Mr. CROCKETT. The Department has not ascertained adverse effects on morale. Mr. SOURWINE. What has been done to provide any assurance that field reports will go forward in full and unchanged and including recommendations as they come in from the resident agents?

Mr. CROCKETT. The responsibility is assigned to the special agent in charge. The office has confidence in the integrity of its officers and operates in a manner comparable to other Federal investigative agencies. Recommendations may be furnished by resident agents through the special agent in charge as the established channel procedure.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is there, perhaps, actually some understanding or contemplation that the field reports will be summarized or paraphrased or otherwise changed or reduced before they come to Washington?

Mr. CROCKETT. I am not certain; but believe not.

Further examination brought out that the investigator out in the field would not see what happened to his report once it was out of his hand. He wouldn't know if it had been garbled by accident or by design. Here's the story:

11

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Crockett, since the new procedure following reorganization of the domestic field offices at the Division of Investigations in the Office of Security, the investigator will never see his report on any investigation. How can the Division of Investigations in Washington be sure that the report reflects precisely what the investigator intended to convey?

Mr. CROCKETT. Under the reorganization, the reporting system is similar, is not exactly comparable, to the way investigative reports are prepared by other Federal investigative organizations. The review and approval required of the special agent in charge prior to submission of the report to Washington headquarters gives reasonable assurance of technical accuracy.

Mr. SOURWINE. If the report should be garbled in transcription or if any portions of it should be left out, there would not be any way the Office of Security would know about it; would there?

Mr. CROCKETT. It is repeated that the review given the report by the special agent in charge provides reasonable assurance as to technical accuracy. The resident agent is given the opportunity to review all of his reports during periodic visits to the supervising field office.

Mr. SOURWINE. If one of these reports should be altered or portions of it deleted inadvertently or otherwise after it reached Washington, there would be no way for the investigator to know about it, would there?

Mr. CROCKETT. I do not know, Mr. Sourwine.

Mr. SOURWINE. There would be no way for the field office to know about it? Mr. CROCKETT. I don't know whether they get copies now or not. And since this discussion last fall they may have changed some of the procedures.

Mr. SOURWINE. If they have done so, will you make the record show it? Mr. CROCKETT. The resident agents are not normally furnished copies of their reports.

Mr. SOURWINE. Will the field officers keep files of these investigator reports in the future?

Mr. CROCKETT. The seven field offices will retain file copies but not the resident agents.

Mr. SOURWINE. What is the significance of the limitation on stocks of forms to be retained by field officers of the Division of Investigations?

Mr. CROCKETT. This was solely a housekeeping function to promote economy and efficiency.

Mr. SOURWINE. Specifically, is this limitation an indication that these offices are to be closed in the foreseeable future?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. There has been no consideration given to closing them?
Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

As a part of the downgrading of activities out in the domestic field, there was to be austerity in the housekeeping areas, too. Office space, for instance: 12

11 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, pp. 1585-1586.

12 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1580.

Mr. SOURWINE. It appears these men are going to lose prestige, they are going to be deprived of substance they have been having, they are going to lose all control over the work they do, they are going to lose all control over the reports they file, even to the point of checking whether they were properly transcribed. They are going to lose all office equipment except dictating machines, and includ ing typewriters.

To me it raises a question which I don't mean facetiously, does the Department mean to have these men work out of their homes? Are they going to have to work out of their hats, so to speak?

Mr. CROCKETT. I was wondering if we were asking that they work out of their homes, I don't know. We might. I don't see anything wrong with it, if it is. It might save some money. But I don't know whether it will or not.

Mr. SOURWINE. It would be something new in Government personnel. Mr. CROCKETT. I doubt it. I would suspect they will work out of the Federal buildings in the cities, but we will see.

They will work in various strategic geographic locations in the United States. (Mr. Crockett subsequently advised the committee on this point that:) The resident agents will have office quarters in Federal buildings when available. If there is no office space in the Federal building or there is not a Federal building in the area, office space will be leased. Space for the resident agents is normally allocated as one room per agent."

