The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
r;-eClS~
HJ
lei
,AIJ
f'l
V.
35~
i; !i
"L.J,.I
~ (~ r~
t.-; ~! £'1-' .O}
....
~ ,__
OCT {.61996
TREASURY DEPARTMENT LIBRARY
Treas.
HJ
to
.At3
P4
v.358
Department of the Treasury
PRESS RELEASES
NEWS
TREASURY
OFFICE OFPUBUCAFFAIRS -1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. - WASHINGTON, D.C. - 20220 - (202) 622-2960
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 1996
CONTACT:
Office of Financing
202/219-3350
TREASURY TO AUCTION CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS
The Treasury will auction approximately $14,000 million of
1S-day and $11,000 million of 22-day Treasury cash management
bills to be issued April 3, 1996. The 1S-day and 22-day bill
auctions will be held on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, with
noncompetitive and competitive closing times of 11:00 a.m. and
11:30 a.m. Eastern Standard time, respectively.
Competitive and noncompetitive tenders will be received at
all Federal Reserve Banks and Branches. Tenders will not be
accepted for bills to be maintained on the book-entry records of
the Department of the Treasury (TREASURY DIRECT). Tenders will
not be received at the Bureau of the Public Debt, Washington,
D.C.
Additional amounts of the bills may be issued to Federal
Reserve Banks as agents for foreign and international monetary
authorities at the average price of accepted competitive tenders.
This offering of Treasury securities is governed by the
terms and conditions set forth in the Uniform Offering Circular
(31 CFR Part 356) for the sale and issue by the Treasury to the
public of marketable Treasury bills, notes, and bonds.
Details about the new securities are given in the attached
offering highlights.
000
Attachment
RR-977
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax line at (202) 622-2040
HIGHLIGHTS OF TREASURY OFFERINGS OF CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS
TO BE ISSUED APRIL 3, 1996
April 1, 1996
Offerin~
Amount . . .
.
.
Description of Offering:
Term and type of security
CUSIP number
Auction date
Issue date
Maturity date
Original issue date . .
Currently outstanding
Minimum bid amount
.
Multiples . . . . . .
Minimum to hold amount
Multiples to hold . . .
$14,000 million
$11,000 million
IS-day bill
912794 Y3 2
April 2, 1996
April 3, 1996
April 18, 1996
October 19, 1995
$54,821 million
$10,000
$1,000
$10,000
$1,000
22-day bill
912794 Y4 a
April 2, 1996
April 3, 1996
April 25, 1996
October 26, 1995
$33,677 million
$10,000
$1,000
$10,000
$1,000
The following rules apply to all securities mentioned above:
Submission of Bids:
Noncompetitive bids
Competitive bids
Accepted in full up to $1,000,000 at the average discount
rate of accepted competitve bids
(1) Must be expressed as a discount rate with two decimals,
e.g., 7.10%.
(2) Net long pOSition for each bidder must be reported when
the sum of the total bid amount, at all discount rates,
and the net long position is $2 billion or greater.
(3) Net long position must be determined as of one halfhour prior to the closing time for receipt of
competitive tenders.
Maximum Recognized Bid
at a Single Yield
35% of public offering
Maximum Award .
35% of public offering
Receipt of Tenders:
Noncompetitive tenders
Competitive tenders
Prior to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard time on auction day
Prior to 11:30 a.m. Eastern Standard time on auction day
Payment Terms .
Full payment with tender or by charge to a funds
account at a Federal Reserve Bank on issue date
UBLIC DEBT NEWS
Dcp<Jrlml'nt Ollhc Tr~asury •
FO~ IMMEDIATE
April 1, 1996
Bureau of the Public Dcbr • Washington. DC 20239
CG~TACT:
~~~EASE
Office of Fi~anci~g
202-219-3350
RESU:TS OF TREASURY'S AUCTIGN OF 9-DAY BILLS
T~~d~rs
fer $30,013 million of 9-day bills to be issUEd
April I, 1996 a~d to mature April 10, 1996 were
acceptEd today (CUSIP: 9127946U3).
RP~GE OF ACCEPTED
CCM?E7ITIVE EI~S:
Discount.
Rate
5.27%
5.34%
5.31%
Low
Hi9'!:
P.ver=.~e
Investme::c:
Rat.e
::.36%
5.40%
5.40%
Pri-:e
99.868
99.867
99.867
TEndErs a~ the high disco~nt ratE WErE allottEd 77%.
The invest~ent rate is the equivale~t coupon-issue yield.
TE~ERS
R~CEIVED
TOTALS
TYPE
Compet.itivE
Noncompetitive
TOTALS
AND ACCE?TED
(~~
thousands)
ReCEived
$58,637,000
AccEoted
$30,013,000
$:;.8,637,000
$30,013,000
o
$58,637,000
In additicn to the above,
o
$30,013,000
the following amounts were
received and accepted.
FedEral R-2:3erve
5.28--99.868
RR-978
3,098,22D
5.30--99.868
3,098,220
5.3:--99.867
5.33--99.867
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
TREASURY
OFFICE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS. 1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.• WASHINGTON, D.C. • 20220 • (202) 622-2960
Russian Reform and U.S. Engagement
Remarks by
David A. Lipton
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for International Affairs
U.S.-Russia Business Council
April 1, 1996
It is a pleasure to speak today before the U.S.-Russia Business Council, which has played a
key role in forging a strong link between American business and Russia's emerging private
sector.
Following current events in Russia is never boring. That is surely true in 1996. Russia is
now approaching a major decision about the course of its transition. On the economic side,
Russia is poised to make a critical breakthrough. To do so , Russia must go forward with
the ambitious new phase of economic reform that it has prepared. Those reforms will be
supported by a three-year, $10 billion IMF loan.
On the political side, all eyes are on the upcoming Presidential elections. That Russia's
destiny will be decided by popular election is important in its own right. But, with much talk
of populism and retreat, Russia's decision about the course of reform is far from clear.
The point I want to make today is simple. It would be a mistake to let Russia's politics
obscure the very real economic progress in hand and the very real economic possibilities
within reach. Nor should the present political climate lead the United States to pull back
from those policies which helped make Russian progress possible, and which could help keep
Russia on track through a next, decisive phase of reform. That next phase could see Russia
turn a corner to a growing, market based economy with rising living standards.
Reform and pro2ress to date
To make that point, let me start by reviewing something that many of you in this room
experienced first hand -- the tremendous changes that have overtaken Russia in just a few
RR-979
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax line at (202) 622-2040
2
years. All of you who do business in Russia have witnessed a revolutionary turn away from
communism to the market: the end of queues, a return of goods to the shelves, the sprouting
up of new private businesses almost anywhere one looks.
Just about everyone has a tale to tell that exemplifies that change. Mine is from a visit to
Russia in 1990 for a series of discussions at Gosplan, the central planning agency, about the
prospects for reform. As our visit was ending, we were exploring the logistics of further
communications with Gosplan officials. What we found was that this mother of all
bureaucracies, with its 1000 sector input output model, with responsibility to plan resource
flows across 11 time zones, did not even have a fax machine.
Now, Gosplan is long gone, and all across Russia the fax machines are humming. In
Gosplan's place, there is a budding private sector that by some estimates accounts for 70
percent of GDP. What is obscured by Russia's hardball politics is that the building blocks of
a market economy are being set in place.
o
o
First, despite strong political crosscurrents, economic stabilization advanced last year.
Russia stopped the inflation rollercoaster, bringing monthly inflation down
from 18 % in January to 3 % in December. Inflation is headed still lower
today.
The ruble, which had been deeply undervalued, strengthened and steadied,
while Russia added $10 billion to reserves.
Russia created a vibrant government securities market from scratch -- last year,
Russia covered two-thirds of its deficit through Treasury bill sales.
And second, all of that has prepared the way for a strengthening of the real economy.
Russian exports grew by 14 percent last year and reached a level 50 percent
higher than in 1992, showing that Russia can export to western markets.
And, the decline in real output, which has been underway for at least 4 years
if not longer, appears to have bottomed out.
Why refonn is uopopular
Why then, are the Russian people unhappy with their situation?
On the face of it the statistics show that reform has already produced an early, if modest,
harvest.
o
o
o
A verage monthly wages rose from $80 last January to $140 this February. That is a
meaningful statistic in a society that is increasingly open to the world economy.
Certain sectors of the economy are turning around and booming on the back of high
export growth. Real consumption in Russia is up over 20% since 1992. And the
qualitative gains are higher because people can now buy what they want.
And reform has created a new entrepreneurial elite. Since 1992, 900 thousand new
small businesses have come into existence, employing 14 million people, or about 20
percent of the labor force. With 8 million new jobs in America during the Clinton
administration, we can recognize that as an admirable accomplishment.
3
But many are not impressed by these early results. I believe that is because the Russian
economy now lies somewhere between Marx and the market, heading in the right direction,
but not quite there. That fact has strong consequences.
Businessmen in Russia can no longer rely on connections with powerful government officials
to get them the resources or concessions to make their enterprises successful. At the same
time, they do not yet have a market they can rely on, with a sound legal base, a sensible tax
system, well-functioning banks and reliable capital markets, and a fully satisfactory
macroeconomic environment.
That situation is also disheartening for Russian workers, consumers, and pensioners. The
process of refonn has involved tremendous change and dislocation. So far the dislocations
have been so dramatic, while the benefits do not seem to stack up.
A large number of people face real financial distress. Wage earners see their wages
paid late or not at all, and elderly pensioners are trying to live on fixed incomes that
haven't kept pace while they've seen their savings wiped out.
Workers fear for their jobs as companies are privatized and restructured and
unemployment has risen to about 8% by some measures.
Crime and corruption have mushroomed in the new space created by an incomplete
transition. Tax evasion and bribery flourish in a tax system that has as many as 34
different taxes with marginal rates approaching 100 percent. Businesses are driven
underground and protection rackets thrive in an economy where contract rights are not
enforceable. Rent seeking behavior proliferates in sectors where tariffs are high and
exemptions widespread. And of course, Russia's leadership must commit itself to root
out corruption in government and establish a standard for behavior that will engender
the public's trust rather than resentment.
I fear that until Russia achieves dynamic growth, the true benefits of reform will remain just
around the corner. And until that time, the anxiety of dislocation and transition will
dominate the public debate.
The future course of reform
At present, the public debate finds Russians questioning whether there might be another way.
That is clearly one focus of the present election campaign. One temptation -- I believe an
illusion -- is to wish for a strong leader who can pull the levers of the state machinery and
make the economy work, make life better. And Russian businessmen, even some western
businessmen, yearn for the days when a visit to the Kremlin or their enterprise's Branch
Ministry closed the deal. That may work for Russia's hugest companies, or a handful of
multinationals. But that kind of system cannot work for most businesses. Most businesses
can only flourish in a functioning market -- obtaining finance from banks and capital markets,
hiring workers, securing a chain of supply, manufacturing goods, and marketing across all of
Russia.
4
For Russians, a retreat from reform would be misguided. At best, an attempt to stand still
would lead to the ossification of the present unsatisfactory system. Worse yet would be to
turn back. A leading communist parliamentarian, a contender as his party s economic czar,
was asked last week by the Wall Street Journal about the role the private sector and the state.
Picking up a bottle of Georgian mineral water, he said that to produce such goods, someone
must "calculate the number of bottles [and] the number of labels needed. This is the kind of
work that must be carried out exclusively by the state. No entrepreneur can do that!"
I
If Russia reinjects the state into the economy, with state orders or price controls, the market
will suffer cardiac arrest. If Russia pumps up government spending, financial disorder will
return.
Adjustment fatigue and the search for an easier and quicker way are not unique to Russia.
When I look at Russia today, I am reminded of Poland in 1992. I had been working as an
economic advisor to that government since before Poland's shock therapy economic reforms
began in 1990. Those reforms had dismantled the old system and opened up Poland's
economy to world markets. But shock therapy had also led to falling industrial output and to
unemployment. Many Poles had experienced dislocation. and most worried about their
futures.
At the beginning of 1992, a new government came to power, promising to abandon the
course. to find a better way. Fortunately, Poland's yearning to become a "norma]" European
country and to satisfy IMF conditionality that would unlock loans and debt reduction
restrained the government from changing course.
That turned out to be the right choice. Because what that government did not know was that
Poland was poised for an explosion of growth. By the end of 1992, growth resumed at a pace
of about 3 percent. By 1994. growth hit 6 percent. It has stayed high. Now, half of Poles
surveyed say that have gained from reform and most see that their country is going in the
right direction. An orthodoxy about economic reform has set in.
The factors guiding political life in Russia -- its heritage, self image, and aspirations -- are
so very different than in Poland. Still. it would be a tragedy if Russia were to make the
mistake Poland avoided and retreat from reform, just as the reform dividend was about to
materialize.
United States En2a2ement in Support of Refonn
It would also be tragic if the political turbulence in Russia were to lead the United States to
step back from the role of leading international support for Russian reform just at the moment
when that policy lever is most needed.
From day one of the Clinton Administration, we engaged Russia in support of reform. We
emphasized the economic dimension because now the balance of payments is every bit as
important to Russia's future as the balance of power.
5
Our policy over the past three years has been based on a simple premise. We support
concrete Russian actions and results, not personalities. From the start, we offered largescale support from the IMF, the World Bank and bilateral donors conditioned step-by-step on
the reforms Russia needs to build a market economy. We knew we couldn't re-build Russia
with aid, so we conditioned our money to leverage reform, and to protect our taxpayers.
The results have been good. In 1993 and 1994, Russia received $3 billion from an IMF
facility created at U.S. urging and designed to help support Russia at each step of the reform
ladder. While progress on stabilization was highly uneven during this period, much was still
achieved. Last year, Russia and the IMF reached an unprecedented agreement on a $6.5
billion standby arrangement, requiring monthly monitoring. Russia met every single
performance test. That is unprecedented.
Last Tuesday, the IMF Board approved a $10.2 billion, three year extended arrangement for
Russia. The $10 billion supports a bold Russian program. It calls for fiscal policies that will
bring lasting stability of prices and the ruble exchange rate. It includes the virtual completion
of comprehensive tax reform and an overhaul of tax administration. It provides for bank
supervision to cope with the inevitable problems in Russia's overbuilt banking system. It
includes further capital market development. And it breaks into the field of land and
agricultural reform, needed to bring Russia's farm potential into the private market economy.
Russia has already met the financial targets of this program in the first quarter. Russia
adopted 15 important prior actions for the Board to consider the loan. And again, the
Russian program will be monitored monthly.
Where will Russia be in three years if it sticks to this program? If Russia sticks to this
program, then three years from now it could have a real market economy, one capable of
strong and sustained economic growth; one that is propelled by a dynamic private sector; one
that is receiving large flows of foreign investment; one that is seeing its greatly undervalued
assets going through a share market boom; and one with steadily rising living standards for
Russia's people.
The Russian economy will remain Russian, that is for sure: the close links between business
and government, large enterprises slow to restructure, and an uneasy relationship with foreign
investors. But, by carrying out this economic program, Russia could reach a point where its
people begin to see the promise of reform. If that is achieved, this package could prove to
be a watershed in Russia's transformation.
Our support for Russia's $10.2 billion IMF extended arrangement is a good deal for Russia
and it is a good deal for America. If Russia stays the course of reform, it will follow the
path that Poland has travelled. And if it doesn't stay the course of reform, the IMF's support
will be pulled back because conditional support is the best lever we have to encourage
whoever is in power to stick with reform. It would be a grave mistake for our security and
for your businesses were we to do otherwise.
6
Forei~n
direct investment
Let me turn briefly to the subject of foreign direct investment, which Russia needs to acquire
the equipment, technology and skills of a modern economy. It is unfortunate that Russia has
attracted less foreign direct investment than Hungary, Poland, or the Czech Republic, even
though it is vastly larger and richer in oil and other natural resources. It is remarkable to
note that between 1989 and 1994, Hungary attracted foreign direct investment equal to $671
per capita compared to just $11 per capita in Russia.
One specific foreign investment problem deserves special mention. U.S. joint ventures in
Russia's oil sector know more than they want about the instability of Russia's tax system. To
attract investment in high-cost fields, Russia guaranteed ventures the right to export all their
oil at world market prices. But they have since been buffeted with new taxes by federal,
regional, and local authorities.
I am pleased Russia recently agreed to dismantle the export tax system that had segregated its
market from the world market. But present plans, while designed to be revenue-neutral,
would have the unintended consequence of hiking taxes on joint ventures. That could nUllify
their guarantees with grave financial consequences.
Russia must treat its early investors fairly, if it wishes to attract more investors. Therefore,
the Treasury Department has urged Russia to respect its guarantees. We have also urged the
IMF to support fair treatment for the ventures. Otherwise they will close shop and other
foreign investors will become even more cautious. We want to see this problem resolved.
Conclusion
To conclude, in the past four years, Russia set in motion a remarkable transformation. The
old system is dismantled; the market is spreading. Russia now faces a decision: it can
follow the logic of free markets; or it can grope about for another untested experiment. The
former is the way to prosperity, the latter the way to disorder.
Supporting Russian reform has been and remains one of our highest foreign economic policy
priorities. Anyone who doubts that a real revolution is underway and thinks the
accomplishments have been small is wrong. Our engagement in support of reform has helped
bring this about. It is a good policy and one we will stick with. Thank you.
UBLIC DEBT NEWS
Department of the Treasury -
Bureau of the Public Debt - Washington, DC 20239
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 1996
CONTACT: Office of Financing
202-219-3350
RESULTS OF TREASURY'S AUCTION OF 13-WEEK BILLS
Tenders for $13,645 million of 13-week bills to be issued
April 4, 1996 and to mature July 5, 1996 were
accepted today (CUSIP: 9127942Y9).
RANGE OF ACCEPTED
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
Low
High
Average
Discount
Rate
5.05%
5.07%
5.07%
Investment
Rate
5.19%
5.21%
5.21%
Price
98.709
98.704
98.704
Tenders at the high discount rate were allotted 38%.
