency

than would someone who has not bad this experience. The public

deserves and should expect this kind of performance.

Finally—I want to point out enactment of the legislation will not

give us preferential treatment. We ask only for the opportunity to

advance in our vocation along with other Government employees.

The legislation would not permit us to bypass any examination or

other qualification requirement. We are interested—and know you

are—in maintaining good administration. We would be the last group

to ask for special treatment or relaxing of any requirements. Let me

emphasize, we only hope to be treated exactly like other Government

employees.

If you feel we ask amiss, I want to apologize for taking your time.

However, we hope you are able to concur with us and give early

approval to this important proposal.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you for that very fine statement.

Would your organization prefer the Senate-passed bill?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. We feel that it is more concisely worded than

H.R. 6299 and also there is the limitation in H.R. 6299 that limits

the credit of service to that performed prior to July 10, 1960. We

feel this was an oversight in the printing of the bill, and we would like

to see that removed, sir. However, it has been called to our attention

that there is a typographical error in S. 1028, which Mr. Bray is

acquainted with, and we think can be taken care of.

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. The subcommittee will keep that in mind.

Do you agree with the Department of Agriculture's position that as

a practical matter the limitation of these benefits to county employees

going into other positions in the Department is sufficient?

Mr. JONES. There has been discussion at times of whether or not

we would like our service credited into any Government agency and

of course in the beginning we favored that certainly, but due to the

objection of some of the Government people, we were willing to accept

transfer only into the Department, because we felt like that was where

our people would be best qualified to serve.

Mr. HENDERSON. Congress has recognized, I think by its past action

that this is a needed situation. The point that was made earlier by Mr.

Fitzgerald, to blanket the county employees under the Civil Service

would disrupt the historical way you have been appointed and have

administered the various agricultural programs. And with the passage

of this legislation, do you know of any other areas that would need

attention by the Congress?

Mr. JONES. Well, sir, offhand I can think of nothing that should be

any different, other than the fact, as was mentioned, the likelihood of

blanketing us completely under Federal service. And, I have this to

say about that: Our people have taken no position on it. But as their

representative, I would like to make this statement—You in the Congress have always determined the conditions of our employment. To

date you have seen fit to use the farmer committee system as we know
18 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

it today. And I would like to say that in the past, now, and in the future

we will be willing to serve agriculture just as efficiently and as well as

we can under any condition that you, in the wisdon of the Congress,

see fit to provide for us.

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, I think that response is certainly in keeping

with the high quality of the county employees.

Mr. Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, this is rather new to me. I am a city

boy, and I am not too much acquainted with the problems of farmers.

But I have been very impressed with the statements we have heard

thus far and I recognize a real problem here and I certainly will support

any legislation to straighten this problem out. I think you have a real

problem. I can see by the rules and regulations that are set down in

connection with political activities and your off-duty activities, and

the work that you are doing, that you are completely under the control of Federal legislations and you are treated just as Federal employees, and I believe that any transfer, at least within the Department

of Agriculture—I don't know that I would want to go as far as the

House bill that would grant this in any governmental department—but

certainly I agree that you should be able to make this transfer without loss of any pay or benefits.

And I will support the legislation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much.

(The statements of Mr. Clyde R. Payne and the Honorable Morris

K. Udall are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CLYDE R. PAYNE, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE COUNTY

EMPLOYEES

I am Clyde R. Payne, Hamilton County ASCS Office Manager, Jasper, Florida,

and Secretary-Treasurer of the National Association of ASCS County Employees.

The National Association of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service Employees (NASCOE) is a voluntary organization of County Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation Service Employees—hereafter referred to as ASCS

employees. Approximately 96% of ASCS employees are members of NASCOE.

The sole purpose of this organization is to promote the welfare of its members.

Each state of the U.S. has a state organization of ASCS county employees that is affiliated with NASCOE Each state affiliated has two members on the Board of

Directors. NASCOE has national officers and an executive committee representing

the six ASCS geographic areas of the United States. They are:

Area Name Cityl State

Northwest Tom Rennard Casper, Wyoming

Southwest Elmer Cheek, Jr Carlsbad, New Mexico

South Central Otis Lancaster Columbus, Mississippi

Southeast E. T. Sullivan Geneva, Alabama

Northeast Evelyn Yeagle Collegeville, Pennsylvania Mid-west Robert Scales Plankinton, South Dakota

Officers Name city/ State

President Woodrow Jones New Boston, Texas Vice President Ray Vanderhorst Bussey, Iowa

Secy-Treasurer Clyde R. Payne Jasper, Florida

Past-President Joy L. Flud Durant, Oklahoma

All officers, committeemen, etc. are ASCS employees with no salaried personnel,

but we do have on a retainer basis Mr. Dillard B. Lasseter, P.O. Box 270, Wash- ington, D.C. 20044, who keeps us advised on legislative activities and assists us in legislative work.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 19

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service employees carry out

various Federal programs assigned to them by the Congress, Secretary of Agriculture, Executive Orders, etc. The headquarters for ASCS is in the United

States Department of Agriculture Building, Washington, D.C. There are also

state and county ASCS offices that administer only Federal programs. County,

city or state governments have no connection with the national, state or county

level of ASCS.

ASCS employees on the county level administer directly to farmers of the U.S.

a great number of the complex USDA farm programs; such as the Soil Bank,

Agricultural Conservation, Marketing Quotas (tobacco, cotton, wheat, peanuts

and rice), Commodity Credit Loans, Cropland Adjustment Program, Wool Incentive Payments, Sugar, Feed Grain, etc. These are practically all the action

programs of USDA.