This was not to be the end of economies. Safes for storage of confidential files were to be limited, along with cuts in communication facilities:13

Mr. SOURWINE. Could you also provide for the record a figure on how many safes there are in the field offices now and what this will be reduced to when some field offices become resident agencies?

Mr. CROCKETT. Each field office has been provided an approved safe. Bar lock cabinets are provided to each field office on a basis of need.

Mr. SOURWINE. It appears from our examination of the records that there is only going to be one safe in each of the seven field offices and all other safes from the other offices, or where there was more than one to a field office, are going to be declared surplus, with the possible exception of the four cities where you will have an assistant to the field agent, a Special Agent in Charge, and they might have two safes. But all the rest of the safes will be declared surplus and sold through General Services Administration; that all the office furniture, except one desk per man and one chair per man, and maybe one typewriter per man, within the seven field offices is similarly to be declared surplus and sold.

Now, the instructions appear to comprehend discontinuance of all telegraphic printer (TWX) service to resident locations effective the first of October. This appears to mean that the resident agent will have lost all direct contact with Washington and will have lost all speedy contact with his field office. When TWX service to resident locations is discontinued, what facility will the resident agent have for direct contact with Washington and speedy contact with his field office?

Mr. CROCKETT. Telephones.

Mr. SOURWINE. Indicate whether these men have authority to telephone or telegraph if they consider it of importance or whether they could do so only on instructions in particular cases.

Mr. CROCKETT. They have authority to use telephones, if they consider it to be of importance, without prior instructions.

Mr. SOURWINE. These instructions appear to include removal of the telephone listings of field offices and field agents from local telephone directories. If that is what it appears to be, could you explain why this is being done?

Mr. CROCKETT. Telephone listings of resident agents were ordered removed solely because the stations will not be constantly attended. No removal was authorized for field offices.

Mr. SOURWINE. I can understand that perhaps an agency like the CIA might not want to have a listing wherever it has a man, but these men are not spies or secret agents, they are open investigators for the State Department. It certainly is true that if they don't have telephones and don't have listings, they will get very little voluntary information from anybody.

Mr. CROCKETT. That is right.

19 Ibid., pt. 19, pp. 1583-1584.

Mr. Crockett insisted that Special Agents in Charge who were reassigned as Resident Agents had not been downgraded in the reorganization. 14

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, there may be something that I do not understand. But these men are being reduced, as I understand these documents

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't think this is true.

Mr. SOURWINE (continuing). to simply a reporting function, nothing else, and they report only with respect to investigations they are told to make and they have no files to refer to. They make a field investigation within the scope of their instructions on each one and dictate the report and that is the end of the case. They never see it again, see the report or anything about it.

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't think they have that much at present, really in terms of seeing the case, but I am concerned about the index cards.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, you have index cards at at least 12 field offices that have been ordered destroyed and we don't know what the scope of them is or what information there may be there.

Mr. CROCKETT. I understand.

Mr. SOURWINE. Could you tell us also, or indicate when you correct the testimony, sir, what kind of men are the special agents in charge of the 12 offices that are going to be reduced?

Mr. CROCKETT. They will be qualified men who will be resident agents under the reorganization.

Mr. SOURWINE. The best information we can get on it, and it is not detailed or comprehensive, appears to indicate that they are all experienced men, mostly with 20 years or more of experience. This reorganization is going to involve downgrading those men

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't believe so. It is not my understanding.

Mr. SOURWINE. Will they have the same grade, as a resident agent, that they had as special agent in charge?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, I understood when it was discussed with me that there were no demotions in it at all, no downgradings. There will be some upgradings but no downgradings.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, their duties are going to be greatly different. They will have no administrative duties.