The investment rate is the equivalent coupon-issue yield.
TENDERS RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED (in thousands)
TOTALS
Type
Competitive
Noncompetitive
Subtotal, Public
Federal Reserve
Foreign Official
Institutions
TOTALS
5.06
RR-980
--
98.707
Received
$56,357,220
AcceQted
$13,644,590
$51,294,238
1,445,152
$52,739,390
$8,581,608
1,445,152
$10,026,760
3,356,430
3,356,430
261,400
$56,357,220
261,400
$13,644,590
UBLIC DEBT NEWS
Department of the Treasury •
Bureau of the Public Debt • Washington, DC 20239
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April I, 1996
CONTACT: Office of Financing
202-219-3350
RESULTS OF TREASURY'S AUCTION OF 26-WEEK BILLS
Tenders for $13,573 million of 26-week bills to be issued
April 4, 1996 and to mature October 3, 1996 were
accepted today (CUSIP: 9127943J1).
RANGE OF ACCEPTED
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
Low
High
Average
Discount
Rate
5.03%
5.06%
5.06%
Investment
Rate
5.23%
5.26%
5.26%
Price
97.457
97.442
97.442
$30,000 was accepted at lower yields.
Tenders at the high discount rate were allotted 57%.
The investment rate is the equivalent coupon-issue yield.
TENDERS RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED ( in thousands)
TOTALS
Type
Competitive
Noncompetitive
Subtotal, Public
Federal Reserve
Foreign Official
Institutions
TOTALS
4.97 - 97.487
RR-981
Received
$42,057,253
Accegted
$13,573,229
$35,866,070
1,219,583
$37,085,653
$7,382,046
1.219.583
$8,601,629
3,400,000
3,400,000
1,571,600
$42,057,253
1,571,600
$13,573,229
5.04 - 97.452
5.05 - 97.447
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
TREASURY
N
E..J W S
....................................'j.<~~~~289r~~~~............--...-.....................
TREASURY ~: ~q<!
OmCE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS -1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. - WASHINGTON, D.C. - 20220 - (202) 622.2960
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 2, 1996
STATEMENT OF TREASURY SECRETARY ROBERT E. RUBIN
On July 17, 1995, we as a Department took several steps to address the
allegations that Treasury Department personnel participated in the so-called "Good 0'
Boy Roundups" held annually from 1980 to 1995.
We condemned racist or bigoted behavior by law enforcement personnel as wrong
and inconsistent with their duties. We asked our Department's Office of Inspector
General to conduct an independent fact-finding investigation to determine the evidence
and extent of Treasury employee participation in the "Roundups." We impaneled a
distinguished group of citizen advisors to evaluate the investigation. We ordered our
Office of Enforcement, with the support of the Office of General Counsel, to initiate a
policy review process to clarify our strong opposition to bigoted behavior and prevent
future law enforcement participation in incidents such as the "Roundups."
Finally, we promised to make our work public, to Congress and the American
people, so they could be the final judges of our performance in this investigation.
Today, I am referring for further inquiry thirty-one Treasury agents whose conduct
may merit discipline or counseling, and I am also releasing strong anti-bias policies designed
to help prevent an incident similar to the ''Roundups'' from ever occurring again.
In total, I am announcing seven actions, all products of the investigative,
evaluative, and policy processes we started. These actions seek to balance the individual
and civil rights of law enforcement agents with the truly American commitment to the
administration of justice in a manner free of bias, and I firmly believe that our actions
strike this balance appropriately.
RR-982
http://www.ustreas.com
(more)
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax [hIe at (202) 622-2040
2
Summary
With the Inspector General's report and Policy Review complete, I can now
announce the following seven actions:
First, while the Inspector General's Report found no credible evidence that any
Treasury employee engaged in any overtly racist acts at the "Roundups," it suggests to me
that the actions of some agents require further review. I will refer the names of 31
current law enforcement officers to the Bureaus for further disciplinary and other
relevant inquiry, and I have directed the Bureaus to focus particularly on the conduct of
managers.
Second, we have set forth fifteen new policy recommendations that reach the
issues of racism and bias in hiring, training, evaluation, and discipline. Simply put, new
rules will make clear that we won't tolerate abjectly racist or biased conduct on- or
off-duty and that we wish not to hire people who have engaged in racist or biased
conduct before seeking a job with Treasury. We can already discipline our employees
under existing rules for the kind of off-duty racist conduct that transpired at the
"Roundup". There should not have been any ambiguity about the applicability of these
rules; there will be no ambiguity about off- or on-duty conduct going forward.
Third, we are releasing to Congress and the public the Report of the Inspector
General, the Treasury Department Policy Review, and all letters from the five-member,
independent Citizen's Review Panel. This disclosure underscores our belief in
transparency, which is central to safeguarding the public's trust in our agents.
Fourth, because the Citizens' Review Panel did voice reservations about aspects
of the Inspector General's Report, I have written the Inspector General asking for her
response to questions the panel has raised. My letter to the I.G. is released today.
Fifth, of the 100 Treasury agents currently working to solve the eighteen arson
cases in African-American churches, we have identified two ATF agents who may be
subject to disciplinary inquiry for their conduct at the "Good 0' Boy Roundups," and ten
other agents who attended the Roundups but who are not subject to referral either for
discipline or counseling. ATF will review the record promptly and consult with the
Department of Justice in order to carefully determine whether investigators should
discontinue work on the church arson investigations. We will consult with the
appropriate Department of Justice Officials to make sure that these investigations are
staffed appropriately. The successful prosecution of the people who set fire to these
churches is our paramount concern.
3
Sixth, to make sure the church arson cases are effectively handled, Director
Magaw is reviewing the adequacy of the resources assigned to these cases. Four
investigations have resulted in arrests; one arrest in Mississippi occurred just yesterday,
an earlier arrest in Alabama resulted in the apprehension of acknowledged KKK
members. There are few crimes as sensitive or important as the torching of a house of
worship, especially in ethnically identifiable communities, and we are striving to earn the
trust of those most deeply affected by these tragedies. We will not be satisfied until all
eighteen cases are solved.
Seventh, and finally, all Treasury employees are on notice that they should not
attend anything like a "Good 0' Boy Roundups" in 1996 or at any time in the future,
should anyone have the egregiously poor judgment to organize such an event.
This is our response to the "Good O'Boy Roundups" -- the largest Inspector
General investigation in our Department's history; the referral of thirty-one agents for
potential disciplinary action; a comprehensive reform of our hiring and employment
standards to fight bias and prevent a reoccurrence of the "Roundups" openness and
disclosure. These actions are comprehensive and they are the right things for us to do.
We have acted in this manner for one central reason: We cannot enforce the law,
fairly and with repute, unless law enforcement officials demonstrate, in perception and
reality, that their behavior is as free from bias as the fair administration of justice
requires them to be.
The people we entrust with a badge, gun and arrest power are and must continue
to be individuals with the highest integrity, professionalism and impartiality. Treasury
agents do dangerous and difficult work, and they have our complete support. They are
best equipped to do their jobs, however, with strengthened anti-bias policies standing
behind them, along with a strong Departmental commitment to implementing those
policies and making them work. I affirm that commitment today.
In conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation to the following individuals inside
and outside of Treasury who assisted with the Department's response to the "Good 0'
Boy Roundups."
My thanks to Customs Commissioner George Weise; John Magaw, Director of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; Eljay Bowron, Director of the United States
Secret Service; Charles Rinkevich, Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center; Margaret Richardson, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and
Stanley Morris, Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, for their support
and the support of their bureaus. I also appreciate the tremendous contributions of the
Citizens Review Panel (Chairman Norman Dorsen, Julius L. Chambers, Patrick V.
Murphy, Helene L. Kaplan, and Chief Fred Thomas). I regret that one outstanding
panel member, former Solicitor General Rex Lee, passed away less than one month ago.
4
We mourn his loss and appreciate his contribution.
I also want to compliment Inspector General Valerie Lau and her staff for their
exhaustive efforts; Edward S. Knight, General Counsel of the Treasury, Neil S. Wolin,
Deputy Counsel, Stephan J. McHale, Lee Patton, and Maurice A Jones, for the singular
contributions of the General Counsel's Office; members of the Policy Review Team,
including Lee Michaelson and Marc Greenwald; and the Office of Enforcement, Under
Secretary Ronald Noble (retired), Assistant Secretary for Enforcement James E.
Johnson, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Elisabeth Bresee for their
work on the policy review and their deeply effective stewardship of this process.
These individuals are true friends of law enforcement and real exemplars of
public service. I thank them.
-30-
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
April 2, 1996
Valerie Lau
Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Valerie:
I have received your Report ofInvestigation of the "Good 0' Boy Roundups." I understand
from your report that you found no credible evidence that any Treasury employee engaged in any
overt act of racism. I believe, however, that the matter cannot rest there. As I stated last July, it
is totally abhorrent that any law enforcement officers knowingly would participate in an event
that includes abjectly racist behavior. That is why the Department has engaged in a thorough and
forward-reaching policy review. In addition, as set forth below, I have asked the Bureaus to refer
certain individuals for further disciplinary and other relevant inquiry. I have also requested that
the Bureau heads inform me in writing when all their law enforcement officers have certified that
they have read and understand our new policies regarding the importance of the propriety of their
off-duty conduct. Finally, I am asking you to respond to me regarding the letter from Professor
Nonnan Dorsen, Chair of the Citizens Review Panel, regarding the Panel's review of your
investigation.
I understand that you have forwarded your report, as well as the relevant memoranda of
interviews, to Treasury's Bureaus. Having discussed this matter with the General Counsel and
the Office of Enforcement, I believe that the following current employees should be referred to
the Bureaus for further inquiry. First, all current employees who witnessed racist conduct and
may not have taken appropriate action should be referred for disciplinary inquiry. Second, any
current employee who may have misused government property and/or abused annual leave
should be referred to his Bureau for disciplinary inquiry. Third and finally, because you and the
Department of Justice Inspector General both found that egregious racist acts occurred at the
Roundups only after 1988, all employees who attended more than one Roundup after 1988, even
those who assert that they did not see racist conduct, should be referred to their Bureau for
counseling and for review of their personnel files. Based on your report and your transmittal
letter, I understand that a total of thirty-one current employees fall into these categories and will
be referred to the Bureaus for disciplinary inquiry or counseling. I have informed the Bureaus
that if they find that there are additional individuals who, in their judgment, should be subject to
disciplinary inquiry and/or counseling, they should take whatever action they deem appropriate.
I want you to work closely with the Office of Enforcement and the General Counsel to ensure
that the proper individuals are referred.
Page 2
I am also directing the Bureaus to focus particularly on the conduct of managers. If any of the
employees described above are managers or supervisors, I believe the Bureaus ought to take a
more exacting look at their conduct. Further, I am asking the Bureaus to review closely the
conduct of all managers who knew of the Roundups prior to last summer's press reports to see
whether they took appropriate action based on their knowledge. As the Citizens Review Panel
observed, managers and supervisors must be held to a higher standard.
Finally, as you know, your report has been reviewed in detail by both the Department and the
Citizens Review Panel. I have received Professor Dorsen's letter dated March 29, 1996, as well
as letters from the other members of the Panel. I would appreciate your responding to me
regarding Professor Dorsen's criticisms set forth in his letter. In particular, please respond to his
comment that your report "does not make findings of fact or draw conclusions concerning
possible individual CUlpability." It is my understanding that Inspectors General have on
occassion reached such conclusions in their reports in the past, and, therefore, I wish to
understand why you have chosen not to do so in this report.
I also concur with the Citizens Review Panel in recognizing the enormous amount of work that
you and your staff exerted on what I understand to be the largest investigation by an Inspector
General in Departmental history, and for your graciousness toward the Citizens Review Panel
throughout the project. Your independent review is important to the Department, the Congress,
the public and me.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Rubin
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
TREASURY ~~~-~~
. . . .: . "i
~
¥!
I'
I~
-'to/
~I
TREASURY
NEW S
~~/78~9~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
..................
OFFICE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS -1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.• WASHINGTON, D.C .• 20220. (202) 622-2960
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 2, 1996
Background Information on Seven Actions
Treasury Department Office of Public Affairs Summary
Background
Following reports that federal law enforcement officials planned and attended the
so-called "Good O' Boy Roundups," both the Department of Justice and the
Department of Treasury asked for inquiries by their independent Inspectors General.
The Justice Department IG released its report last month. The Treasury Department IG
report is released today.
Treasury was especially determined to find the truth about the extent to which its
law enforcement agents participated in offensive or proscribed off-duty conduct. The
events were organized by an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
now retired.
Secretary Rubin ordered the formation of an independent Citizen's Review Panel
to evaluate the IG's inquiry. This group of prominent Americans included a nationally
known legal scholar and civil libertarian, who served as its Chairman, as well as two
former Chiefs of Police, a veteran of the civil rights community, and an esteemed legal
practi tioner.
Secretary Rubin also assigned the Treasury Office of Enforcement, with support
from the Office of the General Counsel, to review the adequacy of existing personnel
policies respecting biased behavior and to report on whether new policies were required
in view of what transpired at the "Roundups."
Over the last eight months, the Treasury Inspector General queried 33,000
Treasury law enforcement employees, including 1,135 managers and lawyers at the Law
Enforcement Bureaus. This investigation was conducted in parallel to the Justice
Department's Inspector General's investigation and reached similar conclusions.
RR-983 (more)
http://www.ustreas.com
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax line at (202) 622-2040
2
Early in the 1980s the "Roundups" became an arena for repulsive and repugnant
behavior ill-befitting the attendance of law enforcement officials. Beginning in 1989,
overtly racist conduct began to occur. No Federal law enforcement officials are known
to have engaged in such conduct. Indeed, they comprised a small percentage of the
attendees. Nonetheless, upon becoming aware that racist behavior did occur at the
"Roundups" in all too many instances, agents did nothing to stop it, and many returned in
subsequent years knowing that egregiously racist conduct did occur.
As described in his statement, Secretary Rubin outlined seven actions he is taking
in response to the Treasury Departmenfs inquiry into the "Roundups."
Action # 1 Review of Cases for Discipline or Counseling
Secretary Rubin is referring thirty-one Treasury employees to the law enforcement
bureaus for disciplinary inquiry or counseling. These individuals comprise three
categories of employees:
First, employees who witnessed racist conduct at the "Good 0' Boy Roundups"
and may not have taken appropriate action are referred for disciplinary inquiry.
Second, any current employee who may have misused government property
and/or abused annual leave are referred for disciplinary inquiry.
Third, employees who attended more than one "Roundup" after 1988, even those
who assert they did not see racist conduct, are referred for counseling and for
review of their personnel files. [Both the Treasury and Justice Department
Inspectors General found that patterns of egregiously racist behavior occurred
after 1988.]
Secretary Rubin has met with the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureau Heads or their
designees representing the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Customs Service,
the United States Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center.
The Bureau Heads support the policy recommendations and have accepted the referrals
for appropriate action. They share Secretary Rubin's concern, and similar concerns
expressed by Professor Norman Dorsen on behalf of the Citizen's Review Panel, that the
inquiry process pay special attention to the role and reactions of managers to the racist
incidents and behavior which occurred at the "Roundups." Additionally, they have
agreed to inform Secretary Rubin when law enforcement employees have certified that
they have read and understand the new policies.
3
Action #2
New Policies in Hiring and Employment to Fight Bias
The behavior alleged to have occurred at the "Roundups" is already covered by policies
that reach off-duty conduct; indeed, referrals of 31 Treasury agents for further inquiry
and disciplinary action under the existing policy occurred today.
At the request of Secretary Rubin, the Office of Enforcement, with support from the
Office of General Counsel, used the review process to determine whether existing
policies should be strengthened. They concluded that hiring and employment standards
to guard against bias should be toughened. Fifteen recommendations are provided in
the 200-plus pages of the Department of Treasury Report of the Good O' Boy
Roundups Policy Review.
Important recommendations include a new rule on bias motivated conduct which makes
explicit that law enforcement officers will be disciplined if they engage in racist or sexist
conduct. This new rule prohibits all "statements, conduct, or gestures evidencing hatred
or prejudice" on account of "race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age or disability." In total, the rules reach the issues of racism and bias in hiring,
training, evaluation, and discipline. The revisions are comprehensive. They are based
on the view that racist or biased conduct by a law enforcement officer is wrong, that it
lowers the respect for that officer and law enforcement generally by the public, that it
renders that officer less persuasive as a witness and harms the moral standing of our law
enforcement ranks.
The recommendations were received with praise by the independent Citizens' Review
Panel. Typical among the reactions was that of former New York City Chief of Police
Patrick V. Murphy, Director of the Police Policy Board of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors:
"The policy report is professional and comprehensive. The implementation of its
recommendations will significantly reduce the risk of a repetition of embarrassing
behavior by Treasury law enforcement personnel in the future as well as strengthen
management and leadership through strict but reasonable accountability from first line
supervision to top administration." [Letter to Secretary Rubin, March 29, 1996]
The Office of Enforcement's review of policy approaches by other Departments and local
law enforcement organizations was wide ranging. They found particularly valuable
comments by ATF regarding its suggested improvements in our proposed policies on
participation in hate groups, prescreening techniques for hiring, and enhanced
background checks.
4
The ATF today is clearly a different, more diverse and modem organization than it was
when the "Good 0' Boy Roundups" was started by a now-retired ATF employee.
Indeed, ATF currently has the highest percentage of African-American agents of any
Treasury Bureau.
The Offices of General Counsel and Enforcement made 15 policy recommendations that
are being adopted by Treasury law enforcement bureaus. These recommendations apply
to standards reaching off-duty conduct, prohibition of bias-motivated conduct,
participation in hate groups, toughened hiring standards, stronger background checks,
policies that promote diversity in hiring, and streamlining ethics and rules of conduct.
