Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (1)"
of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
6,
Pro- HR 5465
STATES POSTA ®
WILSON WOODGER
PO BOX 238
BROWNING MT 59417
western union
Mailgram
UNITED *
U.S.MAIL
SERVICE *
2-029030E246 09/02/76 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHB
4063382911 MGM TDMT BROWNING MT 200 09-02 0119P EST
gR-1
PRESIDENT FORD
WASHINGTON DC 20500
MY DEAR MR PRESIDENT
WE THE UNDERSIGNED EMPLOYED AT THE BLACKFEET INDIAN AGENCY BROWNING
MONTANA URGENTLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE HOUSE RESOLUTION HR 5465 THIS
BILL WILL GREATLY BENEFIT BOTH INDIAN AND NON INDIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS APPROVAL OF THIS BILL WILL ALSO CORRECT A
GROSS INJUSTICE RESULTING FROM THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OF JUNE 1974
WHICH VIOLATED THE ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF THE NON INDIAN
EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WAS CHANGED UNILATERALLY WITHOUT PRIOR ADVICE
OR CONSENT OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED
WILSON WOODGER
PAUL MOORE
CLAY STEPHENS
RICHARD HELFENSTESN
GEORGE THOMPSON
RAYNE PILGERAM
CLIFFORD ANDERSON
CHARLOTTE MCKEOWN
GEORGE SHELHAMER
FRANCIS TURNER
PETER STIFFARM
THOMAS MEDICINEHORSE
WAYNE SKOW
ROY RIDESATTHEDOORE
MERCEDES NIGHTSHOOT
DENNIS JONES
GEORGE CROFF
BILL THEO LEMIE
RAMONS PAPSEY
GERALD GUARDAPEE
FORDO j LIBRARY 018870
LUCILLE RACINE
JOHN BULLCHILD
VERA M SCHAAF
HELEN WIPPERT
WILLEENA HARWOOD
FAYE HOYT
HAZEL BEAN
13:37 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
Digitized from Box 2 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBERS
2
3
4
5
6
1
FORD LIBRARY is 02RALD
THE House
2
logton
3
4
WHB021(2205) (2-064671E254)PD 09/10/76 2205
5
ICS IPMRNCZ CSP
1976 SEP 10 PM 11 08
6
7
5033634626 NL TDRN SALEM OR 238 09-10 0534P PDT
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
9
WHITE HOUSE DC 20500
10
11
DEAR MR PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OUT PLACEMENT PROGRAM IS
12
NON FUNCTIONAL. OUR BIA INSTALLATION EXPERIENCED A SEVERE REDUCTION
13
14
IN FORCE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1975 AND NOT ONE EMPLOYEE WAS PLACED
15
16
THROUGH OUR PLACEMENT EVEN THOUGH MANY WERE WELL QUALIFIED AND HAD
17
MORE VALUABLE EXPERIENCE. THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM GUIDELINES
18
FROM THE BIA CENTRAL OFFICE IN WASHINGTON DC CLEARLY STATE THE
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S. S.A.
20
INDIAN PREFERENCE WILL BE ENFORCED IN THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM AS
21
22
WELL AS FILING VACANT POSITIONS, LATERAL TRANSFER, PROMOTION
23
TRAINING IN BIA.
24
25
26 WE DO NOT CRITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION INVOKING INDIAN
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
&
PREFERENCE IN THE BIA, WE ONLY ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE
7
8
VALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR GOVERNMENT AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. HOUSE
9
RESOLUTION 5465 WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS.
10
11
12
WE REQUEST THAT YOU CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE RESOLUTION ON YOUR DESK.
13
14
WE FEEL CONFIDENT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THE NON INDIAN IS
15
PLACED IN WORKING IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THAT YOU WILL
16
17
SIGN THE BILL AND SEE THAT IT BECOMES LAW.
18
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. U.S.A
20
WILBUR WOOD PRESIDENT NFFE LOCAL 241 CHEMAWA INDIAN SCHOOL
21
SALEM OREGON 97303
22
23
ALICE ANDERSON, EDWARD BARTLETT, MARY BARTOLOME, RONALD BERG,
24
25
NADINE BORDERS, CHARLES BROMLETTE, WILLIAM BURRIGHT, PEARL CARLSON,
26
JAMES CRONE, HARRY cox, EARL DOUGLAS, ELBERT ELLISON, PAT ERNSTROM,
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JAMES GOLDSMITH, JACKIE GRAPE, EDGAR HANSON, DUANE HILDEBRAND,
8
CHARLES HOMES, LUTHER KNOX, FLORENCE KUBIN, PATTY LANE, LOUISE
9
LINDAUER, FRANK LAMB, MARION MARSHALL, EUGENE MERWIN, ROSEWELL
10
11
SEARE, ROBERT WITTMAN, WILBUR WOOD, THOMAS WRIGHT, MYRNA MCMURTY,
12
13
GEORGANNA USREY, DOROTHY PENTECOST, ROY CARTER, GORDON FOSTER
14
AND BEULAH GRAHAM
15
NNNN
16
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S.A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
3
4
5
LIBRARY
6
1
FORD
2
's
3
OERALD
4
WHB021(2205) (2-064671E254)P 09/10/76 2205,
5
ICS IPMRNCZ CSP
0n
6
7
5033634626 NL TDRN SALEM OR 238 09-10 0534P PDT
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
"
WHITE HOUSE DC 20500
10
11
DEAR MR PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OUT PLACEMENT PROGRAM IS
12
NON FUNCTIONAL. OUR BIA INSTALLATION EXPERIENCED A SEVERE REDUCTION
13
14
IN FORCE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1975 AND NOT ONE EMPLOYEE WAS PLACED
15
THROUGH OUR PLACEMENT EVEN THOUGH MANY WERE WELL QUALIFIED AND HAD
16
17
MORE VALUABLE EXPERIENCE. THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM GUIDELINES
18
FROM THE BIA CENTRAL OFFICE IN WASHINGTON DC CLEARLY STATE THE
19
20
INDIAN PREFERENCE WILL BE ENFORCED IN THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM AS
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U.
21
22
WELL AS FILING VACANT POSITIONS, LATERAL TRANSFER, PROMOTION
23 TRAINING IN BIA.
24
25
26 WE DO NOT CRITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION INVOKING INDIAN
2
3
A
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
PREFERENCE IN THE BIA, WE ONLY ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE
7
8
VALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR GOVERNMENT AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. HOUSE
9
RESOLUTION 5465 WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS.
10
11
12
WE REQUEST THAT YOU CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE RESOLUTION ON YOUR DESK.
13
14
WE FEEL CONFIDENT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THE NON INDIAN IS
15
PLACED IN WORKING IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THAT YOU WILL
16
17
SIGN THE BILL AND SEE THAT IT BECOMES LAW.
18
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY. U. U.S.A.
20
WILBUR WOOD PRESIDENT NFFE LOCAL 241 CHEMAWA INDIAN SCHOOL
21
SALEM OREGON 97303
22
23
ALICE ANDERSON, EDWARD BARTLETT, MARY BARTOLOME, RONALD BERG,
24
NADINE BORDERS, CHARLES BROMLETTE, WILLIAM BURRIGHT, PEARL CARLSON,
25
26
JAMES CRONE, HARRY COX, EARL DOUGLAS, ELBERT ELLISON, PAT ERNSTROM,
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
$
&
7
JAMES GOLDSMITH, JACKIE GRAPE, EDGAR HANSON, DUANE HILDEBRAND,
8
CHARLES HOMES, LUTHER KNOX, FLORENCE KUBIN, PATTY LANE, LOUISE
,
10
LINDAUER, FRANK LAMB, MARION MARSHALL, EUGENE MERWIN, ROSEWELL
11
SEARE, ROBERT WITTMAN, WILBUR WOOD, THOMAS WRIGHT, MYRNA MCMURTY,
12
13
GEORGANNA USREY, DOROTHY PENTECOST, ROY CARTER, GORDON FOSTER
14
AND BEULAH GRAHAM
15
NNNN
16
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY # U.S.A
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MD
VANCE WARTKE IND
DOMINICIAN MEX
United States Senate
CLAIMANS HELL R.I
BULL BROOK TINN
THOMAS F. EAGLETON MD.
DEPART BARTLETT DKLA
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
JCHN V. TUNNET CALIF,
LAWTON CHILES FLA
(PURSDANT TO b. RES. 11;, WTH CONSRESS)
DICK CLARK IDWA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
WILLIAM C.DRIDL STAFF DIRECTOR
DAVID . AFFELDT, CHICF COUNSEL
JOHN OUT MILLER, MINDRITY STAFF DIRECTOR
September 14, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I respectfully urge you to sign H. R. 5465, a bill to pro-
vide early retirement benefits for certain non-indian employees
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
This legislation has passed both Houses of Congress following Con-
ference Committee agreement, and is now on your desk awaiting fur-
ther action.
Current law grants preference to Indians in promotions and
personnel actions in the BIA and IHS. This has been the case since
a 1972 court decision clarified the "interpretation of the Wheeler-
Howard Act of 1934. As a result many non-indian BIA and IHS employees
with long records of Federal service now find themselves blocked off
from promotion or transfer. H. R. 5465 addresses this problem by
providing early retirement benefits for these senior employees.
I know there are many non-indian BIA and IHS employees in my
own state who will benefit from this reasonable legislation.
I ask for your serious consideration and support for H. R.
5465.
With warm regards.
Very truly yours,
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
Pete V. Domenici
United States Senator
PVD/dgcg
[9/15/75
Gordon J. Wilson
456 S. 200 East
Brigham City, UT
84302
President Gerald Ford
United States
White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Mr. President:
I am writing you concerning HR 5465, a bill which would make it
possible for B.I.A. and I.H.S. non-preference employees to retire
if they meet certain requirements.
When you are considering the merits of this bill, there are several
factors which you should weigh before making a decision:
1. All non-preference employees hired before about 1972,
clearly were hired as merit system employees. Some
understood that Indian Preference was involved but
only with regards to initial employment. Further
none of us hired before 1972, in anyway gave up our
merit system rights (earned through competition) by
virtue of being hired or transferred into I.H.S. or
B.I.A.
2. The administrative extension of the Indian Preference
was done by our superiors without public input, with-
out consideration to the effects upon non-preference
employees and in a manner that demonstrated an abuse
of administrative discretion.
3. The B.I.A. has greatly increased its budget for the
higher education of Indians. Now it is time they
1040 > LIBRARY 01V839
reap rewards from this expenditure. The retirement
of the non-preference employee would make room for
these Indians who have received this education,
which would lead to the goal of Indian self-determina-
tion.
4. Some of the deparmtnets have expressed a concern of
a massive exodus of non-preference employees. This
of course would not happen, the significant point
here is that the vast majority of Indian Service
employees have expressed their desire to continue
working and provide the necessary training of
Indian personnel to take over their positions, but
they feel as though they must have a way out if
things get to rough such as lives being threatened.
They have devoted twenty or more years of their
working career and would hate to drop all of their
earned benefits.
Page 2
5. Another objection that has been expressed was the
cost if this bill was implemented: the fact is
that even greater cost would be paid if not passed
when you consider these elements:
a. The poor moral of Indian Service employees,
which greatly effects thrir productivity.
b. Salary savings, because new employees would
be brought aboard at a lower G.S. rating.
C. Indians would be filling these jobs lead-
ing to Indian self determination.
6. Why should we be punished for something that happened
in the past and had nothing to do with.
7. The effected employee's are at an age when it is difficult
or impossible to start new careers.
8. This bill is one in which many Indian Tribes have
expressed a desire to have passed. (Blackfeet Tribe,
West Oklahoma, etc.)
9. Non-preference employees have had their congressional
vested rights in the merit system and constitutional
(due process, compensation for rights taken and other)
illegally taken away.
I would like to refer you to the testimony given by Tom Goninion at
the Senate hearings on S-509 and we are also air-mailing you material
sent to the Comptroller General on December 9, 1975 and the General
Accounting Office has completed its investigation and it should be
available at the G.A.O. Office in Washington D.C.
It is hoped that you will consder these factors and make an
affirmative decision on HR-5465.
Sincerely yours,
Gordon J. Wilson
President Gerald Ford
The White House
Washington D.C. 20500
Re: HR 5465
Attn: Brad Patterson
Matrial enclosed as stated in
my letter
FORD LIBRARY is
e
SENDER: Complete items I and 2.
Add your. address in the "RETURN TO space on
- 2011 New 1972
reverse.
1. The following service is requested (check one).
Show to whom and date delivered
15,
Show to whom, date, & address of delivery '35'
DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and
show to whom and date delivered
654
DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and
show to whom, date, and address of
delivery
854
2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED 10:
E. B. STRATS, Compressive
ENERAL of the UNITED STATES
441 G ST NW WASH, DC
RETURN RECEIPT INSURED AND
3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION:
REGISTERED NO.
CERTIFIED NO.
INSURED NO.
228675
-
(Always obtain signature of addressee or agent)
I have received the article described above:
SIGNATURE Deliver 10 addressee CRIV
Dorolly 4. DATE OF DELIVERY 1/2/75 Schumachin POSTMARK
5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested)
CERTIFIED MAIL
6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE:
CLERK'S
INITIALS
* GPO : 1974 0- 527-803
& FORD 118
December 9, 1975
Senator Ted Stevens
U. S. Senate
304 Old Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Stevens:
For a number of weeks now members of your staff have informally
been working with us regarding our efforts to regain our status in
the Federal government's Merit employment system and to gain compen-
sation for our documented losses caused by the operation of the Indian
Preference laws. We appreciate your help and interest. We urge you
to present the enclosed document (see enclosure) to the Comptroller
General of the United States for us and further ask that you support
our action with the full force of your office.
We must stress that our search for equity, reinstatement and due
compensation for our losses, accepts the fact that Indian Preference
laws are constitutional and operational. Our point or direction of
attack stems only from the realization that the facts shown establish
that those Public Administrators charged with the administration of the
Indian Services have done so with results that clearly demonstrate an
operation so exclusively against a particular class of persons (the
LIBRARY
special class citizens that indeed we are), as to warrant and require
the conclusion that whatever may have been the intent of the Indian
Preference laws, they are applied by those public administrators with
a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by
the U. S. Government of the equal protection of the laws, due process
of law, and right to receive just compensation for private property
taken for "public use," all of these rights being ours, as citizens,
and secured by the Constitution (and its amendments) of the U.S.
Perhaps the Indian Preference laws are fair and just, as written,
but the facts available demonstrate that the administration of these
laws indeed have placed approximately 8,900 Federal employees in a
special class alone: denied both earned and retained congressionally
vested rights (with tremendous dollar value involved) and Constitu-
tional Rights: forced by circumstances to suffer insults, indignation,
mental anguish, to say nothing of the torment one must suffer when his
family and church teachings, as well as professional training, receives
almost daily degradation.
With this in mind, we sincerely seek your assistance.
Sincerely,
Docdon 2 Wilson
I HS,
Brigham City utch.
1 Enclosure
P. S. Your timely consideration of this matter is urgent because
of not only the daily damages received by the special class citizen
above referred to, but because of impending legislation such as
S-509, HR-5858, etc.
TOPO s BRARY 014830
TO
: Comptroller General of U. S.
December 9, 1975
FROM : See Last Page
SUBJECT: Request for Intervention, Supervision and Resolution of a
Problem
INTRODUCTION
This letter is our last resort within the U. S. Government
system to resolve our problem. As individuals and as a group--we have
been improperly denied a resolution--even confrontation of our problem
by our own Agency (ies) and various levels and offices of the United
States Civil Service Commission. We think the problem, below stated,
is so clearly evident (and an illegal breach of our rights--earned and
retained rights) that we as individuals and as a group should not be
required to go outside "the system" and pay a private attorney to fight
the issues for us. Even a U.S. Attorney's office has said his office
is unable to assist us because the opposing party (certain Public
Administrators of high government rank in the three concerned agencies)
in our complaint could possibly have to seek the assistance of the U.S.
Attorney's office in regard to our complaint.
GENERAL
It is now a well-known and accepted fact and practice, in
the Federal Indian Services (BIA/IHS), that "Indian Preference" prevails
and is a dominate factor in any Personnel Action. The writer and his
associates do not wish to imply, much less make you think we are saying
directly--we oppose Indian Preference: that would be untrue and an unfair
assumption. We agree with the Congress and its utterances, relative to
Indian Preference. However, since 1970, the senior public administrators
involved in implementing the "Indian Preference Laws" (namely the Secre-
tary of Interior, DHEW and the Chairman, U.S.C.S.C. and their senior
level assistants) have done so in such a manner as to deny a limited and
identifiable group of Merit System employees (herein called Special Class
Citizens) both congressionally vested rights and constitutionally vested
rights: To wit---
1. Congressionally vested rights stemming from earned and
retained (because employees continually meet the requirements of con-
tinued employment and retention of those rights) career appointments
in the CSC Merit System of Federal Employment (civiliam); those rights--
as an example--the right of promotions, training and education oppor-
tunities, transfers, etc.--based on Merit System principles and not
influenced by Race: and
2. Constitutionally vested rights enjoyed by all citizens
of this Nation--such as:
-2-
a. The Right of Due Process of Law! Why--because our
vested rights to employment in the Federal Merit System was in fact
withdrawn from us, as a limited and identifiable group, by both
direct action and a lack of diligently adhering to ministerial re-
sponsibilities (duties) by certain Senior Federal Officials, in a
manner that clearly was arbitrary, discriminatory and in fact, offended
the right of due process.'
b. The Right of Equal Protection of the Laws! Why--because
Preference Indians are promoted, trained educated, transferred, etc.,
within the Indian Service on a basis of RACE--they are in fact treated
better, earn more money, get more responsible positions--through means
other than allowed by the Merit System and the various Civil Rights
laws, rules and regulations to the recorded and documented disadvantage
of non-preference employees. This is invidious discrimination, and we,
as a limited and identifiable group, have been denied equal protection of
the laws by virtue of the manner of operation of the various laws con-
cerned (Civil Rights Acts, Indian Preference Laws, etc.) and by simple
failure on the part of certain specific Public Administrators of the
concerned agencies to administer these programs, the laws applicable
to these programs, etc.--within the house of the law, in accordance
w/all laws applicable, the Common Law, the Supreme Court decisions, etc.
c. Our Civil Rights: Why--because we have been required to
work under conditions that stress RACISM, allow a certain minority group
to openly criticize other racial, ethnic and religious groups and do so
without fear of retribution.
To provide the reader with basic evidence to establish Charges
1 and 2 above, see Enclosure.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The purpose of this letter is to request your good offices to
FULLY investigate this isolated problem, to take such appropriate action
as is necessary to require the aforementioned Senior Public Administra-
tors to implement the Indian Preference Laws in conjunction with ALL
other appropriate laws, rules and regulations, and to take whatever
action is appropriate to: (1) re-vest or recognize the rights of those
of us serving in the Merit System, and (2) provide those of us that have
been unwittingly made special class citizens, by Virtue of the continued
denial of our rights, benefits equal to the damages we have experienced
to our careers.
In other words, we individually and as a group are asking the
Comptroller General to determine if our charges are valid; if they are
-3-
BO considered, we then ask your office to require the Public Admin-
istrators involved to take timely action to safeguard our rights as
the duties of their respective offices require. We are saying (charg-
ing) specifically that the Secretaries of DHEW and Interior and the
Chairman, USCSC et al have exercised their discretionary powers in
such a manner as to give an exaggerated and unreasonable weight (towards
the implementation of the various Indian preference laws) to the docu-
mented unwarranted expense and detriment of others (non-preference
employees). We consider this an abuse of discretion. We are saying
that DHEM, Interior and the USCSC made a clear and documented departure
from carlier agency "policy" and that there is an apparent contempo-
raneous "inconsistency." It is this departure and inconsistency that
we think should be fully investigated. Lastly, we are saying that
although the Indian preference laws and related acts indeed apply to
BIA and IHS--these acts and laws are but a few compared to the total
number of acts and laws as well as rules and regulations that constitute
the whole law applicable to the operation of BIA and IHS. These pref-
erence laws are but one segment and must be applied by the agency heads
in harmony with the totality of the law applicable to the operation of
the Indian Services. We are charging that the senior agency heads
above mentioned, have failed in executing their discretionary and min-
LIBRARY
isterial functions (and duties) relative to preference in harmony with
the whole law applicable to the Indian Services, thereby illegally
damaging as well as illegally taking property rights away from each of
us.
We ask only one favor and that is that our names and careers
(alrcady marked and diminished) be protected from retribution. A
complaint and request such as this indeed will incur the wrath of our
superiors, some of us can prove previous retribution by U.S. Government
officials for our fight in trying to correct this situation, some of us
can prove we have been denied jobs illegally because of race, and all
of us can prove our careers have been dulled, if not killed, because
certain senior public administrators failed to do their ministerial
duty and/or failed to take timely action to protect our above mentioned
rights. Some of us are currently serving under superiors who are
equally as disturbed (regarding this matter) as we are, therefore, we
suggest a full, impartial and searching investigation into our charges
of both mal and misfeasance on the part of certain high level public
administrators is mandatory.
CONCLUSION
We are willing to keep our problem "in-house" only to the
extent that we can get the problem resolved to our satisfaction. We
⑉40
truly hope your offices can assist us directly or point to a viable
alternative. Without this kind of assistance, we will be forced into
U.S. District Court using private funds. If this latter alternative
is forced upon us, we are prepared to present the same evidence now
offered your office, only our cause of action will be criminal in
nature, larger stakes involved, and we fear the best interests of the
U. S. Government and some individual high level Federal employees will
not be served. We hope you understand the gravity of this matter.
Sincerely,
See signature shoot
Next page
SYNOPSIS OF EVIDENCE
The reader is advised that attachments are indexed and tabbed in
accordance with the below index.
Charge 1: Violation of congressional and vested
rights, i.e. illegal withdrawal of
complainants from Federal Merit System:
illegal taking of our property.
Charge 2: Violation of constitutional guarantees,
i.e.:
a. Right of Due Process
Tabs 1, 2, 14, 15
b. Right of Equal Protection of the Laws
Tabs 5 and 14
c. Civil Rights
Tab 16
The writers suggest the tabs emphasize our main points; however,
the total text of each attachment should be read to understand
the grevious wrong perpetrated upon complainants. It is further
suggested that a competent investigation to determine real
damages, including passed, ongoing and certain future, occurring
and anticipated would reveal startling further compulsion to
pursue the matter.
SIGNATURE SHEET
I am signing for approximately
50 B.I.A. and I. H. S. employees,
456 South 2nd East
who want their names held in
Brigham City, Utah 84302
strictest confidence because of
fear of retribution.
I am signing for approximately
RuGs Van Tine
84 B.I.A. and I.H.S. employees,
2309 Fox Drive
who want their names held in
Billings, MT 59102
strictest confidence because of
fear of retribution.
I am signing for myself and
THOMAS H. GONINION
approximatly 140) BIA and IHS
employees whose names are a
902 South Jey Street
matter of tublic record
Ab erdeen, SD 57401
FORD
Session explores
bias against Indian
Dr DAVID T. EARLEY
Coarile Stall Holter
"UNCONSCIOUS bias" is
perhaps the worst. said the Okla.
Ing equal employment for ml
Famil Employment Op.
home Indian. Through lectures
nonties in other federal
purjurity conference openial
2145 group discussion sessions.
cies, said Dona Gudgell. Mone
Tucsday 10 140mg to train both
llune attending will come 10 Te.
tathchi's associate deputy BTT)-
Indian ann now-Indian employes
abse cultural differences and
ployed In the Billings THIS OU-
ice.
in live 15. recognize and clim.
biases-and then be able to
list recial bias In the Indian
eliminate them.
Both THIS and the Bureau of
Heal Service.
This is the second such confer-
Indian Affairs are required to
ence. said Stanley J Rogers.
give employment preference to
YOU AND I both know it
happens." Ed Monetathchi Jr
deputy area director of IHS.
Indians. Mrs. Gudgell and her
deputy EEO afficer from IHS
training those unable to attend 2
two assistants-termed "huran
simular session last fall.
resource development special
beademariers in Washington,
DC. explained during 2 break
The Semce's main concern is
ists"-work full time to assore
In int resumn of a three-day
health on the reservations, said
compliance.
A three-page opinion poll con
meetine for selacted representa-
Rogers, and it is necessary to
lover of the timen THIS 25P2
alternate attendance 21 the EEO
cerning bias in IHS was filled
sessions Even so. some doctors
out by those attending st, the
including reservations in Mon-
tans and Wyoming and 20 Indi.
will net be able to attend. he
opening session and will be re-
N° Trbool at Brigham LIV Utah.
added. since they would have no
peated 21 the end of the maler.
replacements while speriding
ence. said Monetathchi. bir re-
The intention, said Monetath
three days in Billings
sulls will not be made pubbe
du, IS not to sile up racial prob-
lems but to "Rel them not in the
EEO representatives in IHS
"I DONT see what purpose it
open" 50 they can be solved.
have 4 special concern. beyond
would serve it could be missis.
the responsibility for guarantee
terpreted by persons who don't
know all the factors involved
The Willings Cignesse
Wednesday, Aprx 5. 1972
Moveing
The enclosed newspaper articles (attachment 1) are clear evidence that
some of the employees of IHS who attended that conference were, and
are continuing to be denied equal conditions of employment because of
the documented continuing series of insults and other type statements
made by THS employees and contract speakers that are degrading and
unkind regarding one's culture and race.
It in apparent that within the IHS, and government in general, the same
type statements concerning Indians and Indian culture (ala attached
news clippings) are not allowed to be said, are not part and parcel to
"training programs" and you don't hear or see similar points made as a
part of policy; hence, those non-Indians witnessing these "training
dessions", and similar exposures, are Victims of race and culture
discrimination, which is forbidden by the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the various executive orders covering federal employment in general and
White man culture
blasted by Indian
Dy DAVID EARLEY
and then, when asked to leave.
at that Lime."
(Gatette Scoll Writer
take 2 microphone and say had
things about it? McGas asked.
But the Indian is returning to
"The Indian must know who
his own culture, sald the Sloux,
The law school graduate
be has
not to be separate from the rest
and the non-Indian
served as a Marine Corps fighter
Birth know. 100."
pilot in the Vietnam War where.
of the country but to be a part of
It as an Indian.
This was the message brought
he said, "we were forced to fight
Tuesday afternoon to an equal
with one hand tied behind our
employment opportunity confer-
backs" by not. for example,
once of the Indian Health Serv.
being allowed to attack North
lee by Ed McGaa. Sioux Indian
Vietnamese supply routes begin-
and director of the Upper Mid.
ning at the Haipbone docks.
wat Indian Center, Minneapo-
D. Minn.
"THEN THERE were the
Indian culture is superior to
Kennedys. the McCocrns and
the white man's in many ways,
their eight-day truces." and on
sald McGas. "and now we're
the ninth day. he added. the
going back to our Indian ways."
common men - "whether
The ways of the white culture
white, black or red" - were
have degraded the Indians who
killed by freshly supplied
reaght to adopt them. McGaa
North Vietnames.
said. and he cited mission board-
"I wish they'd fought the Indi.
by schools. religious persecu-
ans that same way."
Bon and general destruction of
Such service in behalf of the
Doe Indians' culture.
whiteman's politicians hasn't
seemed to help the Indian much.
THE PILGRIMS came to
said McG3a. He recalled that
America, he said, because their
during World War II the only
former socio economic system
way an Indian could be buying a
was inferior to that of the Indi.
drink was by posing as 2 Jana.
ans. But then the new culture
aese. "We were fighting Japan
begin to impose its ways on the
native one, he continued.
f One of the causes of Juvenilo
problems among white children,
for example, is the fact that
their prandparents are In "old
folls' homes" and the youngs-
less are raised by babysitters,
NcGas, said.
Dip Dillings Bazette
Wednesday, April 3. 1972
therating litter
Whites imposed their will on
the Indian by taking children
array to mission loarding
thools, he sald, and - on lop of
that - derided Indian religion.
IUE RECALLED an incident
when a Catholic priest tried to
Interrupt a Sioux Sun Dance
and, when warned to stay off the
dance floor, commissered a
microphone and said "bad
things" about the relignes prac.
tice.
"Woold 8 barge love a Mass
& MANAGER, INC. 799 BROADWAY. NEW YORK,
Y. 10003
2
HOW MUCH DETTER MUST A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE
DO PLANT RULES HAVE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED
DE TO WIN A DID OVER A SENIOR MAN?
FOR THE DURATION OF A UNION CONTRACT?
What Happened: When personnel director Боб
What Happened: The personnel man who wrote the
Nelson arrived and saw the two men impatiently
company's rule book must have been a dropout from
pacing in front of his office, he mentally groaned:
the English language: The writing was so bad, the
Not before my morning coffee!"
meanings SO obscure, that workers and foremen
Then he said: "I know, I know. Sam, here,
had conflicts over almost every paragraph.
feels he should have wen that bid on the flaker
Finally the general manager ordered a com-
operator job, But our plant manager, Jim Mayer,
plete overhaul of the booklet. "While we're at it,"
put up a compincing case for promoting the junior
he told the editor, "we want to lighten lip some
man."
old rules and put in some new ones."
He may have convinced you,' the steward
Six months later a new rule book, in a bright
replied, "butinot us. We're here to give the com-
cover, was distributed to employees. Whereupon
Dany a chance to correct its mistake. Otherwise,
the union hit the roof: "You can't change work
we're going talight this right through arbitration.'
rules in the middle of a contract any more than
"Okay, let's go over it. We put up the job for
you can change wage rates or rest periods
blds. If two men are eligible, the senior man gets
When the company disagredd on the ground
the job- provided abilities are relatively equal.
that nothing in the agreement froze the rules for
Sam is the senior man, but he got turned down."
the duration, the union called in its lawyer. The
The personnel director then enumerated the man-
legal eagle quoted from & raft of decisions by the
3 reasons:
N.L.R.B., which held that "contents of plant rules
1. The manager asked six foremen to evaluate
are mandatory subjects of bargaining."
the two men and to consider eight criteria:
"But that applies to negotiations for a new
Mechanical aptitude, ability to follow written
contract. Our agreement still has two years to
Instructions, ability to keep written records,
run. If you feel any of the rules are untair, file
judgment, initiative and attitude, health, re-
a grievance. You want to throw out the whole
sponsibility, seniority.
book."
2, When the scores were in, every one of the six
Was The Company: RIGHT
WRONG
said that Ralph had the edge over Sam.
What Arbitrator John Lurkin ruled: The company
8. Also, Ralph had worked three months on the
won. "For some 10 years the union did not question
Naker job- so he even had experience.
the right of the company to revise 0! amond plant
"None of that proves Sam can't handle the
rules. Such past practice indivates that the union
Γ.
job. The junior man may be a little better - but
has accepted the fact that there was no restriction
that doesn't give him the right to promotion over
on management's right to issue new rules."
& senior man," persisted the steward.
(68-1 ARB (8203)
Was The Union: RIGHT
WRONG
COMMENT: The right to issue and change rules
should be incorporated into your union contract.
What Arbitrator George Savage King rules: The
However, the union can always challenge any rule
senior man gets the job. "Before a junior em-
that it feels is unreasonable,
ployee is given preference, the company must be
prepared to show that he is head and shoulders
above the senior man in ability — where the senior
man does have the basic ability to períorm the
MUST ^ COMPANY DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES
tasks." (68-2 ARB (S614)
WHO MAKE ANTI-RACIAL REMARKS?
COMMENT: Neither the three months' experi-
What Happened: When il member of n minority
onco nor the supervisors' ratings made much im-
group breaks a company's barriers to employ-
pression on the Arbitrator.
ment, he sometimes finds he must then content
What did impress him was: The company
with the hostility of some of his superiors and
10! deny that the schior man would probably
co-workers.
work out although it was convinced that the
Michael Stern, n civil engineer. was the first
Junior toas the belier man.
Jowish employee to be hired US line Grimusk Corp.
hostility-which was in no 11:21" related to suchael's
competence. Deatty disliked him solely because ha
expect applicants to tell the trutn.
was A Jewl
2. We did not wait two years. When we receiv
Ho loudly directed anti-Semitic slurs In
the anonymous call, II'C acted right away.
Michael's direction. A fejv other bigoted em-
3. If We had known of your criminal record,
ployees took Beatty's remarks as a cue to mutter
wouldn't have hired you. That's our poli
their own epithets. Dealty's purpose was obvious -
This is a business - not a social agency I
to humiliate Michael Stern into resigning.
Was The Company: RIGHT
WRONG
C
The Granusk front office ignored Michael's
request that his taunters be ordered to leave him
Whol Arbitrator Longston T. Howley ruied: No re
in peace. So Michael haled his employer before
statement for Sam. Traditionally, a probation:
the state anti-discrimination agency. He asked:
period is used to determine now well an applic:
What good docs it do to stop a company from
functions on the job- not to investigate tru
practicing discrimination in hiring - if It
fulness of statements made on the applicati
permits personnel to torment a minority
"The company had a right to rely III
group individual once he's taken on?
the truthfulnéss of the employee's statements.
Company president Ed Granusk countered with:
acted with all speed upon discovering the fa
fication." (69-1 ARB 78114)
We do not approve of the racial insults. But
I can't control what employees say. Also, I
COMMENT: The onus for telling the truth
think Stern is being overly sensitive.
on the employee.
Was Michael Stern: RIGHT
WRONG
Furthermore, the scriousness of the lic
important. If the worker would not have b
What The N.Y. State Div. OF Human Rights ruled:
hired had the truth been known, delay in (
For the engineer. It is management's responsibility
covery will not protect him.
to control actions of employees on the job.
"A man who suffers degradation and insult
5
without any restraints by management is cer-
tainly being denied equal conditions of employ-
QUIZ CASE
ment when such insults are directed at a man's
creed."
Test Your Skill As An Arbitrator
The employer agreed to inform all employees
CAN MANAGEMENT COLLECT MONEY DAMA
that it would not tolerate racial and religious
FROM A UNION FOR A WILDCAT STRIKE?
Insults - and that those who voiced them would
Whol Happened: Shop steward Elton Reynolds
be disciplined. (Release #RK-1178)
a loyal following. When he got himself Ared
COMMENT: Many companies anticipate this
fighting, 15 rank-and-filers followed him out
problem. Executives and employees are informed
the plant. And they stayed out for three days.
in letters and notices on bulletin boards that racial
The men rounded out the week without
and religious derogatory remarks are strictly
pay- for each received a two-day suspension
forbidden. The bigot should be provented from
their "loyalty" to the union official.
poisoning the working atmosphere.
The company decided to hit the union wi
it hurt the most in its pocketbook. It sentr
union a bill for $16,323.98 for losses incurred
the wildcat strike - itemizing:
AFTER 2 YEARS, CAN A GOOD WORKER DE FIRED
Lost production time and the cost of
- FOR LYING Oil HIS APPLICATION BLANK?
idlo equipment;
What Happened: Getting calls at home was a nor-
o
Overtime pay to employees assigned to fi
mal part of Jack Foster's harried life as general
for the striking employees; and
foreman. So when the phone jingled, Jack reached
o Supervisors' time helping out on produc!
for his pencil and picked up the receiver.
The voice on the other end was muffled, mys-
The union did some figuring on its own -
defended its case before an Arbitrator:
terious - and female: "Mr. Foster, this is a
friend." Foster gulped and quickly looked toward
1. Foremen are on salary and are paid any-
the kitchen, where his wife was eparing dinner.
2. The company owns its equipment and tt
The voice continued: "Sam X, who works for
fore no loss was incurred by its idleness.
you, is a jailbird - an ex-con." Then there was a
3. There was no real loss in production as 0
click as the anonymous caller hung up.
employees filled the gap.
The personnel department investigated Sam's
C
4. Besides, who ever heard of suing a union
background-and sure enough, Sam had been con-
money damages? Our business agent
victed of a felony three years ago. He had lied
the nicn back to work as som 24 possible
on his employment application,
Out went is letter to the hapless worker:
5. The men already have paid for their is
cretions by losing live days' pay.
8,518 "giii" Unisian
erican Federation of Government Employees
AFFILIATED WITH THE AFECIO
HN F. CRINER
CLYDE M. WEDNER
DOUGLAS 11. KERSHAW
!OWAL PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
NATIONAL
MORTEN J. DAVIS
NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON, D. C.