Previously, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee had determined and

the Congress agreed—and we ASCS employees shall always be grateful to you—

that we, the ASCS employees on the county level, would have Civil Service retirement, health and life insurance previously given to other Federal workers

and you have included us in recent pay adjustment bills. Today, we are before

you representing approximately 15,000 ASCS county employees asking you to act

favorably on Senate Bill 1028 or H.R. 6299. This bill is supported by our members

because it would extend to a group of loyal Government employees in ASCS

county offices equal (not preferred) treatment enjoyed by other Government

employees to be eligible to transfer or be promoted in Governmental work.

It is a time honored American principle of management for employees to "rise

through the ranks." However, in ASCS we can't afford to be promoted to State

or Washington offices because we would forfeit all accumulated sick leave, retention rights, etc., and have our leave earning capacity rolled back to the same level

as a new employee recruited from the streets. Employees advancing from our

sister agencies on county level do not have this problem.

The Government would be greatly benefited if this legislation passed. An

example being that the U.S. Department of Agriculture could draw from the

talents of county ASCS personnel, who have had years of experience dealing

directly with the farmer with USDA action programs, to assist with formulating

policy and procedures, etc. Not only would this be beneficial to USDA, but would

offer dedicated career people the opportunity to advance in their chosen field

without losing the items covered by this proposed legislation. The legislation would

not permit us to by-pass any examinations or special requirements, etc.

We certainly appreciate your assistance in our past desires and the fairness of

your action. We, again, hope you will see fit to recommend to the Congress this

specific piece of legislation which will give us equal treatment and at the same

time assist USDA to solve acute personnel problems.

Thank you for listening to our case.

STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS K. ITDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate having this

opportunity to testify in support of S. 1028 and H.R. 6299, the companion House

bill which I introduced. This legislation would eliminate the severe hardship

encountered by ASCS employees who accept Civil Service with the Department

of Agriculture by extending to them the same benefits which are accorded federal

employees who transfer from one agency to another.

The provisions of the bill would permit the appointment of a county office

employee at a salary step which does not exceed the highest rate of compensation

he received for service with the county committee.

It would authorize transfer of the county employee's accumulated annual and

sick leave and credit county committee service in determining his rate of leaveearning when he transfers to a position in the Department of Agriculture. And, it

would credit service with county committees in computing total length of federal

service for retention purposes.

Mr. Chairman, in accepting assignments with the Department of Agriculture

under present law, many county committee employees have been required to take

salary reductions and suffer the loss of their accumulated leave. As an example,

the salary of a county employee at step 10, CO-9 who is appointed to a comparable

level Civil Service position, which is a GS-9, would be reduced by some $2,000.
20 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

And, with ten to fifteen years' service, he also would be required to forfeit possibly 1,000 hours of sick leave.

These are employees of committees which administer programs established by

the Congress in the public interest and are financed by federal funds. These

employees have all the responsibilities of federal employees, yet they are denied

some of the important rights and benefits which federal employees enjoy under

existing law.

In testifying before the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Mr.

Horace D. Godfrey, Administrator, ASCS, Department of Agriculture, had this

to say: "ASC county committee employees are a primary source of qualified candidates to fill key positions in ASCS State Offices. This source of talented personnel

with years of invaluable experience in the Department's programs at the grass

roots level also provides the source for filling many other positions within the

Department. Without this legislation, we will be deprived of the services of persons

seriously needed."

And, Secretary Freeman reported on identical legislation in the 88th Congress

that . . . "The lack of interchange between leave systems is a deterrent to our

recruitment efforts and the extension of comparable benefits as provided in this

legislation would remove a major bar limiting our ability to interest committee

employees in transfering to other departmental positions.

The salary rates of county employees cannot be protected upon appointment to

a Civil Service position, but the Classification Act does provide for protection of

the salary rates of persons appointed from positions not covered by the Act, such

as the Foreign Service and certain legislative and judicial employees.

Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress have seen fit to extend to the ASCS employees Civil Service retirement, health and life insurance benefits, and have included

them in federal salary increase bills since 1960, and I think it is incumbent upon us

to correct this glaring inequity.

In my judgment, this legislation would be of tremendous benefit to the county

employees in the protection of salary and leave benefits and to the Department of

Agriculture in the recruitment of trained personnel to fill vacancies, and I urge

its favorable consideration by the subcommittee.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our next witness will be Mr. Thomas Walters,

legislative liaison of the American Federation of Government Employees, who will give the statement on behalf of Mr. Griner, the national president.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS WALTERS, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, ACCOMPANIED BY CARL K. SADLER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. WALTERS. Mr. Chairman, noting that you have a goodly

number of witnesses, I would like to place the American Federation of

Government Employees in support of the legislation pending before

this committee and to ask permission to file our statement and to

make it a part of the record.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, it will be printed in the record

following your comments.

Mr. WALTERS. We have testified in support of the intents of this

legislation several times before the House and Senate committees, and

we can see no reason why these employees should not be granted the

full benefits, as other employees, instead of making them halfway

Federal employees, go all of the way and give them a whole loaf of

bread.

I note in S. 1028 there is a typographical error, and I presume the

staff has already caught it. I think the section 5334 is the one to be

amended instead of 5534.