Action #3
Public Disclosure of Documents
Additional data can be drawn from the documents Secretary Rubin released today: The
Report of the Inspector General, the Department of Treasury Report of the Good O'
Boy Roundup Policy Review, the comments of the Citizens' Review Panel, and
Secretary Rubin's letter to Inspector General Valerie Lau. As Secretary Rubin said in
his statement, "This disclosure underscores our belief in transparency, which is central to
safeguarding the public's trust in our agents."
Action #4
Follow up by the Treasury Department's Inspector General
The independent Citizens' Review Panel voiced reservations about the Inspector
General's report because it "does not make findings of fact or draw conclusions
concerning possible individual culpability." Secretary Rubin, on his reading of the
report, did conclude that sufficient evidence existed to refer to the law enforcement
bureaus the cases of 31 current Treasury agents whose cases fit in the categories
described above (Action #1). He has also written the Treasury Inspector General,
however, and directed her to respond to the Panel's comments, particularly as to why
the 1.0. declined to reach these conclusions in this report.
Action #5
Re: ATF Agents assigned to Church Arson Investigation
There are eighteen southern church arson cases dating back to January 1995. Four
investigations have resulted in arrests. ATF is working closely with State and local
authorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the various United States Attorneys
to bring the arsonists to trial.
Approximately one hundred (100) ATF agents have been assigned to these
investigations; of whom, twenty (20) are African-American. ATF's role in these
investigations is to conduct expert arson analyses. ATF"s most well-trained and
experienced agents and technicians are working to determine the cause and origin of the
church fires.
5
When the Inspector General's Report was complete, ATF was able to determine that
two (2) agents working on the investigation might be subject to further inquiry and
disciplinary action relating to the "Good 0' Boy Roundups" while ten (10) others
attended during the period before a pattern of abjectly racist conduct emerged at the
annual event. Regarding these ten individuals, no further disciplinary action is
contemplated. ATF will review the record promptly and consult with the Department of
Justice in order to carefully determine whether investigators should discontinue work on
the church arson investigations. We will consult with the appropriate Department of
Justice Officials to make sure that these investigations are staffed appropriately. The
successful prosecution of the people who set fire to these churches is our paramount
concern.
Today's report makes clear that no one from ATF participated in any racist activities at
the Roundups. ATF now has the most diverse special agent workforce among law
enforcement bureaus in the Department. ATF has peerless experience in investigating
and solving arson fires. The Departments of Treasury and Justice are committed to
bringing the investigation of these eighteen fires to a prompt and successful conclusion.
Action #6
Resource Assessment and Consultation for Church Arson Investigation
Secretary Rubin met yesterday with ATF Director John Magaw and the agent-in-charge
of the church arson investigation, the Deputy Associate Director for Criminal
Enforcement, Donnie Carter. Director Magaw pledged to review the adequacy of the
resources deployed at the Bureau for solving these crimes.
Action #7
Caution to Treasury Law Enforcement Agents
The Secretary made clear that all Treasury employees are on notice that they should not
attend anything like a 'Good 0' Boy Roundup' in 1996 or at any time in the future,
should anyone have the egregiously poor judgment to organize such an event.
-30-
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
GOOD 0' BOY ROUNDUP
95-1-028-1
Office of Inspector General
United States Department of the Treasury
NO PORTION OF THIS REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OR DESIGNEE. THIS REPORT IS
MADE AVAILABLE ONLY ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
3
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
7
BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
7
7
Preliminary Investigation by Treasury Enforcement Bureaus .
Initiation of Treasury OIG Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Allegations Raised of Criminal Activities at the Good 0' Boy
Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
SCOPE/METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Retirees . . . . . . .
Management Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leave Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
12
13
13
INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
13
History of the Good 0' Boy Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Structure
...............................
Rules ..... , . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . ".....
Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Racist T-Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Misuse
of Government
Time,
Resources
and
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moonshine at the Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strippers at the Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Criminal Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gang Rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . .
Bestiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gambling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sexual Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Drug Use . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
15
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
1
•
•
•
•
••
• • • • • •
8
17
19
19
20
21
21
21
22
22
23
24
24
24
Chronology
..................................
1980 ...
1981
1982
1983
'984
1985
1986
'987
1988
1989
'990
1991
'992
'993
1994
It
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
.......... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
................. , .
...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
...................................
...................................
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
...................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
.......................
.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
II
••••••
,.
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
It
••
,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
25
25
26
26
27
28
29
29
30
30
31
32
37
38
40
41
1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1990-95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Skits and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
45
EXTENT OF TREASURY PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
Treasury Retiree Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Minority Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROUNDUP . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
Management Knowledge of Roundup Prior to July 11, 1995 . 51
Allegations Against Rightmyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY STATE AND
LOCAL AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
EXHIBITS
61
.......................................
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 17, 1995, Secretary Robert E. Rubin requested that Inspector General
Valerie Lau and Under Secretary for Enforcement Ronald K. Noble conduct a joint
inquiry into the alleged participation by Department of the Treasury employees at
an annual event in southeastern Tennessee known as the "Good 0' Boy Roundup·
(Roundup). The Office of Inspector General (OIGI was responsible for the factfinding portion of this investigation and this report concludes its investigation. The
Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement was responsible for determining the
applicability of current laws, policies, rules and regulations to the facts discovered
by the OIG. In addition, the Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement was
responsible for recommending changes to current laws, policies, rules or
regulations, if deemed appropriate.
Our purpose was to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the Roundup.
Specifically, we addressed three concerns: (1) to ascertain what transpired at the
Roundups, and in particular, what evidence existed to support allegations of
racism, sexual misconduct, misuse of government property and other inappropriate
conduct; (2) to determine the extent of participation by Treasury; and (3) to
ascertain if Treasury managers were aware of the' Roundup and what that
awareness was and what actions, if any, they had taken in light of their
awareness.
The Roundups received national attention on July 11, 1995, when newspaper and
television reports raised concerns that law enforcement officers, in particular
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents, had participated in racist
acts. Initial allegations included racist acts, misuse of government time, resources
and equipment and excessive drinking. Subsequently, additional allegations of
other inappropriate and illegal acts arose in hearings before the Committee on the
Judiciary of the United States Senate on July 21, 1995. These allegations
included rape, various types of sexual misconduct and drug use.
To investigate these allegations, we queried 33,000 law enforcement employees of
the Department to determine if they were invited to or attended any Roundup. To
learn what management officials knew about the Roundups, we conducted a
second query of 1,135 managers in all law enforcement bureaus, as well as the
lawyers who provide legal counsel to those bureaus. To confirm information from
our queries and to obtain information about Roundup events, we interviewed 399
individuals from within and outside the Department, including all 125 current
Treasury employees who attended one or more Roundup events.
To verify and confirm the information from these queries and interviews, we
compared responses of different interviewees and verified their responses, where
possible, to documentary evidence. We were able to retrieve previously deleted
3
computer files of Roundup mailing lists, as well as lists of those who have had
various roles at the Roundups. We were able to use these lists as a separate
source to ascertain whether or not an individual had been invited to or participated
in a Roundup.
Summary of the Results of Investigation
There have been a total of 16 Roundups; the first one in 1980, and the most
recent one in 1995. Raymond Eugene Rightmyer, a career agent with ATF until
his retirement in January 1994, founded the Roundup while assigned to ATF's
Knoxville, Tennessee office. The stated purpose of the event "was and is to
promote fellowship within and outside of law enforcement. "
Acts of racism did occur at the Roundups. However, our investigation did not
reveal any evidence that Federal agents performed these acts. The most notable
incidents occurred in 1990, 1992 and 1995, although there were incidents in other
years. In 1990, a racist sign was seen at the Roundup consistent with the
videotape which aired in the national media on July 1', 1995. Also in 1990, a
racist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) parody skit was performed. Our investigation indicated
that police officers from Kentucky perpetrated the,se acts. In 1992, another racist
sign was posted and there was another racist skit. In 1995, a racial confrontation
occurred over the attendance at the Roundup of two black officers, one an ATF
agent and the other a local police officer. Police officers from Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, were responsible for both the 1992 skit and the 1995 confrontation. We
were not able to determine who posted the racist sign in 1992.
We have no credible evidence to support other allegations of illegal acts such as
rape, prostitution or drug use at the Roundups.
We found that 125 current Treasury employees attended one or more Roundups.
The majority of these Treasury attendees went once, twice, or three times. Most
also went before 1990. The number of Treasury employees at a given Roundup
fluctuated through the years. In 1980, 36 percent of attendees were current
Treasury agents, while in 1995 this had declined to about 7 percent. According
to Rightmyer and others who attended Roundups, this was a regional event and
most who attended were stationed in the southeastern part of the United States.
Of the 125 current Treasury employees who attended at least one Roundup, about
half (64) worked for ATF. Personnel from other bureaus also attended: 30 U.S.
Secret Service (USSS), 15 Internal Revenue Service (IRS)' 13 U.S. Customs
Service (USeS) and three Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
employees.
4
A key question has been the extent of Treasury involvement in the event.
Rightmyer acknowledged using some copier paper in his ATF Knoxville, Tennessee,
office and later using his ATF Greenville, South Carolina post office box and
telephone for the Roundups of 1991, 1992 and 1993. Also, a written account of
the first Roundup was reported in the July 1980 ATF Director's NOles, a
newsletter circulated at A TF.
To determine whether any other Treasury attendees utilized government resources,
all interviewees were asked whether they had taken leave and what their mode of
transportation was to the Roundup. All advised that they took annual leave if they
traveled during duty hours. To verify this information, the OIG conducted leave
and travel voucher reconciliations for the last three years of the Roundup; 1993,
1994 and 1995. Of the agents who attended the Roundup during duty hours, all
took annual leave with the exception of the following three incidents. One uses
agent submitted a leave slip for 16 hours of sick leave for the 1994 Roundup.
This particular incident will be referred to USCS for appropriate action. Two ATF
agents attended the Roundup in 1995 without fully charging their time to annual
leave. Both agents corrected this discrepancy prior to the initiation of the DIG
investigation. Administrative action was taken by management relative to the two
ATF agents.
All 1 25 current Treasury employees who attended took leave and no travel
vouchers were filed for those years by any of the 125 attendees. We found no
evidence that Rightmyer used ATF letterhead or stationery to promote the
Roundup, as alleged during this investigation.
A poll of management found that 107 current Treasury managers were aware of
the event prior to the media coverage in 1995. In addition, we identified 11 lower
level or retired managers who were aware of the event. We interviewed all 118
individuals and found that few had first-hand knowledge of the event. In all, 12
managers had attended one or more RoundUps. All stated that they had not
witnessed any racist events.
Almost all attendees were white males. Over the years, a limited number of
women and other minorities attended. Interviews were conducted of 26 minorities
who attended one or more Roundups. This number includes sixteen women (3
IRS, 1 ATF, 1 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 1 U.S. Postal Service
(USPS), 10 civilian or local law enforcement), three African Americans, three
Native Americans, two Hispanics and two Filipinos. Many attendees stated that
they saw various other minorities through their years of attendance. However, we
5
did not include these persons in our count of minority attendees unless they could
be identified by name and their attendance could be corroborated by other
evidence. One additional African American was identified by name as attending for
five minutes, but this was not corroborated.
The results of this investigation are further detailed in the body of this report.
6
INTRODUCTIONI
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 1995, a Washington Times newspaper article (Exhibit 1) reported that
"racist activities" occurred at an annual ATF-sponsored Roundup held in Ocoee,
Tennessee every spring. These Roundups were reportedly attended by "hundreds
of federal, state and local law enforcement officers· with the most recent one
occurring May 18-20, 1995. No other Federal officers were identified as attending
other than those of A TF. The article raised specific allegations regarding a skit in
which "an officer in fake KKK garb pulled a dildo from his robe and pretended to
sodomize another officer, who was in blackface.· Additional allegations were
raised of "nigger checkpoint" signs, "nigger hunting licenses," racist t-shirts and
the exclusion of black A TF agents from the gathering.
BACKGROUND
Preliminary Investigation by Treasury Enforcement Bureaus
Following receipt of the Washington Times allegations, preliminary investigations
were conducted between July l' and July 17, 1995, by the following bureaus
within Treasury: ATF, the United States Secret SerVice (USSS), the United States
Customs Service (USCS), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)' the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN). Their preliminary findings indicated that the Roundups began as a local
ATF family outing 1 in 1980 and then grew to include attendees from other
Federal, state and local agencies.
The Bureaus' preliminary investigations found that the Roundup was organized by
Raymond Eugene Rightmyer, an ATF agent who retired in January 1994. The
stated purpose "was and is to promote fellowship within and outside of law
enforcement." According to an early interview of Rightmyer by ATF as well as
affidavits provided by the Bureaus, it appeared that by 1990 attendance by Federal
participants began to decline and, by 1995, the majority of attendees were not
Federal law enforcement agents.
The Bureaus also confirmed, in their preliminary investigations, that several racially
offensive incidents did occur at the Roundups, including the KKK skit and the
·nigger checkpoint" sign. However, it was not determined who participated in
these events. In addition, other allegations of an administrative nature surfaced,
including misuse of government time, resources and equipment, during their initial
This characterization was later contradicted by the OIG investigation, which
found that the Roundups were not a family event, although occasionally wives and
teenage sons attended a Roundup.
1
7
interviews. Further, the Roundup was portrayed in media accounts as an
exclusionary, racist event. Numerous memoranda of interviews, statements,
affidavits, and other documents were generated by the Bureaus as a result of their
preliminary inquiries, in addition to a report prepared by the USSS. That material
was provided to the OIG the week of July 17, 1995, and was utilized during the.
initial phase of this investigation.
At the request of ATF, the OIG served a subpoena on Rightmyer on July 15, 1995,
for all mailing lists and records pertaining to the Roundup. Pursuant to that
subpoena, Rightmyer provided to the OIG four official Roundup t-shirts, one plastic
mug and one ballcap issued to Roundup participants throughout the years. He also
provided a seven-page computer printout (Exhibit 2) containing the 1995 Roundup
invitation and registration forms, the daily event schedule for May 15-20, 1995,
the golf schedule, and pre-registration data as of May 15, 1995. Rightmyer said
that all other information relating to the Roundup had been maintained in his
personal computer; however, he had erased all his other files, including the
membership, anendee and Board Member lists, the previous day (July 14, 1995).
He stated that he deleted these files because "I didn't want anyone else to go
through what I've gone through the past week."
Initiation of Treasury OIG Investigation
On July 17, 1995, the Secretary of the Treasury requested that the OIG conduct a
fact-finding investigation into the activities of, and involvement by, Department of
the Treasury personnel who attended any Roundup (Exhibit 3). The Inspector
General then issued a second subpoena to Rightmyer for all his computer records
relating to the Roundup, and it was served on July 17, 1995. Using a technical
expert in computer data recovery, Rightmyer's computer files were successfully
recovered from his computer's hard drive. During an interview on July 20, 1995,
Rightmyer said he had attempted to delete this material because he wanted to
protect other agents and friends from media scrutiny and because he had been
unfairly branded a racist by Members of Congress and high level Treasury and
Justice Department officials."
II
Analysis of the recovered computer information yielded several Roundup mailing
lists dating back to 1993, identifying close to 1000 individuals; 1995 attendee
information; expense information for 1995 for such items as food, t-shirts, beer
truck and campsite rental costs; and other miscellaneous documents relating to
sports activities at the Roundup, such as golf and white water rafting schedules
and locations for each day of the 1995 Roundup.
Also successfully retrieved from Rightmyer's computer were committee lists
identifying the names and membership of various Roundup committees; such as,
the Pairings and Points Standings Committee, Truck Pushing, Horseshoe Pitching,
8
Volleyball, Motorcycle contests, Chug-A-Lug, Tug of War, Cooking, Check-in
(Security/Registration), and the Rafting and Golf committees. There was also a list
of "Members of the Board" (MOB), of whom there were 34 individuals identified
for 1995, as well as a list of 26 individuals identified as "Roundup Executive
Committee" (REX) members. This second list appeared to comprise mostly those
who were named as former -Rednecks of the Year," ·Presidents of the Year,· or
original members of the Roundup.
·Computer spreadsheets maintained by Rightmyer contained information on recent
attendees to include name, home and/or work addresses, t-shirt size, emergency
point of contact and blood type, among other numerous pieces of information
captured by Rightmyer's database. The material and documents obtained, either
pursuant to the issuance of a subpoena or provided voluntarily by Rightmyer, did
not identify any participant by race, gender, religion, or ethnic origin. A further
review of the documents disclosed no racist or exclusionary language. A
document later received, the 1984 Roundup invitation, stated that "men and
teenage males only· could attend. However, women were reported to be in
attendance every year by other Roundup attendees.
Allegations Raised of Criminal Activities at the Good 0' Boy Roundup
As a result of media accounts of racist activities, the Senate Judiciary Committee
called for a public hearing. On July 21, 1995, a one-day hearing was held during
which officials of the Treasury and Justice Departments were asked to explain the
involvement by their respective departments in the Roundups. During this hearing,
criminal allegations surfaced for the first time. These allegations, detailed in
redacted affidavits, were provided to Treasury and Justice by Senator Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Specifically, three redacted affidavits were provided under cover of a letter from
Harold Stockburger, self-identified as the founder of the American Patriot
Federation, Chattanooga, Tennessee. He stated in his letter to the Senate
judiciary Committee that the allegations made by his three affiants were the ·tip
of the iceberg" into wrongdoing by unnamed Federal law enforcement participants
at the Roundup. Senator Hatch's transmittal letter to the Treasury Inspector
General, the three affidavits and Stockburger's cover letter are provided (Exhibits 4 - 8).
During the hearing, the Committee requested that the investigation address both
the extent of Federal law enforcement participation in the Roundups, and the
criminal allegations made by Stockburger and his affiants; which included rape,
sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, bestiality and drug use.
One of these three affidavits stated that "25 officers got a very attractive young
woman drunk. She passed out and they placed her on a picnic table in the
9
SCOPE/METHODOLOGY
campground and took turns having sex with her. '" It was further alleged that a
"drug enforcement officer'" offered one of the affiants drugs; that there were
female strippers performing for money; and that bestiality was committed with a
goat purchased for that purpose. According to one of the affidavits, "if the ones
involved didn't want to do the goat, they had to drink a Quart of motor oil. '" All of
these allegations were investigated during the course of this investigation.