ROOM 0001
010 SOUTHWEST DROADWAY
PORTLAND. OMBOON 97205
TELEPHONE (500) 227.5039
NEFER TO FILE:
November 10, 1972
Judge Oliver Seth
Judge Howard Bratton
Judge Edwin L. Machem
U. S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87100
Dear Sirs:
In the matter of Civil Suit No. 9626, C. R. Mancari, Anthony Franco,
Wilbert Garrett and Jules Cooper, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, vs. Rogers C. B. Morton, as Secretary of
the Interior; Louis R. Bruce, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Walter
O. Olson, as Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque Area
Office; and Anthony Lincoln, as Area Director, Burcau of Indian Affairs,
Navajo Area Office; defendants, I desire to submit the following infor-
mation pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. The U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs is only one of two Indian Services
directly affected. by Title 25, USC Sections 44,46, and 472; and that
Indian Health Service (USPHS-DHEW) is the other;
2. That Title 25, Sections 44, 46, and 472 of the U. S. Codes is appli-
cable only to positions in the Indian Services (Agencies) - i.e., BIA
and IHS equally, which number approximately 26,000 employees (19,000 in
BIA and 7,000 in IHS (USCSC 6-9-72 figures)); that about one-half of
these positions are non occupied by Indians, the number of non-Indian
employees potentially affected by the court action being about 13,000;
3. That thei American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO)
Grepresents a certain number of non-Indian employees of IHS;
4. That, because of fear of retribution by superiors, a portion of
said non-Indian employees of IHS, have asked The to represent then in
a response to the court's request for information (re Notice - pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); and,
Judge Oliver Seth
2
November 10, 1972
Judge Howard Bratton
Judge Edwin L. Machem
Albuquerque, New Mexico
5. That many of the non-Indian employees of IHS consider themselves in
the identical situation of plaintiffs in No. 9626 Civil and consider
the representation by the plaintiffs to be fair and accurate. Further,
except for the fear of retribution, that some of my members indeed would
want to join with plaintiffs and be party to that cause.
Rabet Cr Sincerely yours,
ogler
Robert C. Nogler
National Representative
Eleventh District AFGE
RCN:jp
PART 111. in 1112 COMPLETED I:V CARLOYCE
RESIGNATION UMPORTANT soil 10 EMPLOYEE or пригорь your Areid generalmed 1141MI. eveh 01 "sh dealth
I RESIGN For THE HOLLOW % PEASONS
Sentowber 12, 1973
(1)wie " written)
Present Bureau of Indian Affairs policy concerning employee promotions,
reassignments etc. appears to be based primarily on Race and not on
merit considerations. Other employment is available to me which will
not impose racial restrictions on my ability to advance in skills and
knowledge.
THE EFFECTIVE DATE of MY RESIGNATION WILL DE September 29, 1972
Pay (Signature)
PART IV. SEPARATION DATA
FORWARD COMMUNICATIONS. INCLUDING SALARY CHECKS AND BONDS. 10 THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
(Number and Street)
(City)
(State)
(ZIP Code)
PART 1. (Continued)
F. REMARKS BY REQUESTING OFFICE:
BETAL FORD
PART 11. (Continued)
30. STANDARD FORM 50 REMARKS
SUBJECT 10 COMPLETION a 1
YEAR PROSATIONARY (OR TRIAL) PERIOD COMMENCING
SERV CE COUNTING TOWARD CAREER (OR FERMANENT) TENURE FROM:
SUCCESSOR POSITION-EMPLOYEE RETAINED IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE
PAYPANCE PERFORMANCE PATING SATISFACTORY
SEPARATIONS: SHOW PEASONS BELOW. AS REQUIRED. CHECK. IF APPLICABLE:
DURING PROBATION
FROM APPOINTMENT OF 6 MONTHS OR LESS
I RESIGN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS Believing in the precepts of our
December 22, 1970
beloved Constitution, I can no longer work under the
(Date minetion " unlis)
Communistic tactics and the 100% discrimination against the white race practiced by
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in general, and the Administrative Officers of
the Aberdeen area Office, in particular, the Area Director and the Asst. Area
Director in charge of Administration. They break U.S. Civil Service Laws and
Regulations and even the Constitution of our United States means nothing to them.
They refuse to consider a white person for promotion regardless of their merit.
Mr. Briscoe is the immediate Supervisor of his wife a GS-11. All of this is com-
pletely undermining the morale of BIA employees. The white people are seriously discrim
I cannot and I will not be a part of dragging our flag through the mud and I will
not be subservient to another race. WE ARE ALL EQUAL. That is what our fore-
fathers fought and died for. I hereby tender my resignation in the service of
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MY RESIGNATION WILL BE
the country I so love. God help these
United States.
Evelyn O'Brien Morgeson
PART IV. SEPARATION DATA
FORWARD COMMUNICATIONS. INCLUDING STARY CHECKS AND BONDS. TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS
(Number and Street)
(City)
(State)
(ZIP (will
417 No. Jay St.
Aberdeen,
South Dakota
57401
PART 1. (Continued)
F. REMARKS BY REQUESTING CEFICE:
PART 11. (Continued)
30. STANDARD FORM 50 REMARKS
SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF 1
YEAR PRODATIONARY (CR TRIAL) PERIOD COMMENCING
SERVICE.COUNTING TOWARD CAREER (OR PERMANENT) TENURE FROM:
SUCCESSOR POSITION-EMPLOYEE RETAINED IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE
INTRANCE PERFORMANCE RATING SATISFACTORY
SEPARATIONS. SHOW REASONS BELOW. AS REQUIRED. CHICK. IF APPLICABLE
DURING PROBATION
FROM APPOINTMENT OF ( MONTHS OR LESS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING CFFICE 121-0-300 463 10H
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242
NETLY REFER TO:
jual Employment
Opportunity
OCT 1 6 1972
Memorandum
To:
Area Directors
Area Equal Employment Opportunity Officers
Equal Employment Opportunity Counsellors
From:
Bureau Equal Employment Opportunity Officer
Subject: Discrimination Complaints based on Indian Preference
This office has received several letters complaining of alleged racial
discrimination in promotional opportunities in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs as a result of the Indian Preference Policy announced on
June 23, 1972.
In Executive Order 11478, issued August 8, 1969, President Nixon
assigned the Civil Service Commission overall responsibility for
leadership and guidance of the Federal Government's internal equal
employment opportunity program. The Executive Order prohibits
discrimination in Federal employment on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. It provides for an affirmative
action program to assure equal opportunity in all aspects of Federal
employment, and contains provisions for prompt, fair, and impartial
processing of complaints of discrimination in Federal employment
based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Equal
employment opportunity is national policy and is applicable to all
citizens. It is not restricted to any particular segment or segments
of our population.
With reference to employment in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, however,
there is a Federal policy of "Indian Preference" embodied in Section 12
of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 9S5,
986; 25 U.S.C. 472). This legislation directs the Secretary of the
Interior "to establish standards of health, age, character, experience,
knowledge, and ability for Indians who may be appointed, without regard
to civil service lows, to the various positions maintained, nor or
hereafter, by the Indian Office, in the administration of functions
or services affecting any Indian tribe. Such qualified Indian shall
2:
hereafter have the preference to appointments to vacancies in any such
position. " Indian preference eligibles are further defined as those
having one-fourth or more degree of Indian blood. The Civil Service
Commission supports and agrees with the announced interpretation of:
Indian preference laws and has indicated that this policy interpretation
is consistent with programs administered by the Commission.
We have the responsibility of giving full effect to the Indian preference
laws which Congress has enacted and that, of course, is the purpose of
the policy revision approved by the Secretary. Any questions concerning
the validity of those laws is not a matter of administrative determination.
He are aware that our interpretations have been challenged in the United
States District Court in New Mexico, and shall, of course, be bound by
any final judicial decision resulting from that action.
The impact of Indian preference has been weighted against Veteran
preference, by the Civil Service Commission, which is a program
comparable in nature and intent. Incidentally, neither has been
determined to be discriminatory, and it has been determined that in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian preference prevails over Veteran
preference.
The effect of the most recent legislation places the responsibility
for monitoring Federal Employment Programs under the Civil Service
Commission, and in view of the fact that they support the position
on Indian preference announced by the Department, we do not regard
this as an issue for consideration as a discrimination complaint.
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer
ORIGINAL TO:
John Ratchford
COPY FYI TO:
Brad Patterson
THE NAVAJO NATION
WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA 86515
PETER MacDONALD
CHAIRMAN
September 15, 1976
gr-1
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing you to urge your signature on H.R. 5465
"An Act to revise retirement benefits for certain
employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian Health Service not entitled to Indian preference,
provide greater opportunity for advancement and
employment of Indians and for other purposes. " It
has never been the intention that non-Indian employees
of the government should unduly suffer from Indian
preference or self determination. This bill should
go a long way to insure equitable treatment while
furthering Indian preference and your policy of
Self-Determination.
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
Respectfully,
Peter MacDonald, Chairman
Navajo Tribal Coundil
1976 SEP 17 PM I 43
MAIL ROOM
WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Gerald Ford
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Blad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Tom GoNiNion
OF (Orgenization)
Aberdeen Ind. Health few.
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
(605)225-0250 (605) 225-0250 X 553
re: H.R.5465
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
pl.
9/16
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1969-o68-16-80841-1 382-389
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
CARL Smith
OF (Organization)
So. DAKITA
B.I.A.
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
Re: H.R. 5465
(605) 224-8865
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1960-o48-16-80341-1 833-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Jed Kearns
OF Poplar (Organization)
Montana PHONE NO. B.I.A
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
support HR.5465
(406) 768-3441
RECEIVED BY
DATE
REVISED AUGUST 1967
yot
9/16
TIME
213
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1909-o48-16-80341-1 : 383-889
63-108
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Blad
X
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Elsie Kolstead
OF (Organization)
Bi illings, Montana
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
(406) 245-6 711
X 6301
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
pe GPO 1969-c48-16-30341-1 882-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Fred Hamel
OF (Organization)
Billings, mt.
PHONE.NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
Supports HR 5 465
(406)248-3284
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1969-o48-16-80341-1 332-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
neil Mc Kenzie
OF (Orgenization)
CROW Agency, Mt. B.I.A.
PLEASE CALL
PHONE NO.
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
H.R. 5465
lend support, please
RECEIVED BY
STANDARD FORM 63
yot.
DATE 9/16
TIME
GPO : 1969-o48-16-80341-1 382-389
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
BRAd
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
OF (Organization)
John Fleming
Indian Hea Lth Services
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
RE: H.R. 5465
(801) 723- 2880 FORD
& LIBRARY GERALD
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1969-c48-16-60341-1 832-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
IHS
No queat reades
of indueduals 600 in lifetume of
bill (5 yrs)
Would privately
FORD 3 EFBRARY OFRALD
Mr. signature
(ouly 100 ebgable as
Mat our 20-30 -40.50
19t gran)
kn 1st years so
X30 32 our 5-year period
May try to orenide.
150-200
our 600
FORD is LIBRARY
MT:
Presauelly no problem u concert
Too libral 50r20 ( bill - 25at any age
Coupuss would last does - ! pubsibly: week us t left .
movid A and of 05HS our objectors
Spesher 245 less a prosual neteral
of Hunduson. Strees stay
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Virginia Elimit
OF (Organization)
lings PHONE appeals- NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
(406)
245-6711
X6615
RECEIVED BY
TIME
in
DATE 9/15
310
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO 333-389
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
People ant used 4
lost they can E
refund by tribes a
see engloyed avvituants.
or counectuate
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Crivit -Daniel -
OF (Organization)
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
5509- ret- berefit 2808
544 1112-
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1969-o48-16-80341-1 332-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
Calendar No. 971
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 5465
[Report No. 94-828]
[Report No. 94-1029]
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MAY 4, 1976
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
MAY 13, 1976
Reported by Mr. McGEE, with an amendment and an amendment to the title
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
JUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations
JULY 2 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976
Reported without amendment
GLEATO R.FORD LIBRARY
AN ACT
To allow Federal employment preference to certain employees
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to certain employees of
the Indian Health Service, who are not entitled to the
benefits of, or who have been adversely affected by the
application of, certain Federal laws allowing employment
preference to Indians, and for other purposes.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That, for purposes of this Act
II-0
2
3
1
(1) "eligible employee" means an employee who
1
(2) "vacancy" means a vacancy in & position in
2
(A) is employed in a position in the Bureau
2
the competitive service for which the minimum rate of
3
of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior,
3
basic pay is less than the minimum rate for GS-16.
4
or in the Indian Health Service of the Department
4
terior who has received a specific notice of separation
5
of Health, Education, and Welfare, under a career
5
by reduction in force;
6
or ft career-conditional appointment, and who has
6
(5) by an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
7
been so employed since June 17, 1974; and
7
who
8
(B) is not entitled to benefits under, or has
8
(A) must be reassigned because of circum-
9
been adversely affected by the application of
9
stances beyond his control which threaten his life
10
(i) section 12 of the Act of June 18, 1934
10
or health, and
11
(25 U.S.C. 472);
11
(B) cannot be reassigned to a position within
12
(ii) the first section of the Act of June 7,
12
the Bureau of Indian Affairs because of the opera-
13
1897 (25 U.S.C. 274);
13
tion of any provision of law referred to in para-
14
(iii) the Act of April 30, 1908, and see-
14
graph (1) (B)- of the first section of this Act; or
15
tion 23 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (25 U.S.C.
15
(6) by an employee of the Trust Territory of the
16
47);
16
Pacific Islands who is displaced by a Micronesian and
17
(iv) section 6 of the Acts of May 17, 1882,
17
must be returned to the United States.
18
and July 4, 1884 (25 U.S.C. 46);
18
Sec. 3. When an appointing authority has twice con-
19
(1) section 2069 of the Revised Statutes
19 sidered and passed over an eligible employee (disregarding
20
(25 U.S.C. 45);
20 any instance in which another eligible employee or an indi-
21
(vi) section 10 of the Act of August 15,
21 vidual referred to in section 2(b) of this Act was appointed
22
1884 (25 U.S.C. 44); or
22 to the position), such eligible employee is entitled to appoint
23
(vii) any other provision of Federal law
23 ment to the next occurring vacancy in such Department for
24
providing Indians preferential employment con-
24 which he applies, unless the appointing authority deter-
25
sideration for positions within the Federal com-
25 mines that compelling reasons exist for passing over such
26
petitive service; and
26 employee, and files such reasons in writing with the Civil
4
5
1 Service Commission. The Commission shall make such
1 shall be submitted not later than the 90th day following the
2 reasons a part of the record of the eligible employee and
2 date of the determination of the Civil Service Commission
3 may require the submission of more detailed information in
3 under section 3 of this Act.
4 support of the passing over of such employee. The Commis-
4
SEC. 5. The appointment to each vacancy occurring in
5 sion shall determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
5 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (other
6 reasons submitted and shall send its findings to the appoint-
6 than a vacancy occurring in the Indian Health Service)-
7 ing authority, who shall comply with the findings of the
7 shall be made, with respect to applicants who are eligible
8 Commission. The eligible employee or his representative, on
8 employees of the Indian Health Service, in accordance with
9 request, is entitled to & copy of
9 the provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Act. For the
10
(1) the reasons submitted by the appointing
10 purposes of applying such provisions, references therein to
11
authority; and
11 the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be deemed to be refer-
12
(2) the findings of the Commission.
12 ences to the Indian Health Service, and references to the
13
SEC. 4. An eligible employee who is passed over for
13 Department of the Interior shall be deemed to be references
14 compelling reasons determined to be sufficient by the Civil
14 to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
15 Service Commission under section 3 of this Act, upon his
15
SEC. 6. (a) The Civil Service Commission shall pre-
16 application, shall be
16 seribe such regulations as it deems necessary to carry out
17
(1) separated from the service and, if otherwise
17
the provisions of this Act.
18
eligible, shall be entitled to an annuity under the pro-
18
(b) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply
19
visions of section 8336(d) of title 5, United States
19 with respect to vacancies occurring during the 3-year period
20
Code; or
20 beginning with the month which begins more than 90 days
21
(2) entitled to appointment, in accordance with
21 following the effective date of this Act, except that the Civil
22
section 3 of this Act, to the next occurring vacaney
22 Service Commission may extend such period + additional year
23
for which he is qualified.
23
with respect to vacancies
24 A separation under paragraph (1) of this section shall be
24
(1) in the Department of the Interior, or
25 deemed to be an involuntary separation from the service. An
26 application for separation under paragraph (1) of this section
6
7
1
(2) in the Department of Health, Education, and
1 ing a preference to Indians in promotions and other personnel
2
Welfare, or
2 actions.".
3
(3) in both Departments.
3
SEC. 2. Section 8339 of title 5, United States Code, is
4
(c) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall take effect
4 amended-
5 on October 1, 1976, or on the date of the enactment of the
5
(1) by inserting in subsection (f), immediately
6 Act, whichever date is later.
6
after "subsections (a)-(e)", the following: "and (n)";
7 That section 8336 of title 5, United States Code, is amend-
7
(2) by inserting in subsection (i), immediately
8 ed by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and in-
8
after "subsections (a)-(h)", the following: "and (n)";
9 serting the following new subsection:
9
(3) by inserting in subsections (j) and (k)(1),
10
"(h) An employee is entitled to an annuity if he (1)
10
immediately after "subsections (a)-(i)" each time it
11 is separated from the service after completing 25 years of
11
appears, the following: "and (n)";
12 service before December 31, 1985, or after becoming 50 years
12
(4) by inserting in subsection (1), immediately
13 of age and completing 20 years of service before December 31,
13
after "subsections (a)-(k)", the following: "and (n)";
14 1985, (2) was employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
14
(5) by inserting in subsection (n), immediately
15 or the Indian Health Service continuously from June 17,
15
after "subsections (a)-(e)", the following: "and (n)";
16 1974, to the date of his separation, (3) is not otherwise
16
and
17 entitled to full retirement benefits, (4) is not an Indian
17
(6) by adding at the end thereof the following:
18 entitled to a preference under section 12 of the Act of
18
"(n) The annuity of an employee retiring under section
19 June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986) or any other provision of
19 8336 (h) of this title is:
20 law granting a preference to Indians in promotions and
20
"(A) 21/2 percent of his average pay multiplied by
21 other personnel actions, and (5) can demonstrate that he
21
so much of his total service as does not exceed 20 years;
22 has been passed over on at least two occasions for promotion,
22
plus
23 transfer, or reassignment to a position representing carcer
23
"(B) 2 percent of his average pay multiplied by SQ
24 advancement because of section 12 of the Act of June 18,
24
much of his total service as exceeds 20 years.".
25 1934 (18 Stat, 986) or any other provision of law grant-
8
1
SEC. 3. (a) Section 8341 of title 5, United States Code,
2 is amended-
3
(1) by inserting in subsection (b) (1), immediately
4
after "section 8339(a)-(i)", the following: "and (n)";
5
and
6
(2) by striking out of subsection (d) "section 8339
7
(a)-(f) and (i)" and inserting in lieu thereof the
8
following: "section 8339 (a)-(f), (i), and (n)".
9
(b) Section 8344(a)(A) of such title is amended by
10 striking out "and (i)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(i),
11 and (n)".
12
SEC. 4. The amendments made by this Act shall take
13 effect on October 1, 1976, or on the date of enactment of this
14 Act, whichever date is later, and shall only apply to cm-
15 ployees separated from the service on and after June 17,
16 1974.
Amend the title SO as to read: "An Act to revise retire-
ment benefits for certain employees of the Bureau of In-
dian Affairs and the Indian Health Service not entitled to
Indian preference, provide greater opportunity for ad-
vancement and employment of Indians, and for other pur-
poses.".
Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 1976.
Attest:
EDMUND L. HENSHAW, JR.,
Clerk.
Calendar No. 971
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H.R.5465
[Report No. 94-828]
V
[Report No. 94-1029]
AN ACT
To allow Federal employment preference to
certain employees of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and to certain employees of the In-
dian Health Service, who are not entitled to
the benefits of, or who have been adversely
affected by the application of, certain Fed-
eral laws allowing employment preference to
Indians, and for other purposes.
MAY 4, 1976
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service
MAY 13, 1976
Reported with an amendment, and an amendment to
the title
JUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations
JULY 2 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976
Reported without amendment
i
2
Pro - HR5465 Conserence Rpt
Passed Fri,
3
9/10
4
5
6
JR-1
Boigstram
The White House
to
1
2
non. Indians- early Bushington, retirement
m
3
WHD016
719P EDT SEP 9 76
09/209/768
4
5
ICS IPMMTZZ CSP
6
7045866024 TDMT SYLVA NC 30 09-09 0426P EST
7
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
9
WHITE HOUSE
10
11
WASHINGTON DC
12
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF BILL HR5465
13
14
BECAUSE IT IS FELT THAT THIS BILL IS THE ONLY EQUITABLE ONE FOR
15
INDIAN AND NON INDIAN EMPLOYEES.
16
17
BONNIE COGDILL BIA EMPLOYEE CHEROKEE AGENCY CHEROKEE NC
18
NNNN
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. U.S.A.
20
21
22
23
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
24
25
26
2
3
4
5
6
Moune
1
2
3
WHD016 719P EDT SEP 9 76
WAG318(1706) (2-042630E253)PD 09/09/76
4
ICS IPMMTZZ CSP
1976 SEP 9 PM 7 20
5
6
7045866024 TDMT SYLVA NC 30 09-09 0426P EST
7
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
9
WHITE HOUSE
10
11
WASHINGTON DC
12
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF BILL HR5465
13
14
BECAUSE IT IS FELT THAT THIS BILL IS THE ONLY EQUITABLE ONE FOR
15
INDIAN AND NON INDIAN EMPLOYEES.
16
17
BONNIE COGDILL BIA EMPLOYEE CHEROKEE AGENCY CHEROKEE NC
18 NNNN
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED at THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY IL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Bro HR 5465
3
4
5
6
35 JR-1 2 3 1 35200
She White House
Weekington
4
WHA008(1100) (2-011247A253)PD 09/09/76 1059
5
1976 SEP 9 PM 12 05
ICS IPMAFUB AHG
6
7
202 A 06007 POM JUNEAU ALASKA 15 09-09 855A PDT
8
PMS PRES FORD
9
10
WHITEMOUSE DC
11
PLEASE APPROVE HR5465 THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
12
13
FOR INDIANS
14
ROGER FITZGERALD
15
16
RR4 BOX 4473 JUNEAU AK 99803
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S.A.
20
21
22
23
24
25 NNNN
26
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
WHA008 (1100) (2-011247A253)PD 09/09/76 1059
2
0
5
ICS IPMAFUB AHG
6
7
202 A 06007 POM JUNEAU ALASKA 15 09-09 855A PDT
8 PMS PRES FORD
9
10 WHITEHOUSE DC
11 PLEASE APPROVE HR5465 THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
12
13 FOR INDIANS
14
ROGER FITZGERALD
15
16
RR4 BOX 4473 JUNEAU AK 99803
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, 0 S.A. U.S.A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
NNNN
26
2
ib
Bro HR 5465
3
4
5
352
to
6
The White House
1
TR-1
2
3
4
WHA010(1148) (2-021493E253)PD 09/09/76 1148
5 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP
1976 SEP 9 PM 12 56
6
7
5059886271 POM TDBN SANTA FE NM 14 09-09 1148A ES,
8 PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
9
10
WHITE HOUSE DC
11
PLEASE SIGN HOUSE BILL 5465 SUPPORTING NON INDIAN GOVERNMENT
12
13
EMPLOYEES DEPRIVED OF MERIT PROMOTION
14
CAL E ROLLINS2937 BELLAMAH DR/SANTA FE/NM 87501
15
16 NNNN
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S.A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
3
4
5
6
Muties
1
2
3
4
WHA010(1148) (2-021493E253)PD 09/09/76 1148
5 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP
1976 SEP 9 PM 12 56
6
7
5059886271 POM TDBN SANTA FE NM 14 09-09 1148A EST
8 PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
9
10
WHITE HOUSE DC
11 PLEASE SIGN HOUSE BILL 5465 SUPPORTING NON INDIAN GOVERNMENT
12
13
EMPLOYEES DEPRIVED OF MERIT PROMOTION
14
CAL E ROLLINS2937 BELLAMAH DR/SANTA FE/NM 87501
15
16 NNNN
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY. V. S.A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Gw HR 5465
3
4
5
3/35/20
6
The Ellipite House
1
Manigington
2
3
JR-1
WHB005 (1032) (2-015154E253)PD 09/09/76 1032
4
5
ICS IPMMTZZ CSP
1976 SEP 9 PM 12 06
6
7044979131 POM TDMT CHEROKEE NC 9 09-09 1032A EST
7
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
9
WHITE HOUSE DC
10
11
REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF HR5465. THANK YOU
12
JAKE HYATT BOX 493 CHEROKEE NC 28719
13
14 NNNN
15
16
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY U. U.S.A
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
WHB005 (1032) (2-015154E253)PD 09/09/76 1032
4
5
ICS IPMMTZZ CSP
1976 SEP 9 PM 12 06
&
7044979131 POM TDMT CHEROKEE NC 9 09-09 1032A EST
7
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
0
WHITE HOUSE DC
10
11
REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF HR5465. THANK YOU
12
JAKE HYATT BOX 493 CHEROKEE NC 28719
13
14 NNNN
15
16
17
18
19
FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, #. S.A U.S.A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
proHR5465
STATES POSTA
@
20T COGDILL
®
PO BOX 941
SILVA NC 28779
western union
Mailgram
UNITED *
U.S.MAIL
SERVICE *
*******
JR.1
2-044618E254 09/10/76 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHB
7045866697 MGM TDMT SILVA NC 100 09-10 0354P EST
PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON DC 20510
WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF HR 5465 BECAUSE
IT IS FELT THAT THIS BILL IS THE ONLY EQUITABLE ONE FOR INDIAN AND NON
INDIAN EMPLOYEES
MARGARET 0 COGDILL
CIA EMPLOYEE
CHEROKEE AGENCY
CHEROKEE NC
15:55 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
GLEATED FORD NEBRARY
REPLY BY MAIL-GRAM BEL REVERSE DIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBERS
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Service Unit Die, Utah
OF (Organization)
John Fleming
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
Re: Stevens
Bill
He is tele FAXING some
iN Formation to you this
morning
8.° FORD LIBRA
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
GPO :1960-c48-15-80341-1 9/20 332-889
10
19
or
STANDARD FORM 63
pt
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
1631 eligible
218 -679-3341 3341
6 220mg
$42
$107
Reesor
STATE
R.FORD AMERICA LIBRASE
6/28 BIA
14 IHS
107
a
842
JDE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE WHITE HOUSE
GERALO NE FORD STATES
WASHINGTON
Mauree
Reichlow
Jim Purce
Navago Plant M
BIA- Wuedon B
737 0585
or Galley
FORD LIBRARY & BERRED
NFFB
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Carl Smith
Charles Heinaman
OF (Organization)
OF (Organization)
PHONE NO.
Montano PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
(60.)
MESSAGE 2456296
MESSAGE
(406)638-2671 (406)
X53
hm- 624-7098
re: H.R. 5465
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
RECEIVED BY
DATE 9/16
TIME
m GPO :1989-648-16-83341-1 332-339
4-
RECEIVED BY
Cat
DATE
TIME
63-108
9/16
1021
STANDARD FORM 63
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO 048 883-389
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Dr. Rhodes
OF (Organization)
OKLAhoma City
PHONE NO.
X
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE (405) 272-9876 X 325
Indian Health Bill
VERIS
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1969-48-16-S0341-1 882-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
ELSIE KoLstEAd
OF (Organization)
Billings, PLEASE CALL
mt. PHONE NO. BIA
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
support for H.R. 5465
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
pl
9-17
GPO :1969-od8-16-80341-1 382-889
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
OF
James (Organization) Linbug
BI PHONE A NO. - Poplar north
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
HR 5465
RECEIVED BY
DATE 9/17
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
m
q-
GPO :1960-c48-18-80341-1 : 332-389
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Dr. Rhodes
OF (Organization)
Gkla PHONE CODE/EXT. City NO.
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
Re
HR 5465-
(405) 292.0 X325 9876
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
m
9/19
320
63-108
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1960-e48-10-80341-1 : 332-389
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE 9/17
MEMO TO:
Brad Patterson
FROM:
KAREN KEESLING kee
For appropriate handling
For your information
Per your request
Remarks:
Do you know any thing
about this bill ?
EMPLOYED
ZIA If F.E.W.
EMPLOYED VNOMEN
FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN
WOMEN
*
1963
P. 0. BOX 1699
ALBUQUERQUE N.M. - 87103
2 Sep 76
To The President
The White House
Washington D.C. - 20000
Sir:
As President of the Albuquerque (Zia) Chapter of Federally Employed Women,
Inc., I urge you to favorably consider HR-5465 granting Early Retirement
to non-preference employees of the Bureau Of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service.
It is my responsibility to represent all women Civil Servants in my area
and, because HR-5465 will be of great assistance to both Indians and non-
Indians, I can assure you that "Early Retirement is the only way to go".
The Government and the Nation have pledged Self Determination to the Amer-
ican Native peoples and the most effective way to achieve this is to give
them an Agency that truly understands their problems. Yet we cannot in
all conscience refuse non-preference employees their rights under the Civil
Service Act.
A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Major General Jeanne Holm of
your staff, and I do hope that you will find the time to confer with her
concerning the ramifications of this bill on women employees serving in both
the BIA and IHS.
Most Respectfully,
Bel Moore
Isobel M. Moore
President
FORD LIBRARY + GERALD
Personal Copy To:
Maj. Gen. Jeanne Holm
902 South Jay Street
Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401
September 17, 1976
The President
White House
Washington, D. C.
Attn: Mr. Brad Patterson
Dear Mr. Patterson:
In accordance with our conversation on September 16, 1976, I am sending
you a copy of the testimony presented to the House Subcommittee on Retire-
ment and Employee Benefits hearings on HR 5465 on February 3 and 4, 1976.
I believe this document covers the principal points in support of the legis-
lation.
A major concern of both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare, seems to be that the passage of HR 5465
would cripple the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service
through the retirement of an inordinate number of skilled mid and upper level
employees. I cannot speak for BIA nor for the other IHS Areas, but the fol-
lowing table demonstrates that the Aberdeen and Bemidji Areas of the Indian
Health Service (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, and Iowa) will lose only 53 employees between July 1, 1976 and
June 30, 1981. The initial eligibility of 26 in 1976-77 accounts for almost
one-half of the total. The average for the next five years (7/1/77 and
6/30/81) is only 5.4 employees per year. This is less than one percent of
the total Area employees.
HR5465 RETIREMENT ELIGIBLES - ABERDEEN AND BEMIDJI AREAS - IHS
As of 6/30/76:
50/20
21
any age/25
5
26
As of 6/30/77
50/20
6
aa/25
0
6
As of 6/30/78
50/20
2
aa/25
0
FORD LIBRARY & 07V839
2
AS of 6/30/79
50/20
3
aa/25
1
4
As of 6/30/80
50/20
6
aa/25
2
8
-2-
As of 6/30/81
50/20
7
aa/25
0
7
53
I'm sure you will agree that such an attrition rate is far better than
the normally expected turnover.
I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you to explain the
desperate need for this legislation. If you could arrange the time to
see me before you prepare the summary of recommendations for the Presi-
dent, my colleagues and I would be grateful. You may reach me at
(605) 225-0250, extension 553, or my home (605) 225-7978, if you believe
a visit would be useful.
Sincerely,
Thomas H. Goninion
ABERDEEN AREA
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT FOR HEARINGS ON HR 5858 AND HR 5465
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 3-4, 1976
I
BOTH THE PREFERENCE AND NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A VIRTUALLY UNTENABLE
EMPLOYMENT SITUATION BY THE SUDDEN RIGID APPLICATION OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE
PROVISIONS OF THE WHEELER - HOWARD ACT OF JUNE I8, 1934, BY THE SECRETARIES OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE AND INTERIOR, FORTY-TWO YEARS AFTER ENACTMENT!
IN RESPONSE TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN MORTON
VS, MANCARI (No. 73-362 JUNE 17, 1974) AND THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN FREEMEN vs. MORTON (No. 327-71 DECEMBER 21, 1972) THESE
AGENCIES HAVE BROADENED THEIR POLICY TO APPLY INDIAN PREFERENCE TO ALL PERSONNEL
MOVEMENTS IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE,
THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT:
"CONTRARY TO THE CHARACTERIZATION MADE BY APPELLEES THIS (INDIAN)
PREFERENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE 'RACIAL DISCRIMINATION'. INDEED,
IT IS NOT EVEN A RACIAL PREFERENCE. RATHER, IT IS AN EMPLOYMENT
CRITERION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF INDIAN SELF-
GOVERNMENT AND TO MAKE THE BIA MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF ITS
CONSTITUENT GROUPS."
THE LEGALITY OR CONSTITIONALITY OF THE SEVERAL INDIAN PREFERENCE STATUTES,
DATING BACK TO 1789, IS NOT AT ISSUE, ON THL CONTRARY, THE COURTS HAVE
DECIDED THAT THIS PREFERENCE IS A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO ASSURE THE INDIAN
TRIBES OF THE RIGHT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES AND TO OPERATE THE GOVERNMENT
PROGRAMS WHICH AFFECT THEM. THIS RIGHT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE CONGRESS
IN NUMEROUS ACTS AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE COURTS IN CASE AFTER CASE. WE DO
NOT QUAREL WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURTS AND WE MUST ABIDE WITH THEM.
2
HOWEVER, THE ACTIONS OF THE COURTS HAVE, IN EFFECT, INFORMED SEVERAL
THOUSAND FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES IN EITHER THE BIA OR THE IHS. THE PROTECTIONS OF
THE CIVIL SERVICE MERIT SYSTEM HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY
ERASED, THE PRIMARY CRITERION FOR PROMOTION, TRANSFER, IN FACT, ANY PERSONNEL
ACTION, IS INDIAN DESCENT! POTENTIAL ADVANCEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY BLOCKED, NOT
ONLY FOR NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES, BUT FOR THE PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES AS WELL,
BECAUSE THEIR ADVANCEMENT IS IMPEDED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE NON-PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES,
IN HIS REMARKS IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF HIS SENATE BILL
4070 IN THE 93RD CONGRESS, SENATOR TED STEVENS OF ALASKA SAID:
"THESE PERSONS (NON-INDIAN BIA AND IHS EMPLOYEES), NOT TOLD
DIFFERENTLY, QUITE RIGHTLY ASSUMED THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE
TO DEVELOP THEIR FULL CAREER POTENTIAL WITHIN EACH OF THESE
TWO PRINCIPAL ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE INDIAN
PEOPLE."
SINCE THE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF THESE AGENCIES WERE NOT ONLY
"NOT TOLD DIFFERENTLY", AND WE WERE REPEATEDLY AND EMPHATICALLY ASSURED
THAT WE WOULD, INDEED, BE ABLE TO DEVELOP OUR "FULL CAREER POTENTIAL",
THERE WAS NO NEED TO ASSUME OTHERWISE. Now, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT WE
WERE SERIOUSLY, AND IN SOME CASES PERHAPS DELIBERATELY AND CALLOUSLY, MISLED
BY AUTHORIZED AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. WE WERE HIRED UNDER
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CONCERNING
CRITERIA FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE: ABILITY, TRAINING,
EDUCATION, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE.
3
ITEM:
MEMORANDUM TO ALL BIA EMPLOYEES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS, JULY 30, 1970:
"I HAVE ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS FOR A REVIEW OF PERSONNEL
POLICIES TO (I) PLACE MAXIMUM ATTENTION ON INDIAN
PREFERENCE IN INITIAL EMPLOYMENT; (2) PROVIDE MAXIMUM
TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES ; AND (3)
ASSURE ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES ON MERIT PROMOTION
PRINCIPLES, WITH SAFEGUARDS TO SEE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED."
