Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839598
label
Tidwell, Moody
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839598
contentType
document
title
Tidwell, Moody
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839598
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5302d443cbafad58
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: Tidwell, Moody
Box: 55
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
Withdrawer
IGP
8/6/2005
File Folder
TIDWELL, MOODY
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
55
COOK
67IGP
DOC
Doc Type
Document Description
No of
Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1
REPORT
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT
5
1/26/1983
B6
902
REPORT
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT
10
1/26/1983
B6
903
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
TIOWELL
STATE
OF
UNITED STATES
RIOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
March
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
APR 26 1982
The Honorable Charles A. Bowsher
Comptroller General of the United States
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Bowsher:
This is in response to a letter, dated February 8, 1982, signed
by Robert H. Hunter, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. General
Accounting Office, which was addressed to Secretary of the
Interior James G. Watt, asking several questions about two recep-
tions held by Secretary Watt at Arlington House in December 1981.
Our response is addressed to you in view of the fact that you
have since become involved in the matter.
At issue is the propriety of the use of donated funds to pay for
two official receptions held on December 14 and 17, 1981, at the
Custis-Lee Mansion, also known as Arlington House, for senior
government officials and their guests. As you will recall, GAO
disagreed in B-206173, February 23, 1982, with the Department's
decision, which was based on past practices, to use funds donated
without restriction to the National Park Service to pay for the
receptions. The February 23, 1982, Opinion concluded that the
receptions were "social gatherings" as opposed to "official"
based upon GAO's interpretation of language contained in a
February 16, 1982, letter from the Department's Deputy Assistant
Secretary--Policy, Budget and Administration, to the Chairman of
the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and that payment from
donated funds was therefore not authorized. This letter is in-
tended to set forth for you the full facts and reasons giving
rise to the decision to use donated funds to pay for the recep-
tions.
There is no question but that the Secretary of the Interior has the
authority to accept donations from Cooperating Associations 1/,
and others, in the interest of the national park system. The Act of
June 5, 1920, 16 U.S.C. 6, provides that, "The Secretary of the
Interior in his administration of the National Park Service is
authorized in his discretion to accept
*
*
*
monies
that
may
be
donated for the purpose of the national park and monument system. "
The Cooperating Association Fund, created under this authority has
been in existence for decades. Cooperating Associations have volun-
tarily contributed to it well knowing the long-standing tradition of
1/ For a complete discussion of Cooperating Associations and
their relationship to the Cooperating Association Fund, see
B-195492, March 18, 1980.
-2-
the National Park Service to use the Cooperating Association Fund for
receptions.
We believe that GAO, in reaching its February 23, 1982, opinion,
failed to consider all of the explicit responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior in furthering the purposes of the na-
tional park system as well as all of the possible proper means of
meeting those responsibilities. Citing "conservation" as the
only "purpose" of the Secretary vis-a-vis the national park sys-
tem, as GAO did in the February 23, 1982 Opinion, is far too
narrow a reading of the law and, while it supports the Opinion,
it fails to recognize the Secretary's broad responsibilities in
this area. The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C.
1, sets forth the basic mission of the Service. It provides, in
pertinent part that:
"There is created in the Department of the
Interior a service to be called the National
Park Service, which shall be under the charge
of a Director. The Service thus established
shall promote and regulate the use of federal
areas known as national parks, monuments and
reservations hereinafter specified, * * * by
such means and measures as conform to the
fundamental purposes of the said park, monu-
ments and reservations which purpose is to
conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and
to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
such a manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations. (Emphasis added)
The unambiguous direction given in the 1916 Act is that the
Secretary of the Interior in addition to "conserving the scenery"
of national parks, is to "regulate" and "promote" the use of the
parks and the national park system. From a careful reading of an
earlier 2/ Opinion and the 1982 Opinion, it appears that GAO
has recognized only the Service's mandate to "conserve" park re-
sources and has not addressed or even apparently considered the
Secretary's responsibility to "promote" the national park system.