SCOPE/METHODOLOGY
The elG conducted a comprehensive inquiry into the Roundups from July 17, '995
through February 15, 1996. Specifically, we addressed three concerns: (11 to
ascertain what transpired at the Roundups, including any allegations of racism,
sexual misconduct, misuse of government property, gambling, narcotics and other
inappropriate or illegal conduct; (2) to determine the extent of participation by
Department of the Treasury personnel; and (3) to ascertain if management was
aware of the Roundup, what that awareness was, and what actions, if any, were
taken in light of that awareness.
On July 11, 1995, the Secretary requested that the OIG conduct a fact-finding
investigation. The Department's Under Secretary for Enforcement instructed the
Bureaus to turn over to the Inspector General all documents obtained during their
respective preliminary investigations. Consequently, we received 70 memoranda
of interviews or affidavits obtained from the Bureaus, as well as copies of
newspaper articles and other documents collected during their initial investigations.
Inspector General subpoenas were issued on July 15 and July 17, 1995, to
Rightmyer, the organizer of the Roundups, for any records relating to the
Roundups. As a result, we obtained evidentiary material previously discussed in
the Background section of this report.
In order to determine which Treasury employees attended the Roundups, a Query
was conducted of all Law Enforcement Bureau employees, Internal Revenue
Service law enforcement personnel and elG law enforcement employees. A total
of 33,000 employees were queried, disclosing that 125 current Treasury
employees had attended a Roundup event. The specific Questions asked of the
respondents were:
1.
Have you ever been invited, orally or in writing, to attend
any '"Good 0' Boy Roundup'" event?
2.
Have you ever attended any "Good 0' Boy Roundup"
event?
3.
If so, in what year(s) did you attend?
10
Three hundred ninety-nine interviews were conducted during this investigation.
That number includes the interviews of all 125 current Treasury employees who
were self-identified on the mandatory poll as having attended one or more
Roundups. An additional 146 individuals identified by previous interviewees
indicated some knowledge of the event, or had been invited to the Roundup but
did not attend. One hundred and eighty seven of the 271 individuals who had
knowledge of a Roundup were Treasury employees. Interviews of these individuals
were conducted to ascertain how they were invited and why they did not attend.
Information was also provided by 25 retired Treasury agents; 17 of whom were
confirmed as past attendees of a Roundup. Interviews were conducted by the
Treasury OIG of individuals from all the departments identified below with the full
cooperation of each entity.
Throughout the remainder of this report, the only names which will appear will be
those of Treasury employees and those already in the public domain through
Roundup media articles. If an individual is identified as "civilian" or "local police
officer", or "other Federal agent", it is because their names have never been
publicly connected to the Roundup and their privacy will continue to be protected
by Treasury.
The breakdown of the 399 interviews conducted by the Treasury OIG is provided
below:
Individuals interviewed with knowledge of the Roundup:
187
7
7
1
1
3
1
4
1
10
4
8
1
1
1
34
Treasury employees (90 ATF, 43 IRS, 40 USSS, 13
USCS, 1 FLETC)
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division (Army CID)
Department of Justice
Department of the Interior
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Postal Service
Benton, Tennessee, Police Department
Boone County, Kentucky, Police Department
Chattanooga, Tennessee, Police Department
Cleveland, Tennessee, Police Department
Florence, Kentucky, Police Department
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Police Department
Loudon, Tennessee, Police Department
Morganton, North Carolina, Police Department
Ocoee, Tennessee, Police Department
Civilians unaffiliated with law enforcement
11
Other categories of interviews conducted:
92
35
1
Treasury managers relative to "management knowledge"
(conducted as result of the OIG survey of Treasury
managers)
ATF minority, including women, interviewed to ascertain
minority perception of the Roundups
State Department female (former AUSA involved with
ATF class action)
Parallel investigations were conducted by the Department of Justice OIG (DOJ
OIG) as well as other state and local agencies. Pertinent information was shared
among the agencies.
Access was not denied to any employees of state, local or federal agencies whom
we wished to interview, with the exception of five deputies from the Shelby
County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department. Those officers submitted to compulsory
interviews by their department, but on advice of counsel refused to speak with the
OIG and could not be compelled to do so. Their st~tements were, however,
reviewed by Treasury OIG and that information is provided, where applicable,
within the Chronology section of this report.
Additional interviews or statements were reviewed that were conducted by other
agencies and that information was also incorporated into this report. Attendees
from the following additional agencies were interviewed by their respective
agencies: Maryland State Police; Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department;
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP);
Hamilton Provincial Police (Canada); York Provincial Police (Canada) and Bradley
County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department. Reports of investigation were obtained
from these entities with the exception of the Maryland State Police, which declined
to provide the results of their investigation to Treasury. They did, however,
provide audiotapes of two pertinent interviews to DOJ OIG. Those tapes were
summarized in Memoranda of Interview and provided to Treasury OIG. Material
from all the reports we received is incorporated in the Chronology section of this
report, where applicable. Actions taken by the various departments against their
officers are identified within the final section of this report, which describes
administrative results.
Retirees
As mentioned, twenty-five retired Treasury employees were interviewed by
Treasury OIG and other agencies during this investigation. Where possible, retirees
were contacted and interviewed after being identified by current Treasury
employees or other attendees who had attended one or more Roundup events.
12
INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS
We tried to locate those retirees who were said to have attended in years for
which little information could be accumulated, or who attended in years when
racist or other negative activity occurred. It was believed that retired individuals
would be more candid. The primary value in interviewing the retired agents was to
gain information about the early years of the Roundups and to learn how the
Roundups evolved over the years.
Some of these retired agents continued to attend Roundups after they retired and
were able to provide information about the organizational structure, the identities
of early attendees, racist incidents and the gambling and drinking activities.
Specific information learned by the retirees is detailed in the Chronology section of
this report, where applicable. Identification of the retirees interviewed is provided
in the Extent of Treasury Participation section of this report.
Management Knowledge
To determine the extent of management's knowledge of the Roundup, a separate
survey was conducted of all Treasury law enforcement managers who were GS-1 5s
with supervisory authority and above. A total of 1,135 managers were Queried
from ATF, USSS, uses, FLETC, FinCEN, IRS, OIG's Office of Investigations and
the Office of General Counsel.
The results of this query are fully addressed in the Extent of Treasury Participation
section of this report.
Leave Usage
To verify whether leave was taken by Treasury employees during the Roundups,
leave verification was conducted for the last three years (1993, 1994 and 1995)
for each of the 125 employees who responded positively to the survey. The leave
data was then compared to the memoranda of interview of each attendee as a final
confirmation.
INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS
History of the Good 0' Boy Roundup
In 1980, Rightmyer organized a weekend of camping in the Cherokee National
Forest, Tennessee, in a public park now known as Pump Station #3 or "Thunder
Rock" (Exhibit 9). Rightmyer stated that the creation of the Roundup grew out of
a 1979 ATF task force in Tennessee which included agents from across the
country. Several agents from this task force went whitewater rafting on their day
off. When they returned, they told Rightmyer and others what a great time they
had rafting on the Ocoee River.
13
As a result of that outing in 1979, Rightmyer developed the idea of inviting other
agents and friends from the southeastern region to the Ocoee river area for a
weekend of liaison, rafting and camping .. Rightmyer stated that, although wives
and children under 18 years of age may have attended the Roundup(s) in previous
years, it was never intended to be a family event.
The public park was next to the Ocoee River near Ducktown, Tennessee.
Rightmyer was at that time the Resident Agent in Charge of the ATF Knoxville,
Tennessee field office. Several agents and Rightmyer had discussed getting
together, away from the office, to socialize and Rightmyer decided to organize
such an event. He believed that although local police officers tended to socialize
among themselves, Federal law enforcement officers did not. It was not initially
intended to be an annual event, but due to its success and interest by 58
attendees, Rightmyer decided to continue organizing it in subsequent years. He
named attendees "Good 0' Boys," whom Rightmyer defined as "honest,
straightforward with you, he is not going to steal from you; what you see is what
you get." He said there were no racist connotations to the name, in his opinion,
and a Good 0' Boy could be "a woman, it could be a black, it could be a hispanic."
Rightmyer denied that the purpose of the Roundup was racist.
The term "Good 0' Boy" may mean different things to different people. The
difference in meaning one draws from "good 0' boy" is reflected in the way in
which dictionaries define the term. Webster'S Dictionary defines "good old boy"
as "a man of the southern U.S., variously characterized as easygoing,
companionable, assertively masculine, and strongly identifying with his regional
lifestyle." Whistlin' Dixie: A Dictionarv of Southern Expressions defines "good
old boy" as follows:
"A white Southern male exemplifying the masculine ideals of the
region; any amiable Southerner, provided he likes guns, hunting,
fishing, drinking, football and women, in roughly that order; a
loyal Southerner, rich or poor, devoted to all things Southern. The
term had.popular use in the mid-1960s. Said the late Billy Carter,
President Jimmy Carter's brother, of the good ole boy: 'A good
ole boy ... is somebody that rides around in a pickup truck ... and
drinks beer and throws 'em out the window,'''
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "good 0' boy" as:
.. A man who follows the stereotypical behavior of his peers,
especially one who embodies the revelry, camaraderie, or bigotry
regarded as typical of some white men of the rural southern
United States."
14
The activities during this first year event consisted of volleyball, rafting, golfing,
beer drinking and card playing. Accordin~ as well as early attendees
such as former ATF and now USSS a g e n t _ w h o attended 14
Roundups, the attendees the first couple of years were primarily ATF special
agents from eastern Tennessee (Chattanooga and Knoxville •. Subsequent
Roundups included attendees from the entire Southeastern Region of the United
States. The
nce during the first year, according to
ATF agent
She stated that, after the date was
announced
next Roundup, she spoke with Rightmyer who told her that
women were not welcome back as the wives of Roundup attendees might -get the
wrong idea.Structure
Rightmyer described himself as the Roundup's -Benevolent Dictator. - In the mid1980s, one of the original members, retired ATF agent
and several
other regular attendees began to encourage Rightmyer
rate as the
Roundup was getting too big. Rightmyer was urged to incorporate to avoid
potential liability issues. Rightmyer confirmed that he considered incorporating the
Roundup, but that he never got around to dOing ~o. An OIG review of the State of
Tennessee incorporation records confirmed that the Roundup is not incorporated.
Although Rightmyer never incorporated the Roundup, in preparation for
incorporating, a President and Vice President were elected during a Roundup
business meeting. Neither position had any,real authority and the honorary title
lasted for the duration of one Roundup.
At about this same time, Rightmyer also formed what he called the -REX- and the
-MOB- to assist him with the responsibilities of the Roundup. The -REX· was the
Roundup Executive Committee, made up of long-time attendees. Thirteen of the
26 REX members in 1995 were Federal agents; 12 of these are current or retired
Treasury
of
followin ten ATF a
r on the
R
list:
ne ghtmyer and
Treasury agents on the
list are USSS agents
The 13th Federal agent who was a REX member
One of the functions of the REX was to judge the -Redneck of the Year· contest.
Winners. of the -Redneck· contest then became REX members the following year
and judged future entrants. This was otherwise a ceremonial title and nominees
were voted on after competitions in the Liars Contest, Ugliest Good 0' Boy
Competition, and Redneck of the Year skit.
15
The Redneck of the Year competitions were described to the Treasury OIG by the
attendees who either participated in or witnessed them, and their descriptions and
identifications of the participants form the basis for the source documentation
provided in this report. Rightmyer also provided information relative to the history
of the contests and identified many of the skits as well as some of those who
performed them. Further elaboration of these skits is provided in the Chronology
section during the year in which they occurred, together with the identification of
the three Treasury agents identified as having won a Redneck of the Year
competition.
The MOB was made up of Members of the Board or "Mean 01' Bastards" and they
Rightmyer identified the
rious activities: ATF
retir d ATF agent
and A TF agent
He additionally identif
an Army 10 agent
All of these individuals confirmed their roles during
s sequent interviews and were part of the "MOB." Four other Treas
were also i entified as 1995
members. These a
(USSS),
(ATF retired) and
There
were typically 20 to
OBs per year, who served as camp cops, facilitators and
ombudsmen. MOB and REX members wore hats labelled "MOB" or "REX", depending on
their respective functions.
Prior to the MOB system, Rightmyer indicated he was solely responsible for the
above mentioned duties. He added that in 1990, he began to sleep in a motel,
away from the Roundup campground. Rightmyer advised that he slept in a motel
to get some rest and as a consequence, he needed to have individuals on-site who
could be responsible for these duties.
Rightmyer said that he used local vendors to provide food, beer, and other camping
needs for which he charged participants in advance. By 1995, attendees paid
$75.00 for just camping, food, and beer; $100.00 if they also wanted to go white
water rafting.
In 1984, Rightmyer moved the site of the Roundup to private property approximately
eight miles away from the original site (Exhibit 10). It remained at that site, Ocoee
Outdoors, for all the subsequent Roundu s. Accordin to Rightmyer, Ocoee
Outdoors was a private campin
who in turn
lease~operty to
0 then rented it to
ghtmyer. Rightmyer
said . . . .was paid $
for the use of _and for one week.
16
As part of his official duties from 1984 until his retirement in 1994, Rightmyer
organized and ran an official ATF "Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Criminal Investigator's
Intelligence Conference" in Knoxville in January of each year. An officially
sponsored event by ATF would normally include the authorized expenditure of ATF
funds, time, materials and the use of some form of administrative leave by the
attending A TF personnel. Add itionally, prior to the conduct of the event, it must
have the approval by the sponsoring ATF office, the procurement office, and must
adhere to Federal procurement regulations.
This conference was widely attended by Federal, state, local and foreign law
enforcement officers, particularly Canadians. Rightmyer said he would typically
extend open invitations to the Roundups to all who attended these conferences.
Attendance at the Roundups grew as a result of these contacts. The Canadians
began attending in 1984 and became a large contingent for the subsequent
Roundups. On one of the mailing lists retrieved from Rightmyer's computer, there
are a total of 1'2 Canadian names and addresses. Exactly how many of those
attended each year could not be ascertained. As with attendees from other
locations, Rightmyer could not be certain how many actually attended.
Rules
Roundup rules were generated by Rightmyer when he felt one was necessary.
According to Rightmyer, there was only one fight at the Roundup and that resulted
when a member punched the teenage son of another member, ATF agent
who was treating his father disrespectfully. The father left the Roundup because
he was embarrassed by the incident, according to ~ retired ATF
agent. Because of the drinking at the Roundup, Ri~t fights could
break out. The fight that did occur was also a reason why Rightmyer said he
enacted the rule that stated "you are responsible for whom you bring."
The 1984 invitation (Exhibit 11) invites "men and teenage males only," but this
rule was suspended the following year when a local law enforcement female
challenged her exclusion and she was admitted.
Eventually, six basic rules were established by Rightmyer and they were printed on
the invitations:
"RULES:
1. You are responsible for who you invite. (New attendees
2.
3.
4.
5.
must have a law enforcement sponsor.)
No fighting. Right or wrong this will not be tolerated.
No fireworks of any kind.
No one under 18 years of age. Ages 18 - 21 must be
accompanied by their parent.
What goes on at the Roundup stays there. (No press,
17
press releases period. No stories that would embarrass
any attendee, unless among Good 01' Boys.)
6. Wristbands must be worn for beer and food." (Exhibit 1 2).
There was a statement in the body of the invitation, where the rules appeared, that
said "we are not political and we will not be" (Exhibit 13). Rightmyer said this rule
was enacted in 1993 and resulted from Richard Hayward's attempts in 1992 to
distribute literature promoting David Duke.
One person who attended the Roundup, a DEA female agent, recalled seeing a sign
at the re
table in 1993 which said "no racism." One Army CID agent,
id he posted a notice to be read by all who signed in
said racism wou not be tolerated. However, no other interviewees said
they saw such a sign or notice. Neither of these individuals indicated there was
any warning notice or sign at either of the following two Roundups.
Beginning in 1991, attendees were divided by Rightmyer into three categories:
Good 0' Boy, Guest and Local Law Enforcement. Locals included state and local
law enforcement officers from Polk and Bradley Counties, Tennessee, who stopped
by to visit and who, at least in the early years, did not have to pay to attend.
Attendees were issued hospital bracelets in three different colors to denote one of
the three categories described above. The 1993 invitation (Exhibit 13) describes
the different types of attendees.
Rightmyer was transferred to the Greenville, South Carolina field office in
September 1990. He acknowledged using ATF's post office box in Greenville as
the return address for the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Roundups. However, he denied
the use of any other Government equipment or resources for the Roundups with
the exception of some copier
for ea
invitations. Ri
r's account is
corroborated b A TF agent
In
ailed to cor
ate
allegations that Rightmyer utilized any government equipment in support of the
Roundup.
According to Rightmyer, the Roundup attendees began contributing to charities in
1988. Rightmyer described the following charitable contributions made by the
Roundup participants. He stated that money was raised during four Roundups for
the American Cancer- So
. Additionally, one year $4,800 was raised for ATF
nt
18
the families of the Oklahoma City bombin
According to
Rightmyer ca led
from the 1995 Roundup for
Allegations
A number of allegations were raised during this inquiry concerning events at the
Roundups. These allegations included: racism; misuse of government time,
resources and equipment; and drinking of moonshine. Additionally, criminal
allegations of rape, bestiality, gambling, sexual harassment and drug use, also
surfaced. All of these allegations were investigated during this inquiry and the
results are detailed in the remainder of this report.
I
Racism
In a sworn affidavit provided to the Justice OIG, Richard Hayward, a former Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, police officer, advised that he was the source of the
July 11, 1995, Washington Times article concerning the Good 0' Boy Roundup. In
addition to being previously employed in law enforcement, Hayward reportedly
founded the Michigan Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of
White People (NAAWP) and he has claimed to be a supporter of the David Duke
political campaign. Rightmyer identified Hayward as the President and founder of
the NAAWP.