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
ITEM:
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS MEMORANDUM, THREE MONTHS LATER:
"THE BUREAU'S EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
WILL EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT INDIAN PREFERENCE WILL BE
GIVEN ONLY IN INSTANCES OF INITIAL EMPLOYMENT AND RE-
EMPLOYMENT. PROMOTIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS
OF MERIT. BUREAU EMPLOYEES ARE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND
AS SUCH, THE NATURE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS CONTROLLED BY
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS."
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
ITEM:
MEMORANDUM FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO HEADS OF
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, MARCH 6, I975:
"OUR NATION'S STRENGTH IS BASED UPON THE CONCEPT OF
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OUR CITIZENS. DECISIONS
MOTIVATED BY FACTORS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF A JOB HAVE NO PLACE IN THE EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM OF
ANY EMPLOYER AND PARTICULARLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."
4
ITEM:
LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
TO SENATOR GALE W. MCGEE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE
AND CIVIL SERVICE, U. S. SENATE, SEPTEMBER I5, 1974:
"THE GENERAL RULE UNDER COMMISSION REGULATIONS IS THAT
EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE COMPETITIVE CIVIL SERVICE IS ELIGIBLE
TO MOVE "NONCOMPETITIVELY" THAT IS, WITHOUT FURTHER COMPETI-
TION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS--
TO ANY OTHER POSITION IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE HE QUALIFIES
FOR."
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO FIND CLEARER STATEMENTS
OF THE COMMITTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO THE INTENTIONS OF
THE CONGRESS THAT FEDERAL PERSONNEL SYSTEMS BE CONDUCTED ON THE BASIS OF
MERIT, WITHOUT REGARD TO MATTERS OF RACE, SEX, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
OR AFFILIATION. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM FROM THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, MORRIS THOMPSON, TO ALL BIA AREA DIRECTORS,
PERSONNEL OFFICERS, AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICERS ON APRIL 4,
1975:
SUBJECT: ADHERENCE TO REGULATIONS, LAW, COURT ORDERS AND POLICY GOVERNING
INDIAN PREFERENCE IN ALL ACCESSION ACTIONS IN THE BIA:
"ON MARCH IL, 1975, WE FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF A TELETYPE
TO THE ANADARKO AREA WHICH REQUESTED A REPORT OF AN
ALLEGED REASSIGNMENT OF A NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEE WITHOUT
COMPETITION. THE ATTACHED COPY OF OUR TELETYPE OF MARCH
3I DIRECTS THE CANCELLATION OF THE REASSIGNMENT. DURING
THE THIRTY DAYS SINCE THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN, WE HAVE HAD
NUMEROUS REPORTS OF IT AND QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
5
CRITICAL EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHICH DICTATE THE MOVEMENT
OF AN EMPLOYEE OCCUR IN EVERY AREA AS WELL AS THIS OFFICE.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CASES WHICH WERE PRESENTED TO THE
APPEALS COURT WHEN WE ASKED FOR LIMITED AUTHORITY FOR THE
COMMISSIONER OR THE SECRETARY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS
FOR REASSIGNMENT OF NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEES. THE THREE-JUDGE
COURT DENIED THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN CASES WHICH INVOLVE
NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEES WHO MUST BE MOVED BECAUSE OF LOSS OF
EFFECTIVENESS WITH THE INDIAN PEOPLE, THREATS TO LIFE AND
PROPERTY, HEALTH REASONS, ETC., THERE MUST BE MAXIMUM co-
OPERATION AMONG AREAS TO LOCATE JOBS FOR WHICH QUALIFIED
INDIAN CANDIDATES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. WHEN THESE EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS ARISE, EFFORTS MUST BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY TO
LOCATE SUITABLE VACANCIES FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE MAY APPLY
OR MAY BE NOMINATED. THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED UNTIL
DETAILS FROM DUTY STATIONS HAVE REACHED OR EXCEEDED THE TIME
LIMITS.
WE ARE HOPEFUL THE OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHICH WE ARE PUTTING
INTO FINAL FORM FOR THE BUREAU AND THOSE PROGRAMS WHICH ARE
BEING DISCUSSED IN THE CONGRESS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND
OUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE AFFECTED
EMPLOYEES,
THE MEMORANDUM OF JUNE 28, 1974 (COPY ATTACHED) STATES THE
BUREAU POLICY. ALL APPOINTMENTS, REINSTATEMENTS, REASSIGNMENTS,
AND PROMOTIONS MUST CONFORM TO THE FREEMAN COURT DECISIONS
6
WHICH PROVIDE FOR ABSOLUTE INDIAN PREFERENCE IN FILLING
VACANCIES HOWEVER CREATED.'
ITEM:
LETTER TO SENATOR ROMAN HRUSKA OF NEBRASKA FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR FOR MANAGEMENT, RICHARD HITE, MARCH, I975:
"THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE REFERENCED BILL S-509
DEALING WITH EARLY RETIREMENT FOR NON-INDIANS IS THAT IS
DOES NOT REPRESENT A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, IT
COULD DEPRIVE THE BUREAU OF AN INORDINATELY LARGE NUMBER
OF HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES AT A TIME WHEN THEIR
EXPERTISE IS MOST NEEDED, WE BELIEVE THAT SUFFICIENT
ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE TO THOSE NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEES
WHO FEEL RESTRICTED, EITHER THROUGH DEPARTMENTAL MANDATORY
OR PRIORITY PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE."
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
GENTLEMEN, THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. To WIT: WE MUST ABIDE WITH
THE LAW CONCERNING INDIAN PREFERENCE. FURTHERMORE, THESE DEPARTMENTS
ARE CONVINCED THAT THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES TO EARLY RETIREMENT
THROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. AND, THESE DEPARTMENTS HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT THEY CANNOT PERFORM THEIR STATUTORY FUNCTIONS WITHOUT THE
SERVICES OF "A LARGE NUMBER OF HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES". CONSIDER,
FOR A MOMENT, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATEMENTS JUST RECITED:
I. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE BIA AND IHS ARE DEPRIVED
OF THEIR POTENTIAL FOR ADVANCEMENT.
7
2. AT A TIME WHEN MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE ON THE DOLE FOR WANT OF
EMPLOYMENT, THESE EMPLOYEES ARE OFFERED THE ALTERNATIVE OF ACCEPT-
ING THE STATUS QUO OR RESIGNING!
THERE IS A VERY UGLY WORD WHICH DESCRIBES SUCH A SITUATION IN WHICH
AN EMPLOYEE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OR STARVE - PEONAGE!
THERE ARE SEVERAL REFERENCES TO DEPARTMENTAL OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAMS IN
THE MASS OF STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH HAVE
BEEN OFFERED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATION. YET, TO OUR
KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO SUCH PROGRAM, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU INQUIRE OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE:
I. How MANY NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF BIA AND IHS HAVE BEEN
TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PROGRAMS THROUGH IN-HOUSE OR CSC OUT-
PLACEMENT MECHANISMS?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAS HISTORICALLY FOLLOWED THE LEAD OF THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN PERSONNEL POLICY MATTERS, WE ARE CONVINCED
THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN VIOLATION OF THE INTENT OF THE CONGRESS AND
OF THE "EQUAL PROTECTION" CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
EVEN THE MOST CURSORY PERUSAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF
AUGUST 5, I954, WHICH TRANSFERRED THE INDIAN HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES FROM
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
WELFARE, WILL REVEAL THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTOR INFLUENCING THIS TRANSFER
WAS THE INABILITY OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO ATTRACT SUFFICIENT
QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO OPERATE THE INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES, EVEN THE
SUPREME COURT LEFT THIS MATTER OPEN WHEN THEY DEVOTED ONLY A FOOTNOTE TO
8
THE MANCARI DECISION TO THE MATTER:
"PRESUMABLY, DESPITE THIS TRANSFER, THE REFERENCE IN SECTION I2 TO
THE 'INDIAN OFFICE' HAS CONTINUING APPLICATION TO THE INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE."
WE ARE SURE A THOROUGH TEST IN THE COURTS WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR OF
THIS PRESUMPTION.
As FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE CAVALIER ATTITUDE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN GIVING LIP SERVICE TO EMPLOYEE
RIGHTS AND CONCERNS WHILE CONTINUING TO HOLD THE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES
IN ECONOMIC PEONAGE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE
TO TWO RECENT EVENTS:
THE FIRST IS A MEMORANDUM FROM MR. JOSE ZUNI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS OUTLINING A PROPOSED ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH CAN ONLY BE
INTERPRETED AS BEING DESIGNED TO EFFECTIVELY SCUTTLE ANY OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM.
MR. ZUNI'S MEMORANDUM TRANSMITS THE RESULTS OF AN "INFORMAL SURVEY"
WHICH PURPORTS TO INDICATE THE NUMBER OF BIA EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD DESIRE
OUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE ALONG WITH A FEW HIGH PRIORITY OUTPLACEMENT
EMPLOYEES WHO WE ASSUME MUST BE MOVED BUT HAVE NO PLACE TO GO IN THE BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, THE NUMBER DESIRING OUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE AS GIVEN
IN THE MEMORANDUM REPRESENTS LESS THAN ONE-SIXTH (1/6) OF THE BIA STAFF
PERSONNEL. IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION
IN THE INDIAN SERVICES TO ACCEPT THIS ESTIMATE: HOWEVER, IT WOULD SEEM TO
CONTRADICT THE BUREAU'S ARGUMENT THAT EARLY RETIREMENT OR AN EFFECTIVE
OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM WOULD BE EXTREMELY COSTLY AND RESULT IN AN UNPRECEDENTED
EXODUS OF "HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES WHEN THEIR EXPERTISE IS MOST NEEDED"
CONTRARY TO THE OPINIONS PRESENTED BY THE OPPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION,
9
THE EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM WE ARE FAMILIAR WHO WISH TO LEAVE THE INDIAN SERVICES
WANT TO GET OUT BY WHATEVER ROUTE IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, NOT ONLY TO CONTINUE
THEIR CAREERS IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE, OR, IF THEY MUST, ATTEMPT TO
BEGIN NEW ONES, BUT ALSO, ALTHOUGH IT MAY SEEM UNREALISTICALLY ALTRUISTIC
IN VIEW OF THE TREATMENT THEY HAVE SUFFERED, TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
THE INDIAN EMPLOYEES WHO WILL REPLACE THEM. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL WHO DESIRE
OUTPLACEMENT SHOULD PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF THE NUMBER OF BIA EMPLOYEES
WHO MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EARLY RETIREMENT, BUT OF COURSE, THE ACTUAL NUMBER
WOULD BE MUCH LESS BECAUSE MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.
THE SECOND RECENT EVENT WE WOULD LIKT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THE
MEMORANDUM FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO ALL BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES, DECEMBER I, 1975, SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT CAREER PLACEMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. A COPY OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS ALSO ATTACHED. AMONG THE
PREREQUISITS AN EMPLOYEE MUST FULFILL TO MEET THE OUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IS ONE WHICH REQUIRES
THE EMPLOYEE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS APPLIED FOR AT LEAST TWO VACANCIES
FOR WHICH HE WAS QUALIFIED AND FOR WHICH A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WAS SELECTED
OVER HIM. IT IS APPARENTLY NOT SUFFICIENT HUMILIATION TO BE A DE FACTO
SECOND CLASS EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYEE MUST HIMSELF PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE WHICH
AFFORD THE ADMINISTRATION THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND HIM OF THAT DISTRESSING
FACT AT LEAST TWICE. THE FINAL SECTION OF THE "OUT PLACEMENT PROGRAM",
SECTION 4, COUNSELLING, CONTAINS THIS STATEMENT:
"THERE ARE PRESENTLY 46 FORESTERS GS-9 IN THE ENTIRE BUREAU, Two
INDIAN AND FORTY-FOUR NON-INDIAN. WITH THIS RATIO, THE NON-INDIAN
FORESTER STILL HAS OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN THE BUREAU."
IF THIS WAS MEANT TO IMPLY THAT THEIR CHANCES FOR ADVANCEMENT HAVE NOT BEEN
IO
SERIOUSLY LIMITED, IT IS PATENTLY FALSE! IN THE FACE OF THIS LIMITED RATIO
OF NON-PREFERENCE TO PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES, THE BUREAU STILL HAD TO FILL THE
AGENCY'S TOP FORESTRY POSITION WITH A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE. THE TWO
PREFERENCE GS-9's, ALONG WITH OTHER PREFERENCE FORESTERS AT OTHER GRADE
LEVELS WOULD, AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT, HAVE THE CHOICE OF
JOBS, LEAVING ONLY THE LESS DESIRABLE POSITIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR THE NON-
PREFERENCE CANDIDATE, WHEN A SITUATION SUCH AS THIS EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE
DENIED THAT THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED, NOR CAN IT BE ARGUED
THAT THEIR CAREER OPPORTUNITIES HAVE NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE
INTRANSIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE AGENCIES.
IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THAT NO CLASS OR
PROFESSION EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN SERVICES CAN BE DEMONSTRATED NOT TO
HAVE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE
FORD
REQUIREMENT OF THE AcT OF 1934. MOST INDIVIDUALS, WHEN JOINING AN ORGAN-
IZATION, LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN
THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE, NOT WITHIN A NARROW SEGMENT OF IT. IN THE
PAST, FORESTERS HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE UP; TO BECOME ADMINISTRATORS,
REALTY SPECIALISTS, PROGRAMMERS, ETC. THESE AVENUES OF UPWARD MOBILITY,
ADVANCEMENT, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN CLOSED, THIS IS TRUE NOT
ONLY FOR FORESTERS, BUT FOR NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES IN OTHER DISCIPLINES
AS WELL. THERE IS NOT, AND WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE
STATUTE, THERE CANNOT BE AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE BUREAU OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS NOR IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE. THERE IS EITHER PREFERENCE
OR NON-PREFERENCE, AND ANY SEMBLANCE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR NON-PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES IS AT BEST, SUPERFICIAL AND EPHEMERAL.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY THE CONGRESS HAS THE
II
AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE IN INDIAN COUNTRY, AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW OF THE LEGAL
HISTORY OF UNITED STATES - INDIAN TRIBAL RELATIONS, AND THE LEGAL STATUS OF
INDIANS AND INDIAN COUNTRY, SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BY
HIS SOLICITOR GENERAL, MR. NATHAN R. MARGOLD ON OCTOBER 25, 1934, LEAVES
NO ROOM FOR CONJECTURE ON THIS POINT. IT IS THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ONLY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS THE POWER TO PROVIDE AN
EQUITABLE REMEDY FOR THE UNFORTUNATE INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENT OF THE
CONGRESS WHICH HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY THE JUDICIARY.
GERALOR FORD LIBRARY
CONGRESSMEN RUNNELS OF NEW MEXICO, PRESSLER OF SOUTH DAKOTA AND YOUNG
OF ALASKA, THREE STATES WITH SUBSTANTIAL INDIAN CONSTITUENCIES, HAVE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL GO FAR TOWARD SOLVING THIS DILEMNA BY
ALLOWING NON-PREFERENCE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES HAVING COMPLETED TWENTY (20)
YEARS OF SERVICE BEFORE DECEMBER 3I, 1985, AND CONTINUOUSLY WITH THE BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OR THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE SINCE JUNE 17, 1974, THE DATE
OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MANCARI, TO RETIRE FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE,
THEREBY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND ADVANCEMENT
OF INDIANS, IN ORDER FOR THE INDIAN PEOPLE TO ASSUME TOTAL CONTROL AND
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS WHICH MOST AFFECT THEIR LIVES,
THEY MUST CONTROL THESE POWERFUL AGENCIES WHICH ARE MOST CLOSELY RELATED TO
THEM. To ACCOMPLISH THIS END, THEY MUST, OF NECESSITY, DISPLACE THE NON-
INDIAN AND NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF THESE AGENCIES, WE CAN BE SURE THE
INDIAN PEOPLE WILL APPROVE OF THIS; THEY WANT THESE OPPORTUNITIES, THERE WILL
BE NO LACK OF PREFERENCE APPLICANTS FOR EVERY VACANCY, WHEN THE NON-PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES LEAVE FEDERAL SERVICE, THERE WILL BE NO VACUUM IN BIA OR IHS.
SUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN VOICED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
I2
AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE. THE MOST FREQUENT ARGUMENT
IS THAT THE EXODUS OF THE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WOULD DEPRIVE THE INDIAN
SERVICE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES AT A TIME WHEN THEY
ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED TO FULFILL THE MISSION OF THE BUREAU AND INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT
AGAIN, THIS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO PEONAGE.
ANOTHER FREQUENTLY HEARD ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGIS-
LATION IS THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD CREATE A "SPECIAL CASE" FOR A RELATIVELY
SMALL SEGMENT OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE. SUCH AN ARGUMENT IS ILLOGICAL
AND IGNORES THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. THE CONGRESS AND JUDICIARY HAVE
ESTABLISHED THAT A SPECIAL CASE EXISTS; IN THE INDIAN PREFERENCE STATUTES.
PURE LOGIC DEMANDS THAT IF "A" IS A SPECIAL CASE BEFORE THE LAW AND "B"
IS AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES, THEN "B" IS ALSO A SPECIAL
CASE. RES IPSA LIQUITUR! THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF,
FORD
LIBRAR
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS: THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ENJOYS
TWENTY-YEAR RETIREMENT FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE A
SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ANNUAL GROSS INCOME. SIMILAR "EARLY
RETIREMENT" BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIREFIGHTERS;
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS; LEGISLATION IS PENDING WHICH WILL EXTEND THIS
SAME RETIREMENT OPTION TO EMPLOYEES OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO PLACE THE ANNUITY INTO
CLOSE AGREEMENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
FIREFIGHTER'S RETIREMENT AcT, AS HERE BRIEFLY QUOTED FROM THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE'S ALMANAC, 1975:
13
"THE BASIC ANNUITY OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO RETIRES UNDER THE SPECIAL
PROVISIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND/OR FIREFIGHTING PERSONNEL IS
FIGURED BY TAKING 2-I/2 PERCENT OF THE "HIGH 3" AVERAGE PAY AND
MULTIPLYING THE RESULT BY 20 YEARS (INCLUDING CREDIT SICK LEAVE).
THEY ALSO TAKE NO CUT IN ANNUITY FOR RETIRING UNDER AGE 55."
IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS OF THE RETIREMENT ANNUITY COMPUTATION PROVISIONS
OF THIS LEGISLATION, WE BEG YOU TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE ANNUITY
BENEFIT AN EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE WILL BE BASED ON HIS "HIGH 3" AVERAGE PAY AND
THAT THIS BASELINE FIGURE WILL BE DETERMINED BY HIS GRADE LEVEL AND YEARS OF
SERVICE, QUITE FRANKLY, WE KNOW OF VERY FEW, IF ANY, AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN
EITHER THE BIA OR IHS WHO WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE HIS OR HER PRESENT LiFE-
STYLE ON THE 50% OF THEIR SALARY THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER
THIS LEGISLATION, THE AVERAGE GRADE OF THE ABERDEEN AREA EMPLOYEES WHO
WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS AcT IS GS-9, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN AVERAGE
RETIREMENT PENSION OF $6,750.00 PER YEAR OR $130.00 PER WEEK WHICH IS LESS
THAN MANY SO-CALLED DISADVANTAGED PERSONS RECEIVE IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
THIS RAISES ANOTHER OF THE OPPOSITION'S FAVORITE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION: THE COST! IF ALL OF THE SEVERAL HUNDRED
EMPLOYEES OF THE BIA AND THE IHS WHO WERE ELIGIBLE WERE TO RETIRE ON THE
DATE THE LAW TOOK EFFECT, THE COST TO THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN I% OF THE BIA-IHS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974!
IN FEBRUARY, I975 WE WROTE A LETTER TO MR. ROBERT HAMPTON, CHAIRMAN
OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ASKING HIM FOR A STATEMENT OF
THE COMMISSION'S POSITION OF SENATE BILL S-509, THE COMPANION LEGISLATION
I4
TO THE BILLS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUR INQUIRY WAS PROMPTLY ACKNOWLEDGED,
AND ON JUNE 2, 1975 WE FINALLY RECEIVED A REPLY FROM MR. JOHN G. McCARTHY,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF RETIREMENT, INSURANCE AND OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH, U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, FROM WHICH THE FOLLOWING IS QUOTED:
"WE RECOGNIZE THAT CURRENT BIA AND IHS PERSONNEL POLICIES DO
LIMIT NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEE CAREER PROSPECTS, AND THUS WE CAN
UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN IN THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS A
STAFF RETIREMENT PLAN; ITS PRIMARY INTENTION IS TO REWARD THE
PERFORMANCE OF CAREER SERVICE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY
PROVIDING BENEFITS AT RETIREMENT IN AMOUNTS DIRECTLY RELATED
TO AN EMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL SERVICE AND SALARY HISTORY. IN LIGHT
OF THIS OBJECTIVE, WE HAVE GENERALLY OPPOSED THE INTRODUCTION
OF EMPLOYMENT FACTORS INTO THE RETIREMENT ANNUITY COMPUTATION
PROCEDURES WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY UNRELATED TO THE LENGTH OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL SERVICE OR TO HIS SALARY HISTORY DURING THE
PERIOD."
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
THE BALANCE OF THIS LETTER INDICATES THAT THE AGENCY WHOSE ENTIRE REASON FOR
BEING SINCE ITS INCEPTION ALMOST A CENTURY AGO HAS BEEN TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL
CIVIL SERVICE FROM THE SPOILS SYSTEM IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AND STAND AS A
SAFEGUARD AGAINST MANIPULATION AND COERSION OF EMPLOYEES AND CONTRAVENTION
OF MERIT PRINCIPLES, CONSIDERS THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM A "MAN-
AGEMENT TOOL" AND A "REWARD". GENTLEMEN,
BENEFITS AT RETIREMENT IN
AMOUNTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO AN EMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL SERVICE AND SALARY HISTORY"
ARE AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER HERE UNDER DISCUSSION!
IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT ANY RESTRICTION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S CAREER
I5
POTENTIAL OR UPWARD MOBILITY MUST, OF NECESSITY, PLACE A SIMILAR RESTRICTION
ON HIS ULTIMATE RETIREMENT BENEFITS. IN EFFECT, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO
SACRIFICE OUR OPPORTUNITIES TO EARN REASONABLE SECURITY AND A MODICUM OF
DIGNITY FOR OUR TWILIGHT YEARS ON THE ALTAR OF EXPEDIENCY. THE NON-
PREFERENCE CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE BIA AND IHS ARE REQUIRED, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, TO ACCEPT LESS THAN THEIR ABILITIES, SKILLS AND EFFORTS
MIGHT ACHIEVE BECAUSE OTHERS MIGHT BE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK "SPECIAL" BENEFITS
AND THAT WOULD DIMINISH THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM'S VALUES AS A "MANAGEMENT
TOOL", AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VIEWS THIS AS A "HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE
PROSPECT". FURTHERMORE, IF RETIREMENT IS INDEED A REWARD, WHY THEN ARE WE
ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE 7% OF OUR ANNUAL GROSS INCOME TO THE RETIREMENT FUND?
MY COPY OF WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE, COLLEGE
EDITION, DEFINES "REWARD" AS:
"SOMETHING GIVEN IN RETURN FOR GOOD OR, SOMETIMES, EVIL OR FOR
SERVICE OR MERIT."
THERE IS NOTHING THERE CONCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE PART OF THE RECIPIENT
OTHER THAN SERVICE OR MERIT. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT IS NOT A REWARD ANY
MORE THAN DEATH BENEFITS PAID BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY. ON THE CONTRARY,
IT IS A HARD-WON, EARNED AND PAID FOR BENEFIT, AND AS SUCH, IS A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THE COMPENSATION OF EVERY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.
IN ALL CANDOR, CAN THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE BIA OR IHS
BE CALLED ANYTHING OTHER THAN PEONAGE? "TAKE WHAT WE GIVE YOU OR GET OUT!"
"DON'T COMPLAIN OR ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS FREE
CITIZENS OR YOU MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE WRATH OF THE ADMINISTRATION." CAN
ANYONE OFFER ANOTHER SINGLE WORD WHICH SO ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THIS SITUATION?
MR. HENDERSON HAS OFFERED AN ALTERNATIVE TO EARLY RETIREMENT. HOUSE
I6
BILL 5465 WOULD PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY OUTPLACEMENT PREFERENCE FOR AFFECTED
NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES TO MIGRATE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES, AT A TIME
WHEN MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS ARE UNEMPLOYED, WHILE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
ARE BEING REQUIRED TO REDUCE THEIR WORKFORCES, IT IS PROPOSED THAT DISPLACED
NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF BIA OR IHS SHOULD BE GIVEN PREFERENCE IN FILLING
VACANCIES IN OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES! SUCH A PROGRAM WOULD BE AS PATENTLY
UNFAIR TO THE PRESENT EMPLOYEES OF THE RECEIVING AGENCIES AS THE EXISTING
INDIAN PREFERENCE POLICY IS TO US,
SOME TIME AGO, MR. PAUL HARVEY DEVOTED ONE OF HIS BROADCASTS TO THIS
ISSUE, IN COMMENTING ON THE RECENT PROLIFERATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
PLANS, HIRING QUOTAS AND OTHER SCHEMES TO "CORRECT" PRIOR DISCRIMINATION,
MR. HARVEY STATED THAT, IF DISCRIMINATION, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IS WRONG,
THAT WRONG CANNOT BE CORRECT BY "REVERSE" DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE, AS IS
so ELOQUENTLY ENUNCIATED IN THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR MOST OF
US LEARNED AT OUR MOTHER'S KNEE: TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!
FORD
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE VIABILITY OF ANY OUTPLACE-
MENT MEASURE, IT IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DISTINCT STIGMA OF LESS THAN
COMPLETE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE CONNECTED WITH EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDIAN
SERVICES, WE ARE QUITE CERTAIN THAT THIS ALLEGATION WILL BE VIGOROUSLY
DENIED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS OPPOSED TO THE ADOPTION
OF THIS LEGISLATION. BUT, BELIEVE ME, JUST AS CERTAINLY AS THERE IS AN
IMAGINARY EQUITORIAL LINE WHICH DIVIDES NORTH FROM SOUTH ON THIS WHIRLING
BALL OF MUD, THIS BARRIER TO MIGRATION TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES OR DEPART-
MENTS WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL AND HUMILIATING REDUCTION IN GRADE AND SALARY
EXISTS,
I7
IN THE FACE OF THE DECEMBER 31, 1985 LIMIT WRITTEN INTO THE PROPOSALS,
SOME PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THOSE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHO WILL NOT
COMPLETE THE REQUIRED TWENTY YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE BY THE DEADLINE DATE.
FOR THESE PEOPLE, AN OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE, BUT,
BEAR IN MIND THAT ANY SUCH MEASURE MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO OVERCOME
THE NATURAL RELUCTANCE OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS TO ACCEPT PERSONNEL IMPOSED
UPON THEM BY OUTSIDE AGENCIES,
WE WHO ARE URGING THE ADOPTION OF THESE PROPOSED STATUTES ARE NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE ALLEGED WRONGS OR DISCRIMINATION THE INDIAN
PEOPLE MAY HAVE SUFFERED DURING THE PAST THREE HUNDRED YEARS, NONE OF US
ARE IN POSITIONS TO CONTROL THE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
TOWARD THE INDIAN PEOPLE, WE HAVE DONE OUR UTMOST TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS
TO GIVE AN HONEST DAY'S WORK IN RETURN FOR AN HONEST DAY'S PAY. MOST OF US
HAVE REACHED THAT STAGE IN OUR LIVES WHERE THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPING
NEW CAREERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED. YET WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT THERE ARE NO
MORE RUNGS TO OUR LADDERS. ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION, TRANSFER, TRAINING,
IN SHORT ALL OF THE USUAL PERSONNEL MOVEMENTS IS RESERVED FOR OTHERS
NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE ANY MORE TO EARN THEM THAN WE, BUT BECAUSE THE
LAW SAYS IT IS THEIR RIGHT. IN ALL SINCERITY, WE CANNOT DISPUTE THE RIGHT
OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE TO ATTEMPT TO RULE THEIR OWN DESTINIES. As WE STATED
EARLIER, HOWEVER, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL, THEN WE, THE
NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES, MUST BE DISPLACED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THEM. IF THEY
ARE TO BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP TO THEIR POTENTIAL, IT IS NEITHER JUST NOR
EQUITABLE TO RESTRAIN THIS NATURAL PROCESS BY IMPEDING THEIR UPWARD MOBILITY.
ONE FINAL WORD: CUSTER DID NOT DIE FOR OUR SINS! IF THE AMERICAN
INDIAN ETHNIC IDENTITY, THE SURGING TIDE OF THEIR CULTURAL AWARENESS IS
I8
TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF TODAY, THE NON-
PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHO NOW OCCUPY MID-LEVEL AND SUPERVISORY POSITIONS
MUST BE GIVEN AN INCENTIVE TO RETIRE AND LEAVE THE FIELD WITH HONOR,
For myself and other concerned Federal Civil Service Employees of.
the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
THOMAS H. GONINION
902 SOUTH JAY STREET
ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA
ABERDEEN AREA
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT FOR HEARINGS ON HR 5858 AND HR 5465
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
UNITED STATES HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 3-4, 1976
My COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE PREPARED A STATEMENT OF OUR VIEWS ON THE MATTERS
BEFORE THIS HEARING, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF WE
LEARNED THAT YOU PREFERRED NOT TO DUPLICATE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO
THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS, RATHER, YOU WERE INTERESTED IN HEARING
OF SPECIFIC CASES, THEREFORE, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WILL PRESENT OUR
PREPARED STATEMENT TO THE CLERK FOR THE RECORD, AND CONFINE MY REMARKS
HERE TO MORE DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTS THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 12
OF THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1934 HAS HAD ON THE NON-PREFERENCE
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
AT THE OUTSET IT IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME THE DIFFICULTY OF SHIFTING THE
BURDEN OF PROOF OF OUR ALLEGATIONS FROM THE EMPLOYEES TO THE AGENCIES,
WE RECOGNIZE THIS AS CONTRARY TO THE BASIC TENETS OF JURISPRUDENCE,
AND RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT IN THIS INSTANCE YOU SHOULD SET ASIDE
THIS CONCEPT, AND SEEK THE TRUTH, WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND, WE BELIEVE
IT WILL BE FOUND IN THE FILES OF THE AGENCIES.
IN THE REAL WORLD, IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE PROOFS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. I WILL PRESENT SEVERAL CASES
OF WHICH I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND AM ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
HOWEVER, I WILL GIVE YOU, FOR THE RECORD, A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF
DOCUMENTARY AND OTHER EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION, AND REQUEST THAT YOU
FORWARD THIS MATERIAL TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR INVESTIGATION.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WILL PRESENT THIS TO THE CLERK FOR THE RECORD.
COPIES HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF,
BRIEFLY, WE ASK THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE OUR ALLEGATIONS
THAT CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL
THEIR MINISTERIAL DUTIES IN THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 12 TO THE
PERSONNEL POLICY OF THE INDIAN SERVICES; THAT THEY HAVE IGNORED THE
WHOLE BODY OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND REGULATION IN ABROGATING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE NON-PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES OF THESE AGENCIES, WHO ARE CAREER FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE
PERSONNEL,
ACCUSE IS PERHAPS TOO STRONG A WORD TO DESCRIBE THIS SITUATION. THIS
WORD IMPLIES SOME SORT OF MALEVOLENT INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE, THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
WELFARE, AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
No ONE INVOLVED BELIEVES SUCH A THING. HOWEVER, MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEGUN
TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO HOPE OF ANY REMEDY, SHORT OF AN APPEAL TO
THE COURTS FOR RELIEF. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INDIAN SERVICES HAS ERRED
GRIEVIOUSLY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE LAWS, WE
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES INTENDED TO
DESTROY THE CAREERS OF ALMOST 9,000 CIVIL SERVANTS WHEN THIS LAW WAS
ENACTED! FURTHERMORE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE SEVERAL CASES IN-
VOLVING INDIAN PREFERENCE WERE SO NARROWLY DRAWN THAT THE COURTS HAD
NO CHOICE; THEY WERE FORCED TO DECIDE THESE CASES ON THEIR MERITS
AND THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS PRESENTED.
FOR EXAMPLE, NOWHERE IN THE DECISIONS, EITHER FREEMAN VS, MORTON OR IN
MORTON VS, MANCARI, HAVE WE FOUND ANY REFERENCE TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, WE THINK THIS CONCEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AS
HANDED DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE. UNITED STATES IN YICK Wo vs,
HOPKINS, AND BROWN VS, BOARD OF EDUCATION APPLY TO OUR SITUATION,
WE ARE CERTAIN THE COURT ERRED IN THE DECISIONS IN FREEMAN AND MANCARI,
AND WE FULLY EXPECT THEM TO BE REVERSED, JUST AS PLESSY VS, FURGUSON
AND OTHER LANDMARK CASES HAVE BEEN REVERSED. BUT IT TAKES TIME FOR THE
SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER AND CORRECT AN ERROR IN A DECISION. FOR
THIS REASON, WE HAVE BROUGHT OUR PLIGHT TO THE CONGRESS. THE FACT
THAT WE ARE INVITED HERE TODAY IS AN INDICATION OF THE CONCERN OF THE
CONGRESS, AND ALSO OF THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES, THAT THERE IS A WRONG
HERE WHICH MUST BE REDRESSED,
R. FORD LIBRAN
BEFORE I BEGIN THIS RECITATION OF GRIEVANCES, PLEASE LET ME ASSURE YOU
THAT WE ARE NOT ATTACKING THE INDIAN PEOPLES IN ANY WAY. WE DO NOT
INTEND TO IMPLY THAT THE THOUSANDS OF HARDWORKING, COMPETENT AND
DEDICATED INDIANS EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN SERVICES ARE THE CAUSE OF
THIS PROBLEM, ON THE CONTRARY, THE INDIAN PEOPLES ARE AS MUCH VICTIMS
OF THE SYSTEM AS THE NON-INDIANS! THE PRESENCE OF THE NON-PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES IMPEDES THEIR PROGRESS TOWARD FULL SELF DETERMINATION AND
REALIZATION OF THEIR GOALS JUST THE SAME AS THE APPLICATION OF INDIAN
PREFERENCE TO ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE INTERFERES WITH THE CAREERS OF NON-PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES,
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE CASES, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE
TO LET ME TRY TO ANSWER THEM, As I SAID, I WILL GO INTO DETAILS ONLY
ON THOSE CASES OF WHICH I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AND TRUST YOU TO
INVESTIGATE THE OTHERS,
THE FIRST CASE INVOLVES A SECRETARY IN MY OFFICE, THIS EMPLOYEE
WORKED IN THE SAME POSITION FOR 6 1/2 YEARS IN A FULL-TIME TEMPORARY
STATUS, THE ABERDEEN AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE BRANCH OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT DETERMINED THAT IN ORDER TO CONVERT THIS POSITION FROM
TEMPORARY TO PERMANENT CAREER STATUS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED
FOR SEVEN (7) DAYS. THE INCUMBENT EMPLOYEE WAS THE ONLY QUALIFIED
APPLICANT, SHE WAS SELECTED BY HER SUPERVISOR, WITH THE CONCURRENCE
OF THE OFFICE DIRECTOR AND THE SIGNED SELECTION CERTIFICATE WAS
FORWARDED TO THE AREA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICE. THE
ACTING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT THE
POSITION BE READVERTISED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS IN ORDER TO ALLOW
MORE TIME FOR INDIAN CANDIDATES TO APPLY. THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY OFFICER PERSONALLY RECRUITED PREFERENCE CANDIDATES
TO APPLY, TWO (2) OF WHOM DID SO, ONE DECLINED THE POSITION, AND
AN UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL INFORMED THE OTHER THAT SHE HAD BEEN SELECTED
BEFORE THE SELECTION CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN SIGNED OR THE CANDIDATE
INTERVIEWED! THE CASE IS NOW IN THE FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS IN THE
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
--THE SECOND CASE CONCERNS A SUPERVISORY STATISTICAL ASSISTANT, NON-
INDIAN, FEMALE, WITH TEN (10) YEARS PROGRESSIVELY RESPONSIBLE EXPERIENCE
SINCE 1964 IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND STATISTICS
BRANCH, SIX YEARS AT THE GS-9 LEVEL, WHO APPLIED FOR THE ANNOUNCED
GS-11 PUBLIC HEALTH ANALYST AND CHIEF, PROGRAM ANALYSIS BRANCH,
POSITION ON THE RETIREMENT OF HER SUPERVISOR, SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN GIVEN A TEMPORARY PROMOTION TO GS-11 TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY
BRANCH CHIEF WHILE HER SUPERVISOR WAS IN EXTENDED LEAVE (TRIAL
RETIREMENT) STATUS FROM DECEMBER 1973 TO MARCH 1974, FROM THE
TIME OF HER SUPERVISOR'S RETIREMENT IN OCTOBER 1974 UNTIL AN INDIAN
CANDIDATE WAS SELECTED IN APRIL 1975, SHE WAS DESIGNATED ACTING
BRANCH CHIEF. THE PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WAS APPOINTED IN AN INITIAL
CLASS B EXCEPTED CATEGORY AT GS-11 UNTIL HE HAS COMPLETED A YEAR'S
EXPERIENCE, THE NON-PREFERENCE INCUMBENT RECEIVED A LETTER OF NON-
SELECTION,
--THE NEXT ONE DEALS WITH THE SERVICE UNIT DIRECTOR POSITION AT ONE
OF OUR IHS HOSPITALS, THE NON-INDIAN, FEMALE ACTING SERVICE UNIT
U.S. FORD LISTED
DIRECTOR WAS PASSED OVER BY THE SELECTING OFFICIAL (THE TRIBAL
HEALTH BOARD!!) ALTHOUGH SHE HAD FUNCTIONED IN THE POSITION IN ALL
BUT TITLE AND SALARY FIVE YEARS, BEFORE ENOUGH POLITICAL PRESSURE WAS
BROUGHT TO BEAR TO PUT AN INDIAN IN THE POSITION. THE INDIVIDUAL
SELECTED TO FILL THE POSITION IS NOW IN AN ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
PROGRAM UNDER THE WOMAN HE REPLACED! SHE STAYS ON THE JOB BECAUSE
SHE HAS A DEEP LOVE AND RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE SHE SERVES AND CANNOT
BEAR TO SEE THEM SUFFER BECAUSE OF HER MISFORTUNE! SHE HAS ALSO
INVESTED OVER FIFTEEN (15) YEARS OF HER LIFE IN HER CAREER,
--THEN THERE IS THE CASE OF ROY MAX JOHNSON, A GS-9 FORESTER, STAFF
ASSISTANT, IN THE MINNESOTA AGENCY BIA, WHO APPLIED FOR THE POSITION
OF FORESTER, GS-9/11 IN THE FORT WASHAKIE, WIND RIVER AGENCIE, MR.