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and, in fact,
directed to do more than just manage an area for the purpose of
conserving its scenic, historic objects and wildlife so as to
leave them unimpaired for future generations. Uniquely, the 1916
Act contains a promotional element which directs the Secretary of
the Interior to "sell" the benefits as well as the concept of a
national park system. This promotional mandate has been met in
many ways over the years since 1916. Presidents of the United
States, officers of the Government, Members of Congress, and
above all, the public have all been introduced to the ideas and
visions of those dedicated professionals responsible for devel-
B-195492, March 18, 1980.
-3-
opment of what is now universally described as the crown jewels
of our land; the national park system. This promotional effort
has been continuous and diligent.
All of us at one time or another in our lives learned from the
promotional programs of the Secretary of the Interior and the
National Park Service of the magnificence of and the benefits to
us as individuals, and to the Nation as a whole, of the national
park system. Direct and tangible benefits flow to the national
park system through introducing Members of Congress, officials of
the Executive Branch and others to the parks. They learn of the
national park system's place in our society, the costs of estab-
lishing and maintaining the system, and what they in their indi-
vidual and official capacities must do to preserve a system that
is so important to the Nation's economy and its citizens. The
national park system has grown by leaps and bounds since its in-
ception in the past century and it is axiomatic that this growth
would not have occurred in the absence of pressures and goals
expressed by the people of the United States on the Executive and
Legislative Branches of their government. The programs, includ-
ing the promotional programs, of the National Park Service have
explained and defined those goals and presented a coherent and
planned way of addressing them.
One valid, and indeed proven, way of informing and educating
directly and indirectly involved decision-makers and others, has
been to use the system's facilities in such a way as not only
interpret them but also to stimulate ideas; to show what is pos-
sible to accomplish vis-a-vis our Nation's scenery, historic ob-
jects and wildlife. It is not only appropriate, but wise manage-
ment for the Secretary to try to persuade other members of the
Executive Branch, including members of the Office of Management
and Budget, as well as Congress, that the national park system is
a concept which deserves budgetary and policy support. Recep-
tions, which introduce the guests to historical buildings, are a
most effective and appropriate method for the Secretary to pro-
mote the national park system. Most historic buildings and facil-
ities in the park system are not "hands-off" museum pieces; they
are open for general and specific uses. The public is welcome,
indeed encouraged, to visit them. Many of the buildings are also
available for specific, more limited uses. Arlington House, for
example, has been open to the public since 1926 and has been used
for promotional type purposes in a non-business atmosphere from
1969 to 1975. It was closed for these purposes from 1975 until
1981 but is now available again under strictly controlled condi-
tions such as were in effect at the two December functions. In
this regard, Attachment No. 1 lists the various functions held at
Arlington House from 1969 to 1975. To give you an indication of
the variety of uses to which Arlington House was put, note that
it was used fourteen times during that period for receptions
hosted by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Director of
the National Park Service or their representatives. It should be
noted that all the receptions listed in Attachment 1 were held in
an official, promotional, non-business atmosphere paid for from
-4-
the Cooperating Association Fund, and ostensibly known to the
General Accounting Office and the Congress. See Attachment No. 2
listing expenditures from the fund from 1980 to present.
The General Accounting Office has audited the Cooperating Associa-
tion Fund since long before 1981. Always in the past the
Comptroller General has recognized the value and purpose of
receptions such as these as being in furtherance of the official
mandate of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. It is
for this very reason that we vigorously dissent from your opinion
of February 23, 1982. For GAO to suddenly take exception to a
long established practice which it has, at least tacitly,
approved over the years is inappropriate.
The decision of the Director of the National Park Service to
recommend to the Secretary to use the Cooperating Association
Fund to pay for the two receptions, and the decision of the
Secretary to accept that advice, was based on an analysis of past
GAO instructions on the subject. In B-142538, February 8, 1961,
Comptroller General Campbell addressed similar issues presented
to him by the National Science Foundation. In that instance, NSF
requested guidance on several proposed expenditures from its dona-
tions fund for receptions, including lunches and dinners for
government and nongovernment employees. NSF pointed out that the
purpose of one of its receptions held in 1959,
"was to give members of the (NSF) Board an
opportunity to become acquainted with indi-
viduals *** who play a major role in
matters affecting the Foundation and to make
information available to them concerning ac-
complishments in several of the Foundation's
programs. Catering expenses and flower dec-
oration expenses were incurred in holding
this reception.'
