AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL

DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

PART 2-Civil Service Commission

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1955

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John E. Moss (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will now be in order, and at this point I would like to make a statement.

Today, we begin our study of the specific informational practices of the Federal Government. Yesterday, many leaders in newspapers, magazines, and broadcasting work took part in a panel discussion with the subcommittee members on the problem of free access to information from the Federal executive agencies.

I think Mr. James Pope, of the Louisville Courier-Journal, explained the importance of the problem yesterday when he said:

It might be more dangerous to vote out of ignorance than not to have a right to vote at all.

And Dr. Harold L. Cross, author of the basic book on the presentday freedom of information problem, pointed out during our discussion:

Freedom of information, in the form of access to public records, is the very foundation stone of our liberties. Without freedom of access, freedom of press could be fettered into futility.

The withholding, suppression, or manipulation of Government information is indeed a serious matter in our self-governing American society. When the material facts about the Government are not available to the citizen, the inevitable result is misunderstanding, apprehension, and inability to exercise with informed intelligence the vital role of a citizen.

The drying up of information disrupts the processes by which public opinion is formed. When the independent opinion leader is cut off from reliable knowledge of public affairs or when he becomes dependent upon Government handouts, he is put out of action. Even the elected representatives of the people cannot perform their roles well if the individual Congressman is denied information from Federal agencies.

The people, in our American democracy have a constitutional right to factual information concerning the plans, policies, and actions of their Government. The burden of proof as to the need for withholding this information should, by every basic American principle, rest upon the agency or official who has determined to hold back the facts. Yesterday Mr. V. M. Newton, Jr., of the Tampa Tribune, one of the leaders in the present freedom of information fight, asked whether there can be any privacy about the disposal of the taxpayer's dollar. He declared:

Doesn't history tell us that all scandals of government, all corruption of the public servant's soul, take place in the shade of governmental secrecy and not in the sunlight of the public eye?

The troubles our Nation has faced, whether international or domestic, did not occur because the public knew too much. They came about, in many instances, because the people were told too little. Our outstanding success as a Nation, and a people, did not happen because a few all-seeing men in a government office had the answers to all the questions.

Congressman William L. Dawson, the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, yesterday pointed out that if the present trend toward secrecy in the Federal executive agencies is not stopped, we will pay, and pay dearly, for the enforced ignorance of the American people.

It

I cannot add to that warning. I can only say that this subcommitte is going to study the problem intensely. We have no interest in assessing the blame for any attitude of secrecy in the Federal Government. Our only interest is in correcting that attitude. is vitally important to our Nation that the Federal Government, instead of trying to see how much information it can safely keep from the people, tries instead to open the avenues of information. I think the recent statement of principles, made last month at the National Editorial Association convention in Chicago, clearly points up the problem. The NEA freedom of information committee stated:

The right of the people to know is basic to the preservation of our freedom and fundamental to our American way of life. The infringement of this right, whether by government or by groups or by individuals, no matter in what measure it may begin, will lead to tyranny and to the death of liberty.

Mr. Hoffman, do you have a statement you would like to make? Mr. HOFFMAN. I do not have a prepared statement. I do wish to say, however, that I go along with the statement the chairman has just read, except that I do not agree with the claim that the present administration is less liberal in disclosing information than previous administration. It is more liberal than others. But there are some reciprocal duties imposed upon those who are demanding information. Some seek it for business reasons, some to advance their personal gain rather than the public interest. I think it would be well, as we go along, to get the views of those who complain of the executive department's attempt to impose secrecy upon some lines of information as to whether there has been coupled with the right to know the duty to report accurately when information is given.

What I am trying to express is that all too frequently when a statement is made a few members of the press, instead of quoting that statement, quote their version of it and, in lieu of the statements of fact, express opinions of their own which make it extremely difficult for the reader to know what the department official did say what is the fact.

While I go along with the statement of Congressman Dawson that it is the right of this committee and the Congress to follow through on the expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars, sometimes we run into a situation when the right to know would not be considered as an absolute right. For example, in writing the unification bill, the intelligency agency came and explained that inasmuch as they hired counterintelligence agents, to give the Congress, a congressional committee, or an individual Member the name of the man or woman they were hiring and how much they were paying and where that agent was operating would destroy absolutely the value of the agency itself.

With certain exceptions, I go along with the right of the public to know. This is the people's government; the people have a right to know but I note the press, those who testified, seem to have assumed that they are the people when, as a matter of fact, they are without legal authority to speak for the people. They appointed themselves or elected themselves as the people's agency. But they are in no position to be kicked out of office, or dispossessed of their positions where they claim this right to know. So they should not be too arbitrary in their demands, should not be too critical, and should be extremely careful about accurately reporting the things they do get from the department. With their right to obtain information-with the special privileges given them-goes a grave and great responsibility to be factual. It also occurs to me that the committee, the confidence of some of the agencies, has been misused or abused when information was given to the press, so they are what we might term gun-shy in putting out information to some individuals.

Then there is another thought. I do not believe the average, hardworking reporter has too much difficulty in getting information. It may be possible there are members of the press, like there may be some Members of the House-I do not suggest it happens in the Senate who sit back in their chairs and do not work as do others, who like to have their work all done for them. Then there are a few who have or claim to have access to information not given all-hence others complain-and those who have received special favors object when their source is cut off.