JOHNSON HAS SERVED OVER TEN (10) YEARS AS A BIA FORESTER, IN PROGESS-
IVELY RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS, A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WITH LESS THAN
TWO (2) YEARS LIMITED EXPERIENCE WAS SELECTED OVER HIM BY THE TRIBAL
COUNCIL! MR. JOHNSON ASKED IN HIS FORMAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS INCLUDE
THE REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDARD FORM 171,
PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT) BY OTHER THAN AUTHORIZED APPOINTING
OFFICIALS AND SELECTING OFFICIALS,
(IT IS NOW ROUTINE PRACTICE IN BOTH THE BIA AND THE IHS FOR APPLICATIONS
FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TO BE REFERRED TO NON-FEDERAL PERSONS AND
AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND SELECTION FOR POSITIONS IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL
SERVICE!)
--THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXTREMELY COMPETENT HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE
FOREMAN WHO WAS PASSED OVER FOR A SIMILAR POSITION IN ALASKA,
FORD AIDRES
--THE GS-9 TEACHER AT FORT THOMPSON WHO WROTE A SPECIAL RECOURCES
PROJECT (AND SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED IT) WHO WAS INFORMED THAT IT
SHOULD BE A GS-11, BUT SHE WOULDN'T WANT TO LOSE HER SITUATION
WOULD SHE? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED AND A PREFERENCE APPLICANT
WOULD BE CERTAIN TO BE APPOINTED
--THE TEACHER WHO LOST OUT ON A TRANSFER TO THE FOREST SERVICE BECAUSE
HIS PRINCIPAL DIDN'T THINK HE COULD OPERATE THE SCHOOL WITHOUT HIM AND
REFUSED TO PROVIDE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION
--THE GS-13 HEALTH EDUCATOR WHO WAS OFFERED A GS-14 POSITION, BUT
WHEN HIS AREA DIRECTOR REFUSED A RECOMMENDATION THE OFFER WAS WITH-
DRAWN
--THE ISOLATED INDIAN DAY SCHOOL THAT OPERATED WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL
FOR OVER A YEAR, BEFORE A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WAS FOUND WHO WOULD
ACCEPT THE ASSIGNMENT
--HOWARD P. EDWARDS, HOUSING PROGRAM COORDINATOR WHO HAS APPLIED FOR
AT LEAST SIX (6) POSITIONS, ALL BUT ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILLED BY
A LESS WELL QUALIFIED PREFERENCE CANDIDATE, AND HAD HIS EEO COMPLAINTS
ANSWERED BY QUOTATIONS OF EEO TECHNICALITIES AND BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLE-
TALK ...
--FRANK E. PICK, GS-9, EDUCATION SPECIALIST, WAS DETAILED FROM THE EDUCA-
TION DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVAJO AREA TO THE U. S. INDIAN POLICE TRAINING
& RESEARCH CENTER, ACADEMY UNIT, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH, FOR ONE MONTH,
HE HAS BEEN THERE OVER TWO (2) YEARS, WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL POSITION
DESCRIPTION AND WITHOUT ORDERS, DURING THIS TIME HE HAS LOST OVER
200 HOURS OF ACCUMULATED ANNUAL LEAVE BECAUSE HE WAS REQUIRED TO
ASSIST WITH THE TRAINING PROGRAM
--VERNON L. ERICKSON, GS-9, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR, WITH OVER TWELVE (12)
YEARS PROGRESSIVELY RESPONSIBLE EXPERIENCE IN BIA LAW ENFORCEMENT.
PASSED OVER FOR A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WHO WAS MINIMALLY QUALIFIED
...
ALSO PASSED OVER FOR A MINIMALLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE WHO HAD FLUNKED OUT
OF THE BIA POLICE TRAINING ACADEMY WHERE MR. ERICKSON TAUGHT
...
--JOHN FLEMING, GS-13, ASSISTANT AREA DIRECTOR, PASSED OVER FOR A GS-14
PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISOR POSITION IN THE DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE, LIAISON
BETWEEN IHS AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE
HIGHLY QUALIFIED, TRAINING
IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. A SCHOOL TEACHER WITH A CLOUDED EMPLOYMENT
RECORD WAS SELECTED, BUT REJECTED BY THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
THE POSITION WAS READVERTISED, A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE FROM OKLAHOMA WAS
SELECTED, MR. FLEMING WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED, YET HIS APPLICATION WAS
ON FILE IN THE PERSONNEL OFFICE!
--JERRY OCHSNER, ENGINEERING DRAFTSMAN, GS-4, SINCE SEPTEMBER 1974,
DISPLACED BY A QUALIFIED PREFERENCE APPLICANT
--LA YWAUNA JEAN HATWAN, GS-3, CLERK-TYPIST FROM JULY 1970 UNTIL A
"QUALIFIED" PREFERENCE APPLICANT WAS LOCATED FOR THE POSITION IN
NOVEMBER 1971
--DONALD LEE KELLER, BACKHOE OPERATOR FROM MARCH 1971 UNTIL FEBRUARY 1975,
THE JOB HAD TO BE ADVERTISED AND A "QUALIFIED" INDIAN TOOK THE JOB
FROM HIM,
--PAUL EDWARD KELLER, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, GS-7 FROM JULY 1970 UNTIL
THE BRANCH WAS INSTRUCTED TO ADVERTISE THE POSITION AND A "QUALIFIED"
INDIAN WAS LOCATED
...
--ROBERT J. KRAMER, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, GS-5 FROM OCTOBER 1970,
THE JOB WAS ADVERTISED AND A "QUALIFIED" INDIAN APPLIED
MR.
KRAMER RESIGNED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 21, 1975
--ELDORIS SCHAMBER, SECRETARY, GS-5 ENTERED ON DUTY 1968, RESIGNED
OCTOBER 16, 1975, THE POSITION WAS ADVERTISED AND NO QUALIFIED
CANDIDATES APPLIED. MISS SCHAMBER RETURNED WHEN THE JOB WAS RE-
ADVERTISED, BUT COULDN'T BE HIRED FOR HER OLD JOB BECAUSE A QUALIFIED
INDIAN APPLIED
--DONNA WAGNER, CLERK-TYPIST, GS-4 FROM APRIL 1970 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1972
WHEN HER JOB WAS ADVERTISED AND A "QUALIFIED" INDIAN APPLIED
--IN 1975 THE BILLINGS AREA OFFICE, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, ADVERTISED
FOR A CONTRACTING OFFICER, GS-12, K.L. THOMPSON, GS-11 CONTRACT
SPECIALIST IN THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE FOR FOUR (4) YEARS, THIRTEEN
(13) YEARS IN INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION, 1 1/2
YEARS AS PROPERTY AND SUPPLY OFFICER SERVICES, APPLIED BUT WAS PASSED
OVER IN FAVOR OF A GS-9 APPLICANT WITH NO PREVIOUS INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE EXPERIENCE BUT WITH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF INDIAN BLOOD
--A GS-13 SAFETY OFFICER IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AREA OFFICE
ELECTED TO ACCEPT A REDUCTION IN GRADE AND SALARY TO TRANSFER TO
THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
--IN DECEMBER 1973 A GS-7 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT (NON-INDIAN),
WITH TEN (10) YEARS OF PROCUREMENT EXPERIENCE WAS ADVISED VERBALLY
(LATER BY MEMO) SHE WAS BEING DETAILED TO THE PROCUREMENT SECTION
AS ACTING PROCUREMENT OFFICER (THE POSITION WAS CLASSIFIED GS-9),
IN FEBRUARY OF 1974, THE AREA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICER (NON-INDIAN)
WAS ADVISED HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SUPERVISING THE PROCUREMENT
SECTION IN ADDITION TO HIS OTHER DUTIES; THIS ALSO BY MEMO. BOTH OF THE
EMPLOYEES WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE SITUATION WAS TEMPORARY -
UNTIL A RECLASSIFICATION OF THEIR JOBS COULD BE MADE, IN AUGUST OF 1974
BOTH EMPLOYEES WERE SUMMONED BY THE ACTING DEPUTY AREA DIRECTOR TO HIS
OFFICE, HE SAID HE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE BRANCH OF PERSONNEL THAT
IF THEIR JOBS WERE RECLASSIFIED TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL DUTIES, THE
JOBS WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED, AND IF ONE PERSON WITH INDIAN
PREFERENCE APPLIED AND WAS EVEN MINIMALLY QUALIFIED HE/SHE WOULD BE
SELECTED AND THE TWO (2) EMPLOYEES WOULD "BE OUT IN THE COLD"! HE
SAID UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IF HE WERE THEM HE'D "SURE GET OUT OF BIA,
THERE'S NOT MUCH FUTURE FOR EITHER ONE OF YOU HERE." HE SAID THE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICER WAS BEING RELIEVED OF HIS ADDITIONAL
DUTIES IMMEDIATELY. THE GS-7 WOULD CONTINUE AS ACTING PROCUREMENT
OFFICER, HOWEVER, SHE WAS BEING GIVEN A TEMPORARY PROMOTION TO GS-9,
NOT TO EXCEED 120 DAYS - THIS ACTION WAS "TO BUY TIME UNTIL WE CAN
DECIDE WHAT TO DO." UPON TERMINATION OF THE TEMPORARY PROMOTION,
A GS-5 PURCHASING AGENT (NON-INDIAN) WAS DESIGNATED AS ACTING PRO-
CUREMENT OFFICER (BY MEMO) FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1975;
SINCE THAT DATE THE OFFICE HAS BEEN WITHOUT A PROCUREMENT OFFICER!
--THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICER GS-9 (NON-INDIAN) HAS SINCE BEEN
ADVISED THAT DUE TO RESTRUCTURING OF THE AREA OFFICE HE WAS TO BECOME
A DIVISION HEAD, AGAIN WITH ADDITIONAL DUTIES: PROCUREMENT, OFFICE
SERVICES, SUPERVISION OF EIGHT (8) SUBORDINATE POSITIONS, BUT THERE
WOULD BE NO PROMOTION, SUCH AN ADVANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED
...
--EMPLOYEE, NON-INDIAN, GS-4, WITH TEN (10) YEARS EXPERIENCE APPLIED FOR
THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1975:
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN, GS-5
CLERK-TYPIST, GS-4
CONTRACT CLERK, GS-3/4
LOR ST FORD LIBRAN
GENERAL CLERK, GS-5
EACH TIME THIS EMPLOYEE WAS PASSED OVER AND PREFERENCE APPLICANT
INDIANS WITH LITTLE OR NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WERE HIRED
--ONE EMPLOYEE WAS SELECTED FOR A GS-5 SECRETARIAL POSITION, BUT WAS
NOT GIVEN THE JOB IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT OF THE THIRTEEN (13)
APPLICANTS SHE WAS THE ONLY PERSON "HIGHLY QUALIFIED". THREE (3)
APPEALS, THE LAST ONE BEING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION
AND WELFARE WERE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF INDIAN PREFERENCE, THIS
EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR TWO (2) OTHER VACANCIES AND WAS NOTIFIED THAT OTHER
APPLICANTS HAD BEEN SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGENCY PROMOTION PLAN
--IN 1973 A PHOENIX AREA EMPLOYEE WITH TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS EXPERIENCE
IN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY TWO (2) YEARS
IN THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE APPLIED FOR THE BRANCH CHIEF'S JOB IN
ALBUQUERQUE. HE WAS RATED AS THE BEST QUALIFIED OF ALL THE APPLICANTS
FOR THE JOB BUT WAS PASSED OVER FOR A PREFERENCE APPLICANT INDIAN
WHO WAS RATED THIRD ON THE REGISTER.
--IN 1974, THIS SAME INDIVIDUAL APPLIED FOR THE AREA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
OFFICER'S JOB IN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, HE WAS PASSED OVER FOR AN INDIAN
WHO HAD NO GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE, AND VIRTUALLY NO EXPERIENCE IN
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT -- HE WORKED FOR A COMMERCIAL TRUCKING FIRM IN
ANCHORAGE
--IN 1973 THIS SAME EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR THE JOB OF ASSISTANT CHIEF,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BRANCH IN THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE, HE WAS
PASSED OVER FOR AN INDIAN WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF ADMINIS-
TRATIVE SERVICES. THEN AN ABERDEEN AREA NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEE,
(WHO WAS ELIGIBLE BUT ELECTED NOT TO APPLY) WAS ASKED TO TRAIN THE
PREFERENCE APPLICANT WHO WAS SELECTED. A DIFFICULT SITUATION, TRAINING
YOUR SUPERVISOR!
--IN 1973 A GRADE GS-12 EMPLOYEE IN THE ABERDEEN AREA ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES BRANCH APPLIED FOR THE JOB OF ASSISTANT CHIEF, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES AND WAS BYPASSED FOR A PREFERENCE APPLICANT WHO HAD NO
EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
--IN EARLY 1974 THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE ISSUED A VACANCY NOTICE FOR
A POSITION IN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. A NON-PREFERENCE, HIGHLY
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WAS SELECTED. BEFORE A FORMAL OFFER WAS MADE,
IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBLE FOR INDIAN PREFERENCE WAS
INTERESTED AND THE CERTIFICATE REOPENED AND THE PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE
CANDIDATE HIRED,
-IN OCTOBER 1975 THE ABERDEEN AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AREA
CLASSIFICATION AND POSITION MANAGEMENT POSITION WAS ADVERTISED
UNDER THE PROMOTION PROGRAM. THREE (3) WELL QUALIFIED NON-INDIAN
CANDIDATES WERE CERTIFIED TO THE SELECTING OFFICIAL, HOWEVER, NO
SELECTION WAS MADE FROM THIS CERTIFICATE, ON JANUARY 4, 1976, AN
INDIAN WITH NO CLASSIFICATION EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER WAS APPOINTED
FORD
TO THIS CRITICAL MANAGEMENT POSITION
817
--AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF NURSING POSITION WAS FILLED WITH AN OUTSIDE
PREFERENCE APPLICANT ALTHOUGH TWO (2) HIGHLY QUALIFIED NURSES WHO WERE
ALREADY EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAD APPLIED
111
IT IS NOT ONLY IN THE AREA OF FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE CAREER APPOINTMENTS
THAT THIS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION EXISTS, IT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO
INCLUDE THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS PROVIDED BY THE CONGRESS TO ENABLE STUDENTS
AND OTHERS TO OBTAIN VALUABLE WORK EXPERIENCE AND INCOME,
ITEM: THE ABERDEEN AREA DIRECTOR, BIA, A GS-15 HAS ONE SON EMPLOYED
WITH THE IHS AS A GS-3, HIS DAUGHTER WAS ALSO EMPLOYED BY THE
IHS DURING THE PAST SUMMER AND NOW WORKS PART-TIME WHILE ATTENDING
THE LOCAL HIGHSCHOOL. ANOTHER SON WAS EMPLOYED DURING THE
1974-75 SCHOOL TERM AND WAS EMPLOYED FULL TIME DURING THE SUMMER
WITH THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE. IN AUGUST 1975 HE RESIGNED
TO ATTEND COLLEGE IN ANOTHER CITY,
IN THE SAME VEIN, THE ABERDEEN AREA IHS TRIBAL AFFAIRS
OFFICER, GS-14, AND HIS WIFE, WHO IS EMPLOYED BY THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO IS EMPLOYED AS
A STUDENT AIDE WHILE ATTENDING SCHOOL
MEANWHILE, THE
CHILDREN OF LESS AFFLUENT FAMILIES ARE DENIED ACCESS TO
THESE SUPPOSEDLY PUBLIC PROGRAMS OF STUDENT ASSISTANCE
--A GS-12 EMPLOYEE OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE WITH OVER 25 YEARS
SERVICE ACCEPTED A DOWNGRADE TO GS-9 AND TRANSFER TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
AGENCY IN 1974 BECAUSE HE WAS CONVINCED THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY
IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND HE FEARED HIS CAREER WAS IN JEOPARDY.
--ANOTHER IHS EMPLOYEE WITH A NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE TRANSFERRED
TO THE U. S. FOREST SERVICE AS A GS-7 BECAUSE HE FELT HIS CAREER WAS
BLOCKED IN IHS. HE IS NOW A PERSONNEL OFFICER WITH THAT AGENCY
--A NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR TRAINING ON THREE OCCASIONS DURING
THE PAST THREE (3) YEARS AND WAS TURNED DOWN EACH TIME, ALTHOUGH
PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO APPLIED WERE APPROVED. WE HAVE
TWO STANDARDS - ONE FOR INDIANS AND ONE FOR NON-INDIANS
IN YET ANOTHER CASE, A MINIMALLY QUALIFIED INDIAN EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR
A TOP BRANCH CHIEF POSITION TOGETHER WITH EIGHT WELL QUALIFIED NON-
INDIAN EMPLOYEES. THE SUPERVISOR WANTED DESPERATLY TO HIRE THE BEST
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL BUT WAS FORCED TO APPOINT THE MINIMALLY QUALIFIED
PREFERENCE CANDIDATE,
--IN THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEE PROGRAM, IN ONE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AREA
OFFICE, TRAINEE POSITIONS WERE FILLED WITH PREFERENCE CANDIDATES AT
GRADES GS-5, 7, AND EVEN 12. AGAIN, WELL QUALIFIED NON-INDIANS WERE
AVAILABLE AND EAGER FOR THE OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY THIS PROGRAM,
BUT NONE WERE SELECTED. MANY OTHERS ARE INTERESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
BUT DO NOT APPLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IT IS RESERVED STRICTLY FOR
PREFERENCE CANDIDATES IN THE INDIAN SERVICES
To A GREAT EXTENT NON-INDIAN CANDIDATES ARE NO LONGER APPLYING FOR
ADVERTISED VACANCIES IN THE INDIAN SERVICES BECAUSE AFTER BEING TURNED
DOWN TIME AFTER TIME THEY HAVE LEARNED THAT THE PREPARATION AND SUB-
MITAL OF AN APPLICATION IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY. "WHAT'S THE
USE?" IS THE PREVAILING ATTUTUDE. ABOUT THE ONLY VACANCIES BEING
FILLED BY NON-PREFERENCE CANDIDATES EITHER BY INITIAL APPOINTMENT OR
PROMOTION ARE THE HARD TO FILL OR HIGHLY SKILLED PROFESSIONAL AND
PARA-PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINES OR AT ISOLATED OR OTHERWISE LESS
DESIRABLE LOCATIONS, THE NON-INDIAN POPULATION OF THE INDIAN
HOW U.S. FORD LIBRA
RESERVATIONS KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT WELCOME, SO WHY SHOULD THEY APPLY?
ALSO, ALL NON-INDIANS ARE WELL AWARE OF THE "WOUNDED KNEE" SITUATION
AT PINE RIDGE AND ROSEBUD AND THE ACTIVITIES OF CERTAIN MILITANT
INDIAN GROUPS ON THESE RESERVATIONS, AND THEY ARE RELUCTANT TO SUBJECT
THEIR FAMILIES TO THE POTENTIAL HAZARDS, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO
BECOME INVOLVED WITH BIA AND IHS SO THEY ARE NOT APPLYING FOR ADVERTISED
VACANCIES, THE OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR SUFFERS FROM THIS ONE SIGNIFICANT FLAW - IT REQUIRES THAT THE
EMPLOYEE DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAS BEEN REFUSED TWO POSITIONS IN THE
COMPETITIVE SERVICE BEFORE HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE
WHICH
IS IN EFFECT ASKING HIM TO PROVE THAT HE IS A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN;
ALL THE HIGH SOUNDING STATEMENTS ARE WORTHLESS
...
HERE, FOR BREVITY'S SAKE, IS A TABULATION OF POSITIONS RECENTLY AFFECTED
BY SECTION 12 OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT --
1976
COMMUNITY PLANNER
GS-11/12
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEACHER
GS-7
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK,
CLERK-TYPIST
GS-4
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GS-12
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
1975
TRIBAL OPERATIONS OFFICER
GS-12
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
EDUCATION SPECIALIST
GS-12
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
EDUCATION SPECIALIST
GS-11
FLANDREAU, S. DAK.
EDUCATION SPECIALIST
GS-12
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
EDUCATION SPECIALIST
GS-11
BELCOURT, N. DAK.
GENERAL CLERK
GS-5
ROSEBUD, S. DAK.
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
GS-6
ABERDEEN, S. ДАК.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GS-13
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
EDUCATION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
GS-12
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER
GS-11
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
GS-11
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL
GS-11
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
MAINTENANCE MAN
WG-7
LOWER BRULE, S. DAK.
AGENCY SUPERINTENDENT
GS-14
SHIPROCK, NEW MEXICO
HOUSING OFFICER
GS-11
TUBA CITY, ARIZONA
EDUCATION PROGRAM OFFICER
GS-12
MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA
PERSONNEL OFFICER
GS-13/14
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
CLERK-STENOGRAPHER
GS-4/5
ABERDEEN, S. ДАК.
INVESTMENT OFFICER
GS-9/11
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
CLERK
GS-2
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
GS-6
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
GS-6
ABERDEEN, S. ДАК.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
WG-10
ABERDEEN, S, DAK.
SPECIALIST
1974
HOUSING OFFICER
GS-12
JUNEAU, ALASKA
PROGRAM OFFICER
GS-12
SACATON AGENCY
BUDGET OFFICER
GS-11/12/13
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
PLANT MANAGER
GS-9/11
WAHPETON, No. DAK.
PLANT MANAGER
GS-12
PINE RIDGE, So. DAK,
BUDGET ANALYST
GS-7/9/11
ABERDEEN, S. DAK.
CONTRACT SPECIALIST
GS-5/7/9/11
ABERDEEN, S. ДАК,
1973
ECONOMIC PLANNER
GS-12
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
SECRETARY-STENO
GS-5
FORT THOMPSON, S. DAK.
1972
CONTRACT SPECIALIST
GS-9
ABERDEEN, S, ДАК.
1971
ECONOMIC PLANNER
GS-12
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
1970
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GS-12
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GS-12
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
THIS LIST IS CERTAINLY NOT COMPLETE
IT WAS COMPILED BY TELEPHONE
AND CONTRIBUTION OF PENCILED NOTES
IN A MATTER OF TWO DAYS,
IT IS VERY EASY TO TOSS OFF ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND DAMAGE
TO INDIVIDUAL CAREERS, DENIAL OF GUARANTEED AND RETAINED RIGHTS,
ABROGATION OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PROTECTION. INVASION OF PRIVACY
IN PERMITTING CONFIDENTAIL JOB APPLICATIONS TO BE REVIEWED BY TRIBAL
COUNCILS, AND INTERFERENCE WITH FIDUCIARY AND MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS.
IT IS ALSO VERY EASY TO PREPARE A LENGTHY TABULATION OF POSITIONS
WHICH HAVE ALLEGEDLY BEEN AFFECTED BY THE STRICT APPLICATION OF INDIAN
PREFERENCE TO ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF SOME
OF YOU WERE NOT QUESTIONING THE VERACITY OF THIS STATEMENT AS I
PRESENT IT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE APPEALED TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AN IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION OF THESE ALLEGATIONS,
THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE HAS THE NECESSARY STAFF AND RESOURCES TO
INVESTIGATE ALL OF THIS, WE WELCOME SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, AND I
BELIEVE MANY OF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS OF BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE WOULD
ALSO WELCOME IT, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY SOME WHO WILL DO ALL
IN THEIR POWER TO AVOID IT,
WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED AN ORDERLY TRANSFER OF
RESPONSIBILITY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS FROM THE NON-INDIAN DOMINATION OF
THE PAST TO A PRIMARILY INDIAN STAFF OF CAPABLE, COMPETENT, WELL
QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES. WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT WHOLESALE
DESTRUCTION OF 9,000 CAREERS WAS INTENDED WHEN SECTION 12 OF THE
INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT WAS WRITTEN IN 1934!
THERE IS A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT MANY OF THE INDIAN EMPLOYEES
THEMSELVES ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE TREND OF PERSONNEL POLICIES IN
THE INDIAN SERVICES,
MANY CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS OF INDIAN DESCENT
HAVE RECENTLY BECOME AWARE OF THE THREAT TO THEIR LIVLIHOODS REPRESENTED
BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 93-638 - THE INDIAN EDUCATION AND
SELF-DETERMINATION AcT. THEY HAVE REALIZED THAT THE CONTRACTING PRO-
VISIONS OF THIS LAW POSE A VERY REAL DANGER TO THEM. THERE ARE
ALSO INDICATIONS THAT THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS FACT AND HAVE INITIATED THE EX--
PLORATION OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF HAVING INDIAN EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
THREATENED BY THE LOSS OF THEIR JOBS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PL 93-638 INCLUDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
FOR HIMSELF AND APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY (160) OTHER
FORD & LIBRARY 038470
CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND THE BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
THOMAS H. GONINION
902 SOUTH JAY STREET
ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA 57401
STATES POSTA
®
THOMAS LONG
PO BOX 884
western union
BROWNING MT 59417
Mailgram
UNITED *
U.S.MAIL
SERVICE *
*******
2-020424E263 09/19/76 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHC
4063387260 MGM TDMT BROWNING MT 100 09-19 0957P EST
MR BRAD PATTERSON SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
PRESIDENT ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON DC 20501
PLEASE ENCOURAGE PRESIDENT FORD TO SIGN BILL HR5465. I AM A NON-INDIAN
EMPLOYEE OF IHS AND HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF RAW DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF
INDIAN PREFERENCE IN HIRING AND PROMOTIONS MY GOVERNMENT CAREER HAS
BEEN RUINED BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ADVANCE FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS.