Mr. HENDERSON. You are correct in that and it will take a technical

amendment to the bill on that point.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 21

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. Now we strongly support, as I stated earlier,

the intent of this legislation, and we also feel that there are some

other groups that should be given consideration either now or itt some

immediate future date. We would not desire at this time to offer any

amendments that would deter or slow down this legislation. But there

is a small group of people who worked back in the 1930's under the

Works Projects Administration, and these people, many of them, doing

the same type of work in the same room, occupying the same desk,

and just because one was paid from a certain earmarked fund, they

are entitled to count that service toward Federal retirement if they

become a Federal employee. But the other group, because of their

earmarking of the money, it has been ruled they are not eligible for

counting it toward retirement, and we feel this is something that

certainly ought to be looked at at some immediate date. I believe it

would only be a few hundred that would be involved.

I happen to know one who works in our office, Mr. Joe Reams, who

spent about 9 years under this setup, rose to be assistant State

director of education in the State of Ohio, and just because the money

was earmarked from a different fund, he is not eligible to count that

toward his retirement, if he becomes a Federal employee. And he

does have some Federal service. So I would appreciate very much if

this committee or the staff or somebody would take a look at this at

the opportune time to correct an inequity, something similar to what

appears to be true of these people.

Not having the privilege of being a city boy, as our good friend Mr.

Wilson, I come from the real country part of north Georgia, where I

am very familiar with the people who make up the group that we are

trying to cover, and I agree with the statements made by the president

who has just appeared before this committee, that these are people the

farmers have confidence in and follow their advice and suggestions,

and I think we have just been too long in giving them the things they

are justly entitled to, and we trust and hope that this committee will

immediately vote out a bill similar to S. 1028 or if they could, to

expedite it, vote out the bill identically as passed by the Senate, and

let's get moving, because I am sure you fellows are anxious to wind

up as much of the business as you can so that you can at least get

home for Santa Claus. And with that, Mr. Chairman, we close.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Walters. I am glad to know that

somebody on Capitol Hill still has some hope that there will be a

Santa Claus this year.

To keep the record straight, is my recollection correct that Congress has enacted the legislation that you would like to see enacted

for the other employees, but that it ran into some difficulty down on

Pennsylvania Avenue? Haven't those bills been enacted and vetoed

by the President?

Mr. WALTERS. This year?

Mr. HENDERSON. NO, in past Congresses.

Mr. WALTERS. I don't remember. They vetoed a life insurance bill

this year that upset a lot of our people, especially the older people who

are wanting to retire and get a little better benefits from the Federal

life insurance program.

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly the members of the committee are

familiar with the point that you are making with regard to extending

credit for some of the other Federal employees that in the past have
22 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

worked in Federal-State programs. Perhaps, as we move along, in time

there 101 be a more favorable position of the Bureau of the Budget

and the Civil Service Commission with regard to that point.

I am most appreciative that you are not urging us today to load

this particular bill down with something that might cause it not to be

favorably received by the executive.

Mr. WALTERS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly don't want to throw the

switch to cause any derailments.

There is one other group that I would like to mention, and that is

the employees of the Selective Service System. I think there is a group

of employees that is the most neglected of most any group that I know

of. Again I can speak from experience, having served as chairman of

my local draft board, and knowing of the salaries paid in adjoining

counties and throughout the State, and unless it has changed, tremendously, there is no rhyme or reason as to the payment of these

employees.

One county can pay a certain amount and another county can pay

more or less. And it keeps confusion going all of the time, especially

when you come from- small counties where people know everyone

else and you know what is going on in the other counties. It just

seems to me that this is a group of people that certainly needs some

consideration.

Mr. HENDERSON. On that point I couldn't agree with you more.

I am sure you know if we had had the interest of some of the others

last year or in the past that this would have been enacted.

Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walters, in this connection, the point you just made, I recognize

that one of the principal arguments that the Civil Service Commission

makes in opposition to tAis legislation is that it is a foot-in-the-door

type of thing, that will open this up to various other groups of people.

Right offhand, can you think of, can you tell me how many other

groups there would be that have similar situations that might be

encouraged to come in with special legislation of this type?

Mr. VVALTERs. Well, I don't know just how many, but I doubt if

it would be over three or four or five, and they are all small in number,

all that I know anything about are small in number, and this whole

argument about opening the door, that door has been opened or

closed so many times in the last 20 years, they have worn the hinges

off.

You can go back and find many, many places where we have

brought in special groups, either by legislation or by Executive order

or otherwise. So I think that argument is pretty well worn thin and

wouldn't have much influence on me, because we have been opening

and closing that door for a long time.

But to answer your question the best I can, Congressman Wilson,

all the groups that I know anything about are very small in number,

and from the standpoint of cost would be very, very little. And I doubt

seriously if there would be more than four or five groups. I actually

don't know of that many. I only know of about three groups that have

been consistently nudging us to do something about getting them

under the full benefits. So it would be a very small number.

Mr. WILSON. Well, I would imagine so, too. I don't know, and perhaps we can find out from the Civil Service Commission.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 23

Mr. WALTERS. I would think the largest group that I know of at

least would be the employees of the selective service county boards.

Mr. WILSON. It doesn't seem to me we are talking about too many

people. But to the ones we are talking about, it is a most important

problem and certainly they should be taken care of. I am in agreement

with that philosophy.

MT. WALTERS. Thank you.

MT. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Walters.