Hayward stated that he attended his first Roundup in 1989 and attended several
thereafter. He claimed to have seen and taken a videotape of a racist sign.
Hayward reported that he edited the videotape he took at the Roundup(s) prior to
showing it to the National Rifle Association (NRA) officials. Hayward explained
that he edited the videotape so that several of his friends shown on the original
tape would not be hurt.
Hayward stated that he then provided his information to a Washington Times
reporter named Jerry Seper. Seper's article also alleged that "nigger hunting
licenses" were available throughout the campground (Exhibit 1), but no one
interviewed during this investigation confirmed seeing any such licenses at any
Roundup. Hayward further stated that he provid~ with
ame
in order to corroborate the supplied information. _ i s self escribed as a
member of the Gadsden Minutemen, a militia group located in Gadsden, Alabama.
Approximately 15 of the initial participants were non-Federal law enforcement in
1980, according to Rightmyer, and the event was open to all law enforcement
officers and their guests. He stated that "although black people did not commonly
attend the Roundup, {he} and others made efforts to invite black police officers so
19
that the Roundup would not be viewed as a whites only event." Rightmyer did not
attribute the lack of African Americans to racism. No African American attendance
could be confirmed until 1995 by the OIG. Interviews conducted of anendees at
the early Roundups disclosed that no African American agents were assigned to
their respective offices.
State and local law enforcement officers self-identified themselves or fellow
officers to the Treasury OIG as the perpetrators of the racist incidents, and they
are the sources of the information provided in this report. For example, a
Fort Lauderdale, Florida police officer admitted perpetrating the skit in 1992, in
which he broke open a watermelon and removed a plastic doll which had been
purchased and painted black by the officer for the purpose of the skit. The same
officer also admitted selling the "OJ" t-shirts, which depicted a stick figure hanging
from a gallows with the letters "O.J." underneath the figure.
Local Kentucky officers admitted planning and participating in the KKK skit in
1990. These same officers pointed to a fellow officer on the Florence, Kentucky
police department as putting up the "checkpoint" sign the same year (1990). That
officer denied his involvement, but the information developed by the Treasury OIG
would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the same group of officers was
responsible for both incidents.
Acts of racism did, in fact, occur at the Roundups, but our investigation did not
reveal that any Federal agents performed these acts. Those agents who witnessed
any of these acts are identified in the Extent of Treasury Participation section of
this report. Summaries of these occurrences are detailed in the Chronology
section.
Racist T-Shirts
The Treasury OIG interviewed 47 individuals who saw one or more racist t-shirts.
Every witness interviewed by the Treasury OIG was asked if he or she had any of
the t-shirts depicting racist activity. All denied having any such shirts and
consequently Treasury OIG is not in possession of any of these racist shirts. A
number of people described these shirts and confirmed their e),(istence, including 8
current or retired Treasury employees.
The t-shirts seen at the camp are described as the following: Boyz on the Hood t-shirt;
the Buckwheat "pocket" or "running nigger" t-shirt; the OJ t-shirt; the Martin
Luther King in cross-hairs t-shirt; the Martin Luther King face superimposed on a
target t-shirt; the Malcolm X t-shirt with a slash mark through the name; the
Confederate flag with the slogan "You have your X and we have ours" t-shirt; and
20
the -ghetto-blaster t-shirt of a male character holding a shotgun. All of the
aforementioned t-shirts were confirmed as being seen at a Roundup and
photographs of four of them are provided (Exhibit 15),
Misuse of Goyernment Tjme. Resources and Equipment
Rightmyer acknowledged using some copier paper in his ATF Knoxville office and
later using his ATF Greenville, South Carolina, post office box and telephone for
the 1991, '992 and 1993 Roundups. We found no evidence that government
letterhead or stationery was used to promote the event. Our investigation
disclosed that, with one exception, no government cars were used to attend the
~ The one ce
occurred in 1991, when three USSS agents,_
_
and
drove a
vehicle to the Round . These
agents were assigned to
and stated that when US
agents go on protection details only government
vehicles are permitted because the agents are on call 24 hours a day.
Leave was taken as necessary to attend the Roundups, which was verified during
our leave and travel voucher reconciliations. Of the agents who attended the
Roundup during duty hours, all took annual
the exception of the
following three incidents. One USCS agent
submitted a leave slip for
16 hours of sick leave for the 1994 Roundup. This particu~
~S for appropriate action. Two ATF a g e n t s _ a n d
_
attended the Roundup in 1995 without fully charging their time to
annual leave .. Both agents corrected this discrepancy prior to the initiation of the
OIG investigation. Administrative action was taken by management relative to the
two ATF agents.
Moonshine at the Roundup
There were no confirmations of moonshine at a Roundup, with the exception of a
civilian who claimed that he brought moonshine in 1991 or 1992. The moonshine
Several individuals, including the Army CIO agent
lied seeing people drinking vodka or a clear liquid
Strippers at the Roundup
Sixteen people interviewed by the OIG confirmed the presence of strippers
beginning in 1991 and every year thereafter. A MOB, who was a Florida police
officer, stated ~er was thrown out one year. Specific incidents include
one related b y _ a retired ATF agent, who recalled strippers in 1994
dancing nude on a picnic table; another by a Florida police officer of a stripper
dancing on the back of a truck and one by one of Stockburger's affiants, who
21
witnessed a female stripping on a table in the presence of both men and women.
Whenever Rightmyer became aware of the presence of strippers in the camp, he
ordered them out, as confirmed by
who actually escorted the strippers
out on several occasions. We fou
no ev ence to substantiate allegations of
prostitution.
Criminal Allegations
The investigation disclosed the following information:
(1 ~
Upon interviewing Stockburger, the OIG determined that he developed the
info
to the Senate Judiciary Committee from two private citizens.:
.I
and from one individual residing in Michigan. This
i
third affiant (Exhibit 8) was
determined to be Richard Hayward. Hayward
publicly identified himself as a former Fort Lauderdale police officer and
acknowledged videotaping the 1990 Roundup, in which the -nigger checkpointsign was revealed. Hayward offered these allegations to the NRA, according to
information he provided in an interview with DOJ OIG and to the New York Times,
in an article dated August 27, 1.995 (Exhibit 16). Hayward additionally said in this
article that the NRA turned the videotape over to the Washington Times.
This information was developed through a confidential source and
confirmed through an OIG review of campaign financial disclosure statements
maintained by the Secretary of State, Tennessee.
Gang Rape
The two affiants who initially reported the gang rape allegation (Exhibits 6 and 7) have
recanted their original claims of rape, bestiality and public sex occurring at the
Roundup. They told OIG investigators that at the time of their allegations they
believed rumors they heard about a rape having occurred to be true, so they
related their allegations as fact. When pressed for details, however, they
acknowledged that they never saw any rapes nor could they identify those who
had. The alleged victim of the rape was subsequently identified by one of the
affiants and she was interviewed by Treasury OIG. The victim denied ever being
raped and successfully passed a DOJ-administered polygraph examination. An
allegation that a -drug enforcement officer- offered drugs was not further
supported.
22
Another witnea who tlaimed to have seen the rape admitted that he did not S88 a
sex act take place and said he had consumed a great deal of alcohol just prior to
witnessing several men and one woman on top of a picnic table. A polygraph
examination of this witness was terminated after he acknowledged he saw no rape
nor any drug use, sale, or distribution by anyone whom he could identify as a
Federal agent.
a retired A~t, claimed to have knowled
conduct at the Roundup.--.stated that
Agent, ATF retired, attended a
in ·1
, 86 or 87.
that he . . . . .eft one of the Roundups in disgust. According
him~~d men were jumping out of trees onto women and
identified a retired A TF agent who got a woman intoxicated and raped her. _
advised that he discussed this information with~n 1986 or 1987.
Special Agent, ATF, retired, was interviewed by the OIG and stated
that h~ed several Roundups, the last one beini.!!!..!!!?' ~enied
telling_ about the above mentioned activities. ~tated that he never
saw anything illegal at any Roundup in which he attended. He denied knowledge
of any drug use, rapes~sensual sexual activity, or seeing men jumping out
of trees onto women. -.-eported that he discontinued going to the Roundups
because he knew so few people in attendance and because he doesn't need to
spend money on beer and food when he can do those things at home.
The OIG interviewed the retired ATF agent and he denied being involved in a rape
at the Roundup. The OIG developed no other evidence of any attendee at the
Roundup being involved in a rape. Our attempts to verify whether or not a rape
ever occurred at a Roundup included asking every interviewee if he or she was
aware of any rapes or unwanted sexual contacts.
Bestiality
The affiant identified in Exhibit 6 had further alleged that bestiality was committed
with a goat purchased for that purpose. Although this witness recanted most of
her original clainw of illegal conduct occurring at the Roundup, she initially stated
in her affidavit -if the ones involved didn't- want to do the goat, they had to drink a
quart of motM-oiI.- Our Investigation uncovered that the drinking of the -motor
. a skit performed by a USSS agent in 1987. This agent,
stated that prior to going to the Roundup he had obtained a clean
motor
can
a friend who owns a service station. The can was filled with
honey and beer, not motor oil, and he drank the contents of the can during the
Redneck of the Year skit.
23
The separate use of a goat during a skit was confirmed by a witness who attended
the 1995 Roundup. This individual, who designed and sold the annual official
Roundup shirts to Rightmyer, stated that the 1995 Redneck of the Year won a
goat as his date for the night. According to Rightmyer, a sheep was used another
year, in approximately 1991, by an attendee who dressed in a white tuxedo and
walked around with a sheep who had a ribbon around her neck. He introduced the
sheep as his girlfriend, possibly as part of a skit that year. Rightmyer also talked
about the "Emperor for Life," a retired Alabama police officer, who was always
"teasing about having sex with a goat, but he has never had a goat there."
Gambling
Fifty-three people interviewed by the OIG confirmed that the only gambling
throughout the Roundup years was ·chicken-shit bingo.· Rightmyer confirmed
that "chicken-shit bingo" occurred at the Roundup and was an annual event.
Rightmyer described chicken-shit bingo as a board divided into 100 squares.
Rightmyer explained that the cost of the game was five dol/ars a square and live
chickens were placed on the board and "whatever square the chicken defecates
on, they win." The winner with the right number would collect the purse.
Rightmyer reported that the winner would very often give $100 back to· the
Roundup. This money received would be added to an existing charity. It is
unknown when this event was initiated at the Roundup. Although some attendees
said "card playing" was one of the activities at the Roundup, gambling with cards
was not confirmed.
Sexual Harassment
The OIG confirmed one incident of sexual harassment of a local female police
officer allegedly perpetrated by a Canadian. A local police officer recalled an
incident in which a man she believed to be a Canadian walked up to her and said
'"So, who's the cunt7'". She stated that this man's brother later apologized to her.
Drug Use
Drugs were reportedly offered to one of Stockburger's affiants, although this
affiant never saw any drugs nor could the affiant describe the alleged drug offeror.
Only two interviewees alleged drug activity at the Roundup. One was the witness
identified in Exhibit 6, the second witness was the same individual who alleged and
later recanted his story of a rape at the Roundup. Three witnesses reported
smelling marijuana between 1984 and 1987, but they were unable to verity the
presence of marijuana or other drugs at the Roundup. No other credible
information surfaced relative to the presence of drugs at the Roundup.
24
Chronology
In addition to the information identified in the Scope/Methodology section of this
report, information was also obtained through three interviews with Rightmyer; one
on July 13, 1995, the second on July 20, 1995, and the third on November 14, 1995,
plus additional information that he provided in two telephone interviews. For each
Roundup, we have provided figures as to the number of attendees at that particular
Roundup. These figures are estimates provided by Rightmyer and are based on his
recollections, with the exception of 1995 for which ·the actual records were
retained by Rightmyer. Material obtained from Rightmyer's computer database
included the actual pre-registration list for 1995 only, so that is the only year for
which an ·actual figure is known for pre-registered guests. It should be noted that
the number of attendees indicated by Rightmyer for previous years are consistent
with the recollections of those we interviewed.
As can be seen within the Chronology there were, particularry in the later years,
non-law enforcement visitors to the campsite who did not register in advance or
stay overnight. Because an actual count was not taken by Rightmyer or those in
charge of registration for other than 1995, the figures cited herein reflect
Rightmyer's figures for those who stayed for substantially the entire duration of
the Roundup plus those specific individuals who could be confirmed through
interviews to have been at the Roundup. Counting all those who may have
stopped by briefly or for one evening would be misleading to the reader and could
appear to artificially inflate the total number of registered "Good 0' Boys" while
reducing the percentage of federal participation.
1980:
Number of Roundup attendees: 58
Number of Treasury attendees: 21
Number of Interviews conducted: 31
The July 1980 edition of the ATF Director's Notes (Exhibit 18) stated
that if anyone in ATF was interested in attending the 1981 Roundup,
they should "contact the Knoxville, TN Post of Duty." Rightmyer
stated that he did not submit this open invitation nor does he know
who wrote it. Our investigation was unable to determine who
authored this article.
Rightmyer reported that the 1980 Roundup was not an ATF
sponsored event. He stated that there was no formal registration in
1980. He did not believe that any competitions or games were played
in the first year. The first year was not very well organized. They
were there primarily to camp and to go whitewater rafting.
25
1981:
Number of attendees: 158
Number of Treasury attendees: 16
Number of Interviews conducted: 24
One of the first contests began. Rightmyer advised that the "beer
enduro" contest was established in the early years of the Roundup but
it was discontinued due to his concern that someone could die from
excessive alcohol consumption. The beer enduro contest determined
who could drink two ounces of beer every 30 seconds for two hours
without urinating or throwing up. Rightmyer explained that if you
urinated or threw up, you were out of the game.
a
retired ATF agent, won every year.
Rightmyer began selling unofficial Good 0' Boy t-shirts this year to
attendees. As the years passed, the designs for the t-shirts would
sometimes reflect an incident or story from the previous year's
Roundup.
In 1981, Rightmyer for the first time began mailing out registration
forms to the Roundup invitees. He indicated that an invitation was
not always required to attend the Roundup. One could attend if you
had a police officer or law enforcement agency vouch for you.
Rightmyer related that there was no place on the invitation to identify
a person by "sex, race."
Rightmyer would also circulate the invitations to various Federal and
state law enforcement offices in Tennessee and the surrounding
areas. He related that it was up to the particular agency to distribute
or post information on the Roundup. In addition, Rightmyer would
make a point to invite anyone attending an ATF sponsored school or
training conference in which he (Rightmyer) participated.
1982:
Number of attendees: 250
Number of Treasury attendees: 12
Number of Interviews conducted: 26
The "Redneck. of the Year" contest began. This contest was
established to "entertain us and make fun of ourselves" according to
Rightmyer. Rightmyer selected the judges based upon those who had
been to the Roundups on a regular basis and from new attendees who
had never seen a Redneck of the Year contest.
Prior to the Redneck of the Year contest, there were team
competitions in tug-of-war, truck push, volleyball, horseshoes, golf,
26
a. liar's contest and an "Ugliest Good 0' Boy" contest. Rightmyer
stated that he discontinued the liar's contest and the Ugliest Good 0' Boy
contest because, over time, they weren't funny anymore.
The first winner of the Redneck of the Year c B n
twas_
Special Agent, ATF .. According to Rightmyer
won ~
because his "nomination speech (for someone else was so good that
the committee decided to make him Redneck of the Year."
ATF agent
it was prior to
stated that
being
In
that he advised Rightmyer that he was to
ensure that no ATF funds or equipment were utilized to support what
was clearly an off-duty and unofficial activity. _
also advised
Rightmyer not to use government mail and that he should use either
did not
his home or a post office box as the mailing address. _
have any information that Rightmyer was using government funds or
equipment. _ w a s invited but did not attend because he stated
that he "doe~e camping."
1983:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 19
Number of Interviews conducted: 34
This year's fee included the first official Roundup t-shirt which was
designed and issued by Rightmyer (Exhibit 19). There were two rules:
no fighting and no women. The attendees continued to come from
the Southern states only. Seventeen kegs of beer were consumed,
according to Rightmyer's 1984 invitation in which he recapped the
previous year (Exhibit 11).
Several early participants, including retired ATF a g e n t _
recalled that 1983 was the year in which the attende~ng
mesandivingouttroPhiestothewinners.usssagent
recalled varnished raft paddles with the inscription
e nec 0 t e Year (with the year of the event inserted)" awarded
to the winners. The paddle also had a painted logo of a "pot-bellied
guy holding a paddle."
@li!i
This was the last year the Roundup was held at Pump Station #3.
The decision was made by Rightmyer to move to private property
approximately eight miles further down the river. Rightmyer and
others stated that the move occurred because a Forest Ranger came
into the camp and told Rightmyer that they had to move the beer
27
truck off the property because it was illegal to have one on Federal
property. This scene was depicted on the following year's official
Roundup t-shirt (Exhibit 20).
1984:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 14
Number of Interviews conducted: 42
This was the first year
camping area leased
sub-leased this area to
up
g this year.
The Roundup was just two nights and two days and there were only
two rules: 1) you are responsible for whom you invite; and 2) no
fighting. The cost was $20.00 or $40.00, depending on whether the
attendee planned to go white water rafting or not. Although only men
and teenage males were invited in 1984, Rightmyer and others stated
that some women attended anyway.
As part of his official duties from 1984 until his retirement in 1994,
Rightmyer organized and ran an "Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Criminal
Investigator's Intelligence Conference" in Knoxville, Tennessee, in
January of each year. This ·conference was widely attended by
Federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement officers, particularly
Canadians, who began attending in 1984. Rightmyer stated that he
would typically extend open invitations to all who attended these
conferences and attendance in the Roundup grew as a result of these
contacts.
Rightmyer i d e n t i f i e d _ Special Agent, ATF, retired, as
winning the Rednec~ contest for telling a humorous story.
According to Rightmyer, ~Iso won the Liar's contest when he
said "I'm here with the Federal government and I'm here to help you."