I KNOW OF MANY CASES SIMILIAR TO MINE, OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WILL
NOT HIRE ME BECAUSE THEY MUST PROMOTE THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES,
THOMAS J LONG
PO BOX 884 BROWNING MT
21:57 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
FORD & LIBRARY 07V835
LACE
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBERS
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- f58f63fd5c650454
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1103367
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1103367",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1103367",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (1)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1103367",
"collections": [
"Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)",
"Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Legislation",
"Retirement",
"Civil service"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1103367",
"label": "Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (1)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1103367"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1103367",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1103367",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (1)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1103367",
"collections": [
"Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)",
"Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Legislation",
"Retirement",
"Civil service"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1103367",
"naId": 1103367,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1976-12-01",
"month": 12,
"year": 1976
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1976-09-01",
"month": 9,
"year": 1976
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/67/1033/1103367/content/library/document/0142/1103367.pdf",
"mediaId": "f58f63fd5c650454",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 2, folder \"Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (1)\"\nof the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\n6,\nPro- HR 5465\nSTATES POSTA ®\nWILSON WOODGER\nPO BOX 238\nBROWNING MT 59417\nwestern union\nMailgram\nUNITED *\nU.S.MAIL\nSERVICE *\n2-029030E246 09/02/76 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHB\n4063382911 MGM TDMT BROWNING MT 200 09-02 0119P EST\ngR-1\nPRESIDENT FORD\nWASHINGTON DC 20500\nMY DEAR MR PRESIDENT\nWE THE UNDERSIGNED EMPLOYED AT THE BLACKFEET INDIAN AGENCY BROWNING\nMONTANA URGENTLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE HOUSE RESOLUTION HR 5465 THIS\nBILL WILL GREATLY BENEFIT BOTH INDIAN AND NON INDIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE\nBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS APPROVAL OF THIS BILL WILL ALSO CORRECT A\nGROSS INJUSTICE RESULTING FROM THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OF JUNE 1974\nWHICH VIOLATED THE ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF THE NON INDIAN\nEMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE\nTHE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WAS CHANGED UNILATERALLY WITHOUT PRIOR ADVICE\nOR CONSENT OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED\nWILSON WOODGER\nPAUL MOORE\nCLAY STEPHENS\nRICHARD HELFENSTESN\nGEORGE THOMPSON\nRAYNE PILGERAM\nCLIFFORD ANDERSON\nCHARLOTTE MCKEOWN\nGEORGE SHELHAMER\nFRANCIS TURNER\nPETER STIFFARM\nTHOMAS MEDICINEHORSE\nWAYNE SKOW\nROY RIDESATTHEDOORE\nMERCEDES NIGHTSHOOT\nDENNIS JONES\nGEORGE CROFF\nBILL THEO LEMIE\nRAMONS PAPSEY\nGERALD GUARDAPEE\nFORDO j LIBRARY 018870\nLUCILLE RACINE\nJOHN BULLCHILD\nVERA M SCHAAF\nHELEN WIPPERT\nWILLEENA HARWOOD\nFAYE HOYT\nHAZEL BEAN\n13:37 EST\nMGMCOMP MGM\nDigitized from Box 2 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTO REPLY BY MAILGRAM. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBERS\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\nFORD LIBRARY is 02RALD\nTHE House\n2\nlogton\n3\n4\nWHB021(2205) (2-064671E254)PD 09/10/76 2205\n5\nICS IPMRNCZ CSP\n1976 SEP 10 PM 11 08\n6\n7\n5033634626 NL TDRN SALEM OR 238 09-10 0534P PDT\n8\nPMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n9\nWHITE HOUSE DC 20500\n10\n11\nDEAR MR PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OUT PLACEMENT PROGRAM IS\n12\nNON FUNCTIONAL. OUR BIA INSTALLATION EXPERIENCED A SEVERE REDUCTION\n13\n14\nIN FORCE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1975 AND NOT ONE EMPLOYEE WAS PLACED\n15\n16\nTHROUGH OUR PLACEMENT EVEN THOUGH MANY WERE WELL QUALIFIED AND HAD\n17\nMORE VALUABLE EXPERIENCE. THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM GUIDELINES\n18\nFROM THE BIA CENTRAL OFFICE IN WASHINGTON DC CLEARLY STATE THE\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S. S.A.\n20\nINDIAN PREFERENCE WILL BE ENFORCED IN THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM AS\n21\n22\nWELL AS FILING VACANT POSITIONS, LATERAL TRANSFER, PROMOTION\n23\nTRAINING IN BIA.\n24\n25\n26 WE DO NOT CRITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION INVOKING INDIAN\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n&\nPREFERENCE IN THE BIA, WE ONLY ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE\n7\n8\nVALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR GOVERNMENT AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. HOUSE\n9\nRESOLUTION 5465 WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS.\n10\n11\n12\nWE REQUEST THAT YOU CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE RESOLUTION ON YOUR DESK.\n13\n14\nWE FEEL CONFIDENT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THE NON INDIAN IS\n15\nPLACED IN WORKING IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THAT YOU WILL\n16\n17\nSIGN THE BILL AND SEE THAT IT BECOMES LAW.\n18\nRESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. U.S.A\n20\nWILBUR WOOD PRESIDENT NFFE LOCAL 241 CHEMAWA INDIAN SCHOOL\n21\nSALEM OREGON 97303\n22\n23\nALICE ANDERSON, EDWARD BARTLETT, MARY BARTOLOME, RONALD BERG,\n24\n25\nNADINE BORDERS, CHARLES BROMLETTE, WILLIAM BURRIGHT, PEARL CARLSON,\n26\nJAMES CRONE, HARRY cox, EARL DOUGLAS, ELBERT ELLISON, PAT ERNSTROM,\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nJAMES GOLDSMITH, JACKIE GRAPE, EDGAR HANSON, DUANE HILDEBRAND,\n8\nCHARLES HOMES, LUTHER KNOX, FLORENCE KUBIN, PATTY LANE, LOUISE\n9\nLINDAUER, FRANK LAMB, MARION MARSHALL, EUGENE MERWIN, ROSEWELL\n10\n11\nSEARE, ROBERT WITTMAN, WILBUR WOOD, THOMAS WRIGHT, MYRNA MCMURTY,\n12\n13\nGEORGANNA USREY, DOROTHY PENTECOST, ROY CARTER, GORDON FOSTER\n14\nAND BEULAH GRAHAM\n15\nNNNN\n16\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n2\n3\n4\n5\nLIBRARY\n6\n1\nFORD\n2\n's\n3\nOERALD\n4\nWHB021(2205) (2-064671E254)P 09/10/76 2205,\n5\nICS IPMRNCZ CSP\n0n\n6\n7\n5033634626 NL TDRN SALEM OR 238 09-10 0534P PDT\n8\nPMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n\"\nWHITE HOUSE DC 20500\n10\n11\nDEAR MR PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OUT PLACEMENT PROGRAM IS\n12\nNON FUNCTIONAL. OUR BIA INSTALLATION EXPERIENCED A SEVERE REDUCTION\n13\n14\nIN FORCE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1975 AND NOT ONE EMPLOYEE WAS PLACED\n15\nTHROUGH OUR PLACEMENT EVEN THOUGH MANY WERE WELL QUALIFIED AND HAD\n16\n17\nMORE VALUABLE EXPERIENCE. THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM GUIDELINES\n18\nFROM THE BIA CENTRAL OFFICE IN WASHINGTON DC CLEARLY STATE THE\n19\n20\nINDIAN PREFERENCE WILL BE ENFORCED IN THE UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM AS\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U.\n21\n22\nWELL AS FILING VACANT POSITIONS, LATERAL TRANSFER, PROMOTION\n23 TRAINING IN BIA.\n24\n25\n26 WE DO NOT CRITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION INVOKING INDIAN\n2\n3\nA\n5\n6\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\nPREFERENCE IN THE BIA, WE ONLY ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE\n7\n8\nVALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR GOVERNMENT AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. HOUSE\n9\nRESOLUTION 5465 WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS.\n10\n11\n12\nWE REQUEST THAT YOU CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE RESOLUTION ON YOUR DESK.\n13\n14\nWE FEEL CONFIDENT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THE NON INDIAN IS\n15\nPLACED IN WORKING IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THAT YOU WILL\n16\n17\nSIGN THE BILL AND SEE THAT IT BECOMES LAW.\n18\nRESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY. U. U.S.A.\n20\nWILBUR WOOD PRESIDENT NFFE LOCAL 241 CHEMAWA INDIAN SCHOOL\n21\nSALEM OREGON 97303\n22\n23\nALICE ANDERSON, EDWARD BARTLETT, MARY BARTOLOME, RONALD BERG,\n24\nNADINE BORDERS, CHARLES BROMLETTE, WILLIAM BURRIGHT, PEARL CARLSON,\n25\n26\nJAMES CRONE, HARRY COX, EARL DOUGLAS, ELBERT ELLISON, PAT ERNSTROM,\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n2\n3\n4\n$\n&\n7\nJAMES GOLDSMITH, JACKIE GRAPE, EDGAR HANSON, DUANE HILDEBRAND,\n8\nCHARLES HOMES, LUTHER KNOX, FLORENCE KUBIN, PATTY LANE, LOUISE\n,\n10\nLINDAUER, FRANK LAMB, MARION MARSHALL, EUGENE MERWIN, ROSEWELL\n11\nSEARE, ROBERT WITTMAN, WILBUR WOOD, THOMAS WRIGHT, MYRNA MCMURTY,\n12\n13\nGEORGANNA USREY, DOROTHY PENTECOST, ROY CARTER, GORDON FOSTER\n14\nAND BEULAH GRAHAM\n15\nNNNN\n16\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY # U.S.A\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\nMD\nVANCE WARTKE IND\nDOMINICIAN MEX\nUnited States Senate\nCLAIMANS HELL R.I\nBULL BROOK TINN\nTHOMAS F. EAGLETON MD.\nDEPART BARTLETT DKLA\nSPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING\nJCHN V. TUNNET CALIF,\nLAWTON CHILES FLA\n(PURSDANT TO b. RES. 11;, WTH CONSRESS)\nDICK CLARK IDWA\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nWILLIAM C.DRIDL STAFF DIRECTOR\nDAVID . AFFELDT, CHICF COUNSEL\nJOHN OUT MILLER, MINDRITY STAFF DIRECTOR\nSeptember 14, 1976\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nI respectfully urge you to sign H. R. 5465, a bill to pro-\nvide early retirement benefits for certain non-indian employees\nof the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.\nThis legislation has passed both Houses of Congress following Con-\nference Committee agreement, and is now on your desk awaiting fur-\nther action.\nCurrent law grants preference to Indians in promotions and\npersonnel actions in the BIA and IHS. This has been the case since\na 1972 court decision clarified the \"interpretation of the Wheeler-\nHoward Act of 1934. As a result many non-indian BIA and IHS employees\nwith long records of Federal service now find themselves blocked off\nfrom promotion or transfer. H. R. 5465 addresses this problem by\nproviding early retirement benefits for these senior employees.\nI know there are many non-indian BIA and IHS employees in my\nown state who will benefit from this reasonable legislation.\nI ask for your serious consideration and support for H. R.\n5465.\nWith warm regards.\nVery truly yours,\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALD\nPete V. Domenici\nUnited States Senator\nPVD/dgcg\n[9/15/75\nGordon J. Wilson\n456 S. 200 East\nBrigham City, UT\n84302\nPresident Gerald Ford\nUnited States\nWhite House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nMr. President:\nI am writing you concerning HR 5465, a bill which would make it\npossible for B.I.A. and I.H.S. non-preference employees to retire\nif they meet certain requirements.\nWhen you are considering the merits of this bill, there are several\nfactors which you should weigh before making a decision:\n1. All non-preference employees hired before about 1972,\nclearly were hired as merit system employees. Some\nunderstood that Indian Preference was involved but\nonly with regards to initial employment. Further\nnone of us hired before 1972, in anyway gave up our\nmerit system rights (earned through competition) by\nvirtue of being hired or transferred into I.H.S. or\nB.I.A.\n2. The administrative extension of the Indian Preference\nwas done by our superiors without public input, with-\nout consideration to the effects upon non-preference\nemployees and in a manner that demonstrated an abuse\nof administrative discretion.\n3. The B.I.A. has greatly increased its budget for the\nhigher education of Indians. Now it is time they\n1040 > LIBRARY 01V839\nreap rewards from this expenditure. The retirement\nof the non-preference employee would make room for\nthese Indians who have received this education,\nwhich would lead to the goal of Indian self-determina-\ntion.\n4. Some of the deparmtnets have expressed a concern of\na massive exodus of non-preference employees. This\nof course would not happen, the significant point\nhere is that the vast majority of Indian Service\nemployees have expressed their desire to continue\nworking and provide the necessary training of\nIndian personnel to take over their positions, but\nthey feel as though they must have a way out if\nthings get to rough such as lives being threatened.\nThey have devoted twenty or more years of their\nworking career and would hate to drop all of their\nearned benefits.\nPage 2\n5. Another objection that has been expressed was the\ncost if this bill was implemented: the fact is\nthat even greater cost would be paid if not passed\nwhen you consider these elements:\na. The poor moral of Indian Service employees,\nwhich greatly effects thrir productivity.\nb. Salary savings, because new employees would\nbe brought aboard at a lower G.S. rating.\nC. Indians would be filling these jobs lead-\ning to Indian self determination.\n6. Why should we be punished for something that happened\nin the past and had nothing to do with.\n7. The effected employee's are at an age when it is difficult\nor impossible to start new careers.\n8. This bill is one in which many Indian Tribes have\nexpressed a desire to have passed. (Blackfeet Tribe,\nWest Oklahoma, etc.)\n9. Non-preference employees have had their congressional\nvested rights in the merit system and constitutional\n(due process, compensation for rights taken and other)\nillegally taken away.\nI would like to refer you to the testimony given by Tom Goninion at\nthe Senate hearings on S-509 and we are also air-mailing you material\nsent to the Comptroller General on December 9, 1975 and the General\nAccounting Office has completed its investigation and it should be\navailable at the G.A.O. Office in Washington D.C.\nIt is hoped that you will consder these factors and make an\naffirmative decision on HR-5465.\nSincerely yours,\nGordon J. Wilson\nPresident Gerald Ford\nThe White House\nWashington D.C. 20500\nRe: HR 5465\nAttn: Brad Patterson\nMatrial enclosed as stated in\nmy letter\nFORD LIBRARY is\ne\nSENDER: Complete items I and 2.\nAdd your. address in the \"RETURN TO space on\n- 2011 New 1972\nreverse.\n1. The following service is requested (check one).\nShow to whom and date delivered\n15,\nShow to whom, date, & address of delivery '35'\nDELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and\nshow to whom and date delivered\n654\nDELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and\nshow to whom, date, and address of\ndelivery\n854\n2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED 10:\nE. B. STRATS, Compressive\nENERAL of the UNITED STATES\n441 G ST NW WASH, DC\nRETURN RECEIPT INSURED AND\n3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION:\nREGISTERED NO.\nCERTIFIED NO.\nINSURED NO.\n228675\n-\n(Always obtain signature of addressee or agent)\nI have received the article described above:\nSIGNATURE Deliver 10 addressee CRIV\nDorolly 4. DATE OF DELIVERY 1/2/75 Schumachin POSTMARK\n5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested)\nCERTIFIED MAIL\n6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE:\nCLERK'S\nINITIALS\n* GPO : 1974 0- 527-803\n& FORD 118\nDecember 9, 1975\nSenator Ted Stevens\nU. S. Senate\n304 Old Senate Office Building\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nDear Senator Stevens:\nFor a number of weeks now members of your staff have informally\nbeen working with us regarding our efforts to regain our status in\nthe Federal government's Merit employment system and to gain compen-\nsation for our documented losses caused by the operation of the Indian\nPreference laws. We appreciate your help and interest. We urge you\nto present the enclosed document (see enclosure) to the Comptroller\nGeneral of the United States for us and further ask that you support\nour action with the full force of your office.\nWe must stress that our search for equity, reinstatement and due\ncompensation for our losses, accepts the fact that Indian Preference\nlaws are constitutional and operational. Our point or direction of\nattack stems only from the realization that the facts shown establish\nthat those Public Administrators charged with the administration of the\nIndian Services have done so with results that clearly demonstrate an\noperation so exclusively against a particular class of persons (the\nLIBRARY\nspecial class citizens that indeed we are), as to warrant and require\nthe conclusion that whatever may have been the intent of the Indian\nPreference laws, they are applied by those public administrators with\na mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by\nthe U. S. Government of the equal protection of the laws, due process\nof law, and right to receive just compensation for private property\ntaken for \"public use,\" all of these rights being ours, as citizens,\nand secured by the Constitution (and its amendments) of the U.S.\nPerhaps the Indian Preference laws are fair and just, as written,\nbut the facts available demonstrate that the administration of these\nlaws indeed have placed approximately 8,900 Federal employees in a\nspecial class alone: denied both earned and retained congressionally\nvested rights (with tremendous dollar value involved) and Constitu-\ntional Rights: forced by circumstances to suffer insults, indignation,\nmental anguish, to say nothing of the torment one must suffer when his\nfamily and church teachings, as well as professional training, receives\nalmost daily degradation.\nWith this in mind, we sincerely seek your assistance.\nSincerely,\nDocdon 2 Wilson\nI HS,\nBrigham City utch.\n1 Enclosure\nP. S. Your timely consideration of this matter is urgent because\nof not only the daily damages received by the special class citizen\nabove referred to, but because of impending legislation such as\nS-509, HR-5858, etc.\nTOPO s BRARY 014830\nTO\n: Comptroller General of U. S.\nDecember 9, 1975\nFROM : See Last Page\nSUBJECT: Request for Intervention, Supervision and Resolution of a\nProblem\nINTRODUCTION\nThis letter is our last resort within the U. S. Government\nsystem to resolve our problem. As individuals and as a group--we have\nbeen improperly denied a resolution--even confrontation of our problem\nby our own Agency (ies) and various levels and offices of the United\nStates Civil Service Commission. We think the problem, below stated,\nis so clearly evident (and an illegal breach of our rights--earned and\nretained rights) that we as individuals and as a group should not be\nrequired to go outside \"the system\" and pay a private attorney to fight\nthe issues for us. Even a U.S. Attorney's office has said his office\nis unable to assist us because the opposing party (certain Public\nAdministrators of high government rank in the three concerned agencies)\nin our complaint could possibly have to seek the assistance of the U.S.\nAttorney's office in regard to our complaint.\nGENERAL\nIt is now a well-known and accepted fact and practice, in\nthe Federal Indian Services (BIA/IHS), that \"Indian Preference\" prevails\nand is a dominate factor in any Personnel Action. The writer and his\nassociates do not wish to imply, much less make you think we are saying\ndirectly--we oppose Indian Preference: that would be untrue and an unfair\nassumption. We agree with the Congress and its utterances, relative to\nIndian Preference. However, since 1970, the senior public administrators\ninvolved in implementing the \"Indian Preference Laws\" (namely the Secre-\ntary of Interior, DHEW and the Chairman, U.S.C.S.C. and their senior\nlevel assistants) have done so in such a manner as to deny a limited and\nidentifiable group of Merit System employees (herein called Special Class\nCitizens) both congressionally vested rights and constitutionally vested\nrights: To wit---\n1. Congressionally vested rights stemming from earned and\nretained (because employees continually meet the requirements of con-\ntinued employment and retention of those rights) career appointments\nin the CSC Merit System of Federal Employment (civiliam); those rights--\nas an example--the right of promotions, training and education oppor-\ntunities, transfers, etc.--based on Merit System principles and not\ninfluenced by Race: and\n2. Constitutionally vested rights enjoyed by all citizens\nof this Nation--such as:\n-2-\na. The Right of Due Process of Law! Why--because our\nvested rights to employment in the Federal Merit System was in fact\nwithdrawn from us, as a limited and identifiable group, by both\ndirect action and a lack of diligently adhering to ministerial re-\nsponsibilities (duties) by certain Senior Federal Officials, in a\nmanner that clearly was arbitrary, discriminatory and in fact, offended\nthe right of due process.'\nb. The Right of Equal Protection of the Laws! Why--because\nPreference Indians are promoted, trained educated, transferred, etc.,\nwithin the Indian Service on a basis of RACE--they are in fact treated\nbetter, earn more money, get more responsible positions--through means\nother than allowed by the Merit System and the various Civil Rights\nlaws, rules and regulations to the recorded and documented disadvantage\nof non-preference employees. This is invidious discrimination, and we,\nas a limited and identifiable group, have been denied equal protection of\nthe laws by virtue of the manner of operation of the various laws con-\ncerned (Civil Rights Acts, Indian Preference Laws, etc.) and by simple\nfailure on the part of certain specific Public Administrators of the\nconcerned agencies to administer these programs, the laws applicable\nto these programs, etc.--within the house of the law, in accordance\nw/all laws applicable, the Common Law, the Supreme Court decisions, etc.\nc. Our Civil Rights: Why--because we have been required to\nwork under conditions that stress RACISM, allow a certain minority group\nto openly criticize other racial, ethnic and religious groups and do so\nwithout fear of retribution.\nTo provide the reader with basic evidence to establish Charges\n1 and 2 above, see Enclosure.\nSPECIFIC REQUEST\nThe purpose of this letter is to request your good offices to\nFULLY investigate this isolated problem, to take such appropriate action\nas is necessary to require the aforementioned Senior Public Administra-\ntors to implement the Indian Preference Laws in conjunction with ALL\nother appropriate laws, rules and regulations, and to take whatever\naction is appropriate to: (1) re-vest or recognize the rights of those\nof us serving in the Merit System, and (2) provide those of us that have\nbeen unwittingly made special class citizens, by Virtue of the continued\ndenial of our rights, benefits equal to the damages we have experienced\nto our careers.\nIn other words, we individually and as a group are asking the\nComptroller General to determine if our charges are valid; if they are\n-3-\nBO considered, we then ask your office to require the Public Admin-\nistrators involved to take timely action to safeguard our rights as\nthe duties of their respective offices require. We are saying (charg-\ning) specifically that the Secretaries of DHEW and Interior and the\nChairman, USCSC et al have exercised their discretionary powers in\nsuch a manner as to give an exaggerated and unreasonable weight (towards\nthe implementation of the various Indian preference laws) to the docu-\nmented unwarranted expense and detriment of others (non-preference\nemployees). We consider this an abuse of discretion. We are saying\nthat DHEM, Interior and the USCSC made a clear and documented departure\nfrom carlier agency \"policy\" and that there is an apparent contempo-\nraneous \"inconsistency.\" It is this departure and inconsistency that\nwe think should be fully investigated. Lastly, we are saying that\nalthough the Indian preference laws and related acts indeed apply to\nBIA and IHS--these acts and laws are but a few compared to the total\nnumber of acts and laws as well as rules and regulations that constitute\nthe whole law applicable to the operation of BIA and IHS. These pref-\nerence laws are but one segment and must be applied by the agency heads\nin harmony with the totality of the law applicable to the operation of\nthe Indian Services. We are charging that the senior agency heads\nabove mentioned, have failed in executing their discretionary and min-\nLIBRARY\nisterial functions (and duties) relative to preference in harmony with\nthe whole law applicable to the Indian Services, thereby illegally\ndamaging as well as illegally taking property rights away from each of\nus.\nWe ask only one favor and that is that our names and careers\n(alrcady marked and diminished) be protected from retribution. A\ncomplaint and request such as this indeed will incur the wrath of our\nsuperiors, some of us can prove previous retribution by U.S. Government\nofficials for our fight in trying to correct this situation, some of us\ncan prove we have been denied jobs illegally because of race, and all\nof us can prove our careers have been dulled, if not killed, because\ncertain senior public administrators failed to do their ministerial\nduty and/or failed to take timely action to protect our above mentioned\nrights. Some of us are currently serving under superiors who are\nequally as disturbed (regarding this matter) as we are, therefore, we\nsuggest a full, impartial and searching investigation into our charges\nof both mal and misfeasance on the part of certain high level public\nadministrators is mandatory.\nCONCLUSION\nWe are willing to keep our problem \"in-house\" only to the\nextent that we can get the problem resolved to our satisfaction. We\n⑉40\ntruly hope your offices can assist us directly or point to a viable\nalternative. Without this kind of assistance, we will be forced into\nU.S. District Court using private funds. If this latter alternative\nis forced upon us, we are prepared to present the same evidence now\noffered your office, only our cause of action will be criminal in\nnature, larger stakes involved, and we fear the best interests of the\nU. S. Government and some individual high level Federal employees will\nnot be served. We hope you understand the gravity of this matter.\nSincerely,\nSee signature shoot\nNext page\nSYNOPSIS OF EVIDENCE\nThe reader is advised that attachments are indexed and tabbed in\naccordance with the below index.\nCharge 1: Violation of congressional and vested\nrights, i.e. illegal withdrawal of\ncomplainants from Federal Merit System:\nillegal taking of our property.\nCharge 2: Violation of constitutional guarantees,\ni.e.:\na. Right of Due Process\nTabs 1, 2, 14, 15\nb. Right of Equal Protection of the Laws\nTabs 5 and 14\nc. Civil Rights\nTab 16\nThe writers suggest the tabs emphasize our main points; however,\nthe total text of each attachment should be read to understand\nthe grevious wrong perpetrated upon complainants. It is further\nsuggested that a competent investigation to determine real\ndamages, including passed, ongoing and certain future, occurring\nand anticipated would reveal startling further compulsion to\npursue the matter.\nSIGNATURE SHEET\nI am signing for approximately\n50 B.I.A. and I. H. S. employees,\n456 South 2nd East\nwho want their names held in\nBrigham City, Utah 84302\nstrictest confidence because of\nfear of retribution.\nI am signing for approximately\nRuGs Van Tine\n84 B.I.A. and I.H.S. employees,\n2309 Fox Drive\nwho want their names held in\nBillings, MT 59102\nstrictest confidence because of\nfear of retribution.\nI am signing for myself and\nTHOMAS H. GONINION\napproximatly 140) BIA and IHS\nemployees whose names are a\n902 South Jey Street\nmatter of tublic record\nAb erdeen, SD 57401\nFORD\nSession explores\nbias against Indian\nDr DAVID T. EARLEY\nCoarile Stall Holter\n\"UNCONSCIOUS bias\" is\nperhaps the worst. said the Okla.\nIng equal employment for ml\nFamil Employment Op.\nhome Indian. Through lectures\nnonties in other federal\npurjurity conference openial\n2145 group discussion sessions.\ncies, said Dona Gudgell. Mone\nTucsday 10 140mg to train both\nllune attending will come 10 Te.\ntathchi's associate deputy BTT)-\nIndian ann now-Indian employes\nabse cultural differences and\nployed In the Billings THIS OU-\nice.\nin live 15. recognize and clim.\nbiases-and then be able to\nlist recial bias In the Indian\neliminate them.\nBoth THIS and the Bureau of\nHeal Service.\nThis is the second such confer-\nIndian Affairs are required to\nence. said Stanley J Rogers.\ngive employment preference to\nYOU AND I both know it\nhappens.\" Ed Monetathchi Jr\ndeputy area director of IHS.\nIndians. Mrs. Gudgell and her\ndeputy EEO afficer from IHS\ntraining those unable to attend 2\ntwo assistants-termed \"huran\nsimular session last fall.\nresource development special\nbeademariers in Washington,\nDC. explained during 2 break\nThe Semce's main concern is\nists\"-work full time to assore\nIn int resumn of a three-day\nhealth on the reservations, said\ncompliance.\nA three-page opinion poll con\nmeetine for selacted representa-\nRogers, and it is necessary to\nlover of the timen THIS 25P2\nalternate attendance 21 the EEO\ncerning bias in IHS was filled\nsessions Even so. some doctors\nout by those attending st, the\nincluding reservations in Mon-\ntans and Wyoming and 20 Indi.\nwill net be able to attend. he\nopening session and will be re-\nN° Trbool at Brigham LIV Utah.\nadded. since they would have no\npeated 21 the end of the maler.\nreplacements while speriding\nence. said Monetathchi. bir re-\nThe intention, said Monetath\nthree days in Billings\nsulls will not be made pubbe\ndu, IS not to sile up racial prob-\nlems but to \"Rel them not in the\nEEO representatives in IHS\n\"I DONT see what purpose it\nopen\" 50 they can be solved.\nhave 4 special concern. beyond\nwould serve it could be missis.\nthe responsibility for guarantee\nterpreted by persons who don't\nknow all the factors involved\nThe Willings Cignesse\nWednesday, Aprx 5. 1972\nMoveing\nThe enclosed newspaper articles (attachment 1) are clear evidence that\nsome of the employees of IHS who attended that conference were, and\nare continuing to be denied equal conditions of employment because of\nthe documented continuing series of insults and other type statements\nmade by THS employees and contract speakers that are degrading and\nunkind regarding one's culture and race.\nIt in apparent that within the IHS, and government in general, the same\ntype statements concerning Indians and Indian culture (ala attached\nnews clippings) are not allowed to be said, are not part and parcel to\n\"training programs\" and you don't hear or see similar points made as a\npart of policy; hence, those non-Indians witnessing these \"training\ndessions\", and similar exposures, are Victims of race and culture\ndiscrimination, which is forbidden by the Civil Rights Act of 1964,\nthe various executive orders covering federal employment in general and\nWhite man culture\nblasted by Indian\nDy DAVID EARLEY\nand then, when asked to leave.\nat that Lime.\"\n(Gatette Scoll Writer\ntake 2 microphone and say had\nthings about it? McGas asked.\nBut the Indian is returning to\n\"The Indian must know who\nhis own culture, sald the Sloux,\nThe law school graduate\nbe has\nnot to be separate from the rest\nand the non-Indian\nserved as a Marine Corps fighter\nBirth know. 100.\"\npilot in the Vietnam War where.\nof the country but to be a part of\nIt as an Indian.\nThis was the message brought\nhe said, \"we were forced to fight\nTuesday afternoon to an equal\nwith one hand tied behind our\nemployment opportunity confer-\nbacks\" by not. for example,\nonce of the Indian Health Serv.\nbeing allowed to attack North\nlee by Ed McGaa. Sioux Indian\nVietnamese supply routes begin-\nand director of the Upper Mid.\nning at the Haipbone docks.\nwat Indian Center, Minneapo-\nD. Minn.\n\"THEN THERE were the\nIndian culture is superior to\nKennedys. the McCocrns and\nthe white man's in many ways,\ntheir eight-day truces.\" and on\nsald McGas. \"and now we're\nthe ninth day. he added. the\ngoing back to our Indian ways.\"\ncommon men - \"whether\nThe ways of the white culture\nwhite, black or red\" - were\nhave degraded the Indians who\nkilled by freshly supplied\nreaght to adopt them. McGaa\nNorth Vietnames.\nsaid. and he cited mission board-\n\"I wish they'd fought the Indi.\nby schools. religious persecu-\nans that same way.\"\nBon and general destruction of\nSuch service in behalf of the\nDoe Indians' culture.\nwhiteman's politicians hasn't\nseemed to help the Indian much.\nTHE PILGRIMS came to\nsaid McG3a. He recalled that\nAmerica, he said, because their\nduring World War II the only\nformer socio economic system\nway an Indian could be buying a\nwas inferior to that of the Indi.\ndrink was by posing as 2 Jana.\nans. But then the new culture\naese. \"We were fighting Japan\nbegin to impose its ways on the\nnative one, he continued.\nf One of the causes of Juvenilo\nproblems among white children,\nfor example, is the fact that\ntheir prandparents are In \"old\nfolls' homes\" and the youngs-\nless are raised by babysitters,\nNcGas, said.\nDip Dillings Bazette\nWednesday, April 3. 1972\ntherating litter\nWhites imposed their will on\nthe Indian by taking children\narray to mission loarding\nthools, he sald, and - on lop of\nthat - derided Indian religion.\nIUE RECALLED an incident\nwhen a Catholic priest tried to\nInterrupt a Sioux Sun Dance\nand, when warned to stay off the\ndance floor, commissered a\nmicrophone and said \"bad\nthings\" about the relignes prac.\ntice.\n\"Woold 8 barge love a Mass\n& MANAGER, INC. 799 BROADWAY. NEW YORK,\nY. 10003\n2\nHOW MUCH DETTER MUST A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE\nDO PLANT RULES HAVE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED\nDE TO WIN A DID OVER A SENIOR MAN?\nFOR THE DURATION OF A UNION CONTRACT?\nWhat Happened: When personnel director Боб\nWhat Happened: The personnel man who wrote the\nNelson arrived and saw the two men impatiently\ncompany's rule book must have been a dropout from\npacing in front of his office, he mentally groaned:\nthe English language: The writing was so bad, the\nNot before my morning coffee!\"\nmeanings SO obscure, that workers and foremen\nThen he said: \"I know, I know. Sam, here,\nhad conflicts over almost every paragraph.\nfeels he should have wen that bid on the flaker\nFinally the general manager ordered a com-\noperator job, But our plant manager, Jim Mayer,\nplete overhaul of the booklet. \"While we're at it,\"\nput up a compincing case for promoting the junior\nhe told the editor, \"we want to lighten lip some\nman.\"\nold rules and put in some new ones.\"\nHe may have convinced you,' the steward\nSix months later a new rule book, in a bright\nreplied, \"butinot us. We're here to give the com-\ncover, was distributed to employees. Whereupon\nDany a chance to correct its mistake. Otherwise,\nthe union hit the roof: \"You can't change work\nwe're going talight this right through arbitration.'\nrules in the middle of a contract any more than\n\"Okay, let's go over it. We put up the job for\nyou can change wage rates or rest periods\nblds. If two men are eligible, the senior man gets\nWhen the company disagredd on the ground\nthe job- provided abilities are relatively equal.\nthat nothing in the agreement froze the rules for\nSam is the senior man, but he got turned down.\"\nthe duration, the union called in its lawyer. The\nThe personnel director then enumerated the man-\nlegal eagle quoted from & raft of decisions by the\n3 reasons:\nN.L.R.B., which held that \"contents of plant rules\n1. The manager asked six foremen to evaluate\nare mandatory subjects of bargaining.\"\nthe two men and to consider eight criteria:\n\"But that applies to negotiations for a new\nMechanical aptitude, ability to follow written\ncontract. Our agreement still has two years to\nInstructions, ability to keep written records,\nrun. If you feel any of the rules are untair, file\njudgment, initiative and attitude, health, re-\na grievance. You want to throw out the whole\nsponsibility, seniority.\nbook.\"\n2, When the scores were in, every one of the six\nWas The Company: RIGHT\nWRONG\nsaid that Ralph had the edge over Sam.\nWhat Arbitrator John Lurkin ruled: The company\n8. Also, Ralph had worked three months on the\nwon. \"For some 10 years the union did not question\nNaker job- so he even had experience.\nthe right of the company to revise 0! amond plant\n\"None of that proves Sam can't handle the\nrules. Such past practice indivates that the union\nΓ.\njob. The junior man may be a little better - but\nhas accepted the fact that there was no restriction\nthat doesn't give him the right to promotion over\non management's right to issue new rules.\"\n& senior man,\" persisted the steward.\n(68-1 ARB (8203)\nWas The Union: RIGHT\nWRONG\nCOMMENT: The right to issue and change rules\nshould be incorporated into your union contract.\nWhat Arbitrator George Savage King rules: The\nHowever, the union can always challenge any rule\nsenior man gets the job. \"Before a junior em-\nthat it feels is unreasonable,\nployee is given preference, the company must be\nprepared to show that he is head and shoulders\nabove the senior man in ability — where the senior\nman does have the basic ability to períorm the\nMUST ^ COMPANY DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES\ntasks.\" (68-2 ARB (S614)\nWHO MAKE ANTI-RACIAL REMARKS?\nCOMMENT: Neither the three months' experi-\nWhat Happened: When il member of n minority\nonco nor the supervisors' ratings made much im-\ngroup breaks a company's barriers to employ-\npression on the Arbitrator.