(The statement of John F. Griner, national president, American

Federation of Government Employees, is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

The American Federation of Government Employees supports the bills,

S. 1028, which was approved by the Senate June 28, 1967, and H. R. 6299, the

companion House bill. These measures would provide additional benefits for

those employees of the Department of Agriculture who, prior to their Federal

service, had participated in the operation of important agricultural programs

sustained by funds supplied by the Federal Government.

The Department of Agriculture employees who would benefit are those who

had served as employees of county committees established pursuant to the

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act and the Agricultural Adjustment

Act of 1933.

Congress has already provided certain of these employees benefits under the

Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance

Act, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act. It is only consistent to

add the other benefits of similar importance mentioned in these bills, which have

been accorded other regular Civil Service employees who have spent their entire

service in the Federal Government.

The first benefit provided by these bills would be to make it possible for an

employee of one of the county committees involved, upon appointment to a

position in the Department of Agriculture which is subject to the Classification

Act, to have his initial rate of compensation fixed pursuant to that Act so as to

take into account the highest previous rate of compensation received during his

service with a county committee. This would be done by amending Section 5334

of Title 5, United States Code.

The next benefit to be conferred by these bills is to credit for annual leave

purposes prior service with a county committee established under the Soil Conservation Act or with a committee or an association of producers described in the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Thus, the rate Of earning annual leave would

be determined in part by earlier county committee service.

These former county committee employees also would receive benefits under

the Veterans Preference Act. This would result from a provision recognizing prior

county committee service as service creditable for purposes of Reduction in Force,

as provided in Section 3502 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

Crediting service in the employment of county committees established under the

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act or of a committee or an association

of producers described in the Agricultural Adjustment Act has ample justification. These benefits would be contingent upon employment in the Federal service.

Also it would be necessary for the individual who benefits to have been working

on a program which for all practical purposes is a Federal program.

These State programs form a needed and valued source of personnel who enter

upon their later Federal duties trained and experienced in the work they are to

do for the Federal Government. These programs are in every sense invaluable

training grounds for the successful performance of related duties in the Federal

service.

These bills would be extensions of earlier legislation, which provided ample

justification for the proposals in S. 1028, or H. R. 6299. Public Law 86-568,

approved July 1, 1960, authorized retirement credit for service in the employment

of a county committee established under the Soil Conservation and Domestic

Allotment Act. The 1960 law also provided group insurance and health insurance

benefits for this prior service. Public Law 87-350, approved October 4, 1961,

added service under the Agricultural Adjustment Act as creditable toward

retirement benefits, but subject to the deposit of equivalent deductions from
24 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

salary for such service with county committees under both Acts or with producers

associations authorized by the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

Enactment of these bills would result in virtually no direct cost to the Federal

Government. They authorize payment of the appropriate classified salary which

would be expected on the basis of assigned duties, and make it possible for the

Federal employee having this prior service to have it counted in determining

whether he may earn 13, 20 or 26 days of annual leave a year and for him to

receive credit for it if he becomes involved in a Reduction in Force.

Service with the Work Projects Administration in the 1930's—is in our opinion

worthy of consideration for legislative treatment similar to that accorded employees identified with the Federal-aid programs affected by the bill, S. 1028 and

H. R. 6299. We believe provision should be made for giving retirement service

credit to this relatively small group, with the opportunity for the employee to

deposit an amount equivalent to deductions from salary that would otherwise

have been made in those earlier years.

One of our staff members was State Director, Adult Education and Citizenship

Education Project, for the State of Ohio. Due to the fact that in those days all

supervisors, with the exception of topmost administrative officers, were paid from

project funds, instead of administrative funds, supervisors had project status.

Even though these employees served in top supervisory and administrative

positions, the fact that they were paid from project funds, rather than administrative funds, they were denied credit for these years of Federal service toward the

computation of their Civil Service retirement annuity. The manner in which these

supervisors were paid, from project rather than administrative funds, was an

accounting subterfuge used in those days to hold down administrative costs.

It is believed that only a few persons in this category are still working for the

Federal Government. However, if all employees who served and were compensated

in this manner where still in Federal Service, the number would be relatively small.

The bills which are here under consideration appear to us to be worthy of

affirmative action.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Dr. N. T. Wolkomir, president

of the National Federation of Federal Employees.

STATEMENT OF NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY

IRVING I. GELLER, DIRECTOR, LEGAL AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS; AND ELMER AMBROGUE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGAL

AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is

Nathan T. Wolkomir. I am president of the National Federation of

Federal Employees, the oldest and largest of all independent general

unions of Federal employees. On my left is Mr. Elmer Ambrogue, from

our legal staff, who is an expert in the field of agriculture, having

retired from that department, and on my right, the director of our

legal staff and employee relations, Mr. Iry Geller.

This year, 1967, marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the

NFFE. We have a great many employees in the Department of Agriculture, and have had since the inception of the NFFE 50 years ago.

We heartily endorse the statement of Mr. Jones, the president of

the National Association of ASCS County Office Employees.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6299 will recognize periods of employment

service in the county offices of the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service for the purposes of salary adjustment, annual and

sick leave, and reductions in force for former county office employees

who are appointed to positions in the Federal service. It is a companion bill to S. 1028 introduced by Senator Monroney. On May 4,

1967, I appeared before the Senate Post Office and Civil Service
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 25

Committee to urge the enactment of S. 1028. Subsequent to the public hearing, S. 1028 was amended to extend the stated benefits only

when the employee is appointed to a position in the Department of

Agriculture. It was this amended version of S. 1028 which passed

the Senate on June 28, 1967, and now is in the House Post Office

and Civil Service Committee.