ATF employee
recalled that the Canadians parked their
motor home and put a statue of a "black kid holding up a ring for a
hitching post" in front of their motor home. _stated that he
personally saw Rightmyer ask the Canadian~t the statue back in
their home because he (Rightmyer) thought it was inappropriate. The
Canadians took the statue back into their motor home.
According to Rightmyer, the Roundup invitation excluded women due
to limited bathroom facilities at the campground. Although the 1984
Roundup invitation invited only "men and teenage males," women did
attend in 1984, despite this policy.
28
1985:
Number of attendees: 258
Number of Treasury attendees: 21
Number of Interviews conducted: 44
Women began attending in more numbe~ stated he
invited an African American ATF 8gent,~0 go to the
Roundup. This agent stated that he did not attend because he did not
want to go alone
countryside of east Tennessee with a group
of good 01' boys
that Rightmyer said he would
protect _ _ but
he would not attend an event
where -protection was necessary.A TF agent, stated that the only racist thing that he
recalled was a local deputy sheriff who used a black lawn jockey, with
a ring in its nose, to tie up his pet bull dog. He heard that someone
told Rightmyer about this and Rightmyer had it removed. No other
witnesses reported seeing a lawn jockey.
retired ATF agent, was elected as the first President of
the Roundup.
Exhibit 21 depicts the 6th Annual Good Q'Boy Roundup t-shirt.
1986:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 29
Number of Interviews conducted: 62
A TF agent
ported gunshots in the middle of the
night which were attributed by some, including Rightmyer, to a nowretired ATF agent, _~cknOwledged bringing his
weapon to the Rou~enied ever shooting his weapon. He
did admit that Rightmyer confiscated his weapon every year, returning
it upon his departure Sunday morning.
A Filipino civilian, a MOB who attended eight Roundups, stated that
he had -never been harassed or mistreated- at the Roundup. He also
stated that he considered himself a friend of Rightmyers and did not
consider him a racist.
said that as he walked by a car
An ATF employee,
he heard a
on a tape player called -My Wife Ran Off with a
he believed the car belonged to a police
Nigger. -
29
officer from Mississippi. A civilian also heard this song, but
could not be specific as to the year. He identified the artist as
David Allen Coe.
According to the 1986 invitation (Exhibit 22), the campsite for the
following year would be increased to accommodate 300 people.
"We will have a cutoff of 300; so get your registration form in early."
Exhibit 23 depicts the 7th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup T-shirt.
1987:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 29
Number of Interviews conducted: 55
Exhibit 24 depicts the 8th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt.
This year a USSS age
witnessed the Redneck of the
Year skit in which someone ate a whole fish. The dead fish had been
soaked in beer but was apparently uncooked. This incident was
depicted in the following year's official
(Exhibit 25).
One of those attendees was USSS agen
who won a
trophy for horseshoe throwing.
In 1987
Special Agent, USSS, won the Redneck of the
Year contest. Rightmyer indicated that_won the contest by
drinking motor oil, whiCh_ recalled was really honey and beer.
Rightmyer claimed that an unidentified woman asked him, "If you will
show your, talking about my penis, I will show my tits." As the
woman exposed her breasts, numerous attendees chanted, "show
your dick." Rightmyer stated that he dropped his "drawers and eased
up to the table, but my, I never exposed myself, left my T-shirt over
myself." As a result of this incident, the words "Don't Touch my
Duck" were placed on the t-shirt for the ninth annual Roundup (Exhibit 25).
1988:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 21
Number of Interviews conducted: 52
A sheriff of a local department stated that two Roundup attendees
were arrested by one of his deputies for Driving Under the Influence
and disorderly conduct. This sa
six
ei ht local
female law enforcement officers
30
A competitor of _ s t a t e d that
~atte~ng strippers
undup ca
.
~d some of those who were responsible for security
objected to the strippers' pre~ence by throwing them out. Then _
_
approached this competitor with the intention of renting
~cel of land to use for strippers, so that Roundup
attendees could visit them in an area a short distance from Ocoee
Outdoors. Whether this occurred or not is not known.
This year auctions began for wo
held to benefit an A TF a nt,
Rig
a
and other attendees brought articles to be
auctioned. These items included lawn tillers, a gun and new tires.
Rightmyer stated that an unidentified female offered to auction off a
-blow job- as part of this fund raiser. This was depicted in the 10th
Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt (Exhibit 26). Rightmyer recalled
raising $4,800 for this benefit.
During this year's Redn~ear contest there was a father/son
act where USSS agent _ _ _ smoked a cigarette in his belly
button. This act was awarded second place. The winner, according
to _
was a guy who bit the head off a live fish.
According to Rightmyer, in approximately 1988, as a result of police
officers shooting bottle rockets at each other and setting off a tear
gas grenade, he prohibited the use of fireworks at the Roundup.
Rightmyer indicated that the employees from the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation and the Johnson City, Tennessee, Police Department
were responsible for the misuse of fireworks at the Roundup.
1989:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 18
Number of Interviews conducted: 60
A -nigger checkpoint" sign and a KKK sodomy skit were both alleged
by Richard Hayward to have been seen at the 1989 Roundup.
However, no witnesses interviewed during this investigation saw a
racist sign or a racist skit prior to 1990.
U555 agent
was the Roundup Vice President of the Year
and President e next year. According to Rightmyer, the Vice
President became President of the Year the following year.
31
The auction of the year was for the purpose of raising money for the
American Cancer Society, according to Rightmyer.
1990:
Number of attendees: approximately 300
Number of Treasury attendees: 19
Number of Interviews conducted: 70
Two racial incidents occurred this year, one was a racist sign and the
other was a racist skit.
Racist Sign
The sign was first viewed by the public during a Washington, DC,
channel 7 newscast, the evening of July 11, 1995. The video which
incorporated the sign was subsequently provided by Hayward to DOJ
OIG, who subsequently provided a copy to OIG. Analysis of this
video revealed the following:
No attribution is provided on the videotape as to its origin, nor is the
camera operator identified by sight or sound during the 39-minute
duration of the tape. The tape primarily records white water rafting
by Roundup attendees on an unidentified river, followed by scenes of
white males wearing pink "Good 0' Boy Roundup" caps eating at
picnic tables and mingling and drinking near a Lite beer truck with
self-operated taps. All activities were filmed during one or more
sunny days and the campsite was identified by a sign as the
"Sugarloaf Campground."
Only four seconds of the tape reveal the racist "Nigger Checkpoint"
sign and no persons are seen or heard during those four seconds.
Immediately before and after those four seconds, attendees are seen
and heard walking around a portion of the campground. Taped music
is heard in the scene preceding the closeup view of the sign, but the
camera does not pan from the campsite to the tree bearing the sign;
rather, it appears the camera was possibly turned off before focusing
on the sign, then the camera was turned back on. No campsite
sounds are heard during this portion of the video, as were heard
before and after the four seconds. The only sound is possibly that of
an airplane flying overhead, which is also not heard before or after
this segment.
Following the closeup view of the sign, which pans above and below
the large ·check.point" sign, the camera reveals four more signs. Two
signs above and two signs below, for a total of five signs posted to a
32
tree, appear to be approximately one foot above the hood of a blue
Ford pickup truck, the license plate of which is not visible. A white
camper and a blue tent roof are visible behind the signs and the tree.
The two signs above the "checkpoint" sign are crudely drawn pictures
of a black face and a black silhouette, respectively. Both appear in a
red circle with a diagonal line through each circle. A silver bar-type
~bject appears to be vertically stuck in the signs. This is consistent
with the hatchet or axe some witnesses recalled seeing. The two
signs below the "checkpoint" sign appear to be unfolded flaps of the
same cardboard box on which all words and drawings appear. They
state, respectively, "Any Niggers In That Car??" and "-Field Dressed &
Sliced- 1 7¢ LB." All words and drawings are handwritten in black,
possibly with a magic marker, with the exception of the word "nigger"
which is written in red.
.
The signs appear to be written on an unfolded cardboard box and
essentially corroborate witness descriptions of the sign and its posting
on a tree. Different witnesses recalled different portions of the sign,
but its existence was confirmed at th~ Roundup in 1990 by those
who saw it. There is no indication in the tape, however, of the date
or time when this. sign was posted or where the tree is relative to the
check-in/registration area of the campsite. Below the racist signs is a
yellow flyer affixed to the tree which appears to be an ad for a local
riding stable, possibly Ocoee Riding Stable. An enhanced photograph
of the sign (Exhibit 27) was taken by the OIG from the video.
Interviews conducted during this investigation yielded descriptions of
the signs consistent with those seen in the video.
Interviews disclosed that a sign was posted on probably Thursday of
the 1990 Roundup, which was crudely handwritten on cardboard and
said "Nigger Checkpoint" and "'7¢ LB." This was described variously
as being adjacent to or up to 100 yards behind the registration table
set up at the entrance to the campground. Some witnesses also
reported seeing a profile of a black man with a line drawn through it in
red, as well as "Nigger check-in station-weigh in here."
Although it could not be proven who put up the sign, a local police
officer from Kentucky was identified as a suspect by others from his
department. This officer denied putting up the sign, although many
individuals believed the originators of the sign were officers from two
departments in Kentucky who were camped close to the tree on
which the sign was posted. Several people confirmed observing the
sign and stated that when Rightmyer was told about the sign,
Rightmyer ordered it taken down and it immediately was taken down.
33
A Treasury agent. USSS special agent
was President
of the Year in 1990 and in that capacity told peop
put up the
sign to take it down. Thirty people interviewed by the OIG
acknowledged seeing this sign. Of these 30 individuals, seven were
Treasury employees. Many people claimed to have told Rightmyer .
that they were offended by the sign and wanted it removed. All
agreed that it wasn't until Rightmyer ordered it taken down that it
was removed. Witnesses, including_ confirmed that Rightmyer
did not see the sign until he returned from golfing late that afternoon,
probably on Thursday. He recalled seeing the sign between 3pm and
5pm upon his return from a day of golfing.
Discrepancies remain relative to the length of time the sign was up
before being removed. Estimates range from 30 minutes to several
hours. No attempts were apparently made by the Roundup attendees
to identify" and remove the perpetrators of the sign incident.
Rightmyer did not order the identification or the removal of the
perpetrators, believing it was sufficient that the sign was removed. A
civilian arson investigator interviewed by DOJ OIG claimed to also
have seen the sign, but not until after- his arrival in the camp
sometime between 9pm and midnight. Another arson investigator
recalled that sometime before midnight he saw the sign, which both
investigators described as an unfolded cardboard box on a tree near
the campfire. Both watched someone, whom neither could identify,
tear the sign down and throw it in the fire.
Rightmyer reported that he saw the "nigger checkpoint" sign at the
1990 Roundup. He recalled the sign being about three feet wide.
Rightmyer stated that he ordered the sign be taken down as soon as
Ar
CID agent
it. He believes that
retired ATF age
and/or USSS
may have taken the sign down.
II
Rightmyer claimed that he did not attempt to investigate who put up
the sign and he still does not know who put up the sign. At the time,
Rightmyer stated that he "was not happy about it, and I really didn't
want to know who put up that thing at the time because I do have a
temper, and there wasn't any need for that sign to be up there, there
was no call for it being there." However, he recalled making a speech
after this incident advising the attendees that racist activities would
not be tolerated at the Roundup.
34
Racist Skit
One of the skit entries in the Redneck of the Year contest was
prepared and performed by members of two Kentucky police
departments and one civilian. The skit involved an individual who
walked onto the back of a flatbed truck, used this year by the
Roundup as a stage, in a makeshift klan robe and hood with an
individual in blackface who had a chain around his neck. There was
also a dog led on stage and a master of ceremonies who acted as the
slave dealer.
The klansman wanted to trade the slave for the dog but the dealer
said words to the effect of "why don't you see if he (the slave) can
suck dick first?" Whereupon the individual in blackface pretended to
perform oral sodomy on the klansman after the klansman reached
under his robe and pulled out a dildo. The dildo, which was a piece of
wood hollowed out to look like a penis, contained a can of whipped or
shaving cream inside it. When the klansman pretended to have an
orgasm, he turned toward the audience and sprayed the can of cream
on those closest to the stage. The klansman then walked off the
stage with the dog.
This skit lost to an individual renowned for being able to urinate over
his shoulder into a cup. He used a "dildo" which was pressurized to
urinate over his shoulder. This officer is retired from the Washington,
DC Metropolitan Police Department.
Interviews of those responsible for the skit confirmed the identities of
those participants in the skit and also those who assisted the
"klansman" officer in making his "dildo" and painting a civilian friend
of theirs with black shoe polish on his face and hands. The civilian
said he was recruited into the skit because the captain of the officer
who was supposed to be the slave told him just before the skit that
he didn't want any of his officers in the skit. The civilian stated that
he was very drunk when he agreed to participate and he has felt very
bad about it ever since.
, various individuals, including USSS agents
and _ ; and ATF agents_and
ight~the participants w~y
came off the stage and told them that type of activity was
unacceptable. Rightmyer stated during interview that he believed this
35
group meant to be ,funny and that perhaps they were trying to "outsouthern southerners" by doing a parody of the klan. Others stated
variously that the skit was offensive or meant to be funny but wasn't.
Rightmyer believed that several unidentified police officers from an
unknown police department in northern Kentucky performed the KKK
skit at the 1990 Roundup. Rightmyer indicated that he had no prior
knowledge of the theme or content of this skit. Once the skit began,
Rightmyer did not attempt to stop the skit from proceeding.
After the skit was completed, Rightmyer stated that he was upset and
he told the officers that, '" did not like it, did not appreciate it, and
they basically apologized for it." Although Rightmyer could have
forced these police officers to leave the Roundup, he said he did not
because they apologized for their action and it was their first
attendance at a Roundup. Rightmyer stated that he possessed no
knowledge that Federal law enforcement personnel participated in this
skit.
A "no racism" rule was not enacted after the 1990 KKK incident
because, according to Rightmyer, he believed it to be an isolated
incident which would not recur. He told the participants of the skit
that they had demonstrated unacceptable behavior and he did not feel
a rule was necessary to enforce that fact.
A local law enforcement officer attended the Roundup with a fellow
officer, who was African American. This officer stated he felt
uncomfortable because they received "stares" from the other
attendees. They only remained for five minutes. During this time, a
white male approached and asked "Is this the black section?" He
then apologized to the officers after he noticed that the second officer
was African American.
Another skit this year was performed by an individual who always
entered the Redneck of the Year contest and always lost, so he was
facetiously dubbed the "Emperor for Life" by Roundup attendees. He
typically did things such as defecating on stage, which he did this
year.
According to Rightmyer, Grumpy's, a local bar owned by the owner of
Ocoee Outdoors, became a private club for the Roundup attendees
this year when it was rented after hours by Rightmyer for a private
36
party. The Roundup attendees would bring beer to Grumpy'. where
they could legally consume it on the premises after midnight if It
became a private party and not an establishment open to the public.
Rightmyer observed Richard Hayward and another unidentified
individual (not with Hayward) using video cameras 8t the Roundup.
He confirmed Hayward's attendance also in 1991 and 1992.
Rightmyer commented that,
-when you are out like that and it is all men acting
like boy., sometimes you are gOing to do
something that is embarrassing to you if it was
ever seen by anybody else or relived by anyone
else. One of the rules was what went on there
stayed there, and that was so you could relax and
do what you wanted to do as long as you didn't
interfere with anyone else.·
As a result of complaints received, Rightmyer prohibited the use of
video cameras.
Exhibit 28 depicts the 11 th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt.
1991:
Number of attendees: 291
Number of Treasury attendeea: 28
Number ·of Interviews conducted: 73
Check-in became more ·formal, at the desire in particular of an Army
Clo
two were
over
numbers of non-invitees showing up and drinking free beer and eating
free food, which resulted the previous year in a beer and food
shortage for those who had paid in advance.
Wrlatbands in three color. were instituted to prevent the un.invited
from drawing their own beer from the tap on the beer truck and
gettrng free food. Although the truck was unmanned, someone from
the security committee was posted by the truck to check bands.
Bands were issued at check-in using the same categories of attendees
as previously identified by Rightmyer: Good 0' Boy, Guest and local
law enforcement.
stated that a drunk Individual came up to
A TF agent
his car at registration and said "This is a nigger checkpoint; any
37
niggers in that car?" This was also reported by two Maryland State
Police officers and two civilians; one from Atlanta, Georgia, and one
from Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This latter individual recalled the same
statement being made by "three or four males running the check
point." No witnesses were able to identify these individuals.
Richard~d was seen by 13 interviewees, including retired ATF
agents . . . . and Rightmyer, at the 1991 Roundup. He was
observea displaying. David Duke literature and attempting to distribute
Duke material. A Fort Lauderdale police officer observed Hayward
with a Duke banner and another Fort Lauderdale police officer saw
Hayward wearing a Duke t-shirt.
A Fort Lauderdale police officer participated in the Ugliest "Good 0'
Boy" contest, by wearing a pair of underwear on stage and chewing
tobacco. At one point during the skit, he gave the appearance of
defecating. He then reached into the seat of his underwear, withdrew
a small wad of chewing tobacco and placed it in his mouth, giving the
impression that he was eating feces.
According to the following year's invitation (Exhibit 29), the 1991
Roundup attendees raised $5500.00 for the American Cancer Society.
Exhibit 30 depicts the 12th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt.
1992:
Number of attendees: 341
Number of current Treasury attendees: 17
Number of interviews conducted: 68
The registration form for the 1992 Roundup (Exhibit 31) was changed
to include a liability release signature block on the bottom holding
Rightmyer harmless from any claims of injury or liability.