\nment, he sometimes finds he must then content\nWhat did impress him was: The company\nwith the hostility of some of his superiors and\n10! deny that the schior man would probably\nco-workers.\nwork out although it was convinced that the\nMichael Stern, n civil engineer. was the first\nJunior toas the belier man.\nJowish employee to be hired US line Grimusk Corp.\nhostility-which was in no 11:21\" related to suchael's\ncompetence. Deatty disliked him solely because ha\nexpect applicants to tell the trutn.\nwas A Jewl\n2. We did not wait two years. When we receiv\nHo loudly directed anti-Semitic slurs In\nthe anonymous call, II'C acted right away.\nMichael's direction. A fejv other bigoted em-\n3. If We had known of your criminal record,\nployees took Beatty's remarks as a cue to mutter\nwouldn't have hired you. That's our poli\ntheir own epithets. Dealty's purpose was obvious -\nThis is a business - not a social agency I\nto humiliate Michael Stern into resigning.\nWas The Company: RIGHT\nWRONG\nC\nThe Granusk front office ignored Michael's\nrequest that his taunters be ordered to leave him\nWhol Arbitrator Longston T. Howley ruied: No re\nin peace. So Michael haled his employer before\nstatement for Sam. Traditionally, a probation:\nthe state anti-discrimination agency. He asked:\nperiod is used to determine now well an applic:\nWhat good docs it do to stop a company from\nfunctions on the job- not to investigate tru\npracticing discrimination in hiring - if It\nfulness of statements made on the applicati\npermits personnel to torment a minority\n\"The company had a right to rely III\ngroup individual once he's taken on?\nthe truthfulnéss of the employee's statements.\nCompany president Ed Granusk countered with:\nacted with all speed upon discovering the fa\nfication.\" (69-1 ARB 78114)\nWe do not approve of the racial insults. But\nI can't control what employees say. Also, I\nCOMMENT: The onus for telling the truth\nthink Stern is being overly sensitive.\non the employee.\nWas Michael Stern: RIGHT\nWRONG\nFurthermore, the scriousness of the lic\nimportant. If the worker would not have b\nWhat The N.Y. State Div. OF Human Rights ruled:\nhired had the truth been known, delay in (\nFor the engineer. It is management's responsibility\ncovery will not protect him.\nto control actions of employees on the job.\n\"A man who suffers degradation and insult\n5\nwithout any restraints by management is cer-\ntainly being denied equal conditions of employ-\nQUIZ CASE\nment when such insults are directed at a man's\ncreed.\"\nTest Your Skill As An Arbitrator\nThe employer agreed to inform all employees\nCAN MANAGEMENT COLLECT MONEY DAMA\nthat it would not tolerate racial and religious\nFROM A UNION FOR A WILDCAT STRIKE?\nInsults - and that those who voiced them would\nWhol Happened: Shop steward Elton Reynolds\nbe disciplined. (Release #RK-1178)\na loyal following. When he got himself Ared\nCOMMENT: Many companies anticipate this\nfighting, 15 rank-and-filers followed him out\nproblem. Executives and employees are informed\nthe plant. And they stayed out for three days.\nin letters and notices on bulletin boards that racial\nThe men rounded out the week without\nand religious derogatory remarks are strictly\npay- for each received a two-day suspension\nforbidden. The bigot should be provented from\ntheir \"loyalty\" to the union official.\npoisoning the working atmosphere.\nThe company decided to hit the union wi\nit hurt the most in its pocketbook. It sentr\nunion a bill for $16,323.98 for losses incurred\nthe wildcat strike - itemizing:\nAFTER 2 YEARS, CAN A GOOD WORKER DE FIRED\nLost production time and the cost of\n- FOR LYING Oil HIS APPLICATION BLANK?\nidlo equipment;\nWhat Happened: Getting calls at home was a nor-\no\nOvertime pay to employees assigned to fi\nmal part of Jack Foster's harried life as general\nfor the striking employees; and\nforeman. So when the phone jingled, Jack reached\no Supervisors' time helping out on produc!\nfor his pencil and picked up the receiver.\nThe voice on the other end was muffled, mys-\nThe union did some figuring on its own -\ndefended its case before an Arbitrator:\nterious - and female: \"Mr. Foster, this is a\nfriend.\" Foster gulped and quickly looked toward\n1. Foremen are on salary and are paid any-\nthe kitchen, where his wife was eparing dinner.\n2. The company owns its equipment and tt\nThe voice continued: \"Sam X, who works for\nfore no loss was incurred by its idleness.\nyou, is a jailbird - an ex-con.\" Then there was a\n3. There was no real loss in production as 0\nclick as the anonymous caller hung up.\nemployees filled the gap.\nThe personnel department investigated Sam's\nC\n4. Besides, who ever heard of suing a union\nbackground-and sure enough, Sam had been con-\nmoney damages? Our business agent\nvicted of a felony three years ago. He had lied\nthe nicn back to work as som 24 possible\non his employment application,\nOut went is letter to the hapless worker:\n5. The men already have paid for their is\ncretions by losing live days' pay.\n8,518 \"giii\" Unisian\nerican Federation of Government Employees\nAFFILIATED WITH THE AFECIO\nHN F. CRINER\nCLYDE M. WEDNER\nDOUGLAS 11. KERSHAW\n!OWAL PRESIDENT\nEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT\nNATIONAL\nMORTEN J. DAVIS\nNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON, D. C.\nROOM 0001\n010 SOUTHWEST DROADWAY\nPORTLAND. OMBOON 97205\nTELEPHONE (500) 227.5039\nNEFER TO FILE:\nNovember 10, 1972\nJudge Oliver Seth\nJudge Howard Bratton\nJudge Edwin L. Machem\nU. S. District Court\nfor the District of New Mexico\nAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87100\nDear Sirs:\nIn the matter of Civil Suit No. 9626, C. R. Mancari, Anthony Franco,\nWilbert Garrett and Jules Cooper, on behalf of themselves and all\nothers similarly situated, vs. Rogers C. B. Morton, as Secretary of\nthe Interior; Louis R. Bruce, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Walter\nO. Olson, as Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque Area\nOffice; and Anthony Lincoln, as Area Director, Burcau of Indian Affairs,\nNavajo Area Office; defendants, I desire to submit the following infor-\nmation pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:\n1. The U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs is only one of two Indian Services\ndirectly affected. by Title 25, USC Sections 44,46, and 472; and that\nIndian Health Service (USPHS-DHEW) is the other;\n2. That Title 25, Sections 44, 46, and 472 of the U. S. Codes is appli-\ncable only to positions in the Indian Services (Agencies) - i.e., BIA\nand IHS equally, which number approximately 26,000 employees (19,000 in\nBIA and 7,000 in IHS (USCSC 6-9-72 figures)); that about one-half of\nthese positions are non occupied by Indians, the number of non-Indian\nemployees potentially affected by the court action being about 13,000;\n3. That thei American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO)\nGrepresents a certain number of non-Indian employees of IHS;\n4. That, because of fear of retribution by superiors, a portion of\nsaid non-Indian employees of IHS, have asked The to represent then in\na response to the court's request for information (re Notice - pursuant\nto Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); and,\nJudge Oliver Seth\n2\nNovember 10, 1972\nJudge Howard Bratton\nJudge Edwin L. Machem\nAlbuquerque, New Mexico\n5. That many of the non-Indian employees of IHS consider themselves in\nthe identical situation of plaintiffs in No. 9626 Civil and consider\nthe representation by the plaintiffs to be fair and accurate. Further,\nexcept for the fear of retribution, that some of my members indeed would\nwant to join with plaintiffs and be party to that cause.\nRabet Cr Sincerely yours,\nogler\nRobert C. Nogler\nNational Representative\nEleventh District AFGE\nRCN:jp\nPART 111. in 1112 COMPLETED I:V CARLOYCE\nRESIGNATION UMPORTANT soil 10 EMPLOYEE or пригорь your Areid generalmed 1141MI. eveh 01 \"sh dealth\nI RESIGN For THE HOLLOW % PEASONS\nSentowber 12, 1973\n(1)wie \" written)\nPresent Bureau of Indian Affairs policy concerning employee promotions,\nreassignments etc. appears to be based primarily on Race and not on\nmerit considerations. Other employment is available to me which will\nnot impose racial restrictions on my ability to advance in skills and\nknowledge.\nTHE EFFECTIVE DATE of MY RESIGNATION WILL DE September 29, 1972\nPay (Signature)\nPART IV. SEPARATION DATA\nFORWARD COMMUNICATIONS. INCLUDING SALARY CHECKS AND BONDS. 10 THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:\n(Number and Street)\n(City)\n(State)\n(ZIP Code)\nPART 1. (Continued)\nF. REMARKS BY REQUESTING OFFICE:\nBETAL FORD\nPART 11. (Continued)\n30. STANDARD FORM 50 REMARKS\nSUBJECT 10 COMPLETION a 1\nYEAR PROSATIONARY (OR TRIAL) PERIOD COMMENCING\nSERV CE COUNTING TOWARD CAREER (OR FERMANENT) TENURE FROM:\nSUCCESSOR POSITION-EMPLOYEE RETAINED IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE\nPAYPANCE PERFORMANCE PATING SATISFACTORY\nSEPARATIONS: SHOW PEASONS BELOW. AS REQUIRED. CHECK. IF APPLICABLE:\nDURING PROBATION\nFROM APPOINTMENT OF 6 MONTHS OR LESS\nI RESIGN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS Believing in the precepts of our\nDecember 22, 1970\nbeloved Constitution, I can no longer work under the\n(Date minetion \" unlis)\nCommunistic tactics and the 100% discrimination against the white race practiced by\nthe Commissioner of Indian Affairs in general, and the Administrative Officers of\nthe Aberdeen area Office, in particular, the Area Director and the Asst. Area\nDirector in charge of Administration. They break U.S. Civil Service Laws and\nRegulations and even the Constitution of our United States means nothing to them.\nThey refuse to consider a white person for promotion regardless of their merit.\nMr. Briscoe is the immediate Supervisor of his wife a GS-11. All of this is com-\npletely undermining the morale of BIA employees. The white people are seriously discrim\nI cannot and I will not be a part of dragging our flag through the mud and I will\nnot be subservient to another race. WE ARE ALL EQUAL. That is what our fore-\nfathers fought and died for. I hereby tender my resignation in the service of\nTHE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MY RESIGNATION WILL BE\nthe country I so love. God help these\nUnited States.\nEvelyn O'Brien Morgeson\nPART IV. SEPARATION DATA\nFORWARD COMMUNICATIONS. INCLUDING STARY CHECKS AND BONDS. TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS\n(Number and Street)\n(City)\n(State)\n(ZIP (will\n417 No. Jay St.\nAberdeen,\nSouth Dakota\n57401\nPART 1. (Continued)\nF. REMARKS BY REQUESTING CEFICE:\nPART 11. (Continued)\n30. STANDARD FORM 50 REMARKS\nSUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF 1\nYEAR PRODATIONARY (CR TRIAL) PERIOD COMMENCING\nSERVICE.COUNTING TOWARD CAREER (OR PERMANENT) TENURE FROM:\nSUCCESSOR POSITION-EMPLOYEE RETAINED IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE\nINTRANCE PERFORMANCE RATING SATISFACTORY\nSEPARATIONS. SHOW REASONS BELOW. AS REQUIRED. CHICK. IF APPLICABLE\nDURING PROBATION\nFROM APPOINTMENT OF ( MONTHS OR LESS\nGOVERNMENT PRINTING CFFICE 121-0-300 463 10H\nUnited States Department of the Interior\nBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20242\nNETLY REFER TO:\njual Employment\nOpportunity\nOCT 1 6 1972\nMemorandum\nTo:\nArea Directors\nArea Equal Employment Opportunity Officers\nEqual Employment Opportunity Counsellors\nFrom:\nBureau Equal Employment Opportunity Officer\nSubject: Discrimination Complaints based on Indian Preference\nThis office has received several letters complaining of alleged racial\ndiscrimination in promotional opportunities in the Bureau of Indian\nAffairs as a result of the Indian Preference Policy announced on\nJune 23, 1972.\nIn Executive Order 11478, issued August 8, 1969, President Nixon\nassigned the Civil Service Commission overall responsibility for\nleadership and guidance of the Federal Government's internal equal\nemployment opportunity program. The Executive Order prohibits\ndiscrimination in Federal employment on the basis of race, color,\nreligion, sex, or national origin. It provides for an affirmative\naction program to assure equal opportunity in all aspects of Federal\nemployment, and contains provisions for prompt, fair, and impartial\nprocessing of complaints of discrimination in Federal employment\nbased on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Equal\nemployment opportunity is national policy and is applicable to all\ncitizens. It is not restricted to any particular segment or segments\nof our population.\nWith reference to employment in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, however,\nthere is a Federal policy of \"Indian Preference\" embodied in Section 12\nof the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 9S5,\n986; 25 U.S.C. 472). This legislation directs the Secretary of the\nInterior \"to establish standards of health, age, character, experience,\nknowledge, and ability for Indians who may be appointed, without regard\nto civil service lows, to the various positions maintained, nor or\nhereafter, by the Indian Office, in the administration of functions\nor services affecting any Indian tribe. Such qualified Indian shall\n2:\nhereafter have the preference to appointments to vacancies in any such\nposition. \" Indian preference eligibles are further defined as those\nhaving one-fourth or more degree of Indian blood. The Civil Service\nCommission supports and agrees with the announced interpretation of:\nIndian preference laws and has indicated that this policy interpretation\nis consistent with programs administered by the Commission.\nWe have the responsibility of giving full effect to the Indian preference\nlaws which Congress has enacted and that, of course, is the purpose of\nthe policy revision approved by the Secretary. Any questions concerning\nthe validity of those laws is not a matter of administrative determination.\nHe are aware that our interpretations have been challenged in the United\nStates District Court in New Mexico, and shall, of course, be bound by\nany final judicial decision resulting from that action.\nThe impact of Indian preference has been weighted against Veteran\npreference, by the Civil Service Commission, which is a program\ncomparable in nature and intent. Incidentally, neither has been\ndetermined to be discriminatory, and it has been determined that in\nthe Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian preference prevails over Veteran\npreference.\nThe effect of the most recent legislation places the responsibility\nfor monitoring Federal Employment Programs under the Civil Service\nCommission, and in view of the fact that they support the position\non Indian preference announced by the Department, we do not regard\nthis as an issue for consideration as a discrimination complaint.\nEqual Employment Opportunity Officer\nORIGINAL TO:\nJohn Ratchford\nCOPY FYI TO:\nBrad Patterson\nTHE NAVAJO NATION\nWINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA 86515\nPETER MacDONALD\nCHAIRMAN\nSeptember 15, 1976\ngr-1\nDear Mr. President:\nI am writing you to urge your signature on H.R. 5465\n\"An Act to revise retirement benefits for certain\nemployees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the\nIndian Health Service not entitled to Indian preference,\nprovide greater opportunity for advancement and\nemployment of Indians and for other purposes. \" It\nhas never been the intention that non-Indian employees\nof the government should unduly suffer from Indian\npreference or self determination. This bill should\ngo a long way to insure equitable treatment while\nfurthering Indian preference and your policy of\nSelf-Determination.\nFORD & LIBRARY DERALD\nRespectfully,\nPeter MacDonald, Chairman\nNavajo Tribal Coundil\n1976 SEP 17 PM I 43\nMAIL ROOM\nWHITE HOUSE\nThe Honorable Gerald Ford\nPresident of the United States\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C.\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBlad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nTom GoNiNion\nOF (Orgenization)\nAberdeen Ind. Health few.\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\n(605)225-0250 (605) 225-0250 X 553\nre: H.R.5465\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\npl.\n9/16\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1969-o68-16-80841-1 382-389\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nCARL Smith\nOF (Organization)\nSo. DAKITA\nB.I.A.\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nRe: H.R. 5465\n(605) 224-8865\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1960-o48-16-80341-1 833-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nJed Kearns\nOF Poplar (Organization)\nMontana PHONE NO. B.I.A\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nsupport HR.5465\n(406) 768-3441\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nyot\n9/16\nTIME\n213\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1909-o48-16-80341-1 : 383-889\n63-108\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBlad\nX\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nElsie Kolstead\nOF (Organization)\nBi illings, Montana\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\n(406) 245-6 711\nX 6301\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\npe GPO 1969-c48-16-30341-1 882-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nFred Hamel\nOF (Organization)\nBillings, mt.\nPHONE.NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nSupports HR 5 465\n(406)248-3284\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1969-o48-16-80341-1 332-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nneil Mc Kenzie\nOF (Orgenization)\nCROW Agency, Mt. B.I.A.\nPLEASE CALL\nPHONE NO.\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nH.R. 5465\nlend support, please\nRECEIVED BY\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nyot.\nDATE 9/16\nTIME\nGPO : 1969-o48-16-80341-1 382-389\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBRAd\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nOF (Organization)\nJohn Fleming\nIndian Hea Lth Services\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nRE: H.R. 5465\n(801) 723- 2880 FORD\n& LIBRARY GERALD\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1969-c48-16-60341-1 832-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nIHS\nNo queat reades\nof indueduals 600 in lifetume of\nbill (5 yrs)\nWould privately\nFORD 3 EFBRARY OFRALD\nMr. signature\n(ouly 100 ebgable as\nMat our 20-30 -40.50\n19t gran)\nkn 1st years so\nX30 32 our 5-year period\nMay try to orenide.\n150-200\nour 600\nFORD is LIBRARY\nMT:\nPresauelly no problem u concert\nToo libral 50r20 ( bill - 25at any age\nCoupuss would last does - ! pubsibly: week us t left .\nmovid A and of 05HS our objectors\nSpesher 245 less a prosual neteral\nof Hunduson. Strees stay\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nVirginia Elimit\nOF (Organization)\nlings PHONE appeals- NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\n(406)\n245-6711\nX6615\nRECEIVED BY\nTIME\nin\nDATE 9/15\n310\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO 333-389\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nPeople ant used 4\nlost they can E\nrefund by tribes a\nsee engloyed avvituants.\nor counectuate\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nCrivit -Daniel -\nOF (Organization)\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\n5509- ret- berefit 2808\n544 1112-\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1969-o48-16-80341-1 332-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nCalendar No. 971\n94TH CONGRESS\n2D SESSION\nH. R. 5465\n[Report No. 94-828]\n[Report No. 94-1029]\nIN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES\nMAY 4, 1976\nRead twice and referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service\nMAY 13, 1976\nReported by Mr. McGEE, with an amendment and an amendment to the title\n[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]\nJUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976\nReferred to the Committee on Appropriations\nJULY 2 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976\nReported without amendment\nGLEATO R.FORD LIBRARY\nAN ACT\nTo allow Federal employment preference to certain employees\nof the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to certain employees of\nthe Indian Health Service, who are not entitled to the\nbenefits of, or who have been adversely affected by the\napplication of, certain Federal laws allowing employment\npreference to Indians, and for other purposes.\n1\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-\n2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n3 That, for purposes of this Act\nII-0\n2\n3\n1\n(1) \"eligible employee\" means an employee who\n1\n(2) \"vacancy\" means a vacancy in & position in\n2\n(A) is employed in a position in the Bureau\n2\nthe competitive service for which the minimum rate of\n3\nof Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior,\n3\nbasic pay is less than the minimum rate for GS-16.\n4\nor in the Indian Health Service of the Department\n4\nterior who has received a specific notice of separation\n5\nof Health, Education, and Welfare, under a career\n5\nby reduction in force;\n6\nor ft career-conditional appointment, and who has\n6\n(5) by an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs\n7\nbeen so employed since June 17, 1974; and\n7\nwho\n8\n(B) is not entitled to benefits under, or has\n8\n(A) must be reassigned because of circum-\n9\nbeen adversely affected by the application of\n9\nstances beyond his control which threaten his life\n10\n(i) section 12 of the Act of June 18, 1934\n10\nor health, and\n11\n(25 U.S.C. 472);\n11\n(B) cannot be reassigned to a position within\n12\n(ii) the first section of the Act of June 7,\n12\nthe Bureau of Indian Affairs because of the opera-\n13\n1897 (25 U.S.C. 274);\n13\ntion of any provision of law referred to in para-\n14\n(iii) the Act of April 30, 1908, and see-\n14\ngraph (1) (B)- of the first section of this Act; or\n15\ntion 23 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (25 U.S.C.\n15\n(6) by an employee of the Trust Territory of the\n16\n47);\n16\nPacific Islands who is displaced by a Micronesian and\n17\n(iv) section 6 of the Acts of May 17, 1882,\n17\nmust be returned to the United States.\n18\nand July 4, 1884 (25 U.S.C. 46);\n18\nSec. 3. When an appointing authority has twice con-\n19\n(1) section 2069 of the Revised Statutes\n19 sidered and passed over an eligible employee (disregarding\n20\n(25 U.S.C. 45);\n20 any instance in which another eligible employee or an indi-\n21\n(vi) section 10 of the Act of August 15,\n21 vidual referred to in section 2(b) of this Act was appointed\n22\n1884 (25 U.S.C. 44); or\n22 to the position), such eligible employee is entitled to appoint\n23\n(vii) any other provision of Federal law\n23 ment to the next occurring vacancy in such Department for\n24\nproviding Indians preferential employment con-\n24 which he applies, unless the appointing authority deter-\n25\nsideration for positions within the Federal com-\n25 mines that compelling reasons exist for passing over such\n26\npetitive service; and\n26 employee, and files such reasons in writing with the Civil\n4\n5\n1 Service Commission. The Commission shall make such\n1 shall be submitted not later than the 90th day following the\n2 reasons a part of the record of the eligible employee and\n2 date of the determination of the Civil Service Commission\n3 may require the submission of more detailed information in\n3 under section 3 of this Act.\n4 support of the passing over of such employee. The Commis-\n4\nSEC. 5. The appointment to each vacancy occurring in\n5 sion shall determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the\n5 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (other\n6 reasons submitted and shall send its findings to the appoint-\n6 than a vacancy occurring in the Indian Health Service)-\n7 ing authority, who shall comply with the findings of the\n7 shall be made, with respect to applicants who are eligible\n8 Commission. The eligible employee or his representative, on\n8 employees of the Indian Health Service, in accordance with\n9 request, is entitled to & copy of\n9 the provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Act. For the\n10\n(1) the reasons submitted by the appointing\n10 purposes of applying such provisions, references therein to\n11\nauthority; and\n11 the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be deemed to be refer-\n12\n(2) the findings of the Commission.\n12 ences to the Indian Health Service, and references to the\n13\nSEC. 4. An eligible employee who is passed over for\n13 Department of the Interior shall be deemed to be references\n14 compelling reasons determined to be sufficient by the Civil\n14 to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.\n15 Service Commission under section 3 of this Act, upon his\n15\nSEC. 6. (a) The Civil Service Commission shall pre-\n16 application, shall be\n16 seribe such regulations as it deems necessary to carry out\n17\n(1) separated from the service and, if otherwise\n17\nthe provisions of this Act.\n18\neligible, shall be entitled to an annuity under the pro-\n18\n(b) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply\n19\nvisions of section 8336(d) of title 5, United States\n19 with respect to vacancies occurring during the 3-year period\n20\nCode; or\n20 beginning with the month which begins more than 90 days\n21\n(2) entitled to appointment, in accordance with\n21 following the effective date of this Act, except that the Civil\n22\nsection 3 of this Act, to the next occurring vacaney\n22 Service Commission may extend such period + additional year\n23\nfor which he is qualified.\n23\nwith respect to vacancies\n24 A separation under paragraph (1) of this section shall be\n24\n(1) in the Department of the Interior, or\n25 deemed to be an involuntary separation from the service. An\n26 application for separation under paragraph (1) of this section\n6\n7\n1\n(2) in the Department of Health, Education, and\n1 ing a preference to Indians in promotions and other personnel\n2\nWelfare, or\n2 actions.\".\n3\n(3) in both Departments.\n3\nSEC. 2. Section 8339 of title 5, United States Code, is\n4\n(c) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall take effect\n4 amended-\n5 on October 1, 1976, or on the date of the enactment of the\n5\n(1) by inserting in subsection (f), immediately\n6 Act, whichever date is later.\n6\nafter \"subsections (a)-(e)\", the following: \"and (n)\";\n7 That section 8336 of title 5, United States Code, is amend-\n7\n(2) by inserting in subsection (i), immediately\n8 ed by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and in-\n8\nafter \"subsections (a)-(h)\", the following: \"and (n)\";\n9 serting the following new subsection:\n9\n(3) by inserting in subsections (j) and (k)(1),\n10\n\"(h) An employee is entitled to an annuity if he (1)\n10\nimmediately after \"subsections (a)-(i)\" each time it\n11 is separated from the service after completing 25 years of\n11\nappears, the following: \"and (n)\";\n12 service before December 31, 1985, or after becoming 50 years\n12\n(4) by inserting in subsection (1), immediately\n13 of age and completing 20 years of service before December 31,\n13\nafter \"subsections (a)-(k)\", the following: \"and (n)\";\n14 1985, (2) was employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs\n14\n(5) by inserting in subsection (n), immediately\n15 or the Indian Health Service continuously from June 17,\n15\nafter \"subsections (a)-(e)\", the following: \"and (n)\";\n16 1974, to the date of his separation, (3) is not otherwise\n16\nand\n17 entitled to full retirement benefits, (4) is not an Indian\n17\n(6) by adding at the end thereof the following:\n18 entitled to a preference under section 12 of the Act of\n18\n\"(n) The annuity of an employee retiring under section\n19 June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986) or any other provision of\n19 8336 (h) of this title is:\n20 law granting a preference to Indians in promotions and\n20\n\"(A) 21/2 percent of his average pay multiplied by\n21 other personnel actions, and (5) can demonstrate that he\n21\nso much of his total service as does not exceed 20 years;\n22 has been passed over on at least two occasions for promotion,\n22\nplus\n23 transfer, or reassignment to a position representing carcer\n23\n\"(B) 2 percent of his average pay multiplied by SQ\n24 advancement because of section 12 of the Act of June 18,\n24\nmuch of his total service as exceeds 20 years.\".\n25 1934 (18 Stat, 986) or any other provision of law grant-\n8\n1\nSEC. 3. (a) Section 8341 of title 5, United States Code,\n2 is amended-\n3\n(1) by inserting in subsection (b) (1), immediately\n4\nafter \"section 8339(a)-(i)\", the following: \"and (n)\";\n5\nand\n6\n(2) by striking out of subsection (d) \"section 8339\n7\n(a)-(f) and (i)\" and inserting in lieu thereof the\n8\nfollowing: \"section 8339 (a)-(f), (i), and (n)\".\n9\n(b) Section 8344(a)(A) of such title is amended by\n10 striking out \"and (i)\" and inserting in lieu thereof \"(i),\n11 and (n)\".\n12\nSEC. 4. The amendments made by this Act shall take\n13 effect on October 1, 1976, or on the date of enactment of this\n14 Act, whichever date is later, and shall only apply to cm-\n15 ployees separated from the service on and after June 17,\n16 1974.\nAmend the title SO as to read: \"An Act to revise retire-\nment benefits for certain employees of the Bureau of In-\ndian Affairs and the Indian Health Service not entitled to\nIndian preference, provide greater opportunity for ad-\nvancement and employment of Indians, and for other pur-\nposes.\".\nPassed the House of Representatives May 3, 1976.\nAttest:\nEDMUND L. HENSHAW, JR.,\nClerk.\nCalendar No. 971\n94TH CONGRESS\n2D SESSION\nH.R.5465\n[Report No. 94-828]\nV\n[Report No. 94-1029]\nAN ACT\nTo allow Federal employment preference to\ncertain employees of the Bureau of Indian\nAffairs, and to certain employees of the In-\ndian Health Service, who are not entitled to\nthe benefits of, or who have been adversely\naffected by the application of, certain Fed-\neral laws allowing employment preference to\nIndians, and for other purposes.\nMAY 4, 1976\nRead twice and referred to the Committee on Post\nOffice and Civil Service\nMAY 13, 1976\nReported with an amendment, and an amendment to\nthe title\nJUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976\nReferred to the Committee on Appropriations\nJULY 2 (legislative day, JUNE 18), 1976\nReported without amendment\ni\n2\nPro - HR5465 Conserence Rpt\nPassed Fri,\n3\n9/10\n4\n5\n6\nJR-1\nBoigstram\nThe White House\nto\n1\n2\nnon. Indians- early Bushington, retirement\nm\n3\nWHD016\n719P EDT SEP 9 76\n09/209/768\n4\n5\nICS IPMMTZZ CSP\n6\n7045866024 TDMT SYLVA NC 30 09-09 0426P EST\n7\n8\nPMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n9\nWHITE HOUSE\n10\n11\nWASHINGTON DC\n12\nI WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF BILL HR5465\n13\n14\nBECAUSE IT IS FELT THAT THIS BILL IS THE ONLY EQUITABLE ONE FOR\n15\nINDIAN AND NON INDIAN EMPLOYEES.\n16\n17\nBONNIE COGDILL BIA EMPLOYEE CHEROKEE AGENCY CHEROKEE NC\n18\nNNNN\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. U.S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALD\n24\n25\n26\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\nMoune\n1\n2\n3\nWHD016 719P EDT SEP 9 76\nWAG318(1706) (2-042630E253)PD 09/09/76\n4\nICS IPMMTZZ CSP\n1976 SEP 9 PM 7 20\n5\n6\n7045866024 TDMT SYLVA NC 30 09-09 0426P EST\n7\n8\nPMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n9\nWHITE HOUSE\n10\n11\nWASHINGTON DC\n12\nI WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF BILL HR5465\n13\n14\nBECAUSE IT IS FELT THAT THIS BILL IS THE ONLY EQUITABLE ONE FOR\n15\nINDIAN AND NON INDIAN EMPLOYEES.\n16\n17\nBONNIE COGDILL BIA EMPLOYEE CHEROKEE AGENCY CHEROKEE NC\n18 NNNN\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED at THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY IL\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n2\nBro HR 5465\n3\n4\n5\n6\n35 JR-1 2 3 1 35200\nShe White House\nWeekington\n4\nWHA008(1100) (2-011247A253)PD 09/09/76 1059\n5\n1976 SEP 9 PM 12 05\nICS IPMAFUB AHG\n6\n7\n202 A 06007 POM JUNEAU ALASKA 15 09-09 855A PDT\n8\nPMS PRES FORD\n9\n10\nWHITEMOUSE DC\n11\nPLEASE APPROVE HR5465 THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY\n12\n13\nFOR INDIANS\n14\nROGER FITZGERALD\n15\n16\nRR4 BOX 4473 JUNEAU AK 99803\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 NNNN\n26\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n2\n3\n4\nWHA008 (1100) (2-011247A253)PD 09/09/76 1059\n2\n0\n5\nICS IPMAFUB AHG\n6\n7\n202 A 06007 POM JUNEAU ALASKA 15 09-09 855A PDT\n8 PMS PRES FORD\n9\n10 WHITEHOUSE DC\n11 PLEASE APPROVE HR5465 THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY\n12\n13 FOR INDIANS\n14\nROGER FITZGERALD\n15\n16\nRR4 BOX 4473 JUNEAU AK 99803\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, 0 S.A. U.S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nNNNN\n26\n2\nib\nBro HR 5465\n3\n4\n5\n352\nto\n6\nThe White House\n1\nTR-1\n2\n3\n4\nWHA010(1148) (2-021493E253)PD 09/09/76 1148\n5 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP\n1976 SEP 9 PM 12 56\n6\n7\n5059886271 POM TDBN SANTA FE NM 14 09-09 1148A ES,\n8 PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n9\n10\nWHITE HOUSE DC\n11\nPLEASE SIGN HOUSE BILL 5465 SUPPORTING NON INDIAN GOVERNMENT\n12\n13\nEMPLOYEES DEPRIVED OF MERIT PROMOTION\n14\nCAL E ROLLINS2937 BELLAMAH DR/SANTA FE/NM 87501\n15\n16 NNNN\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\nMuties\n1\n2\n3\n4\nWHA010(1148) (2-021493E253)PD 09/09/76 1148\n5 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP\n1976 SEP 9 PM 12 56\n6\n7\n5059886271 POM TDBN SANTA FE NM 14 09-09 1148A EST\n8 PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n9\n10\nWHITE HOUSE DC\n11 PLEASE SIGN HOUSE BILL 5465 SUPPORTING NON INDIAN GOVERNMENT\n12\n13\nEMPLOYEES DEPRIVED OF MERIT PROMOTION\n14\nCAL E ROLLINS2937 BELLAMAH DR/SANTA FE/NM 87501\n15\n16 NNNN\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY. V. S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n2\nGw HR 5465\n3\n4\n5\n3/35/20\n6\nThe Ellipite House\n1\nManigington\n2\n3\nJR-1\nWHB005 (1032) (2-015154E253)PD 09/09/76 1032\n4\n5\nICS IPMMTZZ CSP\n1976 SEP 9 PM 12 06\n6\n7044979131 POM TDMT CHEROKEE NC 9 09-09 1032A EST\n7\n8\nPMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n9\nWHITE HOUSE DC\n10\n11\nREQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF HR5465. THANK YOU\n12\nJAKE HYATT BOX 493 CHEROKEE NC 28719\n13\n14 NNNN\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY U. U.S.A\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n2\n3\nWHB005 (1032) (2-015154E253)PD 09/09/76 1032\n4\n5\nICS IPMMTZZ CSP\n1976 SEP 9 PM 12 06\n&\n7044979131 POM TDMT CHEROKEE NC 9 09-09 1032A EST\n7\n8\nPMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD\n0\nWHITE HOUSE DC\n10\n11\nREQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF HR5465. THANK YOU\n12\nJAKE HYATT BOX 493 CHEROKEE NC 28719\n13\n14 NNNN\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\nFORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, #. S.A U.S.A.\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\nproHR5465\nSTATES POSTA\n@\n20T COGDILL\n®\nPO BOX 941\nSILVA NC 28779\nwestern union\nMailgram\nUNITED *\nU.S.MAIL\nSERVICE *\n*******\nJR.1\n2-044618E254 09/10/76 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHB\n7045866697 MGM TDMT SILVA NC 100 09-10 0354P EST\nPRESIDENT GERALD FORD\nWHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON DC 20510\nWOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF HR 5465 BECAUSE\nIT IS FELT THAT THIS BILL IS THE ONLY EQUITABLE ONE FOR INDIAN AND NON\nINDIAN EMPLOYEES\nMARGARET 0 COGDILL\nCIA EMPLOYEE\nCHEROKEE AGENCY\nCHEROKEE NC\n15:55 EST\nMGMCOMP MGM\nGLEATED FORD NEBRARY\nREPLY BY MAIL-GRAM BEL REVERSE DIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBERS\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nService Unit Die, Utah\nOF (Organization)\nJohn Fleming\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nRe: Stevens\nBill\nHe is tele FAXING some\niN Formation to you this\nmorning\n8.° FORD LIBRA\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nGPO :1960-c48-15-80341-1 9/20 332-889\n10\n19\nor\nSTANDARD FORM 63\npt\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\n1631 eligible\n218 -679-3341 3341\n6 220mg\n$42\n$107\nReesor\nSTATE\nR.FORD AMERICA LIBRASE\n6/28 BIA\n14 IHS\n107\na\n842\nJDE\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nGERALO NE FORD STATES\nWASHINGTON\nMauree\nReichlow\nJim Purce\nNavago Plant M\nBIA- Wuedon B\n737 0585\nor Galley\nFORD LIBRARY & BERRED\nNFFB\nMEMORANDUM\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nCarl Smith\nCharles Heinaman\nOF (Organization)\nOF (Organization)\nPHONE NO.\nMontano PHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\n(60.)\nMESSAGE 2456296\nMESSAGE\n(406)638-2671 (406)\nX53\nhm- 624-7098\nre: H.R. 5465\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE 9/16\nTIME\nm GPO :1989-648-16-83341-1 332-339\n4-\nRECEIVED BY\nCat\nDATE\nTIME\n63-108\n9/16\n1021\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO 048 883-389\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nDr. Rhodes\nOF (Organization)\nOKLAhoma City\nPHONE NO.\nX\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE (405) 272-9876 X 325\nIndian Health Bill\nVERIS\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1969-48-16-S0341-1 882-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nELSIE KoLstEAd\nOF (Organization)\nBillings, PLEASE CALL\nmt. PHONE NO. BIA\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nsupport for H.R. 5465\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\npl\n9-17\nGPO :1969-od8-16-80341-1 382-889\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nOF\nJames (Organization) Linbug\nBI PHONE A NO. - Poplar north\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nHR 5465\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE 9/17\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nm\nq-\nGPO :1960-c48-18-80341-1 : 332-389\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nBrad\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nDr. Rhodes\nOF (Organization)\nGkla PHONE CODE/EXT. City NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nRe\nHR 5465-\n(405) 292.0 X325 9876\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nm\n9/19\n320\n63-108\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1960-e48-10-80341-1 : 332-389\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nI\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDATE 9/17\nMEMO TO:\nBrad Patterson\nFROM:\nKAREN KEESLING kee\nFor appropriate handling\nFor your information\nPer your request\nRemarks:\nDo you know any thing\nabout this bill ?