We have no further knowledge about what actually happened at the
1959 NSF reception, but we assume since the affair was catered,
that food and beverages were served and the room was decorated,
at least to the extent that flowers were provided. The NSF recep-
tion was probably not much different than receptions hosted by
the Secretary of the Interior at Arlington House.
In addressing NSF's questions, Comptroller General Campbell
enunciated the rules that the Department of the Interior has
followed ever since in determining the propriety of expenditures
from the Cooperating Association Fund and the hundreds of other
donated fund accounts maintained by the National Park Service and
the other bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior.
GAO stated:
"Manifestly, the question as to whether
entertainment is necessary to accomplish
statutory activities is often difficult of
-5-
determination. Therefore, we may not under-
take to draw a line or set forth a general
statement which would encompass all situa-
tions where the donated funds properly may be
so used to further the general purposes of
the Foundation. However, it seems reasonable
to conclude that, in general, whether enter-
tainment is necessary or essential to the
furtherance of one or more of the Founda-
tion's general purposes for which the donated
funds are authorized to be received and used,
is a conclusion of fact to be determined on
the basis of the particular facts and circum-
stances involved and in light of the general
objectives of the Foundation to be served.
*** In such cases, an administrative deter-
mination as to the necessity of expenditures
for entertainment to carry out effectively
the authorized functions of the Foundation is
accorded great weight in considering the do-
nated funds available to the Foundation for
such purposes."
NSF had determined that the luncheons and dinners were a neces-
sary and a proper means of promoting an authorized activity. GAO
then quite properly concluded that, * * the use of donated
funds to pay the cost of food and entertainment incident thereto
would appear proper. In a final comment on the issues raised
GAO stated:
"In this connection, it may be stated as
advisory that the propriety of the use of
donated funds for expenses of entertainment
to cultivate cordial relations, manifest good
will, or to reciprocate in kind hospitality
extended by others to Foundation personnel,
not having a direct connection with or rea-
sonably necessary to the accomplishment of
the Foundation's activities would appear to
be questionable."
You will note that the guidance given was "advisory," and that
Comptroller General Campbell did not disapprove or disallow use
of donated funds for these purposes. This was taken by the
Department of the Interior as the law on the subject of the
expenditure of funds from the Cooperating Association Fund for
almost twenty years, during which time, as the record reflects,
Secretaries of the Interior held receptions at Arlington House
and elsewhere using money from the Fund as a means of promoting
the national park system.
The second GAO opinion relied upon by the Secretary was in
response to a request by Senator William Proxmire for Comptroller
3/ B-195492, March 18, 1980.
-6-
General Staats' opinion on the propriety of several expenditures
from the Cooperating Association Fund by the then-Secretary of
the Interior. GAO auditors reported that,
"The Fund has been used to pay for travel and
entertainment expenses for various people,
including top administration officials,
Members of Congress, and some persons who
were not Government employees. The Fund fi-
nanced the purchase of gifts, refreshments,
lunches and receptions, floral arrangements
and centerpieces, seminars, photographs,
entry fees for contests and transportation
and per diem expenses for people who are not
employed by the Government.'
In answering Senator Proxmire, Comptroller General Staats posed
the issue as, " * * * whether funds donated by private persons to
further the purposes of the national park and monument system are
subject to the same strictures applicable to appropriated funds
in general. He concluded "We think not," and "(i)n the case of
authority to use private donations * * * we have been willing to
rely on the discretion of agency officials to determine when ex-
penditures are in furtherance of official purposes. (Emphasis
added) The only qualification thereto is that, " * * * each
agency must justify its use of trust funds as being inci-
dent to the terms of the trust. It was thus recognized offi-
cially by GAO after examining, auditing and investigating the
Cooperating Association Fund and other donated fund accounts over a
span of many years that these funds were clearly not subject 5/ to
the ordinary rules governing the expenditure of appropriated funds.