Racist Events
The same Fort Lauderdale, Florida police officer who participated in
the "Ugliest Good 0' Boy Contest" in 1991 entered the Redneck of
the Year contest this year. The police officer dressed as a farmer and
carried a watermelon on stage. He hit the melon ·with a baseball bat
until it broke. He then reached inside the watermelon and pulled out a
black doll. He held the doll in the air and said "I'm not guilty, I'm not
guilty." The officer admitted he had purchased a white doll at the
store and then painted it black. A number of sources believed this
skit related to the recent trial involving Rodney King. who was beaten
38
by Los Angeles police officers. Rightmyer stated that he saw this
skit. Rightmyer disputes the "not guilty" comment and he said that
the perpetrator said "it's a seed and. you gotta kill them while they're
young." Rightmyer stated that he was livid because this skit followed
a speech he had just made ten minutes before, stating that he "was
tired of hearing nigger, I was tired of being grossed out, and that I
expected a lot more than that and I wasn't going to -- I would pull you
off the stage if you do something wrong like that ...
After the police officer performed the watermelon skit, Rightmyer
said that he "was mad enough and they took him away from me, and
I didn't even want to talk to him, I was so damn mad, they knew, he
came and apologized to me the next day about it." Rightmyer did not
request this individual to leave the Roundup indicating that this "was
the first problem I had ever had out of him ...
Of the eleven individuals interviewed by the OIG who witnessed this
skit, only one Treasury agent, Rightmyer, said that he witnessed it.
Rightmyer believed, but did not see, that Richard Hayward was seen
distributing "David Duke handouts. " Separately, a David Duke poster
was seen on a motor home by one local police officer and one civilian.
Hayward was told by security to leave on instructions from
Rightmyer. A retired A TF agent, _
recalled seeing Duke
.Iiteratullillre
including bumper stickers and a Duke sign at the cooking
area.
recalled that he and an Army CID agent saw two
David uke stlC ers on the beer truck.
According to a Fort Lauderdale, Florida police officer, he saw
David Duke literature brought in to the campsite. Additionally,
according to a Kentucky police officer, a David Duke poster or banner
was auctioned off. However, all others who were interviewed who
saw the poster or banner said the poster was given or thrown away
and not auctioned off.
A July 1992 article in the publication NAAWP NEWS (Exhibit 32)
appeared regarding the Roundup. Rightmyer called Richard Hayward
and he (Hayward) admitted that he wrote the article for the National
Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP).
Rightmyer asked Hayward to make a "retraction, it was a lie, and I
didn't need that." Hayward then told Rightmyer that he wanted David
Duke to speak at a Roundup. Rightmyer replied, "not only no, hell
no.-
39
According to the above described article wrinen by Hayward, this
banner was auctioned off at the Roundup. Rightmyer claimed that the
David Duke banner was given to an unidentified Canadian by Hayward
and subsequently thrown into a dumpster at Grumpy's. In addition,
Rightmyer believed that Hayward showed up with David Duke
"handouts" and he was told to stop handing out this material.
Rightmyer believes that Hayward is a racist due to his association
with the David Duke material, his association with the NAAWP, and
his use of "white power" stickers. In addition, Rightmyer recalled
seeing Hayward in possession of a knife with a "KKK" insignia on the
handle.
There were several reports, including those by two DOJ agents, of a
small "no niggers'" sign on a stick in the ground on the road leading up
to the campsite, but outside the actual campground. It was described
as the size of legal paper on white cardboard with black letters. It
was reportedly removed a short time after it was seen, although no
time frames could be ascertained.
Rightmyer did not recall seeing or being told of a sign being positioned
at the registration area which said "nigger checkpoint" at the 1992
Roundup.
Exhibit 33 depicts the 13th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt.
1993:
Number of anendees: 349
Number of Treasury anendees: 24
Number of interviews conducted: 66
A Florida police officer saw Hayward come to the Roundup with a
Martin Luther King mask with a bullet hole in it and David Duke
posters taped to the windows of his car.
One person from DOJ claims to have seen a waiver form at check in
on the registration table which stated that no racism would be
tolerated. When she asked why it was there, she was told that the
previous year a David Duke type person had come and stirred up
trouble before being ejected. She said this waiver form had to be
signed, but others do not recall seeing the waiver or signing one. A
second DOJ agent said he recalled that the notice was a lener or
statement of purpose which every registrant had to read. He recalled
language to the effect of "the Roundup is a non-political event and
open to everyone." .
40
Rightmyer stated that he denied Hayward his request to campaign for
David Duke during any Roundups. Other witnesses corroborated
Rightmyer's statement that Hayward was not allowed to advocate
any political views.
Rightmyer instituted a rule indicating that the Roundup would not be
used to promote one's political affiliation; i.e., the Roundup is a
nonpolitical event. Rightmyer stated that this rule emerged as a result
of .Richard Hayward bringing a David Duke banner to the 1992
Roundup.
Rightmyer stated that the Roundup sponsored a raffle for the families
of the Waco victims. Rightmyer recalled that $ 1,700 was raised for
this benefit and that he wrote a letter to the recipient, the ATF
Retirees Association (Exhibit 14), detailing his fund-raising efforts.
Exhibit 34 depicts the 14th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt and
the commemorative t-shirt, reflecting the previous 14 years.
1994:
Number of attendees: 350
Number of Treasury attendees: 24
Number of interviews conducted: 75
_
an A TF agent, was asked by an unidentified male
~ that car?" at check-in. He also saw an unidentified
individual with a white hood with eye holes walking around.
According t o _ t h e hood appeared to be a pillowcase with eye
holes cut out~look like a KKK hood.
uses agent _
stated that Rightmyer made a public
announcement that he had invited several blacks who might be
attending. Two persons in the crowd said: "fuck them niggers."
Rightmyer said that racist comments would not be tolerated and he
wanted them identified so he could give their money back. According
to _the persons making this racist statement were never
identified.
A retired police officer from Alabama urinated in his pants as part of
the Redneck of the Year skit, according t o _ A DOJ special
agent also recalled seeing him defecate on StaQe(mring this skit. This
same officer used the word "nigger" as the master of ceremonies for
one of the Roundup events. Rightmyer stated that he admonished
him for the use of this racial epithet.
41 .
-
recalled a stripper dancing nude on a picnic table while
~man collected money for her.
Exhibit 35 depicts the 1994 invitation. Exhibit 36 depicts the 15th
Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt.
1995:
Number of attendees: approximately 325
Number of Treasury attendees: 24
Number of interviews conducted: 93
(Note: This year is the only one where actual sign-in sheets were
retained by Rightmyer and they reflect a total attendance of 437. The
325 reflected above indicates only those who were pre-registered.)
The cost for 1995, according to interviewees and the invitation, was
$75.00 for non-rafters and $100.00 for rafters. The cost included
four evening meals,- lunch on Saturday, a Roundupt-shirt, mug and
ballcap and all the beer you can drink (Exhibit 12).
Racist Events
The OIG identified three African Americans who attended this
Roundup. One local civilian went for a few hours and said that "he
didn't feel uncomfortable and everyone he met was very friendly to
him." The other two African Americans who attended were subjected
to racial harassment as described below.
_
an ATF agent, invited
African
~TF agent, to this year's
up.
Iso invited an
African American police officer to attend this oundup. When this
officer walked through the campground, several individuals yelled
"nigger" at him, which he then related to _
Around midnight,
~ent to the beer truck and several individuals said to him:
"Hope you're happy. ATF always manages to screw
something up. They screwed up this year's Roundup
by bringing , niggers' . II
_
exchanged several more words with this group. •was later
informed that the group consisted of four police officers, three from
Fort Lauderdale and one from South Alabama. After the altercation,
nd the African American police officer left the Roundup.
ft the next day.
42
Rightmyer recalled telling _ t h a t , while he attended the
Roundup, if he _
had any trouble,_ should let him
(Rightmyer) kno~ it. Rightmyer ex~that he t O l d _
this "because he _
had every right to be there and he was a
welcome guest a~d more right to be there than some of the
others did." According to Rightmyer, he told _
"that if anybody
did anything rather than him making it, aggravating It worse or making
a scene or letting a scene occur, find me."
According to Rightmyer, a retired police officer from Alabama,
addressed two African American law enforcement officers at the
1995 Roundup as " _ Bob" and "Whatever Bob." Rightmyer
stated that he appr~_after this incident and_told
Rightmyer that "he didn't pay attention to that old man."
After the above incident, at approximately 2:00 am, a North Carolina
officer was involved in an incident with the Fort Lauderdale officers.
Four of the officers came down with sticks and threatened to beat up
a group known as "the Young Guns." According to the North
Carolina officer, the Fort Lauderdale officers threatened to bust up the
stereo due to the loud music being played by the Young Guns. This
officer quoted one of the Fort Lauderdale officers as saying: "First
they let the goddamn niggers in, then they won't let us have
strippers; this place is going to shit." Rightmyer stated that he did
not become aware of the incident between _
and the Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, police officers until the ~fter the incident
(Friday) .. The next morning there was an Executive board meeting and
Rightmyer told the Fort Lauderdale officers that the black officers had
as much right to be in the camp as they did and if they didn't like it,
they could leave and get a refund.
Rightmyer advised that these police officers told him "we come all
this way, we drive 900 miles, we don't need to be around any
niggers." According to Rightmyer, he told them they had two
choices, "either you be Quiet about it, and if you don't like it -- you
leave. II Rightmyer identified these officers as three retired members
of the Fort Lauderdale police department plus a fourth unidentified
person. Later that day, Rightmyer learned that these officers had left
the campground. Witnesses stated that the four officers left by mid
morning Friday and did not return.
A civilian Roundup attendee said "Who let the niggers in?" _
and a local police officer heard the civilian make this comm~
Thursday evening, two local police officers heard an unidentified
43
retired Fort
that girl"
Ie police officer shout "Hey nigger get away from
ile he was talking to an exotic dancer.
A local police officer saw a bearded white male call a local African
American police officer a "nigger." This local police officer identified
the bearded white male as a civilian camping with the Fort Lauderdale
police officers. This was the same person that this local police officer
later saw on television supplying the videotape about the Roundup to
the NRA, although he did not know the name of the person so could
not confirm that it was Richard Hayward.
A DOJ agent saw "no niggers" spray painted on the front of a
portable toilet. This agent stated that Rightmyer had gonen someone
to clean it up. The civilian stated that when he picked up the toilets,
he saw a toilet with "no niggers" on it but that someone had put
masking tape over the words "no niggers." This same civilian also
saw another portable toilet with "whites only" spray painted on it.
Another civilian, who let 10 portable toilets to the Roundup, recalled
that one of the portable toilets had "whites only" spray painted on it.
This civilian stated that another toilet, had masking tape over some
writing, but that he could not remember what was wrinen under the
tape.
Rightmyer stated that racial epithets were wrinen on the portable
toilets within the campground. He confirmed that the words "whites
only" were wrinen on a portable toilet. Rightmyer had this inscription
painted over to prevent it from being seen. Rightmyer possessed no
knowledge as to who wrote these words on the toilet. Rightmyer did
not anempt to investigate who may have commined this act.
Other Eyents
As his award, the Redneck of the Year won a goat as his date for the
evening. According to Rightmyer, the Redneck of the Year was
"Pigman," who was called that because he roasted a pig the year
before.
Contacts made by the OIG with local police indicated only one report
of police activity at the Roundup. This incident concerned the theft of
a motorcycle from a Roundup anendee by a civilian. The civilian
thief, who later returned the motorcycle, is the same individual who
alleged and later recanted the rape story.
44
A Florida police officer, a MOB, saw Hayward and a white male,
believed to be a militia member, attempting to come into camp
without invitation. This police officer stated that Hayward attempted
to get wrist bands so that they could enter the campground.
Hayward did not get a wristband.
A local police officer recalled an incident in which a man she believed
to be a Canadian walked up to her and said "So, who's the cunt7".
She stated that this man's brother later apologized to her.
Rightmyer and all others interviewed by the OIG denied distributing or
seeing any "nigger hunting licenses" at the 1995 Roundup.
Special Agent,
Rightmyer received a letter from _
USCS, retired, in which he discu~ure with the
activities he observed at the Roundup (Exhibit 37). In reply to one of
_
claims concerning a "woman screaming and fighting to get
~ some Good 0' Boys," Rightmyer stated he investigated
this allegation and was unable to confirm this report. Rightmyer
received no other complaints, nor was this allegation made by any
other OIG interviewee.
Exhibit 38 depicts the 16th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup t-shirt.
1990-95:
A Kentucky police officer stated he recalled a simulated act of
bestiality. This police officer did not recall when it occurred, but
stated an unidentified male from Kentucky and an unidentified male
from Tennessee had a sheep. These two individuals stood behind the
sheep like they were having sex with it.
Skits and Other Activities
The Redneck of the Year contest was always held on Saturday night after the
traditional steak dinner and was the culmination of the Roundup. Rightmyer stated
that persons were nominated for Redneck of the Year and were expected to put on
skits. The purpose of the Redneck of the Year contest was to do something silly
or outrageous or the most gross. The Redneck of the Year was described by many
as the person who could ·gross the most people out." Examples of some of the
acts or skits performed over the years: singing an original song, telling an original
story, tobacco swapping mouth to mouth, and individuals pretending to be Sumo
wrestlers who defecated on stage.
45
TREASURY
PARTICIPATION
Although he did not have specific dates for these skits or activities, Rightmyer
described the following skits or activities as being performed at various Roundups:
An unidentified woman participated in a skit and took off her shirt. This
woman was not a Federal employee.
Two unidentified brothers from Canada performed a sumo wrestling skit.
Rightmyer indicated that part of the skit was for one of the wrestlers to
defecate on stage. According to Rightmyer, "whenever they were walking
off the stage. someone in the group had set aside a time where he would
holler at him to shit. and he shit on command on my stage, which I didn't
like."
A retired Alabama police officer and another Alabama police officer,
swapped chewing tobacco during a skit.
A civilian performed a skit where he pretended to take excrement from the
back of his pants and placed it in his mouth. Rightmyer stated that the
person actually ate a "Baby Ruth" candy bar.
Several attendees would form a circle and urinate as Rightmyer explained
"they would cross streams, just their pees crossed ...
EXTENT OF TREASURY PARTICIPATION
As part of this review, we queried all law enforcement personnel in the Treasury
Law Enforcement Bureaus (33,000) to identify those who attended or were invited
to the Roundups (Exhibit 39). Our analysis identified that 125 current Treasury
personnel have attended throughout the years (Exhibit 40). It should be noted that
these statistics do not include retired Treasury employees who may have attended
a Roundup.
Throughout the years of the Roundup, the majority of Treasury law Enforcement
personnel in attendance worked in the southeastern region of the United States.
Relatively few came from other parts of the United States. As the number of
Roundup attendees increased significantly each year. the proportion of attendees
who were Treasury employees decreased. In 1980. the first year of the Roundup,
current Treasury employees were one-third of the 58 people in attendance. By
1995, twenty-four of the 325 attendees were current Treasury employees
(Exhibits 41 and 42).
More than half of the current Treasury employees who attended a Roundup
attended only once. Of the 125 current Treasury employees who attended at least
one Roundup, about half (64) worked for ATF. Personnel from other bureaus also
46
attended: 30 USSS, 15 IRS, 13 uses and three FLETC employees. While initially
the Roundups were primarily attended by ATF employees, the number of USSS
attendees equalled or exceeded the ATF personnel in 1983, 1988, 1993 and 1995
(Exhibits 43, 44 and 45).
We conducted a leave analysis of the 32 current Treasury employees who
attended a Roundup in 1993, 1994 and 1995. We did not find a pattern of leave
abuse. Of the agents who attended the Roundup during duty hours, all except
three took annual leave. uses agent
mitted a leave slip for 16
hours sick leave for the 1994 Roundup. This particular incident will be referred to
uses for appropriate action.
TF agent, initially failed to take
8 hours of annual leave for May 17, 1995, which was later corrected prior to the
initiation of the investigation. The third agent, _
ATF, took 8 hours
of sick leave instead of 8 hours of annual on May 17, 1995. Both agents
corrected this discrepancy prior to the initiation of the OIG investigation.
Administrative action was taken by management relative to the two ATF agents.
Leave was verified from the approved leave slips and compared to the Memoranda
of Interview. Three agents did not submit leave slips because they only attended
on the weekend or at night, after duty hours.
Our investigation disclosed that, with one exception, no government cars were
used to attend the Roundups. The one exception occurred in 1991, when three
USSS agents,
and
drove a government vehicle to
the Roundup.
se agents were assign
to
and stated that when
agents go on protection
details only government vehicles are permitted because the agents are on call 24
hours a day.
Of the 125 Treasury employees who attended a Roundup, 15 witnessed one or
more racial incidents (Exhibit 46). This exhibit lists these 15 employees
alphabetically by bureau, together with a description of what they witnessed,
when they witnessed such incidents and their responses to those incidents.-· The
incidents witnessed by Treasury employees were the checkpoint sign and the KKK
skit in 1990, the watermelon skit in 1992, the racial t-shirts seen during various
years, the vehicle checkpoints in 1991 and 1994 when someone asked" Any
niggers in that car?" and the confrontation of A TF agent
nd
Fort Lauderdale police officers over the attendance by ATF agent
and a second African American police officer. Other incidents not captured in
table were witnessed by non-Treasury employees.
In summary, all but two of these employees returned the following year, with the
exception of ATF agent~who only attended in 1995.
47
Treasury Retiree Attendance at the Roundups
Twenty five Treasury retirees, including Rightmyer, were interviewed to obtain
their knowledge of the Roundup. Of those, 17 attended one or more Roundups
and none of those. reported witnessing anything of significance prior to 1990.
Seven of the seventeen retirees who attended a Roundup witnessed the 1990
"checkpoint" sign. Five of the retirees were MOB or REX members. A table
(Exhibit 47) lists these retirees, identified alphabetically by bureau, their last duty
station, years of attendance and their experiences.
Minority Attendance at the Roundups
Almost all Roundup attendees were white males. Interviews were conducted of
26 minorities who attended one or more Roundups. This number includes sixteen
women (3 IRS, 1 ATF, 1 DEA, 1 USPS, 10 civilian or local law enforcement), three
African Americans, three Native Americans, two Hispanics and two Filipinos.