\nEMPLOYED\nZIA If F.E.W.\nEMPLOYED VNOMEN\nFEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN\nWOMEN\n*\n1963\nP. 0. BOX 1699\nALBUQUERQUE N.M. - 87103\n2 Sep 76\nTo The President\nThe White House\nWashington D.C. - 20000\nSir:\nAs President of the Albuquerque (Zia) Chapter of Federally Employed Women,\nInc., I urge you to favorably consider HR-5465 granting Early Retirement\nto non-preference employees of the Bureau Of Indian Affairs and the Indian\nHealth Service.\nIt is my responsibility to represent all women Civil Servants in my area\nand, because HR-5465 will be of great assistance to both Indians and non-\nIndians, I can assure you that \"Early Retirement is the only way to go\".\nThe Government and the Nation have pledged Self Determination to the Amer-\nican Native peoples and the most effective way to achieve this is to give\nthem an Agency that truly understands their problems. Yet we cannot in\nall conscience refuse non-preference employees their rights under the Civil\nService Act.\nA copy of this letter is being forwarded to Major General Jeanne Holm of\nyour staff, and I do hope that you will find the time to confer with her\nconcerning the ramifications of this bill on women employees serving in both\nthe BIA and IHS.\nMost Respectfully,\nBel Moore\nIsobel M. Moore\nPresident\nFORD LIBRARY + GERALD\nPersonal Copy To:\nMaj. Gen. Jeanne Holm\n902 South Jay Street\nAberdeen, South Dakota 57401\nSeptember 17, 1976\nThe President\nWhite House\nWashington, D. C.\nAttn: Mr. Brad Patterson\nDear Mr. Patterson:\nIn accordance with our conversation on September 16, 1976, I am sending\nyou a copy of the testimony presented to the House Subcommittee on Retire-\nment and Employee Benefits hearings on HR 5465 on February 3 and 4, 1976.\nI believe this document covers the principal points in support of the legis-\nlation.\nA major concern of both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary\nof Health, Education, and Welfare, seems to be that the passage of HR 5465\nwould cripple the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service\nthrough the retirement of an inordinate number of skilled mid and upper level\nemployees. I cannot speak for BIA nor for the other IHS Areas, but the fol-\nlowing table demonstrates that the Aberdeen and Bemidji Areas of the Indian\nHealth Service (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,\nNebraska, and Iowa) will lose only 53 employees between July 1, 1976 and\nJune 30, 1981. The initial eligibility of 26 in 1976-77 accounts for almost\none-half of the total. The average for the next five years (7/1/77 and\n6/30/81) is only 5.4 employees per year. This is less than one percent of\nthe total Area employees.\nHR5465 RETIREMENT ELIGIBLES - ABERDEEN AND BEMIDJI AREAS - IHS\nAs of 6/30/76:\n50/20\n21\nany age/25\n5\n26\nAs of 6/30/77\n50/20\n6\naa/25\n0\n6\nAs of 6/30/78\n50/20\n2\naa/25\n0\nFORD LIBRARY & 07V839\n2\nAS of 6/30/79\n50/20\n3\naa/25\n1\n4\nAs of 6/30/80\n50/20\n6\naa/25\n2\n8\n-2-\nAs of 6/30/81\n50/20\n7\naa/25\n0\n7\n53\nI'm sure you will agree that such an attrition rate is far better than\nthe normally expected turnover.\nI would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you to explain the\ndesperate need for this legislation. If you could arrange the time to\nsee me before you prepare the summary of recommendations for the Presi-\ndent, my colleagues and I would be grateful. You may reach me at\n(605) 225-0250, extension 553, or my home (605) 225-7978, if you believe\na visit would be useful.\nSincerely,\nThomas H. Goninion\nABERDEEN AREA\nBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND\nINDIAN HEALTH SERVICE\nFEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES\nSTATEMENT FOR HEARINGS ON HR 5858 AND HR 5465\nBEFORE\nTHE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS\nAND THE\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE\nOF THE\nCOMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE\nUNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nNINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\nWASHINGTON, DC\nFEBRUARY 3-4, 1976\nI\nBOTH THE PREFERENCE AND NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN\nAFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A VIRTUALLY UNTENABLE\nEMPLOYMENT SITUATION BY THE SUDDEN RIGID APPLICATION OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE\nPROVISIONS OF THE WHEELER - HOWARD ACT OF JUNE I8, 1934, BY THE SECRETARIES OF\nHEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE AND INTERIOR, FORTY-TWO YEARS AFTER ENACTMENT!\nIN RESPONSE TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN MORTON\nVS, MANCARI (No. 73-362 JUNE 17, 1974) AND THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN FREEMEN vs. MORTON (No. 327-71 DECEMBER 21, 1972) THESE\nAGENCIES HAVE BROADENED THEIR POLICY TO APPLY INDIAN PREFERENCE TO ALL PERSONNEL\nMOVEMENTS IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE,\nTHE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT:\n\"CONTRARY TO THE CHARACTERIZATION MADE BY APPELLEES THIS (INDIAN)\nPREFERENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE 'RACIAL DISCRIMINATION'. INDEED,\nIT IS NOT EVEN A RACIAL PREFERENCE. RATHER, IT IS AN EMPLOYMENT\nCRITERION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF INDIAN SELF-\nGOVERNMENT AND TO MAKE THE BIA MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF ITS\nCONSTITUENT GROUPS.\"\nTHE LEGALITY OR CONSTITIONALITY OF THE SEVERAL INDIAN PREFERENCE STATUTES,\nDATING BACK TO 1789, IS NOT AT ISSUE, ON THL CONTRARY, THE COURTS HAVE\nDECIDED THAT THIS PREFERENCE IS A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO ASSURE THE INDIAN\nTRIBES OF THE RIGHT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES AND TO OPERATE THE GOVERNMENT\nPROGRAMS WHICH AFFECT THEM. THIS RIGHT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE CONGRESS\nIN NUMEROUS ACTS AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE COURTS IN CASE AFTER CASE. WE DO\nNOT QUAREL WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURTS AND WE MUST ABIDE WITH THEM.\n2\nHOWEVER, THE ACTIONS OF THE COURTS HAVE, IN EFFECT, INFORMED SEVERAL\nTHOUSAND FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR\nNON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES IN EITHER THE BIA OR THE IHS. THE PROTECTIONS OF\nTHE CIVIL SERVICE MERIT SYSTEM HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY\nERASED, THE PRIMARY CRITERION FOR PROMOTION, TRANSFER, IN FACT, ANY PERSONNEL\nACTION, IS INDIAN DESCENT! POTENTIAL ADVANCEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY BLOCKED, NOT\nONLY FOR NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES, BUT FOR THE PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES AS WELL,\nBECAUSE THEIR ADVANCEMENT IS IMPEDED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE NON-PREFERENCE\nEMPLOYEES,\nIN HIS REMARKS IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF HIS SENATE BILL\n4070 IN THE 93RD CONGRESS, SENATOR TED STEVENS OF ALASKA SAID:\n\"THESE PERSONS (NON-INDIAN BIA AND IHS EMPLOYEES), NOT TOLD\nDIFFERENTLY, QUITE RIGHTLY ASSUMED THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE\nTO DEVELOP THEIR FULL CAREER POTENTIAL WITHIN EACH OF THESE\nTWO PRINCIPAL ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE INDIAN\nPEOPLE.\"\nSINCE THE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF THESE AGENCIES WERE NOT ONLY\n\"NOT TOLD DIFFERENTLY\", AND WE WERE REPEATEDLY AND EMPHATICALLY ASSURED\nTHAT WE WOULD, INDEED, BE ABLE TO DEVELOP OUR \"FULL CAREER POTENTIAL\",\nTHERE WAS NO NEED TO ASSUME OTHERWISE. Now, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT WE\nWERE SERIOUSLY, AND IN SOME CASES PERHAPS DELIBERATELY AND CALLOUSLY, MISLED\nBY AUTHORIZED AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. WE WERE HIRED UNDER\nTHE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CONCERNING\nCRITERIA FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE: ABILITY, TRAINING,\nEDUCATION, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE.\n3\nITEM:\nMEMORANDUM TO ALL BIA EMPLOYEES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN\nAFFAIRS, JULY 30, 1970:\n\"I HAVE ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS FOR A REVIEW OF PERSONNEL\nPOLICIES TO (I) PLACE MAXIMUM ATTENTION ON INDIAN\nPREFERENCE IN INITIAL EMPLOYMENT; (2) PROVIDE MAXIMUM\nTRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES ; AND (3)\nASSURE ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES ON MERIT PROMOTION\nPRINCIPLES, WITH SAFEGUARDS TO SEE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.\"\n(EMPHASIS ADDED)\nITEM:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS MEMORANDUM, THREE MONTHS LATER:\n\"THE BUREAU'S EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM\nWILL EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT INDIAN PREFERENCE WILL BE\nGIVEN ONLY IN INSTANCES OF INITIAL EMPLOYMENT AND RE-\nEMPLOYMENT. PROMOTIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS\nOF MERIT. BUREAU EMPLOYEES ARE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND\nAS SUCH, THE NATURE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS CONTROLLED BY\nCIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS.\"\n(EMPHASIS ADDED)\nITEM:\nMEMORANDUM FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO HEADS OF\nDEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, MARCH 6, I975:\n\"OUR NATION'S STRENGTH IS BASED UPON THE CONCEPT OF\nEQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OUR CITIZENS. DECISIONS\nMOTIVATED BY FACTORS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENTS\nOF A JOB HAVE NO PLACE IN THE EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM OF\nANY EMPLOYER AND PARTICULARLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.\"\n4\nITEM:\nLETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION\nTO SENATOR GALE W. MCGEE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE\nAND CIVIL SERVICE, U. S. SENATE, SEPTEMBER I5, 1974:\n\"THE GENERAL RULE UNDER COMMISSION REGULATIONS IS THAT\nEVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE COMPETITIVE CIVIL SERVICE IS ELIGIBLE\nTO MOVE \"NONCOMPETITIVELY\" THAT IS, WITHOUT FURTHER COMPETI-\nTION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS--\nTO ANY OTHER POSITION IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE HE QUALIFIES\nFOR.\"\nIT WOULD BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO FIND CLEARER STATEMENTS\nOF THE COMMITTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO THE INTENTIONS OF\nTHE CONGRESS THAT FEDERAL PERSONNEL SYSTEMS BE CONDUCTED ON THE BASIS OF\nMERIT, WITHOUT REGARD TO MATTERS OF RACE, SEX, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN,\nOR AFFILIATION. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM FROM THE\nCOMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, MORRIS THOMPSON, TO ALL BIA AREA DIRECTORS,\nPERSONNEL OFFICERS, AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICERS ON APRIL 4,\n1975:\nSUBJECT: ADHERENCE TO REGULATIONS, LAW, COURT ORDERS AND POLICY GOVERNING\nINDIAN PREFERENCE IN ALL ACCESSION ACTIONS IN THE BIA:\n\"ON MARCH IL, 1975, WE FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF A TELETYPE\nTO THE ANADARKO AREA WHICH REQUESTED A REPORT OF AN\nALLEGED REASSIGNMENT OF A NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEE WITHOUT\nCOMPETITION. THE ATTACHED COPY OF OUR TELETYPE OF MARCH\n3I DIRECTS THE CANCELLATION OF THE REASSIGNMENT. DURING\nTHE THIRTY DAYS SINCE THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN, WE HAVE HAD\nNUMEROUS REPORTS OF IT AND QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.\n5\nCRITICAL EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHICH DICTATE THE MOVEMENT\nOF AN EMPLOYEE OCCUR IN EVERY AREA AS WELL AS THIS OFFICE.\nTHESE ARE THE KINDS OF CASES WHICH WERE PRESENTED TO THE\nAPPEALS COURT WHEN WE ASKED FOR LIMITED AUTHORITY FOR THE\nCOMMISSIONER OR THE SECRETARY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS\nFOR REASSIGNMENT OF NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEES. THE THREE-JUDGE\nCOURT DENIED THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN CASES WHICH INVOLVE\nNON-INDIAN EMPLOYEES WHO MUST BE MOVED BECAUSE OF LOSS OF\nEFFECTIVENESS WITH THE INDIAN PEOPLE, THREATS TO LIFE AND\nPROPERTY, HEALTH REASONS, ETC., THERE MUST BE MAXIMUM co-\nOPERATION AMONG AREAS TO LOCATE JOBS FOR WHICH QUALIFIED\nINDIAN CANDIDATES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. WHEN THESE EMERGENCY\nSITUATIONS ARISE, EFFORTS MUST BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY TO\nLOCATE SUITABLE VACANCIES FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE MAY APPLY\nOR MAY BE NOMINATED. THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED UNTIL\nDETAILS FROM DUTY STATIONS HAVE REACHED OR EXCEEDED THE TIME\nLIMITS.\nWE ARE HOPEFUL THE OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHICH WE ARE PUTTING\nINTO FINAL FORM FOR THE BUREAU AND THOSE PROGRAMS WHICH ARE\nBEING DISCUSSED IN THE CONGRESS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND\nOUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE AFFECTED\nEMPLOYEES,\nTHE MEMORANDUM OF JUNE 28, 1974 (COPY ATTACHED) STATES THE\nBUREAU POLICY. ALL APPOINTMENTS, REINSTATEMENTS, REASSIGNMENTS,\nAND PROMOTIONS MUST CONFORM TO THE FREEMAN COURT DECISIONS\n6\nWHICH PROVIDE FOR ABSOLUTE INDIAN PREFERENCE IN FILLING\nVACANCIES HOWEVER CREATED.'\nITEM:\nLETTER TO SENATOR ROMAN HRUSKA OF NEBRASKA FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY\nOF THE INTERIOR FOR MANAGEMENT, RICHARD HITE, MARCH, I975:\n\"THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE REFERENCED BILL S-509\nDEALING WITH EARLY RETIREMENT FOR NON-INDIANS IS THAT IS\nDOES NOT REPRESENT A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, IT\nCOULD DEPRIVE THE BUREAU OF AN INORDINATELY LARGE NUMBER\nOF HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES AT A TIME WHEN THEIR\nEXPERTISE IS MOST NEEDED, WE BELIEVE THAT SUFFICIENT\nALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE TO THOSE NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEES\nWHO FEEL RESTRICTED, EITHER THROUGH DEPARTMENTAL MANDATORY\nOR PRIORITY PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE.\"\n(EMPHASIS ADDED)\nGENTLEMEN, THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE\nINDIAN HEALTH SERVICE IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. To WIT: WE MUST ABIDE WITH\nTHE LAW CONCERNING INDIAN PREFERENCE. FURTHERMORE, THESE DEPARTMENTS\nARE CONVINCED THAT THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES TO EARLY RETIREMENT\nTHROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE\nINTERIOR AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. AND, THESE DEPARTMENTS HAVE\nCONCLUDED THAT THEY CANNOT PERFORM THEIR STATUTORY FUNCTIONS WITHOUT THE\nSERVICES OF \"A LARGE NUMBER OF HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES\". CONSIDER,\nFOR A MOMENT, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATEMENTS JUST RECITED:\nI. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE BIA AND IHS ARE DEPRIVED\nOF THEIR POTENTIAL FOR ADVANCEMENT.\n7\n2. AT A TIME WHEN MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE ON THE DOLE FOR WANT OF\nEMPLOYMENT, THESE EMPLOYEES ARE OFFERED THE ALTERNATIVE OF ACCEPT-\nING THE STATUS QUO OR RESIGNING!\nTHERE IS A VERY UGLY WORD WHICH DESCRIBES SUCH A SITUATION IN WHICH\nAN EMPLOYEE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OR STARVE - PEONAGE!\nTHERE ARE SEVERAL REFERENCES TO DEPARTMENTAL OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAMS IN\nTHE MASS OF STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH HAVE\nBEEN OFFERED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATION. YET, TO OUR\nKNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO SUCH PROGRAM, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU INQUIRE OF THE\nREPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE CIVIL SERVICE\nCOMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE:\nI. How MANY NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF BIA AND IHS HAVE BEEN\nTRANSFERRED TO OTHER PROGRAMS THROUGH IN-HOUSE OR CSC OUT-\nPLACEMENT MECHANISMS?\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nTHE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAS HISTORICALLY FOLLOWED THE LEAD OF THE\nBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN PERSONNEL POLICY MATTERS, WE ARE CONVINCED\nTHAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN VIOLATION OF THE INTENT OF THE CONGRESS AND\nOF THE \"EQUAL PROTECTION\" CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.\nEVEN THE MOST CURSORY PERUSAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF\nAUGUST 5, I954, WHICH TRANSFERRED THE INDIAN HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES FROM\nTHE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND\nWELFARE, WILL REVEAL THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTOR INFLUENCING THIS TRANSFER\nWAS THE INABILITY OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO ATTRACT SUFFICIENT\nQUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO OPERATE THE INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES, EVEN THE\nSUPREME COURT LEFT THIS MATTER OPEN WHEN THEY DEVOTED ONLY A FOOTNOTE TO\n8\nTHE MANCARI DECISION TO THE MATTER:\n\"PRESUMABLY, DESPITE THIS TRANSFER, THE REFERENCE IN SECTION I2 TO\nTHE 'INDIAN OFFICE' HAS CONTINUING APPLICATION TO THE INDIAN HEALTH\nSERVICE.\"\nWE ARE SURE A THOROUGH TEST IN THE COURTS WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR OF\nTHIS PRESUMPTION.\nAs FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE CAVALIER ATTITUDE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE\nINTERIOR AND THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN GIVING LIP SERVICE TO EMPLOYEE\nRIGHTS AND CONCERNS WHILE CONTINUING TO HOLD THE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES\nIN ECONOMIC PEONAGE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE\nTO TWO RECENT EVENTS:\nTHE FIRST IS A MEMORANDUM FROM MR. JOSE ZUNI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF\nADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN\nAFFAIRS OUTLINING A PROPOSED ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH CAN ONLY BE\nINTERPRETED AS BEING DESIGNED TO EFFECTIVELY SCUTTLE ANY OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM.\nMR. ZUNI'S MEMORANDUM TRANSMITS THE RESULTS OF AN \"INFORMAL SURVEY\"\nWHICH PURPORTS TO INDICATE THE NUMBER OF BIA EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD DESIRE\nOUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE ALONG WITH A FEW HIGH PRIORITY OUTPLACEMENT\nEMPLOYEES WHO WE ASSUME MUST BE MOVED BUT HAVE NO PLACE TO GO IN THE BUREAU\nOF INDIAN AFFAIRS, THE NUMBER DESIRING OUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE AS GIVEN\nIN THE MEMORANDUM REPRESENTS LESS THAN ONE-SIXTH (1/6) OF THE BIA STAFF\nPERSONNEL. IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION\nIN THE INDIAN SERVICES TO ACCEPT THIS ESTIMATE: HOWEVER, IT WOULD SEEM TO\nCONTRADICT THE BUREAU'S ARGUMENT THAT EARLY RETIREMENT OR AN EFFECTIVE\nOUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM WOULD BE EXTREMELY COSTLY AND RESULT IN AN UNPRECEDENTED\nEXODUS OF \"HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES WHEN THEIR EXPERTISE IS MOST NEEDED\"\nCONTRARY TO THE OPINIONS PRESENTED BY THE OPPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION,\n9\nTHE EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM WE ARE FAMILIAR WHO WISH TO LEAVE THE INDIAN SERVICES\nWANT TO GET OUT BY WHATEVER ROUTE IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, NOT ONLY TO CONTINUE\nTHEIR CAREERS IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE, OR, IF THEY MUST, ATTEMPT TO\nBEGIN NEW ONES, BUT ALSO, ALTHOUGH IT MAY SEEM UNREALISTICALLY ALTRUISTIC\nIN VIEW OF THE TREATMENT THEY HAVE SUFFERED, TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO\nTHE INDIAN EMPLOYEES WHO WILL REPLACE THEM. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL WHO DESIRE\nOUTPLACEMENT SHOULD PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF THE NUMBER OF BIA EMPLOYEES\nWHO MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EARLY RETIREMENT, BUT OF COURSE, THE ACTUAL NUMBER\nWOULD BE MUCH LESS BECAUSE MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.\nTHE SECOND RECENT EVENT WE WOULD LIKT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THE\nMEMORANDUM FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO ALL BUREAU OF INDIAN\nAFFAIRS EMPLOYEES, DECEMBER I, 1975, SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT CAREER PLACEMENT\nASSISTANCE PROGRAM. A COPY OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS ALSO ATTACHED. AMONG THE\nPREREQUISITS AN EMPLOYEE MUST FULFILL TO MEET THE OUTPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE\nELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IS ONE WHICH REQUIRES\nTHE EMPLOYEE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS APPLIED FOR AT LEAST TWO VACANCIES\nFOR WHICH HE WAS QUALIFIED AND FOR WHICH A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WAS SELECTED\nOVER HIM. IT IS APPARENTLY NOT SUFFICIENT HUMILIATION TO BE A DE FACTO\nSECOND CLASS EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYEE MUST HIMSELF PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE WHICH\nAFFORD THE ADMINISTRATION THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND HIM OF THAT DISTRESSING\nFACT AT LEAST TWICE. THE FINAL SECTION OF THE \"OUT PLACEMENT PROGRAM\",\nSECTION 4, COUNSELLING, CONTAINS THIS STATEMENT:\n\"THERE ARE PRESENTLY 46 FORESTERS GS-9 IN THE ENTIRE BUREAU, Two\nINDIAN AND FORTY-FOUR NON-INDIAN. WITH THIS RATIO, THE NON-INDIAN\nFORESTER STILL HAS OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN THE BUREAU.\"\nIF THIS WAS MEANT TO IMPLY THAT THEIR CHANCES FOR ADVANCEMENT HAVE NOT BEEN\nIO\nSERIOUSLY LIMITED, IT IS PATENTLY FALSE! IN THE FACE OF THIS LIMITED RATIO\nOF NON-PREFERENCE TO PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES, THE BUREAU STILL HAD TO FILL THE\nAGENCY'S TOP FORESTRY POSITION WITH A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE. THE TWO\nPREFERENCE GS-9's, ALONG WITH OTHER PREFERENCE FORESTERS AT OTHER GRADE\nLEVELS WOULD, AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT, HAVE THE CHOICE OF\nJOBS, LEAVING ONLY THE LESS DESIRABLE POSITIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR THE NON-\nPREFERENCE CANDIDATE, WHEN A SITUATION SUCH AS THIS EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE\nDENIED THAT THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED, NOR CAN IT BE ARGUED\nTHAT THEIR CAREER OPPORTUNITIES HAVE NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE\nINTRANSIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE AGENCIES.\nIT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THAT NO CLASS OR\nPROFESSION EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN SERVICES CAN BE DEMONSTRATED NOT TO\nHAVE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE\nFORD\nREQUIREMENT OF THE AcT OF 1934. MOST INDIVIDUALS, WHEN JOINING AN ORGAN-\nIZATION, LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN\nTHE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE, NOT WITHIN A NARROW SEGMENT OF IT. IN THE\nPAST, FORESTERS HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE UP; TO BECOME ADMINISTRATORS,\nREALTY SPECIALISTS, PROGRAMMERS, ETC. THESE AVENUES OF UPWARD MOBILITY,\nADVANCEMENT, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN CLOSED, THIS IS TRUE NOT\nONLY FOR FORESTERS, BUT FOR NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES IN OTHER DISCIPLINES\nAS WELL. THERE IS NOT, AND WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE\nSTATUTE, THERE CANNOT BE AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE BUREAU OF\nINDIAN AFFAIRS NOR IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE. THERE IS EITHER PREFERENCE\nOR NON-PREFERENCE, AND ANY SEMBLANCE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR NON-PREFERENCE\nEMPLOYEES IS AT BEST, SUPERFICIAL AND EPHEMERAL.\nUNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY THE CONGRESS HAS THE\nII\nAUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE IN INDIAN COUNTRY, AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW OF THE LEGAL\nHISTORY OF UNITED STATES - INDIAN TRIBAL RELATIONS, AND THE LEGAL STATUS OF\nINDIANS AND INDIAN COUNTRY, SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BY\nHIS SOLICITOR GENERAL, MR. NATHAN R. MARGOLD ON OCTOBER 25, 1934, LEAVES\nNO ROOM FOR CONJECTURE ON THIS POINT. IT IS THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES\nAND ONLY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS THE POWER TO PROVIDE AN\nEQUITABLE REMEDY FOR THE UNFORTUNATE INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENT OF THE\nCONGRESS WHICH HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY THE JUDICIARY.\nGERALOR FORD LIBRARY\nCONGRESSMEN RUNNELS OF NEW MEXICO, PRESSLER OF SOUTH DAKOTA AND YOUNG\nOF ALASKA, THREE STATES WITH SUBSTANTIAL INDIAN CONSTITUENCIES, HAVE PROPOSED\nLEGISLATION WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL GO FAR TOWARD SOLVING THIS DILEMNA BY\nALLOWING NON-PREFERENCE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES HAVING COMPLETED TWENTY (20)\nYEARS OF SERVICE BEFORE DECEMBER 3I, 1985, AND CONTINUOUSLY WITH THE BUREAU\nOF INDIAN AFFAIRS OR THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE SINCE JUNE 17, 1974, THE DATE\nOF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MANCARI, TO RETIRE FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE,\nTHEREBY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND ADVANCEMENT\nOF INDIANS, IN ORDER FOR THE INDIAN PEOPLE TO ASSUME TOTAL CONTROL AND\nRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS WHICH MOST AFFECT THEIR LIVES,\nTHEY MUST CONTROL THESE POWERFUL AGENCIES WHICH ARE MOST CLOSELY RELATED TO\nTHEM. To ACCOMPLISH THIS END, THEY MUST, OF NECESSITY, DISPLACE THE NON-\nINDIAN AND NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF THESE AGENCIES, WE CAN BE SURE THE\nINDIAN PEOPLE WILL APPROVE OF THIS; THEY WANT THESE OPPORTUNITIES, THERE WILL\nBE NO LACK OF PREFERENCE APPLICANTS FOR EVERY VACANCY, WHEN THE NON-PREFERENCE\nEMPLOYEES LEAVE FEDERAL SERVICE, THERE WILL BE NO VACUUM IN BIA OR IHS.\nSUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN VOICED BY THE\nCOMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,\nI2\nAND THE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE. THE MOST FREQUENT ARGUMENT\nIS THAT THE EXODUS OF THE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WOULD DEPRIVE THE INDIAN\nSERVICE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF HIGHLY EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES AT A TIME WHEN THEY\nARE DESPERATELY NEEDED TO FULFILL THE MISSION OF THE BUREAU AND INDIAN HEALTH\nSERVICE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT\nAGAIN, THIS IS\nTANTAMOUNT TO PEONAGE.\nANOTHER FREQUENTLY HEARD ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGIS-\nLATION IS THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD CREATE A \"SPECIAL CASE\" FOR A RELATIVELY\nSMALL SEGMENT OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE. SUCH AN ARGUMENT IS ILLOGICAL\nAND IGNORES THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. THE CONGRESS AND JUDICIARY HAVE\nESTABLISHED THAT A SPECIAL CASE EXISTS; IN THE INDIAN PREFERENCE STATUTES.\nPURE LOGIC DEMANDS THAT IF \"A\" IS A SPECIAL CASE BEFORE THE LAW AND \"B\"\nIS AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES, THEN \"B\" IS ALSO A SPECIAL\nCASE. RES IPSA LIQUITUR! THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF,\nFORD\nLIBRAR\nTHERE ARE ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS: THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ENJOYS\nTWENTY-YEAR RETIREMENT FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE A\nSUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ANNUAL GROSS INCOME. SIMILAR \"EARLY\nRETIREMENT\" BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIREFIGHTERS;\nFOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS; LEGISLATION IS PENDING WHICH WILL EXTEND THIS\nSAME RETIREMENT OPTION TO EMPLOYEES OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.\nTHE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO PLACE THE ANNUITY INTO\nCLOSE AGREEMENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND\nFIREFIGHTER'S RETIREMENT AcT, AS HERE BRIEFLY QUOTED FROM THE FEDERAL\nEMPLOYEE'S ALMANAC, 1975:\n13\n\"THE BASIC ANNUITY OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO RETIRES UNDER THE SPECIAL\nPROVISIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND/OR FIREFIGHTING PERSONNEL IS\nFIGURED BY TAKING 2-I/2 PERCENT OF THE \"HIGH 3\" AVERAGE PAY AND\nMULTIPLYING THE RESULT BY 20 YEARS (INCLUDING CREDIT SICK LEAVE).\nTHEY ALSO TAKE NO CUT IN ANNUITY FOR RETIRING UNDER AGE 55.\"\nIN YOUR DELIBERATIONS OF THE RETIREMENT ANNUITY COMPUTATION PROVISIONS\nOF THIS LEGISLATION, WE BEG YOU TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE ANNUITY\nBENEFIT AN EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE WILL BE BASED ON HIS \"HIGH 3\" AVERAGE PAY AND\nTHAT THIS BASELINE FIGURE WILL BE DETERMINED BY HIS GRADE LEVEL AND YEARS OF\nSERVICE, QUITE FRANKLY, WE KNOW OF VERY FEW, IF ANY, AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN\nEITHER THE BIA OR IHS WHO WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE HIS OR HER PRESENT LiFE-\nSTYLE ON THE 50% OF THEIR SALARY THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER\nTHIS LEGISLATION, THE AVERAGE GRADE OF THE ABERDEEN AREA EMPLOYEES WHO\nWOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS AcT IS GS-9, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN AVERAGE\nRETIREMENT PENSION OF $6,750.00 PER YEAR OR $130.00 PER WEEK WHICH IS LESS\nTHAN MANY SO-CALLED DISADVANTAGED PERSONS RECEIVE IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.\nTHIS RAISES ANOTHER OF THE OPPOSITION'S FAVORITE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE\nENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION: THE COST! IF ALL OF THE SEVERAL HUNDRED\nEMPLOYEES OF THE BIA AND THE IHS WHO WERE ELIGIBLE WERE TO RETIRE ON THE\nDATE THE LAW TOOK EFFECT, THE COST TO THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM\nWOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN I% OF THE BIA-IHS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974!\nIN FEBRUARY, I975 WE WROTE A LETTER TO MR. ROBERT HAMPTON, CHAIRMAN\nOF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ASKING HIM FOR A STATEMENT OF\nTHE COMMISSION'S POSITION OF SENATE BILL S-509, THE COMPANION LEGISLATION\nI4\nTO THE BILLS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUR INQUIRY WAS PROMPTLY ACKNOWLEDGED,\nAND ON JUNE 2, 1975 WE FINALLY RECEIVED A REPLY FROM MR. JOHN G. McCARTHY,\nASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF RETIREMENT, INSURANCE AND OCCUPATIONAL\nHEALTH, U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, FROM WHICH THE FOLLOWING IS QUOTED:\n\"WE RECOGNIZE THAT CURRENT BIA AND IHS PERSONNEL POLICIES DO\nLIMIT NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEE CAREER PROSPECTS, AND THUS WE CAN\nUNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN IN THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD\nBE CONSIDERED THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS A\nSTAFF RETIREMENT PLAN; ITS PRIMARY INTENTION IS TO REWARD THE\nPERFORMANCE OF CAREER SERVICE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY\nPROVIDING BENEFITS AT RETIREMENT IN AMOUNTS DIRECTLY RELATED\nTO AN EMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL SERVICE AND SALARY HISTORY. IN LIGHT\nOF THIS OBJECTIVE, WE HAVE GENERALLY OPPOSED THE INTRODUCTION\nOF EMPLOYMENT FACTORS INTO THE RETIREMENT ANNUITY COMPUTATION\nPROCEDURES WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY UNRELATED TO THE LENGTH OF AN\nEMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL SERVICE OR TO HIS SALARY HISTORY DURING THE\nPERIOD.\"\n(EMPHASIS ADDED)\nTHE BALANCE OF THIS LETTER INDICATES THAT THE AGENCY WHOSE ENTIRE REASON FOR\nBEING SINCE ITS INCEPTION ALMOST A CENTURY AGO HAS BEEN TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL\nCIVIL SERVICE FROM THE SPOILS SYSTEM IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AND STAND AS A\nSAFEGUARD AGAINST MANIPULATION AND COERSION OF EMPLOYEES AND CONTRAVENTION\nOF MERIT PRINCIPLES, CONSIDERS THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM A \"MAN-\nAGEMENT TOOL\" AND A \"REWARD\". GENTLEMEN,\nBENEFITS AT RETIREMENT IN\nAMOUNTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO AN EMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL SERVICE AND SALARY HISTORY\"\nARE AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER HERE UNDER DISCUSSION!\nIT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT ANY RESTRICTION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S CAREER\nI5\nPOTENTIAL OR UPWARD MOBILITY MUST, OF NECESSITY, PLACE A SIMILAR RESTRICTION\nON HIS ULTIMATE RETIREMENT BENEFITS. IN EFFECT, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO\nSACRIFICE OUR OPPORTUNITIES TO EARN REASONABLE SECURITY AND A MODICUM OF\nDIGNITY FOR OUR TWILIGHT YEARS ON THE ALTAR OF EXPEDIENCY. THE NON-\nPREFERENCE CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE BIA AND IHS ARE REQUIRED, AS A\nMATTER OF LAW, TO ACCEPT LESS THAN THEIR ABILITIES, SKILLS AND EFFORTS\nMIGHT ACHIEVE BECAUSE OTHERS MIGHT BE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK \"SPECIAL\" BENEFITS\nAND THAT WOULD DIMINISH THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM'S VALUES AS A \"MANAGEMENT\nTOOL\", AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VIEWS THIS AS A \"HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE\nPROSPECT\". FURTHERMORE, IF RETIREMENT IS INDEED A REWARD, WHY THEN ARE WE\nASKED TO CONTRIBUTE 7% OF OUR ANNUAL GROSS INCOME TO THE RETIREMENT FUND?\nMY COPY OF WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE, COLLEGE\nEDITION, DEFINES \"REWARD\" AS:\n\"SOMETHING GIVEN IN RETURN FOR GOOD OR, SOMETIMES, EVIL OR FOR\nSERVICE OR MERIT.\"\nTHERE IS NOTHING THERE CONCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE PART OF THE RECIPIENT\nOTHER THAN SERVICE OR MERIT. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT IS NOT A REWARD ANY\nMORE THAN DEATH BENEFITS PAID BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY. ON THE CONTRARY,\nIT IS A HARD-WON, EARNED AND PAID FOR BENEFIT, AND AS SUCH, IS A SUBSTANTIAL\nPORTION OF THE COMPENSATION OF EVERY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.\nIN ALL CANDOR, CAN THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE BIA OR IHS\nBE CALLED ANYTHING OTHER THAN PEONAGE? \"TAKE WHAT WE GIVE YOU OR GET OUT!\"\n\"DON'T COMPLAIN OR ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS FREE\nCITIZENS OR YOU MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE WRATH OF THE ADMINISTRATION.\" CAN\nANYONE OFFER ANOTHER SINGLE WORD WHICH SO ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THIS SITUATION?\nMR. HENDERSON HAS OFFERED AN ALTERNATIVE TO EARLY RETIREMENT. HOUSE\nI6\nBILL 5465 WOULD PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY OUTPLACEMENT PREFERENCE FOR AFFECTED\nNON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES TO MIGRATE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES, AT A TIME\nWHEN MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS ARE UNEMPLOYED, WHILE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES\nARE BEING REQUIRED TO REDUCE THEIR WORKFORCES, IT IS PROPOSED THAT DISPLACED\nNON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES OF BIA OR IHS SHOULD BE GIVEN PREFERENCE IN FILLING\nVACANCIES IN OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES! SUCH A PROGRAM WOULD BE AS PATENTLY\nUNFAIR TO THE PRESENT EMPLOYEES OF THE RECEIVING AGENCIES AS THE EXISTING\nINDIAN PREFERENCE POLICY IS TO US,\nSOME TIME AGO, MR. PAUL HARVEY DEVOTED ONE OF HIS BROADCASTS TO THIS\nISSUE, IN COMMENTING ON THE RECENT PROLIFERATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION\nPLANS, HIRING QUOTAS AND OTHER SCHEMES TO \"CORRECT\" PRIOR DISCRIMINATION,\nMR. HARVEY STATED THAT, IF DISCRIMINATION, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IS WRONG,\nTHAT WRONG CANNOT BE CORRECT BY \"REVERSE\" DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE, AS IS\nso ELOQUENTLY ENUNCIATED IN THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR MOST OF\nUS LEARNED AT OUR MOTHER'S KNEE: TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!\nFORD\nTHERE IS AN ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE VIABILITY OF ANY OUTPLACE-\nMENT MEASURE, IT IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DISTINCT STIGMA OF LESS THAN\nCOMPLETE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE CONNECTED WITH EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDIAN\nSERVICES, WE ARE QUITE CERTAIN THAT THIS ALLEGATION WILL BE VIGOROUSLY\nDENIED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS OPPOSED TO THE ADOPTION\nOF THIS LEGISLATION. BUT, BELIEVE ME, JUST AS CERTAINLY AS THERE IS AN\nIMAGINARY EQUITORIAL LINE WHICH DIVIDES NORTH FROM SOUTH ON THIS WHIRLING\nBALL OF MUD, THIS BARRIER TO MIGRATION TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES OR DEPART-\nMENTS WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL AND HUMILIATING REDUCTION IN GRADE AND SALARY\nEXISTS,\nI7\nIN THE FACE OF THE DECEMBER 31, 1985 LIMIT WRITTEN INTO THE PROPOSALS,\nSOME PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THOSE NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHO WILL NOT\nCOMPLETE THE REQUIRED TWENTY YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE BY THE DEADLINE DATE.