The law on the subject as it stood then for over 20 years, and upon
which the decision was based to use the Cooperating Association Fund
to pay for the two December receptions, was (1) that the monies be
expended for a valid and official purpose, to wit; in furtherance of
the national park system, and (2) the decision of whether the expen-
diture is, in fact, in furtherance of a purpose of the national park
system rests with the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee.
We do not contend that the law gives the Secretary absolute dis-
cretion in his administration of the Cooperating Association Fund.
Comptrollers General over the years have sought ways to meaning-
fully audit donated fund accounts to assure that they are being
spent properly and, in doing so, have built up a small body of
law containing various principles to be used by donated fund
account administrators. But, because of the very character of
the funds themselves and the extremely broad purposes for which
they may be expended, the principles enunciated within this body
of law necessarily are very general and, in some instances, con-
In B-142538, February 8, 1961, supra GAO describes "donated
funds, such as the Cooperating Association Fund, as "trust
funds, per 31 U.S.C. 725(s). The terms are used interchangeably.
5/ With certain exceptions not pertinent here.
-7-
flicting. It is beyond doubt that the Secretary of the Interior
has the authority to administer the Cooperating Association Fund
as he determines proper, applying the GAO guidelines as he and
his attorneys and other advisors interpret them. Great deference
must be given those decisions; decisions made by responsible men,
sworn to uphold the law, and bound by a common goal of doing what
is required of them by the laws of the United States.
In recognition of this fact, Comptroller General Staats and the
Congress devised, in his 1980 Opinion to Senator Proxmire, what
we believe to be a workable means of addressing the issues iden-
tified as potential problems. He told the Senator, in closing,
that the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations were well
aware of the Senator's criticisms and to remedy any possible
improprieties in expenditures from the Cooperating Association
Fund the Senate Committee had proposed that the Director of the
National Park Service submit quarterly reports on fund expendi-
tures to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 6/
Accordingly, Comptroller General Staats closed his inquiry into
the matter. The Cooperating Association Fund can and should be
the subject of GAO audit at any time, however; and this is
critical, because of the authority vested in the Secretary by
Congress in his administration of the national park system and
the Cooperating Association Fund, disallowances of payments
therefrom should never be undertaken in the absence of clear,
preexisting and proper directions against such payments. Not
once has GAO ever before taken exception to the use by any
Secretary of the Interior of the Cooperating Association Fund to
finance receptions determined by him to be in furtherance of the
purposes of the national park system. This instance should be
handled no differently.
The case for not disturbing the Secretary's disbursement of funds
from the Cooperating Association Fund for the December receptions
is more compelling by virtue of the fact that Congress implicitly
approved use of those funds for reception purposes by not object-
ing to similar uses over the past few years. If the legislature
knows of, and fails to disapprove the executive's interpretation
of his authorities that interpretation is to be given even
6/ The Department has complied with this directive.
-8-
greater weight than is normally the case. In the case at
hand, Congress has never taken issue with the practice of funding
receptions at Arlington House from the Cooperating Association
Fund to further the purposes of the national park system even
though, since 1980, it has received quarterly reports from the
National Park Service on disbursements from the Fund showing such
expenditures.
Suddenly on February 23, 1982, in response to a Congressional
request, GAO issued the opinion that is in issue today. After
discussing the GAO cases cited above and reciting what limited
facts as could be gathered by the auditors in the time permitted,
GAO opined that the events were "clearly unrelated to the further-
ance of the Park Service's mission.' Nothing could be further
from the truth. GAO advised the Subcommittee that the expendi-
tures were for "personal purposes" because the Department had not
justified its use of the donated funds as being incident to the
terms of the statutory authority permitting acceptance of the
donations. In short, GAO chose (1) to deny the Department suf-
ficient time to develop its legal position in order to hurriedly
complete its report to the Subcommittee, and (2) based upon what
little information was known at the time, to dispute the personal
integrity and honesty not only of a Cabinet officer of the United
States Government, but of those diligent and conscientious
officers and employees who advised him that such expenditures
were proper.
Based upon the law as enunciated by past GAO opinions, interpre-
tations of that law by counsel to the Secretary, and actions of
the Congress itself in implicitly approving such activities, the
Secretary of the Interior exercised his control over expenditures
from the Cooperating Association Fund exactly as did his prede-
cessors for at least the past two decades. The December 1981
receptions were for the purpose of "promoting" the national park
system notwithstanding that they were also social in nature.