Then, too, if the press is entitled to know and some industrious, alert reporter gets a scoop, should he run to the other press agencies and tell them all about it? May I question an AP or UP man and say, "What do you have this morning; what do you have on the fire that is cooking?" He naturally says, "Go out and dig up your own." So that there are all kinds of practical situations to be given consideration.

Then the point I made yesterday should be given some consideration, I think that if there is a reporter or publisher who consistently over the years misstates, or misquotes, why should he be treated the same as the factual individual, that is, the individual who reports

the facts? I would like to have incorporated in the record a proposed joint concurrent resolution 342 of the 80th Congress, 2d session, which was adopted by the House on May 13, 1948 together with the report of the committee, as well as the minority report, and the answers thereto as exhibits. It shows the question before us is not new and, of course, it is not. Congress has attempted to deal with it and as was suggested yesterday it would be very, very helpful, I think, to members of the committee if those who criticize the departments would come up with some form of legislation which they think is proper.

Mr. Moss. If there is no objection, the material will be included in the record.

(The matter above referred to appears in the appendix as exhibit 1, p. 305.)

Mr. Moss. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my concurrence with the statement read by the chairman and perhaps enlarge it to this extent, that it is my thinking that the right to know does not stem solely from the Constitution; rather it flows through the Constitution and that by ordaining and publishing the Constitution the people of this country established the principle that all powers and rights are vested in the people. The Constitution was merely a limited manner of expressing the thought that the powers given to the Central Government should be operated for the mutual benefit of all of the people.

That principle would guide my thinking in this entire matter, even though it may have been restricted by Executive act, by congressional act, by judicial decision, or otherwise. And I cannot help but concur with my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Hoffman. I believe it is necessary for us at all times to keep a proper perspective. I am just as interested as, I am sure the committee is, in the individual's right, whether it might be exercised by him personally, or exercised through the press which certainly today is clothed with a different aspect regarding service to the public than it might have been.

Mr. Moss. We have with us this morning, the Civil Service Commission Chairman, Mr. Philip Young; Mr. Philip Schulte, Chief of the Civil Service Commission Public Information Office; Mr. John W. Macy, Jr., Executive Director; Mr. Frederick J. Lawton, CSC member, and Mr. Lawrence V. Meloy, CSC Acting General Counsel.

Mr. Young has a statement and at this time, Mr. Young, we will hear from you.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. MACY, JR., EXECUTIVE OFFICER; LAWRENCE V. MELOY, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL; AND PHILIP W. SCHULTE, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your opening remarks as being both informative and constructive. I must say I have a very healthy respect for members of the working press who I think attempt, certainly the great number of them, to do an honest reporting job with integrity. And while we may not always agree as to what constitutes news, I think they report it to the best of their ability.

Mr. Chairman, the first thing that struck me about the civil-service system when I returned to the Government service 212 years ago was the complexity of the laws, rules, regulations, and instructions under which it operated.

I might also add parenthetically that I came to the conclusion-in fact, I was forced to the conclusion-on my return to Government service, that the Government had gone to extraordinary lengths to try to eliminate any possible use of human judgment in the development and management of our whole personnel system.

I realized that it was going to be a prodigious undertaking to obtain public understanding of a system so complicated as ours had become. I regarded that as an important point. And yet an awakened public understanding is the lifeblood of our merit system; because, without understanding, recognition, and appreciation and support by the American people of our merit system, the civil-service system, it would not be possible to operate on the basis that it should. As I became more conversant with the talents, the capabilities, and the expert knowledge of the Commission's operating officials and subject-matter specialists, I realized that we had in our staff an invaluable and insufficiently used-resource for public interpretation of the Commission's programs. That is true because the Civil Service Commission has been in operation for such a long time there have been various laws and regulations, the historical development and the background of which is vital and basic to any explanation of where we are today.

No one man could hope in a lifetime to acquire the grip on all the Commission's programs and policies which is possessed collectively by the Commission's staff experts. The problem was to draw out those experts in such a way as to put their knowledge and experience on the firing line in the public information sector. This was not a simple thing to do because it had never been done before.

As one means of clarifying this new objective, we developed an expanded public information program for the Civil Service Commission. The letter with which this program was distributed to Commission officials (Commission Letter 54-40 of May 1954) emphasized the responsibility of all Commission employees with respect to public information, and made it clear that not only are employees free to discuss public information, they are encouraged and expected to do so. The letter stated:

This program puts into practice the principle that "public relations is everybody's business." It contemplates that the skill, knowledge, and personal persuasiveness of the entire staff of the Commission will be put forward in the public information area.

I would like to read further from that letter. Again I quote:

Together with the addition of new elements, the expanded program calls for increased emphasis on fundamentals. Good press relations, for example, depend basically on fast and impartial release of timely information to all media. It is important that heads of central office bureaus and staff offices assure themselves that they have in operation effective and prompt means for getting word of newsworthy activities to the Public Informaion Office.

This letter of May 1954 I believe to be quite a complete and informative statement, with its attachments, with respect to the expanded public information program of the Civil Service Commission as we developed it at that time.