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, but Civil Service doesn't evaluate jobs on this kind of a basis. It is responsibility and not duties that are basic

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, they will have fewer responsibilities.
Mr. CROCKETT. I am not sure of this.

When

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, they now supervise resident agents under them. they become resident agents themselves, they won't supervise anybody. They won't even have a secretary or stenographer.

Mr. CROCKETT. In any event, I don't believe there is any downgrading, but we will see.

Further questioning revealed that there had been consideration of the transfer of investigative functions in personnel cases to the Civil Service Commission or some other agency but that this had been rejected several times.

As Mr. Crockett put it: 15

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes; this has been up at various times for consideration. And, as a matter of fact, we made an agreement with the Civil Service Commission whereby they do investigations on certain clerical cases. But the decision has been made and remade and made again not to transfer these functions to the Civil Service Commission because of the other kinds of work our investigators are required to do vis-a-vis fraud investigations, other kinds of general investigations, and protective security functions.

Two State Department letters that controlled the whole maneuver were included in the hearings printed by the subcommittee.16

14 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1579.

15 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1586.

16 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, pp. 1575-1577. The status of officers in the field before and after the reorganization was obtained in pt. 19, p. 1580.

65-860-67-pt. 4- -7

The record of the hearing included the following listing of the status of officers in the field before and after the reorganization:

Status of officers in field before and after reorganization effected on Sept. 1, 1964

1 Incumbency only. Subject offered transfer at GS-14 level-elected to remain at St. Louis and voluntarily accepted grade reduction to GS-13. Will retain GS-14 salary for 2-year period under sec. 507 of the Classification Act of 1949 as amended.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

REPRISALS AGAINST OTEPKA'S FRIENDS

When State Department officials swung at Otto Otepka for revealing shortcomings in Department security practices, the blow also struck six of his associates.

The record shows this was no slip of the hand from the weapon. It was planned and when Mr. Otepka was cut down his so-called supporters almost immediately were given orders assigning them into new fields away from Mr. Otepka. They had supported his position for tight security practices; several had indicated they would testify for him at Department hearings; some had been brought into the SY Office on his recommendation. None was charged with such violation of Department rules as were laid on the Otepka doorstep. But they forthwith were removed from association with Mr. Otepka-one later was ordered to go so far away as to El Paso, Tex.

In this sudden, dramatic staff shakeup, the Department told some of the transferees that they had talents needed in another project. It was a timely discovery that these particular men were needed elsewhere in a project that had been allowed to drag for many months. It coincided with the move to get rid of Otepka.

It is, therefore, beyond reasonable belief that these things all happened by coincidence. The only logical conclusion is that when "Otepka supporters" were swept out of the Evaluation Division it was a part of the pattern to smash the Otepka influence and philosophy. And since no serious charges were placed against his "supporters" this suggests the use of "guilt by association"-a practice often bitterly denounced by pseudo-liberals, but just as frequently used by some of them when convenient.

All of this is supported by the record, pertinent portions of which are indicated below.

Edwin A. Burkhardt, one of those suddenly transferred, lists the others in his appeal:1

1

In September 1963 the Department of State served formal charges on Mr. Otepka. These charges alleged he engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer by furnishing classified information to the Senate of the United States. Allegations of violation of regulations of the Department were also included.

As mentioned previously herein, six persons, including myself, were reassigned to the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. They are: Raymond A. Loughton, Harry M. Hite, John R. Norpel, Jr., and Frank V. Gardner. (Each of the foregoing persons, including myself, were originally hired on the recommendation of Mr. Otto F. Otepka.) Mr. Howard Shea, the other person reassigned, was previously assigned to the Division of Investigations. All six persons have been and continue to be staunch in their defense of Mr. Otepka, and have openly stated their strong beliefs of Mr. Otepka's innocence.

Confirmation of this list came from Harry M. Hite in his testimony on August 13, 1964,2 and from testimony by John R. Norpel, on 1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 17, p. 1350.

2 Ibid., p. 1444.