The reasoning in support of the amendment to S. 1028 is set forth

in Senate Report No. 365. In essence, S. 1028 as amended, is an

attempt to provide special recruiting assistance to the Department

of Agriculture whereby the Department can secure a greater number

of ASCS county employees for positions in the Department of Agriculture. The Department could use up to 400 each year, but under

existing conditions can secure only about 150 each year.

Employees in the county offices of the ASCS are not Federal

employees even though their salaries are paid entirely out of Federal

funds, and they have had extended to them the benefits of the Civil

Service Retirement Act, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance

Act, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, and the Severance

Pay Act. They are paid at rates identical to the general schedule at

grades 1 through 11, and their salaries are increased by Congress

whenever Classification Act employees receive increases. Despite all

of these conditions, when an employee of a county committee is

appointed to a position in the Department of Agriculture, he begins

his Federal service at the minimum rate of the appropriate grade and

is in all other respects of his employment status a beginner. This is

true regardless of the number of years he may have served in a county

office or the degree of experience and competence he has attained. A

county office employee in grade CO-9 step 5 is paid the same salary

as a GS-9 step 5. But, if he is appointed to a Federal position classified

at GS-9, he is placed in the first step of GS-9. Similarly, he starts at

the beginning rate in accumulating annual leave, and for a reduction

in force his ASCS service is not considered. Thus, a county employee

who moves to his State headquarters after 15 or 20 years of county

service is junior to all other headquarters' employees; an indefensible

situation.

Rather than increasing his salary and fringe benefits with appointment in the Department of Agriculture, the county employee finds

that his salary may be reduced, his accumulated annual and sick

leave erased, and his seniority abolished. Under these conditions, the

real miracle is that 150 ASCS employees in county offices are willing

to make the sacrifices necessary to accept employment in the Department of Agriculture.

From this summary, I am convinced the Department of Agriculture

urgently needs the assistance S. 1028 as approved would provide.

Therefore, I strongly urge H.R. 6299 be amended to agree with S. 1028

as approved and recommended favorably by the subcommittee.

The NFFE is supporting this legislation as it has sponsored and

supported legislation, as yet not acted upon, to bring employees of

the selective service system under the Classification Act. S. 555, introduced by Senator Brewster, would extend the classification provisions

to selective service employees, who like these ASCS employees, carry

all of the responsibilities of Federal employees, but are denied some

of the most important rights and benefits which are accorded other

Federal employees. There is also another group of employees, certain

•
26 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

personnel with the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the

Treasury—for example bank examiners and others—which we feel

should be brought under the Classification Act.

In these instances, however, we would emphasize most strongly

that remedial legislative action should be taken not only in justice to

the employees, but as a step dictated by every consideration of sound

personnel administration—in the public interest. There is no justification whatever for leaving these sizable groups of employees outside the

pale of what might be termed full citizenship as Federal employees;

of continuing them in the limbo in which they presently function.

Mr. Chairman, these employees—the county committee employees,

the selective service employees, and the mentioned personnel with the

Comptroller of the Currency—have demonstrated that by every

yardstick they uphold the high standards of the Federal civil service.

By every yardstick it is right, proper, and in the national interest to

place them in the mainstream of our civil service system.

I again emphasize our endorsement of S. 1028 and H.R. 6299 as

per proposed amendment, and also express to the members of the

subcommittee my thanks for their interest and attention today.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Dr. Wolkomir, for a very

fine statement.

With regards to these employees you have spoken about—let's take

the selective service employees—I am sure that you gentlemen at the

table, as well as the members of the subcommittee, are all hoping that

within a matter of hours, we are going to have a pay bill passed at

least by the House.

These employees have very little assurance, but great hope that

they might receive like treatment, but it probably will not be covered

in the proposed bill.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. They are not included, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Wilson, do you have any questions or

comments?

Mr. WILSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Wolkomir's answer to the

question I asked Mr. Walters, apparently there are three principal

groups that need to be taken care of, these county employees that

are covered by this bill, the selective service employees and the bank

examiners, working in the Comptroller's office.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Congressman Wilson, this is the group in which

we have the largest number affected. There are others; for example,

we have what are known as the Smith-Hughes instructors. I, myself,

happened to have been one, where we are paid through 50 percent

of Federal funds and 50 percent State funds. They too are not credited,

but there are a few Smith-Hughes teachers who are presently in

existence.

We have, also, a small group of people from the old NRA days,

the Job Corps today, and they were not in what was known as administrative positions, and therefore, their period of service is not

counted toward retirement, and other fringe benefits.

So, there are several other small groups. But, the three major

groups are those we itemized.

I might state also, Mr. Chairman, that I am also a farm boy.

My son happens to be an ASCS employee. So, I think I speak

with some experience coming from the real farmland of the State of

Illinois, the great cornbelt and I have lived with these farmers and I

am a member of the Farm Bureau.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 27

Mr. HENDERSON. IS your son a county employee?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. He is an ASCS county employee; yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is very interesting. I might make the point

that with regard to the others that you spoke of, such as the selective

service employees, or certain employees of the Comptroller of the

Currency and so on, that they don't have the pay protection that

even these county employees have.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. That is right, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. I think this is a point you were making in your

statement.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. The administrative set up in the selective service—

and I know you and Mr. Brasco and your entire staff are familiar with

it—is entirely different than any other semi-Federal employee. They

are, incidentally, Federal employees though. They are Federal employees and they are not subject to the benefits.

