Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-06-24


agement, they add. would be put
in chaotic state when 1t Is con-
sidered that $4,000 persons were
fired by the Government for cause
last year alone.
Agree on Changes in Order
There appears to be an area Of
general agreement among Govern
ment lawyers, however, on the mod
ifications necessary in executive or
Ger 10450, which set up the present
iecurity program.
First off, it is believed that guild
lnce must be given an agency head
n determining what a sensitive po-
sition is in view of the courts decla-
alton that he must make finding
on this matter. The court said that
shree factors are involved:
Whether a person has access to
classified data; whether he is in a
policymaking post, and whether his
misconduct could adversely affect
the national security defined in
the limited sense Of national
safety"
The guidance. however, would not
relieve the agency head of his re-
sponsibility to designate which jobs
are sensitive and to determine
whether the position is affected
with the national security.
.(Of the 2.3 million Federal work.
ers, it is unofficially estimated that
between 100000 and 100000 are
presently classified as holders Of
sensitive jobs.)
Whot II Means TO the $500
AS to what the tribunals ruling
means to the $500 security risk"
who either resigned or were fired
under the Eisenhower program, this
appears to be the story:
Of the $685. who were dismissed,
only 342 actually were processed
under the security program. About
50-or Is per cent-of the latter
group held sensitive jobs and there
fore have no further recourse.
The remaining 900 who were
fired can request reinstatement,
purging of personnel records of Sc
curity risk charges and back pay.
To be eligible for back pay, how
ever, a person must be ready, will
ing and able to work for the
Government.
AS to the nearly 5000 who re-
signed, the preponderance Of opin-
ion is that they have no further
recourse. Some lawyers hold, how
ever, that in what they call an
illegal suspension" Zone involving
a person in a nom sensitive job who
was charged under the security
program, there is no waiver of
rights and that they may sue fer
reinstatement. But again, prob
ably very few Of those who REL
signed were being proceSsed under
the security program.
Loches' Is a Problem
On the matter of back pay there
also is the problem of "laches." a
doctrine which states that per-
son loses his rights if he sits on
them too long. Recent court de-
cisions have held that nine months
is about the limit. Some lawyers
say that persons fired more than
nine months ago are barred, there
fore, from suing the Government.
Others feel that it would be pre-
posterous to think that American
justice would rule that man was
sitting on his rights when the Su-
preme Court only two weeks ago
established those rights.
There appears little likelihood,
however, that the executive branch
will make any major decisions as to
the future of the security Set-up
until it is determined whether the
Mundt- Eastland-W Walter bills will be
enacted at this session of Congress.
The bills would amend Public
Law 1888 so that the summary sus-
pension and Unbelievable discharge
powers cover all Government jobs.
If Congress takes such action it
would, in effect. reverse the Supreme
Courts decision and the security
program would be back where it was
before June IL.