They were official, and payment therefore from the Fund was com-
pletely proper.
7/ For a contemporary discussion of this rule see Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System V. First Leatherwood
Corp., 439 U.S. 34, 248 (1978), holding that:
"Our conclusion as to the scope of the Board's
authority is bolstered by reference to the principle
that an agency's long-standing construction of its
statutory mandate is entitled to great respect,
'especially when Congress has refused to alter the
administrative construction. (Footnotes omitted.)
The Supreme Court pointed out that Congress was aware of the
Federal Reserve Board's practice, yet four times had "revisited
the Act and left the practice untouched."
-9-
One further issue needs to be addressed herein. In the Opinion
of February 23, 1982, GAO drew a distinction between the recep-
tion held on December 14, 1981, and the one of December 17, 1981,
on the basis that the Secretary was in attendance at the latter,
but not the former. The December 14, 1981 function was an offi-
cial reception of the Secretary of the Interior at Arlington
House for the wives of senior Government officials. Attachment
No. 1 lists other official receptions held at Arlington House.
You will note that several were held for and attended primarily
by persons who were not employees of the Department of the
Interior. See, for example, the June 10, 1972, reception for the
White House staff and the one of June 11, 1974, for Mrs. Ellen
Bible and Mrs. Julia Hanson. Secretary Watt held both receptions
to introduce the attendees to a unit of the national park system
in recognition of the fact that they could, and probably would be
able to contribute ideas and support to the system over the next
few years. Simply put, he "promoted" a unit of the national park
system. On the day preceding the December 14 reception Secretary
Watt visited Arlington House to discuss details of the two recep-
tions with the staff so as to assure as best he could the events
would be successful. The fact that he was not physically present
at Arlington House on the morning of December 14 is irrelevant to
the issue at hand. The proper test is whether the event was for
the purpose of furthering the national park system; which it was.
To our knowledge, GAO has never taken the position that a Govern-
ment official must physically host or attend a function in order
for it to be considered an "official" function under the law.
GAO should not do so now.
In conclusion, it is our position that in the absence of any
Congressionally mandated restrictions or clear previous instruc-
tions from GAO or the courts overturning two decades of accept-
able activity by Secretaries of the Interior, that payment for
the two December 1981 receptions at Arlington House from the
Cooperating Association Fund is proper.
We trust that the information provided in this letter will be of
benefit and interest to you.
Sincerely yours,
Moody R. Fedwcel
Moody R. Tidwell III
Deputy Solicitor
Enclosures
OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
Murch
6PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
FEB 01 1983
Mr. Chris Hicks
Associate Director
White House Pesonnel Office
Room 142, Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Hicks:
The Comptroller General of the United States by Decisions
rendered on February 23, 1982, and August 3, 1982, held that
the officers of the National Park Service who approve pay-
ments from the National Park Service's Cooperative Associa-
tion Fund for a breakfast held December 14, 1981, and a re-
ception held December 17, 1981, by the Secretary of the
Interior and his wife were liable for the repayment of those
funds. These decisions also indicated that the National Park
Service officers should collect the amounts owed to the Fund
from the Secretary and his wife.
The Deputy Solicitor of the Department of the Interior had
written a strong Opinion taking issue with the position taken
by the Comptroller General's Office.
After the decision of August 23, 1982, the Secretary, as a
matter of policy, determined that although he had a strong
legal position, the matter should be settled by reimbursing
the Fund as provided in the Decisions.
The Cooperative Association Fund of the National Park Service
was paid the amounts in question by check dated November 2,
1982.
There are no pending issues in the matter and the matter is
closed.