Mr. HENDERSON. Here we are especially acting on a group that

are often referred to as not Federal employees, who do get Federal

pay, Federal leave, and some other Federal employee comparability.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. There is certainly an inconsistency somewhere.

Mr. HENDERSON. Your point is well made, Dr. Wolkomir, and

it is a pleasure to have you before us this morning.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our next witness is Mr. Glenn Stahl, Director

of the Bureau of Policies and Standards, Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Stahl, it is always a pleasure to have you before the subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION, AS PRESENTED BY 0. GLENN STAHL,

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF POLICIES AND STANDARDS

Mr. STAHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman

Macy sends his regrets that he could not be with you this morning,

because of a conflict that was beyond his control. And I therefore

would like to present his statement on his behalf.

I hope you will forgive my little problem with my throat this

morning. I am recovering from a cold, but I think I can make it.

Mr. HENDERSON. I assure you we can hear you very well.

Mr. STAHL. I am pleased to be here to present to you the views of

the Civil Service Commission on legislation proposed to extend certain

Federal benefits to county employees of the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service. The Commission has submitted reports on

both of these bills. If appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that they

be placed in the hearing record.

Mr. HENDERSON. Under previous unanimous consent, they have.

been.

Mr. STAHL. These bills are the latest of several proposals to extend

the benefits and privileges of Federal employment to county employees

of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. H.R. 6299

would permit the Federal salary of a former county office employee to

be set at a higher than minimum entry rate of the grade, authorize

the transfer of accumulated annual and sick leave earned in county

office employment to the account of an employee who moves to a

Federal position, and credit county office service performed prior to

July 10, 1960, for employment retention purposes.
28 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

All of these benefits and privileges would be made available to any

county office employee moving to any Federal position in any Federal

agency under the provisions of H.R. 6299.

S. 1028, on the other hand, limits its applicability to former county

office employees who accept positions in the Department of Agriculture. It provides that (1) county committee employees transferring to

positions in the Department of Agriculture would have their rates of

compensation set to eliminate or minimize reductions in salary, (2) the

annual and sick leave of county committee employees would be transferred with them to the Department of Agriculture, (3) county committee employees would be given credit in the Department of Agriculture for county committee service in determining their annual leave

earning rate as well as in the reduction-in-force procedure.

Of paramount importance in considering both of these proposals

is one factor—county employees are not now Federal employees. It

is the county office manager who supervises the day-to-day operations of the county committee—and he is not a Federal officer.

The criteria for determining whether an individual is a Federal

employee are1. The individual must be engaged in the performance of Federal

functions under authority of an act of Congress or an Executive

order; and

2. The individual must be appointed or employed by a Federal

officer in his official capacity as such; and

3. The individual must be under the supervision and direction of

a Federal officer.

All three criteria must be met, not just one or two of them. With

respect to county office employees, only one of these criterion is clearly

met; these employees do perform a Federal function. These three

criteria have been given legal sanction, and have been strictly adhered

to by the Civil Service Commission for over two decades. In 1962,

a court decision, Stapleton v. Macy, 304 F. 2d 954, reaffirmed that

these criteria have a "reasonable basis in law."

Proof positive that county committee employees of the ASCS are

not Federal employees is the very fact that legislation is needed to

make them eligible for benefits arising from Federal employment.

Fundamentally our position is this: The Federal personnel system

is a comprehensive, self-contained system specifically designed and

intended for Federal employment. It consists of an interdependent set

of employee rights, obligations, and benefits. They fit together because

they belong together. Parceling out these benefits in a piecemeal manner for noncompetitive entry into the system can lead to undesirable

consequences in the equitable administration of Federal personnel

programs. There now exists a great deal of flexibility within the Federal

service in moving employees among the several Federal merit systems

because the Commission has carefully fostered flexibility in its regulations. The Commission, while interested in facilitating mobility among

various systems, is also concerned with any ambiguity in employeremployee relationships within the service and in keeping benefits

consonant with the rights and obligations of employment, such as

adherence to the provisions of the Hatch Act, the Veterans' Preference

Act, and the Lloyd-La Follette Act.

The most serious consequences we foresee by providing these county

committee employees with additional Federal employment benefits,

1
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 29

without granting them the full status of Federal employee, is the

broad precedent such action would set.

I emphasize that phrase, Mr. Chairman, "without granting them the

the full status of Federal employee."

The Government should not extend benefits to one group and not

another. It cannot use two sets of standards, and at the same time,

administer an equitable system. Although there is contention that

these county committee employees are unique and that granting them

additional benefits could not be cited as a valid precedent by others,

we do not agree with this contention. Many other groups can claim

they are unique and provide as good, if not better reasoning, than the

county committee personnel of the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service. For example, great numbers of employees of

nonappropriated and fund instrumentalities in the Department of

Defense, for example, post exchange employees, State employment

service employees—of which there are many thousands, incidentally

there are about 80,000 in that nonappropriated fund category—

regional development committees or commissions, and other persons

engaged in a variety of Federal-State cooperative programs could

likewise claim their uniqueness.

We fully appreciate the concern that there should be local control

over local programs, but to whatever extent there is this substantive

control now, the situation would not be changed by making the employees fully Federal. On the other hand giving the employees most of

the characteristics of Federal employees but stopping short of the final

step seems to be an elaborate way of preserving a useless fiction at the

cost of a dangerous precedent. ASCS employees already think of

themselves as Federal employees and so do their neighbors.