\nFOR THESE PEOPLE, AN OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE, BUT,\nBEAR IN MIND THAT ANY SUCH MEASURE MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO OVERCOME\nTHE NATURAL RELUCTANCE OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS TO ACCEPT PERSONNEL IMPOSED\nUPON THEM BY OUTSIDE AGENCIES,\nWE WHO ARE URGING THE ADOPTION OF THESE PROPOSED STATUTES ARE NOT\nRESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE ALLEGED WRONGS OR DISCRIMINATION THE INDIAN\nPEOPLE MAY HAVE SUFFERED DURING THE PAST THREE HUNDRED YEARS, NONE OF US\nARE IN POSITIONS TO CONTROL THE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT\nTOWARD THE INDIAN PEOPLE, WE HAVE DONE OUR UTMOST TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS\nTO GIVE AN HONEST DAY'S WORK IN RETURN FOR AN HONEST DAY'S PAY. MOST OF US\nHAVE REACHED THAT STAGE IN OUR LIVES WHERE THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPING\nNEW CAREERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED. YET WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT THERE ARE NO\nMORE RUNGS TO OUR LADDERS. ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION, TRANSFER, TRAINING,\nIN SHORT ALL OF THE USUAL PERSONNEL MOVEMENTS IS RESERVED FOR OTHERS\nNOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE ANY MORE TO EARN THEM THAN WE, BUT BECAUSE THE\nLAW SAYS IT IS THEIR RIGHT. IN ALL SINCERITY, WE CANNOT DISPUTE THE RIGHT\nOF THE INDIAN PEOPLE TO ATTEMPT TO RULE THEIR OWN DESTINIES. As WE STATED\nEARLIER, HOWEVER, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL, THEN WE, THE\nNON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES, MUST BE DISPLACED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THEM. IF THEY\nARE TO BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP TO THEIR POTENTIAL, IT IS NEITHER JUST NOR\nEQUITABLE TO RESTRAIN THIS NATURAL PROCESS BY IMPEDING THEIR UPWARD MOBILITY.\nONE FINAL WORD: CUSTER DID NOT DIE FOR OUR SINS! IF THE AMERICAN\nINDIAN ETHNIC IDENTITY, THE SURGING TIDE OF THEIR CULTURAL AWARENESS IS\nI8\nTO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF TODAY, THE NON-\nPREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHO NOW OCCUPY MID-LEVEL AND SUPERVISORY POSITIONS\nMUST BE GIVEN AN INCENTIVE TO RETIRE AND LEAVE THE FIELD WITH HONOR,\nFor myself and other concerned Federal Civil Service Employees of.\nthe Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs.\nTHOMAS H. GONINION\n902 SOUTH JAY STREET\nABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA\nABERDEEN AREA\nBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND\nINDIAN HEALTH SERVICE\nFEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES\nSTATEMENT FOR HEARINGS ON HR 5858 AND HR 5465\nBEFORE\nTHE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS\nAND THE\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE\nOF THE\nCOMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE\nUNITED STATES HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES\nNINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION\nWASHINGTON, DC\nFEBRUARY 3-4, 1976\nMy COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE PREPARED A STATEMENT OF OUR VIEWS ON THE MATTERS\nBEFORE THIS HEARING, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF WE\nLEARNED THAT YOU PREFERRED NOT TO DUPLICATE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO\nTHE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS, RATHER, YOU WERE INTERESTED IN HEARING\nOF SPECIFIC CASES, THEREFORE, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WILL PRESENT OUR\nPREPARED STATEMENT TO THE CLERK FOR THE RECORD, AND CONFINE MY REMARKS\nHERE TO MORE DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTS THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 12\nOF THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1934 HAS HAD ON THE NON-PREFERENCE\nFEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE\nINDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.\nAT THE OUTSET IT IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME THE DIFFICULTY OF SHIFTING THE\nBURDEN OF PROOF OF OUR ALLEGATIONS FROM THE EMPLOYEES TO THE AGENCIES,\nWE RECOGNIZE THIS AS CONTRARY TO THE BASIC TENETS OF JURISPRUDENCE,\nAND RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT IN THIS INSTANCE YOU SHOULD SET ASIDE\nTHIS CONCEPT, AND SEEK THE TRUTH, WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND, WE BELIEVE\nIT WILL BE FOUND IN THE FILES OF THE AGENCIES.\nIN THE REAL WORLD, IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE PROOFS IN\nACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. I WILL PRESENT SEVERAL CASES\nOF WHICH I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND AM ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.\nHOWEVER, I WILL GIVE YOU, FOR THE RECORD, A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF\nDOCUMENTARY AND OTHER EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION, AND REQUEST THAT YOU\nFORWARD THIS MATERIAL TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES\nFOR INVESTIGATION.\nWITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WILL PRESENT THIS TO THE CLERK FOR THE RECORD.\nCOPIES HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF,\nBRIEFLY, WE ASK THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE OUR ALLEGATIONS\nTHAT CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL\nTHEIR MINISTERIAL DUTIES IN THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 12 TO THE\nPERSONNEL POLICY OF THE INDIAN SERVICES; THAT THEY HAVE IGNORED THE\nWHOLE BODY OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND REGULATION IN ABROGATING THE\nCONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE NON-PREFERENCE\nEMPLOYEES OF THESE AGENCIES, WHO ARE CAREER FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE\nPERSONNEL,\nACCUSE IS PERHAPS TOO STRONG A WORD TO DESCRIBE THIS SITUATION. THIS\nWORD IMPLIES SOME SORT OF MALEVOLENT INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE\nCOMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN HEALTH\nSERVICE, THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION AND\nWELFARE, AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.\nNo ONE INVOLVED BELIEVES SUCH A THING. HOWEVER, MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEGUN\nTO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO HOPE OF ANY REMEDY, SHORT OF AN APPEAL TO\nTHE COURTS FOR RELIEF. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE UNITED STATES\nGOVERNMENT, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INDIAN SERVICES HAS ERRED\nGRIEVIOUSLY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE INDIAN PREFERENCE LAWS, WE\nCANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES INTENDED TO\nDESTROY THE CAREERS OF ALMOST 9,000 CIVIL SERVANTS WHEN THIS LAW WAS\nENACTED! FURTHERMORE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE SEVERAL CASES IN-\nVOLVING INDIAN PREFERENCE WERE SO NARROWLY DRAWN THAT THE COURTS HAD\nNO CHOICE; THEY WERE FORCED TO DECIDE THESE CASES ON THEIR MERITS\nAND THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS PRESENTED.\nFOR EXAMPLE, NOWHERE IN THE DECISIONS, EITHER FREEMAN VS, MORTON OR IN\nMORTON VS, MANCARI, HAVE WE FOUND ANY REFERENCE TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION\nCLAUSES OF THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED\nSTATES, WE THINK THIS CONCEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AS\nHANDED DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE. UNITED STATES IN YICK Wo vs,\nHOPKINS, AND BROWN VS, BOARD OF EDUCATION APPLY TO OUR SITUATION,\nWE ARE CERTAIN THE COURT ERRED IN THE DECISIONS IN FREEMAN AND MANCARI,\nAND WE FULLY EXPECT THEM TO BE REVERSED, JUST AS PLESSY VS, FURGUSON\nAND OTHER LANDMARK CASES HAVE BEEN REVERSED. BUT IT TAKES TIME FOR THE\nSUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER AND CORRECT AN ERROR IN A DECISION. FOR\nTHIS REASON, WE HAVE BROUGHT OUR PLIGHT TO THE CONGRESS. THE FACT\nTHAT WE ARE INVITED HERE TODAY IS AN INDICATION OF THE CONCERN OF THE\nCONGRESS, AND ALSO OF THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES, THAT THERE IS A WRONG\nHERE WHICH MUST BE REDRESSED,\nR. FORD LIBRAN\nBEFORE I BEGIN THIS RECITATION OF GRIEVANCES, PLEASE LET ME ASSURE YOU\nTHAT WE ARE NOT ATTACKING THE INDIAN PEOPLES IN ANY WAY. WE DO NOT\nINTEND TO IMPLY THAT THE THOUSANDS OF HARDWORKING, COMPETENT AND\nDEDICATED INDIANS EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN SERVICES ARE THE CAUSE OF\nTHIS PROBLEM, ON THE CONTRARY, THE INDIAN PEOPLES ARE AS MUCH VICTIMS\nOF THE SYSTEM AS THE NON-INDIANS! THE PRESENCE OF THE NON-PREFERENCE\nEMPLOYEES IMPEDES THEIR PROGRESS TOWARD FULL SELF DETERMINATION AND\nREALIZATION OF THEIR GOALS JUST THE SAME AS THE APPLICATION OF INDIAN\nPREFERENCE TO ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND\nTHE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE INTERFERES WITH THE CAREERS OF NON-PREFERENCE\nEMPLOYEES,\nIF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE CASES, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE\nTO LET ME TRY TO ANSWER THEM, As I SAID, I WILL GO INTO DETAILS ONLY\nON THOSE CASES OF WHICH I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AND TRUST YOU TO\nINVESTIGATE THE OTHERS,\nTHE FIRST CASE INVOLVES A SECRETARY IN MY OFFICE, THIS EMPLOYEE\nWORKED IN THE SAME POSITION FOR 6 1/2 YEARS IN A FULL-TIME TEMPORARY\nSTATUS, THE ABERDEEN AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE BRANCH OF PERSONNEL\nMANAGEMENT DETERMINED THAT IN ORDER TO CONVERT THIS POSITION FROM\nTEMPORARY TO PERMANENT CAREER STATUS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED\nFOR SEVEN (7) DAYS. THE INCUMBENT EMPLOYEE WAS THE ONLY QUALIFIED\nAPPLICANT, SHE WAS SELECTED BY HER SUPERVISOR, WITH THE CONCURRENCE\nOF THE OFFICE DIRECTOR AND THE SIGNED SELECTION CERTIFICATE WAS\nFORWARDED TO THE AREA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICE. THE\nACTING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT THE\nPOSITION BE READVERTISED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS IN ORDER TO ALLOW\nMORE TIME FOR INDIAN CANDIDATES TO APPLY. THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT\nOPPORTUNITY OFFICER PERSONALLY RECRUITED PREFERENCE CANDIDATES\nTO APPLY, TWO (2) OF WHOM DID SO, ONE DECLINED THE POSITION, AND\nAN UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL INFORMED THE OTHER THAT SHE HAD BEEN SELECTED\nBEFORE THE SELECTION CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN SIGNED OR THE CANDIDATE\nINTERVIEWED! THE CASE IS NOW IN THE FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS IN THE\nINDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.\n--THE SECOND CASE CONCERNS A SUPERVISORY STATISTICAL ASSISTANT, NON-\nINDIAN, FEMALE, WITH TEN (10) YEARS PROGRESSIVELY RESPONSIBLE EXPERIENCE\nSINCE 1964 IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND STATISTICS\nBRANCH, SIX YEARS AT THE GS-9 LEVEL, WHO APPLIED FOR THE ANNOUNCED\nGS-11 PUBLIC HEALTH ANALYST AND CHIEF, PROGRAM ANALYSIS BRANCH,\nPOSITION ON THE RETIREMENT OF HER SUPERVISOR, SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY\nBEEN GIVEN A TEMPORARY PROMOTION TO GS-11 TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY\nBRANCH CHIEF WHILE HER SUPERVISOR WAS IN EXTENDED LEAVE (TRIAL\nRETIREMENT) STATUS FROM DECEMBER 1973 TO MARCH 1974, FROM THE\nTIME OF HER SUPERVISOR'S RETIREMENT IN OCTOBER 1974 UNTIL AN INDIAN\nCANDIDATE WAS SELECTED IN APRIL 1975, SHE WAS DESIGNATED ACTING\nBRANCH CHIEF. THE PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WAS APPOINTED IN AN INITIAL\nCLASS B EXCEPTED CATEGORY AT GS-11 UNTIL HE HAS COMPLETED A YEAR'S\nEXPERIENCE, THE NON-PREFERENCE INCUMBENT RECEIVED A LETTER OF NON-\nSELECTION,\n--THE NEXT ONE DEALS WITH THE SERVICE UNIT DIRECTOR POSITION AT ONE\nOF OUR IHS HOSPITALS, THE NON-INDIAN, FEMALE ACTING SERVICE UNIT\nU.S. FORD LISTED\nDIRECTOR WAS PASSED OVER BY THE SELECTING OFFICIAL (THE TRIBAL\nHEALTH BOARD!!) ALTHOUGH SHE HAD FUNCTIONED IN THE POSITION IN ALL\nBUT TITLE AND SALARY FIVE YEARS, BEFORE ENOUGH POLITICAL PRESSURE WAS\nBROUGHT TO BEAR TO PUT AN INDIAN IN THE POSITION. THE INDIVIDUAL\nSELECTED TO FILL THE POSITION IS NOW IN AN ON-THE-JOB TRAINING\nPROGRAM UNDER THE WOMAN HE REPLACED! SHE STAYS ON THE JOB BECAUSE\nSHE HAS A DEEP LOVE AND RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE SHE SERVES AND CANNOT\nBEAR TO SEE THEM SUFFER BECAUSE OF HER MISFORTUNE! SHE HAS ALSO\nINVESTED OVER FIFTEEN (15) YEARS OF HER LIFE IN HER CAREER,\n--THEN THERE IS THE CASE OF ROY MAX JOHNSON, A GS-9 FORESTER, STAFF\nASSISTANT, IN THE MINNESOTA AGENCY BIA, WHO APPLIED FOR THE POSITION\nOF FORESTER, GS-9/11 IN THE FORT WASHAKIE, WIND RIVER AGENCIE, MR.\nJOHNSON HAS SERVED OVER TEN (10) YEARS AS A BIA FORESTER, IN PROGESS-\nIVELY RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS, A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WITH LESS THAN\nTWO (2) YEARS LIMITED EXPERIENCE WAS SELECTED OVER HIM BY THE TRIBAL\nCOUNCIL! MR. JOHNSON ASKED IN HIS FORMAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT\nWHETHER THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS INCLUDE\nTHE REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDARD FORM 171,\nPERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT) BY OTHER THAN AUTHORIZED APPOINTING\nOFFICIALS AND SELECTING OFFICIALS,\n(IT IS NOW ROUTINE PRACTICE IN BOTH THE BIA AND THE IHS FOR APPLICATIONS\nFOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TO BE REFERRED TO NON-FEDERAL PERSONS AND\nAGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND SELECTION FOR POSITIONS IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL\nSERVICE!)\n--THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXTREMELY COMPETENT HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE\nFOREMAN WHO WAS PASSED OVER FOR A SIMILAR POSITION IN ALASKA,\nFORD AIDRES\n--THE GS-9 TEACHER AT FORT THOMPSON WHO WROTE A SPECIAL RECOURCES\nPROJECT (AND SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED IT) WHO WAS INFORMED THAT IT\nSHOULD BE A GS-11, BUT SHE WOULDN'T WANT TO LOSE HER SITUATION\nWOULD SHE? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED AND A PREFERENCE APPLICANT\nWOULD BE CERTAIN TO BE APPOINTED\n--THE TEACHER WHO LOST OUT ON A TRANSFER TO THE FOREST SERVICE BECAUSE\nHIS PRINCIPAL DIDN'T THINK HE COULD OPERATE THE SCHOOL WITHOUT HIM AND\nREFUSED TO PROVIDE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION\n--THE GS-13 HEALTH EDUCATOR WHO WAS OFFERED A GS-14 POSITION, BUT\nWHEN HIS AREA DIRECTOR REFUSED A RECOMMENDATION THE OFFER WAS WITH-\nDRAWN\n--THE ISOLATED INDIAN DAY SCHOOL THAT OPERATED WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL\nFOR OVER A YEAR, BEFORE A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WAS FOUND WHO WOULD\nACCEPT THE ASSIGNMENT\n--HOWARD P. EDWARDS, HOUSING PROGRAM COORDINATOR WHO HAS APPLIED FOR\nAT LEAST SIX (6) POSITIONS, ALL BUT ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILLED BY\nA LESS WELL QUALIFIED PREFERENCE CANDIDATE, AND HAD HIS EEO COMPLAINTS\nANSWERED BY QUOTATIONS OF EEO TECHNICALITIES AND BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLE-\nTALK ...\n--FRANK E. PICK, GS-9, EDUCATION SPECIALIST, WAS DETAILED FROM THE EDUCA-\nTION DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVAJO AREA TO THE U. S. INDIAN POLICE TRAINING\n& RESEARCH CENTER, ACADEMY UNIT, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH, FOR ONE MONTH,\nHE HAS BEEN THERE OVER TWO (2) YEARS, WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL POSITION\nDESCRIPTION AND WITHOUT ORDERS, DURING THIS TIME HE HAS LOST OVER\n200 HOURS OF ACCUMULATED ANNUAL LEAVE BECAUSE HE WAS REQUIRED TO\nASSIST WITH THE TRAINING PROGRAM\n--VERNON L. ERICKSON, GS-9, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR, WITH OVER TWELVE (12)\nYEARS PROGRESSIVELY RESPONSIBLE EXPERIENCE IN BIA LAW ENFORCEMENT.\nPASSED OVER FOR A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE WHO WAS MINIMALLY QUALIFIED\n...\nALSO PASSED OVER FOR A MINIMALLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE WHO HAD FLUNKED OUT\nOF THE BIA POLICE TRAINING ACADEMY WHERE MR. ERICKSON TAUGHT\n...\n--JOHN FLEMING, GS-13, ASSISTANT AREA DIRECTOR, PASSED OVER FOR A GS-14\nPUBLIC HEALTH ADVISOR POSITION IN THE DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE, LIAISON\nBETWEEN IHS AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE\nHIGHLY QUALIFIED, TRAINING\nIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. A SCHOOL TEACHER WITH A CLOUDED EMPLOYMENT\nRECORD WAS SELECTED, BUT REJECTED BY THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE\nTHE POSITION WAS READVERTISED, A PREFERENCE CANDIDATE FROM OKLAHOMA WAS\nSELECTED, MR. FLEMING WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED, YET HIS APPLICATION WAS\nON FILE IN THE PERSONNEL OFFICE!\n--JERRY OCHSNER, ENGINEERING DRAFTSMAN, GS-4, SINCE SEPTEMBER 1974,\nDISPLACED BY A QUALIFIED PREFERENCE APPLICANT\n--LA YWAUNA JEAN HATWAN, GS-3, CLERK-TYPIST FROM JULY 1970 UNTIL A\n\"QUALIFIED\" PREFERENCE APPLICANT WAS LOCATED FOR THE POSITION IN\nNOVEMBER 1971\n--DONALD LEE KELLER, BACKHOE OPERATOR FROM MARCH 1971 UNTIL FEBRUARY 1975,\nTHE JOB HAD TO BE ADVERTISED AND A \"QUALIFIED\" INDIAN TOOK THE JOB\nFROM HIM,\n--PAUL EDWARD KELLER, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, GS-7 FROM JULY 1970 UNTIL\nTHE BRANCH WAS INSTRUCTED TO ADVERTISE THE POSITION AND A \"QUALIFIED\"\nINDIAN WAS LOCATED\n...\n--ROBERT J. KRAMER, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, GS-5 FROM OCTOBER 1970,\nTHE JOB WAS ADVERTISED AND A \"QUALIFIED\" INDIAN APPLIED\nMR.\nKRAMER RESIGNED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 21, 1975\n--ELDORIS SCHAMBER, SECRETARY, GS-5 ENTERED ON DUTY 1968, RESIGNED\nOCTOBER 16, 1975, THE POSITION WAS ADVERTISED AND NO QUALIFIED\nCANDIDATES APPLIED. MISS SCHAMBER RETURNED WHEN THE JOB WAS RE-\nADVERTISED, BUT COULDN'T BE HIRED FOR HER OLD JOB BECAUSE A QUALIFIED\nINDIAN APPLIED\n--DONNA WAGNER, CLERK-TYPIST, GS-4 FROM APRIL 1970 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1972\nWHEN HER JOB WAS ADVERTISED AND A \"QUALIFIED\" INDIAN APPLIED\n--IN 1975 THE BILLINGS AREA OFFICE, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, ADVERTISED\nFOR A CONTRACTING OFFICER, GS-12, K.L. THOMPSON, GS-11 CONTRACT\nSPECIALIST IN THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE FOR FOUR (4) YEARS, THIRTEEN\n(13) YEARS IN INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION, 1 1/2\nYEARS AS PROPERTY AND SUPPLY OFFICER SERVICES, APPLIED BUT WAS PASSED\nOVER IN FAVOR OF A GS-9 APPLICANT WITH NO PREVIOUS INDIAN HEALTH\nSERVICE EXPERIENCE BUT WITH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF INDIAN BLOOD\n--A GS-13 SAFETY OFFICER IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AREA OFFICE\nELECTED TO ACCEPT A REDUCTION IN GRADE AND SALARY TO TRANSFER TO\nTHE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE\n--IN DECEMBER 1973 A GS-7 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT (NON-INDIAN),\nWITH TEN (10) YEARS OF PROCUREMENT EXPERIENCE WAS ADVISED VERBALLY\n(LATER BY MEMO) SHE WAS BEING DETAILED TO THE PROCUREMENT SECTION\nAS ACTING PROCUREMENT OFFICER (THE POSITION WAS CLASSIFIED GS-9),\nIN FEBRUARY OF 1974, THE AREA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICER (NON-INDIAN)\nWAS ADVISED HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SUPERVISING THE PROCUREMENT\nSECTION IN ADDITION TO HIS OTHER DUTIES; THIS ALSO BY MEMO. BOTH OF THE\nEMPLOYEES WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE SITUATION WAS TEMPORARY -\nUNTIL A RECLASSIFICATION OF THEIR JOBS COULD BE MADE, IN AUGUST OF 1974\nBOTH EMPLOYEES WERE SUMMONED BY THE ACTING DEPUTY AREA DIRECTOR TO HIS\nOFFICE, HE SAID HE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE BRANCH OF PERSONNEL THAT\nIF THEIR JOBS WERE RECLASSIFIED TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL DUTIES, THE\nJOBS WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED, AND IF ONE PERSON WITH INDIAN\nPREFERENCE APPLIED AND WAS EVEN MINIMALLY QUALIFIED HE/SHE WOULD BE\nSELECTED AND THE TWO (2) EMPLOYEES WOULD \"BE OUT IN THE COLD\"! HE\nSAID UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IF HE WERE THEM HE'D \"SURE GET OUT OF BIA,\nTHERE'S NOT MUCH FUTURE FOR EITHER ONE OF YOU HERE.\" HE SAID THE\nPROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICER WAS BEING RELIEVED OF HIS ADDITIONAL\nDUTIES IMMEDIATELY. THE GS-7 WOULD CONTINUE AS ACTING PROCUREMENT\nOFFICER, HOWEVER, SHE WAS BEING GIVEN A TEMPORARY PROMOTION TO GS-9,\nNOT TO EXCEED 120 DAYS - THIS ACTION WAS \"TO BUY TIME UNTIL WE CAN\nDECIDE WHAT TO DO.\" UPON TERMINATION OF THE TEMPORARY PROMOTION,\nA GS-5 PURCHASING AGENT (NON-INDIAN) WAS DESIGNATED AS ACTING PRO-\nCUREMENT OFFICER (BY MEMO) FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1975;\nSINCE THAT DATE THE OFFICE HAS BEEN WITHOUT A PROCUREMENT OFFICER!\n--THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICER GS-9 (NON-INDIAN) HAS SINCE BEEN\nADVISED THAT DUE TO RESTRUCTURING OF THE AREA OFFICE HE WAS TO BECOME\nA DIVISION HEAD, AGAIN WITH ADDITIONAL DUTIES: PROCUREMENT, OFFICE\nSERVICES, SUPERVISION OF EIGHT (8) SUBORDINATE POSITIONS, BUT THERE\nWOULD BE NO PROMOTION, SUCH AN ADVANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED\n...\n--EMPLOYEE, NON-INDIAN, GS-4, WITH TEN (10) YEARS EXPERIENCE APPLIED FOR\nTHE FOLLOWING POSITIONS DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1975:\nACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN, GS-5\nCLERK-TYPIST, GS-4\nCONTRACT CLERK, GS-3/4\nLOR ST FORD LIBRAN\nGENERAL CLERK, GS-5\nEACH TIME THIS EMPLOYEE WAS PASSED OVER AND PREFERENCE APPLICANT\nINDIANS WITH LITTLE OR NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WERE HIRED\n--ONE EMPLOYEE WAS SELECTED FOR A GS-5 SECRETARIAL POSITION, BUT WAS\nNOT GIVEN THE JOB IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT OF THE THIRTEEN (13)\nAPPLICANTS SHE WAS THE ONLY PERSON \"HIGHLY QUALIFIED\". THREE (3)\nAPPEALS, THE LAST ONE BEING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION\nAND WELFARE WERE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF INDIAN PREFERENCE, THIS\nEMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR TWO (2) OTHER VACANCIES AND WAS NOTIFIED THAT OTHER\nAPPLICANTS HAD BEEN SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE\nAGENCY PROMOTION PLAN\n--IN 1973 A PHOENIX AREA EMPLOYEE WITH TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS EXPERIENCE\nIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY TWO (2) YEARS\nIN THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE APPLIED FOR THE BRANCH CHIEF'S JOB IN\nALBUQUERQUE. HE WAS RATED AS THE BEST QUALIFIED OF ALL THE APPLICANTS\nFOR THE JOB BUT WAS PASSED OVER FOR A PREFERENCE APPLICANT INDIAN\nWHO WAS RATED THIRD ON THE REGISTER.\n--IN 1974, THIS SAME INDIVIDUAL APPLIED FOR THE AREA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT\nOFFICER'S JOB IN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, HE WAS PASSED OVER FOR AN INDIAN\nWHO HAD NO GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE, AND VIRTUALLY NO EXPERIENCE IN\nPROPERTY MANAGEMENT -- HE WORKED FOR A COMMERCIAL TRUCKING FIRM IN\nANCHORAGE\n--IN 1973 THIS SAME EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR THE JOB OF ASSISTANT CHIEF,\nADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BRANCH IN THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE, HE WAS\nPASSED OVER FOR AN INDIAN WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF ADMINIS-\nTRATIVE SERVICES. THEN AN ABERDEEN AREA NON-PREFERENCE EMPLOYEE,\n(WHO WAS ELIGIBLE BUT ELECTED NOT TO APPLY) WAS ASKED TO TRAIN THE\nPREFERENCE APPLICANT WHO WAS SELECTED. A DIFFICULT SITUATION, TRAINING\nYOUR SUPERVISOR!\n--IN 1973 A GRADE GS-12 EMPLOYEE IN THE ABERDEEN AREA ADMINISTRATIVE\nSERVICES BRANCH APPLIED FOR THE JOB OF ASSISTANT CHIEF, ADMINISTRATIVE\nSERVICES AND WAS BYPASSED FOR A PREFERENCE APPLICANT WHO HAD NO\nEXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES\n--IN EARLY 1974 THE ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE ISSUED A VACANCY NOTICE FOR\nA POSITION IN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. A NON-PREFERENCE, HIGHLY\nQUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WAS SELECTED. BEFORE A FORMAL OFFER WAS MADE,\nIT WAS DISCOVERED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBLE FOR INDIAN PREFERENCE WAS\nINTERESTED AND THE CERTIFICATE REOPENED AND THE PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE\nCANDIDATE HIRED,\n-IN OCTOBER 1975 THE ABERDEEN AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AREA\nCLASSIFICATION AND POSITION MANAGEMENT POSITION WAS ADVERTISED\nUNDER THE PROMOTION PROGRAM. THREE (3) WELL QUALIFIED NON-INDIAN\nCANDIDATES WERE CERTIFIED TO THE SELECTING OFFICIAL, HOWEVER, NO\nSELECTION WAS MADE FROM THIS CERTIFICATE, ON JANUARY 4, 1976, AN\nINDIAN WITH NO CLASSIFICATION EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER WAS APPOINTED\nFORD\nTO THIS CRITICAL MANAGEMENT POSITION\n817\n--AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF NURSING POSITION WAS FILLED WITH AN OUTSIDE\nPREFERENCE APPLICANT ALTHOUGH TWO (2) HIGHLY QUALIFIED NURSES WHO WERE\nALREADY EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAD APPLIED\n111\nIT IS NOT ONLY IN THE AREA OF FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE CAREER APPOINTMENTS\nTHAT THIS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION EXISTS, IT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO\nINCLUDE THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS PROVIDED BY THE CONGRESS TO ENABLE STUDENTS\nAND OTHERS TO OBTAIN VALUABLE WORK EXPERIENCE AND INCOME,\nITEM: THE ABERDEEN AREA DIRECTOR, BIA, A GS-15 HAS ONE SON EMPLOYED\nWITH THE IHS AS A GS-3, HIS DAUGHTER WAS ALSO EMPLOYED BY THE\nIHS DURING THE PAST SUMMER AND NOW WORKS PART-TIME WHILE ATTENDING\nTHE LOCAL HIGHSCHOOL. ANOTHER SON WAS EMPLOYED DURING THE\n1974-75 SCHOOL TERM AND WAS EMPLOYED FULL TIME DURING THE SUMMER\nWITH THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE. IN AUGUST 1975 HE RESIGNED\nTO ATTEND COLLEGE IN ANOTHER CITY,\nIN THE SAME VEIN, THE ABERDEEN AREA IHS TRIBAL AFFAIRS\nOFFICER, GS-14, AND HIS WIFE, WHO IS EMPLOYED BY THE\nBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO IS EMPLOYED AS\nA STUDENT AIDE WHILE ATTENDING SCHOOL\nMEANWHILE, THE\nCHILDREN OF LESS AFFLUENT FAMILIES ARE DENIED ACCESS TO\nTHESE SUPPOSEDLY PUBLIC PROGRAMS OF STUDENT ASSISTANCE\n--A GS-12 EMPLOYEE OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE WITH OVER 25 YEARS\nSERVICE ACCEPTED A DOWNGRADE TO GS-9 AND TRANSFER TO ANOTHER FEDERAL\nAGENCY IN 1974 BECAUSE HE WAS CONVINCED THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY\nIN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND HE FEARED HIS CAREER WAS IN JEOPARDY.\n--ANOTHER IHS EMPLOYEE WITH A NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE TRANSFERRED\nTO THE U. S. FOREST SERVICE AS A GS-7 BECAUSE HE FELT HIS CAREER WAS\nBLOCKED IN IHS. HE IS NOW A PERSONNEL OFFICER WITH THAT AGENCY\n--A NON-INDIAN EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR TRAINING ON THREE OCCASIONS DURING\nTHE PAST THREE (3) YEARS AND WAS TURNED DOWN EACH TIME, ALTHOUGH\nPREFERENCE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO APPLIED WERE APPROVED. WE HAVE\nTWO STANDARDS - ONE FOR INDIANS AND ONE FOR NON-INDIANS\nIN YET ANOTHER CASE, A MINIMALLY QUALIFIED INDIAN EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR\nA TOP BRANCH CHIEF POSITION TOGETHER WITH EIGHT WELL QUALIFIED NON-\nINDIAN EMPLOYEES. THE SUPERVISOR WANTED DESPERATLY TO HIRE THE BEST\nQUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL BUT WAS FORCED TO APPOINT THE MINIMALLY QUALIFIED\nPREFERENCE CANDIDATE,\n--IN THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEE PROGRAM, IN ONE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AREA\nOFFICE, TRAINEE POSITIONS WERE FILLED WITH PREFERENCE CANDIDATES AT\nGRADES GS-5, 7, AND EVEN 12. AGAIN, WELL QUALIFIED NON-INDIANS WERE\nAVAILABLE AND EAGER FOR THE OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY THIS PROGRAM,\nBUT NONE WERE SELECTED. MANY OTHERS ARE INTERESTED IN THIS PROGRAM\nBUT DO NOT APPLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IT IS RESERVED STRICTLY FOR\nPREFERENCE CANDIDATES IN THE INDIAN SERVICES\nTo A GREAT EXTENT NON-INDIAN CANDIDATES ARE NO LONGER APPLYING FOR\nADVERTISED VACANCIES IN THE INDIAN SERVICES BECAUSE AFTER BEING TURNED\nDOWN TIME AFTER TIME THEY HAVE LEARNED THAT THE PREPARATION AND SUB-\nMITAL OF AN APPLICATION IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY. \"WHAT'S THE\nUSE?\" IS THE PREVAILING ATTUTUDE. ABOUT THE ONLY VACANCIES BEING\nFILLED BY NON-PREFERENCE CANDIDATES EITHER BY INITIAL APPOINTMENT OR\nPROMOTION ARE THE HARD TO FILL OR HIGHLY SKILLED PROFESSIONAL AND\nPARA-PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINES OR AT ISOLATED OR OTHERWISE LESS\nDESIRABLE LOCATIONS, THE NON-INDIAN POPULATION OF THE INDIAN\nHOW U.S. FORD LIBRA\nRESERVATIONS KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT WELCOME, SO WHY SHOULD THEY APPLY?\nALSO, ALL NON-INDIANS ARE WELL AWARE OF THE \"WOUNDED KNEE\" SITUATION\nAT PINE RIDGE AND ROSEBUD AND THE ACTIVITIES OF CERTAIN MILITANT\nINDIAN GROUPS ON THESE RESERVATIONS, AND THEY ARE RELUCTANT TO SUBJECT\nTHEIR FAMILIES TO THE POTENTIAL HAZARDS, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO\nBECOME INVOLVED WITH BIA AND IHS SO THEY ARE NOT APPLYING FOR ADVERTISED\nVACANCIES, THE OUTPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF\nINTERIOR SUFFERS FROM THIS ONE SIGNIFICANT FLAW - IT REQUIRES THAT THE\nEMPLOYEE DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAS BEEN REFUSED TWO POSITIONS IN THE\nCOMPETITIVE SERVICE BEFORE HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE\nWHICH\nIS IN EFFECT ASKING HIM TO PROVE THAT HE IS A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN;\nALL THE HIGH SOUNDING STATEMENTS ARE WORTHLESS\n...\nHERE, FOR BREVITY'S SAKE, IS A TABULATION OF POSITIONS RECENTLY AFFECTED\nBY SECTION 12 OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT --\n1976\nCOMMUNITY PLANNER\nGS-11/12\nLos ANGELES, CALIFORNIA\nTEACHER\nGS-7\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK,\nCLERK-TYPIST\nGS-4\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\nECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER\nGS-12\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\n1975\nTRIBAL OPERATIONS OFFICER\nGS-12\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nEDUCATION SPECIALIST\nGS-12\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nEDUCATION SPECIALIST\nGS-11\nFLANDREAU, S. DAK.\nEDUCATION SPECIALIST\nGS-12\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nEDUCATION SPECIALIST\nGS-11\nBELCOURT, N. DAK.\nGENERAL CLERK\nGS-5\nROSEBUD, S. DAK.\nACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN\nGS-6\nABERDEEN, S. ДАК.\nHOUSING DEVELOPMENT OFFICER\nGS-13\nMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA\nEDUCATION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR\nGS-12\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\nADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER\nGS-11\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\nHIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL\nGS-11\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\nELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL\nGS-11\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\nMAINTENANCE MAN\nWG-7\nLOWER BRULE, S. DAK.\nAGENCY SUPERINTENDENT\nGS-14\nSHIPROCK, NEW MEXICO\nHOUSING OFFICER\nGS-11\nTUBA CITY, ARIZONA\nEDUCATION PROGRAM OFFICER\nGS-12\nMUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA\nPERSONNEL OFFICER\nGS-13/14\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nCLERK-STENOGRAPHER\nGS-4/5\nABERDEEN, S. ДАК.\nINVESTMENT OFFICER\nGS-9/11\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nCLERK\nGS-2\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN\nGS-6\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN\nGS-6\nABERDEEN, S. ДАК.\nPREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE\nWG-10\nABERDEEN, S, DAK.\nSPECIALIST\n1974\nHOUSING OFFICER\nGS-12\nJUNEAU, ALASKA\nPROGRAM OFFICER\nGS-12\nSACATON AGENCY\nBUDGET OFFICER\nGS-11/12/13\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nPLANT MANAGER\nGS-9/11\nWAHPETON, No. DAK.\nPLANT MANAGER\nGS-12\nPINE RIDGE, So. DAK,\nBUDGET ANALYST\nGS-7/9/11\nABERDEEN, S. DAK.\nCONTRACT SPECIALIST\nGS-5/7/9/11\nABERDEEN, S. ДАК,\n1973\nECONOMIC PLANNER\nGS-12\nALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO\nSECRETARY-STENO\nGS-5\nFORT THOMPSON, S. DAK.\n1972\nCONTRACT SPECIALIST\nGS-9\nABERDEEN, S, ДАК.\n1971\nECONOMIC PLANNER\nGS-12\nALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO\n1970\nECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER\nGS-12\nPHOENIX, ARIZONA\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER\nGS-12\nPHOENIX, ARIZONA\nTHIS LIST IS CERTAINLY NOT COMPLETE\nIT WAS COMPILED BY TELEPHONE\nAND CONTRIBUTION OF PENCILED NOTES\nIN A MATTER OF TWO DAYS,\nIT IS VERY EASY TO TOSS OFF ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND DAMAGE\nTO INDIVIDUAL CAREERS, DENIAL OF GUARANTEED AND RETAINED RIGHTS,\nABROGATION OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PROTECTION. INVASION OF PRIVACY\nIN PERMITTING CONFIDENTAIL JOB APPLICATIONS TO BE REVIEWED BY TRIBAL\nCOUNCILS, AND INTERFERENCE WITH FIDUCIARY AND MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS.\nIT IS ALSO VERY EASY TO PREPARE A LENGTHY TABULATION OF POSITIONS\nWHICH HAVE ALLEGEDLY BEEN AFFECTED BY THE STRICT APPLICATION OF INDIAN\nPREFERENCE TO ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS IN THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS\nAND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE\nI WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF SOME\nOF YOU WERE NOT QUESTIONING THE VERACITY OF THIS STATEMENT AS I\nPRESENT IT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE APPEALED TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL\nOF THE UNITED STATES FOR AN IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION OF THESE ALLEGATIONS,\nTHE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE HAS THE NECESSARY STAFF AND RESOURCES TO\nINVESTIGATE ALL OF THIS, WE WELCOME SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, AND I\nBELIEVE MANY OF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS OF BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF\nTHE INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE WOULD\nALSO WELCOME IT, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY SOME WHO WILL DO ALL\nIN THEIR POWER TO AVOID IT,\nWE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED AN ORDERLY TRANSFER OF\nRESPONSIBILITY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS FROM THE NON-INDIAN DOMINATION OF\nTHE PAST TO A PRIMARILY INDIAN STAFF OF CAPABLE, COMPETENT, WELL\nQUALIFIED EMPLOYEES. WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT WHOLESALE\nDESTRUCTION OF 9,000 CAREERS WAS INTENDED WHEN SECTION 12 OF THE\nINDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT WAS WRITTEN IN 1934!\nTHERE IS A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT MANY OF THE INDIAN EMPLOYEES\nTHEMSELVES ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE TREND OF PERSONNEL POLICIES IN\nTHE INDIAN SERVICES,\nMANY CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS OF INDIAN DESCENT\nHAVE RECENTLY BECOME AWARE OF THE THREAT TO THEIR LIVLIHOODS REPRESENTED\nBY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 93-638 - THE INDIAN EDUCATION AND\nSELF-DETERMINATION AcT. THEY HAVE REALIZED THAT THE CONTRACTING PRO-\nVISIONS OF THIS LAW POSE A VERY REAL DANGER TO THEM. THERE ARE\nALSO INDICATIONS THAT THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE INDIAN\nHEALTH SERVICE HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS FACT AND HAVE INITIATED THE EX--\nPLORATION OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF HAVING INDIAN EMPLOYEES WHO ARE\nTHREATENED BY THE LOSS OF THEIR JOBS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF\nPL 93-638 INCLUDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION.\nFOR HIMSELF AND APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY (160) OTHER\nFORD & LIBRARY 038470\nCONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND THE BUREAU\nOF INDIAN AFFAIRS,\nTHOMAS H. GONINION\n902 SOUTH JAY STREET\nABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA 57401\nSTATES POSTA\n®\nTHOMAS LONG\nPO BOX 884\nwestern union\nBROWNING MT 59417\nMailgram\nUNITED *\nU.S.MAIL\nSERVICE *\n*******\n2-020424E263 09/19/76 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHC\n4063387260 MGM TDMT BROWNING MT 100 09-19 0957P EST\nMR BRAD PATTERSON SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE\nPRESIDENT ON INDIAN AFFAIRS\nWHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON DC 20501\nPLEASE ENCOURAGE PRESIDENT FORD TO SIGN BILL HR5465. I AM A NON-INDIAN\nEMPLOYEE OF IHS AND HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF RAW DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF\nINDIAN PREFERENCE IN HIRING AND PROMOTIONS MY GOVERNMENT CAREER HAS\nBEEN RUINED BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ADVANCE FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS.\nI KNOW OF MANY CASES SIMILIAR TO MINE, OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WILL\nNOT HIRE ME BECAUSE THEY MUST PROMOTE THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES,\nTHOMAS J LONG\nPO BOX 884 BROWNING MT\n21:57 EST\nMGMCOMP MGM\nFORD & LIBRARY 07V835\nLACE\nTO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBERS"
}