Very truly yours,
SOLICITOR
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
IGP 8/6/2005
File Folder
FOIA
TIDWELL, MOODY
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
55
67IGP
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
1
REPORT
5 1/26/1983 B6
902
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
IGP 8/6/2005
File Folder
FOIA
TIDWELL, MOODY
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
55
67IGP
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO
Document Description
pages
tions
N
REPORT
10 1/26/1983 B6
903
2
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DDR
SUBJECT:
Nomination of Moody Tidwell
to be Deputy Comptroller General
Attached is the September 14, 1982 memorandum you wrote to
Helene von Damm, advising her that the President must
consider, but is not bound by, the recommendations of the
Congressional Commission established by 31 U.S.C. § 42 to
advise the President on appointments to the posts of
Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General. Chris
Hicks advised me that repeated efforts to obtain a list of
names from the Commission have been fruitless; the
Commission has not even met. He indicated it was the intent
of Presidential Personnel to send Tidwell's name up without
further delay. Nancy Kennedy, however, informed Sherrie
Cooksey that the Commission would meet today and submit a
list -- with Tidwell's name on it -- by the first of next
week. I see no reason for inviting a controversy over the
31 U.S.C. § 42 procedure when it can be avoiding by waiting
a few days. I recommend advising Presidential Personnel
that Legislative Affairs advises us that a list will soon be
forthcoming, and that Tidwell will be on it. I have
prepared a proposed memorandum for your signature to Helene
von Damm.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR HELENE VON DAMM
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Nomination of Moody Tidwell to
be Deputy Comptroller General
In my September 14, 1982 memorandum to you on the appointment
of the deputy comptroller general, I advised that the
President must consider, but is not bound by, the recommenda-
tions of the commission established by 31 U.S.C. § 42 to
advise him on appointments to the posts of comptroller
general and deputy comptroller general. We have been
advised by the Office of Legislative Affairs that the
commission is meeting today and will, by the first of next
week, submit a list of suggestions for the position of
deputy comptroller. I therefore recommend awaiting the
imminent receipt of this list before submitting a nomination
to the Senate.
FFF: JGR:aw 1/27/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
September 14, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR HELENE VON DAMM
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Appointment of Deputy Comptroller General
This responds to your request for advice on whether the Presi-
dent is required to select an individual for nomination to
the position of Deputy Comptroller General from the recommenda-
tions made to him by the Congressional Commission established
for that purpose by Pub. L. No. 96-226, 94 Stat. 311 (1980).
Our view of the statute and the legislative history is that
the President must consider, but is not bound by, the recom-
mendations made to him by the Congressional Commission.
Section 104 of the General Accounting Office Act of 1980,
Pub. L. No 96-226, 94 Stat. 311, 314-315 (1980), established
a procedure for Congressional input into the selection of an
individual for nomination to any vacancy in the Office of Comp-
troller General or in the Office of Deputy Comptroller General.
Under that procedure whenever a vacancy occurs in either of
these offices a Congressional Commission is established "to
recommend individuals to the President for appointment." The
Commission shall submit to the President for consideration the
names of not less than 3 persons for the position for the Office
of Comptroller General. The statute is silent as to the number
of names to be recommended to the President for the position of
Deputy Comptroller General. The legislative history of the
statute specifically states that the President "may, in his
discretion, select for appointment an individual whose name
is not among those on lists submitted to the President by the
Commission. However, it is expected that the President would
give great weight to the Commissions's recommendations."
Accordingly, it is our view that prior to the selection of any
candidate for the Office of Deputy Comptroller General, the
recommendations of the Congressional Commission should be re-
ceived and reviewed. (In the situation at hand it appears that
the President has yet to receive any "official" recommendations
from the Commission.) Following that, the President may nomin-
ate the candidate of his choice for the Office of Deputy Comp-
troller General, recognizing of course, that such nomination
is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
*S. Rep. No. 570, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in
1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1434, 1443.
FFF:SMC:sd 9/14/82 CC: FFFielding/SMCooksey/Subject/Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1983
APPOINTMENT PROCESS PERSONAL INTERVIEW RECORD
DATE OF INTERVIEW: January 25 & 26, 1983
CANDIDATE: Moody Tidwell
POSITION: Deputy Comptroller General
INTERVIEWER: John G. Roberts DOR
Comments
Moody Tidwell, currently Deputy Solicitor at Interior, is
the prospective nominee for Deputy Comptroller General.