At a hearing in 1964 before the House Post Office and Civil Service

Committee on H. R. 8544, the chairman of the legislative committee

of the National Association of ASCS County Office Employees had

this to say about the status of county office employees:

Let me state in the beginning that we know we are Federal employees. Our

families believe we are Federal employees; our neighbors across the street or on the

next farm believe we are Federal employees; the people we serve believe we are

Federal employees.

In 1965, at a hearing on H.R. 2452, the past president of the National

Association of ASCS County Office Employees said:

Our jobs are no more detached from Federal control than are the jobs of the

postmasters. We are no more county employees than the Postmaster of New York

City is a city employee.

All of this presents a confusing picture. The solution we see is not to

compound the confusion by further obscuring the nature of county

committee employment. Rather the solution that recommends itself

to us is to take the logical step of making these employees fully Federal

employees. This would settle the status of these employees once and

for all and take care of the recruiting problems of the Department of

Agriculture, that have been alluded to here.

We have given a great deal of thought to this legislative proposal.

We have reviewed it in light of the needs of the Department of Agriculture for the services of experienced county office personnel. We

have carefully considered the viewpoints expressed by members of

congressional committees this year. We have reviewed the statements of the National Association of ASCS County Office Employees
30 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

(NASCOE). But once more we have come to the same conclusion—

we cannot recommend either of these proposed bills but much prefer

to see the full step taken of making the employees Federal employees.

However, we appreciate the viewpoint that with respect to this

particular group of non-Federal employees the Congress has already

granted very exceptional privileges of participation in the retirement

and benefit programs and that there should be no great objection to

filling in a few gaps in the privileges already conferred on them—

especially when there would be a staffing advantage to the Department of Agriculture. We cannot deny the logic of this line of reasoning.

In the last analysis, the Congress must decide whether it is good

to provide this legislation to improve employment conditions for a

selected group of non-Federal workers paid from Federal funds.

If the subcommittee decides not to make these employees Federal

.employees, if it decides to give favorable consideration to either

the Senate or House bills as drafted, then we would urge at least that

the record show this legislation is not intended to serve as a precedent

for granting Federal service credit and other benefits for non-Federal

service with other federally financed groups.

I would also like to suggest that, of the two bills under consideration, the provisions of S. 1028 limiting the benefits upon transfer to

employees accepting positions in the Department of Agriculture are

strongly to be preferred. These provisions seem to meet all the expressed needs. The provisions of H.R. 6299 would give previously

non-Federal employees seniority or length-of-service advantages over

long-term Federal employees in any Federal agency. The dangers of an

inequitable situation arising would be minimized if the advantages are

limited to the Department of Agriculture.

Chairman Macy's recommendation, however, is that consideration

be given now to making all of these county. employees Federal

employees in the fullest sense, since it appears they are already considered a part of the career 'progression system within the Department

•of Agriculture.

These employees would then be subject not only to the benefits of

Federal employment but to the rights and obligations as well.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the Commission's views on these two bills.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Stahl.

Before the Senate committee, Senator Randolph asked Chairman

Macy that if this bill is passed by the Congress, would you recommend

that the President veto it. I am sure you are familiar with Mr. Macy's

answer, but for the record, Mr. Macy's answer was:

No, I would not. My view as I indicated in my statement is that although the

Commission sees difficulties and possibly a difficult precedent in this legislation,

that there are considerations that can conceivably be overriding and since those

considerations are related to the accomplishment of an important national program

if those views prevail, certainly we will accept it.

We would hope if there were enactment there would be an indication that this

does not establish a precedent for other groups of non-Federal employees.

In the light of that and your statement, if this subcommittee and

the full committee and the Congress limited the bill to the Department

of Agriculture as S. 1028 does, and the report and the debate on the

floor clearly indicated that we were not establishing a precedent, could

I ask if you are in a position to tell the subcommittee members whether

you would recommend the signing of the bill in that condition?
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 31

Mr. STAHL. I am confident that the Chairman's position would be

the same, that he would not recommend a veto and would recommend

signing the bill under those circumstances. He simply wants to make

clear that he thinks the clean way to do this is to make these people

Federal employees. But he would accept the other approach.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am very appreciative of what I think is a very

fair statement. I am most appreciative of the concern that he expresses in this statement and in the testimony he has given on other

related bills. I think that he is recognizing the unique situation that

the county employees feel that they are in and that the Department

of Agriculture feels with regard to recruiting from this group who by

their performance have proven that they have abilities that are

required by the Department.

Mr. STAHL. May I just add one point, sir?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. STAHL. It occured to me that we didn't have this in the statement here. There is at least one other organization in the Department

of Agriculture which has a committee setup somewhat similar to this

in ASCS, the Farmers Home Administration. The employees of those

FHA committees are Federal employees, and yet we don't see any

damage done to the local participation and the local control over the

determinations of the local committees.

It seems to us the same thing could apply here.

Mr. HENDERSON. I think your point is well made. I certainly don't

have a closed mind, personally, on this question of making the ASCS

employees full Federal employees. I do have some doubt in my mind

that we have quite arrived at the time that this would be accepted

fully by the farmers. I am most appreciative of the past history,

where they feel that these employees are of greater service to them

and are more understanding of the farmers' problems than they might

be if they were full Federal employees.

Of course the basic final decision with regard to this legislation does

not necessarily commit the Congress irrevocably not to make them

fully Federal employees at some future date. I feel sure the statement

of their representatives here today do not necessarily mean that at

some future time they might not change their position.

Mr. Wilson, do you have any questions or comments?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have over your

dialog with the gentleman from the Civil Service Commission, Mr.

Stahl, is that I wonder about the advisability of including anything

in the report indicating that this is not a precedent, because I think

we have already established the fact that there are at least two other

groups that we may want to, at a later date, provide the same type of

legislation for.

I would hope we wouldn't prejudice ourselves in giving consideration to the Selective Service people and others by this in the report.

Mr. STAHL. The Selective Service employees are already Federal

employees. The only problem there is they are not paid under the

General Schedule. The Selective Service System sets its rates, and there

has been a movement on the part of Selective Service employees 

Mr. WILSON. This wouldn't affect any future legislation then?

Mr. STAHL. No, it would not affect that. You see our concern is

setting a precedent for granting full Federal benefits to non-Federal

employees. This is our concern. This is why we prefer to see the route
32 ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

of making them Federal employees. In the other cases cited—I think

another one had to do with bank examiners, if I am not mistaken—

they are already Federal employees. It is just a question of which pay

system they come under.

So no such statement would offer a problem with respect to those

groups.

Mr. HENDERSON. There are other bills, certainly in previous Congresses, as well as this one, that would have extended credit for service

in programs that the Civil Service Commission did not feel entitled

them to that credit because they were not full Federal employees.

Mr. STAHL. Yes, there have been, yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is with regard to that legislation that I was

intimating that we might, as suggested by the statement that you

presented of the Chairman, that this action would not be precedent

necessarily for that.

You will recall that one of the subcommittees of our full committee

had hearings on a special bill in the last Congress that I was interested

in. This involved Labor Department employees, that had previously

served in administering the Fair Labor Standards Act in the State of

North Carolina. It was the position of tne Civil Service Commission

in that regard that they should not be given creditable service when

they were brought in as Department of Labor employees. It is the

opinion of the Chairman, Mr. Wilson, that the case for these ASCS

county employees can stand on its own, and certainly the case for

the other employees that Mr. Lasseter and many others have been

interested in over the years, likewise can stand on the facts that might

be indicated for those groups and that one is not necessarily a precedent

for the others.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that I think the

statement we have here and the indication from Mr. Stahl that there

would be no effort to try to have the bill vetoed and the general

understanding that they have of this problem is very acceptable to

me. I would .agree also that we should put the provisions of S. 1028,

into our House bill and consider it under those circumstances. I think

then we would have a good approach to this.

Mr. STAHL. Gentlemen, I should also inform you that there is

pending in the Congress now before the Armed Services Committees,

a bill on National Guard technicians, employees of the National

Guard, whicn does go the route of simply making them Federal

employees. And this involves 40,000 people.

Mr. WILSON. I am on that committee too, Mr. Stahl. In fact, I

have to go over there now.

Mr. HENDERSON. For the benefit of Mr. Wilson, whose committee

has already acted on that in the House, I am very pleased to recite

here that I was the first Member of Congress to introduce the bill that

would do that. Mr. Macy's argument with regard to those employees

sure doesn't impress me one bit. He knows my position on that.

Thank you very much.

We have one other statement for the record that has been submitted

by Mr. John C. Brown, Jr., the service officer of the National Association of Farmer Elected Committeemen. That statement will be placed

in the record. Mr. Brown, if you have anything you would like to

add to the statement, we would be delighted to hear from you.

Mr. BROWN. Only to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accepting the

statement.
ASCS COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES 33

Mr. HENDERSON. We are delighted to do so and we are most

appreciative of the objectives of your organization. I am familiar with

the fine work you have done in the short time you have been organized

in the State of North Carolina.

(The statement of Mr. John C. Brown, Jr., representing the National Association of Farmer Elected Committeemen, is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BROWN, JR., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF FARMER ELECTED COMMITTEEMEN

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Association appreciates

this opportunity, so kindly granted by you, to advance this statement regarding

the proposed subject legislation. This Association is one whose eligibility to

membership is that of being a present or past member of a County or Community

AAA, PMA, or ASCS Committee. These members' interest therefore, in advancing

local administration of farm programs, by farmers, is sincere and intense.

Since Committeemen are given by law, certain specific responsibilities in the

local administration of programs developed by the Congress, these Committeemen

want to see that the personnel they select for County Office employment receive

fair and equitable treatment.

The Officers and Directors of the National Association of Farmer Elected Coramitteemer, at a meeting at Des Moines, Iowa on July 8, 1967 formally approved

and endorsed S. 1028.

H. R. 6299 was not specifically brought to their attention. The Directors, however, formally expressed unqualified approval of legislation that would accomplish

the following:

1. Permit the Department of Agriculture to appoint ASC County Committee

employees, to positions in the classified service of the Department at a salary

step which would protect the prior salary rate established in the county.

2. Transfer the County Committee employees' accrued annual and sick

leave when he transfers to a position in the Department of Agriculture.

3. Credit the employees' length of service in the County Office for leave

earning and reduction-in-force purposes.

Other testimony presented to you has included examples of inequities that occur

under the presently controlling law. To remedy this would be in the interest of

justice and would advance overall administration of agricultural programs from

the grass roots up and through the Department of Agriculture.

Thank you for accepting this effort to secure benefits for County ASCS employees that County Committeemen believe they deserve.

Mr. HENDERSON. If there are no further requests for anyone to

testify or comment on the testimony this morning, the subcommittee

will stand adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)
••/
I
W

I

I