Under 31 U.S.C. § 42, a commission is established to recom-
mend individuals to the President for appointment to the
offices of Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller
General. According to a memorandum from Fred F. Fielding to
Helene von Damm, the President must consider but need not
limit himself to names submitted by the commission. Chris
Hicks of Presidential Personnel advised that the commission
had not met and was delaying meeting for political reasons,
and that Presidential Personnel intended to submit Tidwell's
name without any further waiting for a list of names. Nancy
Kennedy of Legislative Affairs, however, advised that the
commission was meeting today and that Tidwell's name would
be on their list, to be submitted by the first of next week.
In addition to serving as Deputy Solicitor at the Department
of Interior, Mr. Tidwell has for several years been a member
of the Board of Directors and Corporate Secretary of KECO
Industries, Inc., of Florence, Kentucky. Mr. Tidwell
advised me that his service for KECO (3-4 days per year) had
been approved by Interior's ethics counsellor. I advised
him that he must sever all relations with KECO, and he
agreed to do so, effective upon his confirmation.
Mr. Tidwell has also been reimbursed for the expenses of
delivering three lectures per year for Federal Publications,
Inc. Acceptance of expenses had been approved by the
Interior ethics counsellor, Gabriele Paone, and I requested
that this fact be memorialized in writing. A memorandum
from Paone to Tidwell doing so is attached. I also advised
Mr. Tidwell that upon assuming his new duties he should
check with GAO ethics officers to see if he may continue the
practice of delivering the lectures and accepting reimburse-
ment for expenses consistent with GAO guidelines.
-2-
I also asked Tidwell about his petroleum royalties (inheri-
ted from his father) and whether they represented a conflict
with his Interior duties. He advised me that he had cleared
the issue with the Interior designated ethics official, and
submitted the letter from that official sanctioning his
retention of the royalty interests.
In light of Tidwell's decision to resign from the KECO
Industries board of directors, and the memorandum from
Paone justifying Tidwell's acceptance of reimbursement for
expenses in connection with his lectures, I see no objection
to his nomination.
THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
March
3,
1849
January 26, 1983
Memorandum
To:
Moody R. Tidwell
Deputy Solicitor
From:
Deputy Agency Ethics Official
Subject: Teaching and Lecturing in An Outside Work Capacity
This will document my past verbal clearances for your participation as a Teacher and
Lecturer for Federal Publications Incorporated.
Department regulations governing Employee Responsibilities and Conduct encourage
employees to teach, lecture and write in an outside work capacity. Under 43 CFR
$20.735-10 and $20.735-24 teaching and lecturing in an outside work capacity is proper
for a department employee when:
1.
The work is not the same as the work you are required to perform in your
official government capacity;
2.
The work does not involve the use of restricted government information
obtained from your federal employment;
3. The work will not prevent you from devoting your primiary interests,
talents and energies to your Federal job, and
4. The teaching and Iecturing will not involve preparing a person or class of
persons for examinations given by the Office of Personnel Management
or the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service.
Your work for Federal Publications Incorporated involves teaching and lecturing on the
Fundamentals of Government Contracting and is presented as an introduction to the
basics involved in government procurement activities. The subject is not directly related
to your duties as Deputy Solicitor and the information you use in teaching this course is
not restricted information obtained from your Federal employment. The participants are
not seeking Federal employment. They are from industry, government and academia
and, the Department does not expect you to perform this type of activity as part of your
official duties.
-2-
As you explained, teaching your part of the course requires only a portion of a day and
you participate in this outside activity only three or four times during the year. This
infrequent participation is conducted while you are on annual leave from your Federal
position and it does not prevent you from devoting your primary interests, talents and
energies to your work as Deputy Solicitor.
Federal Publications Incorporated is not regulated by the Department of the Interior and
conducts no business with the Department that can be affected by the performance or
non performance of your duties. Therefore, you are allowed to accept from the
company, travel and related expenses and payments for services rendered.
I reminded you about the prohibition on the use of official title for outside work activity.
Based on the facts surrounding this outside work; F determined that your participation in
it is proper and complies with applicable conflict of interest statutes and regulations.
A copy of this determination is placed in your of ficial ethics file.
Gabriele J.Pane
Gabriele J. Paone