Many attendees stated that they saw various other minorities through their years
of attendance. However, as described earlier in our methodology, if we could not
specifically identify them by name nor confirm their actual attendance, we did not
include these unnamed individuals as attendees. One additional African American
was identified by name as attending for five minutes, but this was not
corroborated.
ATF could not provide records relative to African American agents hired prior to
1982, nor their duty stations between 1982 and 1985. But in 1982, to provide a
historical perspective relative to the presence of minorities by ATF, there were 30
African American agents out of a universe of 1,283 total ATF -a ents. The first
African American agent was hired by ATF in 1978,
_
In 1995, A TF had 186 African American agents
a
~USSS agent _ s t a t e d that he was an ATF agent between 1971 and
1976 in the Southea~ which he recalled comprised approximately 500
agents; all white males.
Rightmyer stated that he personally invited several blacks and minorities to the
Roundups through the years. Rightmyer believed that ATF "didn't start hiring
ones
blacks in Tennessee till maybe '84, as I remember, or '83, '84, '85. And
that were hired
hired in Mem his and N hvill. "
myer was
oxv
e first time an
African American -agent was assigned to an office where he (Rightmyer) worked
was in Greenville, South Carolina, where he transferred to in 1990. Rightmyer
as this African American ATF agent.
identified
48
Rightmyer related that he vited several African Americans to the Roundups over
Special Agent, ATF
Special
the years as follows:
Agent, ATF;
ATF (deceased)
ial
Agent, IRSSpecial Agent, ATF, r .... PJr ... ,..
Special Agent, A
ied being invited. In addition, two
Americans from state or
I law enforcement were invited by Rightmyer.
Rightmyer advised in 1985 he invited _
after ~told Rightmyer that
the Roundup was the "Klan of the AT~rding ~tmyer, this comment
by _
made him (Rightmyer) begin to think, "well, if that is what they are
thin~hen I need to make some change.
s" .
Accordin
..
to Rightmyer, as a result
of his conversation with _
he invited
nd the 1985 ATF new
agent class, which inclu~ to eight bla
.
However, he qualified this invitation to mean that the new agents could attend
only after they completed their probation year. Rightmyer reiterated that no one in
the class was excluded and there was no need to receive a personal written
invitation to attend the Roundup. Rightmyer stated that _
an
African American Special Agent, ATF, was a member of ~new agents
class and was verbally invited to attend the Roundup. _recently denied
having been invited by Rightmyer.
nts who were invited to attend a
and
Invited but did
The OIG identified
Roundup:
These agents gave the following reasons for not attending the Roundup:
_ s t a t e d that he did not attend because he did not want to
the countryside of east Tennessee with a group of good 01'
recalfed that Rightmyer- said he would pr.otect him, but
would not
attend an event where "protection was necessary."
d that he did not
ncially strapped."
go because he was a new agent at the time and was
_ s t a t e d that he did not go because he did not have the time nor the
~_
did not attend because she "did not want to ~o to Ten~essee just
for a pig ~
did not attend because he "had family commItments
which took priority.
did not attend because "of the innuendos that I
heard from black as we
ite agents." He also formed an impression that the
Roundup was a "Red Neck" atmosphere.
49
MANAGEMENT
KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROUNDUP
As part of this investigation, OIG sought to ascertain if Treasury managers were
aware of the Roundup and what that awareness was and what actions, if any,
they had taken in light of their awareness.
The ATF management had the most widespread awareness of the Roundup.
Before the appearance of the Washington Times article, dated July 11, 1995,
ATF's Office of Chief Counsel had received one allegation concerning the Roundup.
In addition, information was received by _
in Birmingham, Alabama, which
led to the initiation of a preliminary inquiry by ATF.
Results of the Query
In order to determine management's awareness of the Roundup, a query was
conducted of current Treasury Department managers (GS-15 and above). The OIG
queried 1, 1 35 managers from the law enforcement areas within the Department.
These managers were asked the following questions:
1.
Prior to July 11, 1995, when the meqia coverage first
began, were you aware of the "Good 0' Boy Roundup,"
whether or not you knew of it by that exact name?
2.
If so, when did you first become aware of it?
3.
What was your pOSition then and what had you heard or
learned of the event?
The following chart summarizes the responses from 1,135 managers:
Bureau or Office
Managers Queried
Positive Responses
Customs
281
3
IRS (Criminal Investigations)
106
4
27
1
IRS (Office of Chief
Counsel)
306
o
USSS
175
16
ATF
137
71
IRS (Inspections)
50
FLETC
OIG
FinCEN
27
5
7
o
14
o
OGC (Counsel to
Law Enforcement)
Total:
1,135
107
The OIG interviewed aU 107 managers who responded positively to the query. In
addition, the OIG interviewed 11 other lower level or retired managers identified
during the investigation. As a result of these interviews, a total of 118 managers
indicated that they had knowledge of the Roundup prior to the media reports which
began on July 11, 1995.
Of the 118 managers who had knowledge of the Roundup prior to July 11, 1995,
, 2 had first-hand knowledge of the event, since they had actually attended one or
more Roundups. Half of the managers who attended went once; most also went
before 1990. These 12 managers stated that they did not witness any racial
events (Exhibit 48). Further, they stated that they did not witness any other
inappropriate or illegal actions at any of the Roundups they attended.
The remaining 106 managers stated that they had heard of the Roundup prior to
July 11, 1995, but did not attend a Roundup and, therefore, did not have any
direct knowledge (Exhibit 49). These managers largely believed that the Roundup
was a law enforcement gathering with white water rafting and camping.
Sixteen of the 106 managers who stated that they had not attended a Roundup
were minority managers (Exhibit SOt.
Management Knowledge of Roundup Prior to July 11, 1995
Prior to July 11, 1995, ATF's Office of Chief Cou
regarding the Roundup.
ae[)osition that he provided to
mentioned the Roundup in a
in connection with the
Assistant United States Attorney
. In addition, information
African American agents class a
which led to the initiation of a
was received by
preliminary inquiry
Concernin~ mention of the Roundup in his January 1995 deposition,
although he never attended a Roundup'-described it as a white's only
51
event to whic~ no African Americans. were invited. In his deposition,_ also
alleged that Rightmyer used ATF stationery to send out invitations to the Roundup.
ATF, the attorney
reviewed the class action suit and was present during
deposition,
did not take action on the Roundup information supplied by
. According
:~. duri~g
depositi.on, he mentioned t~e Ro
up by saying that
It a a whites
event to whIch no blacks were Invited.· _
also
ed that Rightmyer had used ATF stationery to send out Roundup invitations.
further recalled that the term wGood 0' Boy· had a negative connotation to
_
stated that she did not report
allegations regarding the Roundu
anyone in the Treasury Department for three reasons. First, she believed
was mistaken relative to Rightmyer's use of A TF stationery for the Roun up
because she had p r knowled e of an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaint by
in w h i C h _ alleged disparate
treatment by
peclfically,
was disciplined for the use of
government stationery, he alleged that
r received a lighter punishment for
committing the same infraction. _attached to his EEO complaint a copy of
the letterhead Rightmyer used to promote a condominium development, which did
not mention the Roundup.
The second reason provided b y . for not reportin
allegations was
the general nature of his allegation, quoted above. Th
said the
deposition was not the first time she had heard of the Roun up. In 1985, she first
heard of the Roundup f r o m _ , an ATF counsel in Atlanta. She heard
nothing negative from _aoefbecause she considered him a good family man
she did not have any reason to think acts of racism occurred at the Roundup.
statement to the OIG that-'would have the
As the result of
letterhead Roundup i n t o WhiCh_ refer~ deposition'was contacted by the OIG duri"ng this investlgation._confirmed that
Rightmyer was promoting a real estate developmen~ssee, not the
Roundup, through the use of government letterhead; _ a n d _provided
copies of letters sent by Rightmyer which invited the partIcIpants o~ATFsponsored conference to visit vacation property in the area.
was also
interviewed by the OIG and confirmed his attendance at four
19805. _
stated he was unaware of any racial incidents.
_confirmed tha~ mentioned the Roundup, asserting that no
~mericans were ~ut he alleged no specific acts of racism. She did
not report his allegation further because
gation was so limited and
52
he had no idea of what actually happened at any Roundup.
that ~ave her no reason to think that there was a d
to the event.
further
Washington, D advi
of an Internet message
"Good 0' Boy Roundup" (Exhibit 51).
109 to _ _ _ told him that this Internet message on the Roundup
contained allegations orracial misconduct by ATF and other law enforcement
officials attending the function. _advised ~axed him a copy of this
Internet message.
I
I
During this telephone conversation,_ advised-' that he _ _ was not
aware of any agents from the Nashville, Tennessee, Field Division ~d
SubseQue
1 95, he learned from
ATF,
that ATF Special Agents
ndup.
Also, on June 2, 1995, the Nashville Field Office r.eceived a fax from the ATF
Birmingham, Alabama, Field Division, which contained a copy of the Gadsden
Minutemen Newsletter with additional articles regarding the Roundup (Exhibit 52).
_
stated that this fax was sent
ATF, Birmingham,
the fax
ments were also
Alabama. According to _
sent from the Birminghariil!ieid Division t o _ Internal Affairs, Intelligence
Division, and the local FBI SAC office._ stated that he reviewed this material
on June 5, 1995.
On June 12,1995,_ met with ATF agents_an~. B o t h _
~n~_confirmed·i!lat'hey attended. the ~9~5 Roundup and th.at unide~
Indlv~s) made racial slurs ab0il!t bringing"
an African American, to
the Roundup. Upon questioning,
and
seeing any signs of a
0
told ~hat he had heard
racist nature at the 1995 Roundup.
of signs of a racist nature being exhibited at past
undupr,-out'that he _
had never personally observed such a sign(s).
Subsequently
reported to Headquarters this information regarding_
and _a~nce at the 1995 Roundup. However, _ s a i d that he did
not ~ote of this call, but believed that
on travel status or on
annual leave, so he reported the information to
t
Criminal En
ment Division, ATF,
as ington,
nar _
ad~ise.d that nei~
_
requested that he initiate any nquiry or investigation regardang IS matter.
I
_
53
_
could not recall when or i f _ t o l d him that A g e n t s - ' o r _
were Involved in a racial incident a'ttheT995 Roundup _
recalled faxing the above described Internet message t~on or about
~6, 1995. _ a l s o stated that he and _talked a~e message
and the Good O~oundup._advised that he did not direct
or
anyone to initiate any type of a~ res
to this document.
lated
that he also provided this information
Office of Ins
, on
or about June 2, 1995.
_
ATF, Washington, DC,
at
me aware
the Internet message and Gadsden Minutemen
Newsletter on or about June 2, 1995, when he received a fax from the ATF office
in Birmingham, Alabama. _ _ corroborated that_had provided a copy
of the Internet message to the Office of Inspection, ATF,'Washington, DC.
elieved that he provided a co
of the
ATF.
dvised that he received a copy of the Gadsden Minutemen Newslener
Southeast Office of Inspection, in June 1995
(Exhi
ec
an investigation based upon the lack
of credibility of the source information. Also, according to _ o n l y
Rightmyer, a retired ATF agent, was identified in the newsl~ere was no
prelim,.·nar
evidence that ATF agents organized or publicized the Roundup within
ATF.
memorialized this information in a Memorandum to the File dated
also stated that he was unaware of any
June 8, 199 (Exhibit 54).
investigatory efforts made by
in Nashville, Tennessee.
reported that during a SAIC conference beginning the week of July 10, 1995,
gaw, Director, ATF, requested additional information on the Roundup as a
article, dated July 11 1995. At
time,
result of the
adv
at they were aware
the
existence 0
Roundup. Immediately after the appearance of this article, ATF
initiated an investigation to determine ATF participation and conduct at the
Roundup.
Magaw advised that he had no personal knowledge of the Roundup until the
appearance of the above mentioned Washington Times article on July 11, 1995.
However, as the Director of ATF, he took responsibility for whatever ATF
management knew of the Roundup prior to July 11, 1995. In addition, Magaw
54
attributed any early public statements he may have made on the Roundup to facts
presented to him as a result of preliminary information which may not have been
completely verified.
Allegations Against Rightmyer
The OIG interviewed _
one of the minority managers, at length
were racist events and he believed that
Rightmyer was a racist. _stated that he had not been invited to a Roundup,
had not seen a flyer announcing this event, nor did he attend a Roundup.
because_state~unduPs
invited to attend a Roundu
From 1989 to 1991,
re
he first learned of
sam
9 and 1991. In addition
myer indicated that he (Rightmyer) invited_ to
_
alleged that in 1988, Rightmyer referred tq _
as
statea that he counselled Rightmyer on this issue a~se
accept such treatment from Rightmyer.
word
this matter and determined t h a t _ has used
escribe himself and, at one point in time, used the
vanity license plates for his personal vehicle.
vised that some of his co:-workers at A TF learned of his nickname and
_confirmed that Rightmyer used the word
call him
to refer to him. T~~ did not consider the use of the word
to be a racial slur by Rightmyer.
In 1985,
The Nashville office
supervis
C office n Knoxville, Tennessee. Rig
r was the RAC in
Knoxville, Tennessee, until 1990. _
stated that he first met Rightmyer at an
ATF training session in 1983 to 1 ~ccording to _
during this training
session he became aware of Rightmyer's racist attitu~rd African Americans.
_
indicated that Rightmyer was telling ethnic jokes to belittle African
.
~ans and _
informed Rightmyer that he ~ould not tolerate It.
55
will be a cold day in hell before he would work for a nigger."
~old him, "you know the way he (Rightmyer) is."
~ication of Rightmyer's racist attitude.
stated that
nterpreted this
As part of this investigation,
mentioned conversation.
Ri ht
and never had any
y staff members in
In addition, _ w a s interviewed a
by Ri
As
lIeged that he heard that
attended the Roundup. In fa
eived an award at the Round
selected "Good 0' Boy of
the ear.
Roundup attendees reported the presence o f _ or
_
at the Roundup. Further, in a July 20, 1995, lette~ Hatch
~g his alleged attendance,~tated that the employee that reported
this was "either mistaken or Iying~it 55).
According to Rightmyer, in 1985, both he and
_
During this time frame, Rightmyer stated that a bunch of staff were over
at the student center after hours teasing each other, I am teasing
hard.
made the statement to me, you had better watch
and in front of six people I said,
u, and that is a quote, unquote.
and as he said, I brought him a cartoon, a
e ca
was out of Playboy magazine, I believe, I
put the date on it, July 7. He laughed about it, I laughed about it." Rightmyer
provided the cartoon (Exhibit 56).
Rightmyer denied telling _
in t~e FLe,;C .student cente~ in 1985 "It will be a
~y in hell before I work for a nigger.
~Ightmye~ continued to say that .
_ i s "one of the two racists I ever met In my entire career I have wore (SIC) a
badge. He is one of the biggest racists I have ever met, and I think anybody who
ever worked around him will tell you the truth.
II
56
STATE AND LOCAL
INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS
ted that he received a
Office 0 nsp
on,
, _
received a complaint concernin~ng ATF
government franked envelopes for personal use. An OIG review of
this complaint determined that the allegation against Rightmyer did not concern
Rightmyer's use of ATF stationery and government franked envelopes to promote
the Roundup.
further advised that he never reported these incidents to ATF management
_
because "everyone" in ATF management was aware of the activities that took
place at the Roundup. He believed that tie would be ostracized and his career
would have ended if he had reponed these incidents to A TF management. He
added that A TF management consisted of all white males who were aware of the
event.
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCIES
Investigative reports were reviewed from those state and local law enforcement
agencies whose officers had been identified as attendees at a Roundup. The
following law enforcement agencies provided information developed during their
investigations: Maryland State Police; Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police
Department; Tennessee Bureau of Investigation; Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
Hamilton Provincial Police (Canada); York Provincial Police (Canada); Bradley
County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department; and Shelby County, Tennessee,
Sheriff's Department.
A summary of the investigative findings for the above mentioned agencies follows:
1)
Maryland State Police:
Five officers with the Maryland State Police attended the Roundup in 1989
or 1990. Two of those officers recalled seeing the "No niggers allowed"
sign when they arrived. They also recalled, upon arriving at the Roundup,
that an unidentified male approached their vehicle and asked them "any
niggers in that car?"
Administrative action against those officers who attended, if any, is not
known by the OIG as Maryland State Police declined to release that
information.
57
2)
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department:
An Office of Internal Affairs investigation by the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Police Department identified four active police officers from
their department as having attended the Roundups in the 1990s. These
officers, as well as several retired police officers, recalled seeing the "nigger
checkpoint" sign in 1990. One of these officers was confirmed to have
urinated in front of a crowd during the 1991 Roundup.
The Office of Internal Affairs cited a current officer who recalled seeing this
activity performed but failed to take any action to prevent it. No action was
taken against the urinating officer because he retired in 1992. No action
was recommended against the other three current officers. Two officers
received verbal counseling and all officers in attendance received a letter of
admonishment.
3)
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation:
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) identified 12 employees (police
officers as well as administrative personnel) who attended one or more
Roundups from 1980 to 1995. Of these 12 employees, two saw
O.J. Simpson t-shirts being sold at the Roundup. The TBI investigation
revealed no further knowledge of racial incidents or illegal behavior.
No action is planned against those employees in attendance.
4)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) identified five police officers
who attended the Roundup(s) during the 1990s. The RCMP officers
interviewed indicated that they did not observe any racist acts while
attending the Roundup.
The RCMP has closed its case on this matter.
5)
Hamilton Provincial Police (Canada):
The Hamilton Provincial Police identified and interviewed eight police officers
who attended the Roundup(s) during the late 1980s and the 1990s. A
review of the redacted interviews disclosed that in 1990 two police officers
witnessed the KKK skit at the Roundup. Also in 1990, one police officer
saw a "lawn ornament - the type with a black boy. Near this lawn ornament
was a red circle with a line through it."
58
In 1995, another police officer overheard "one officer from Birmingham,
Alabama make a derogatory remark against a black officer." This same
officer also saw the O.J. Simpson t-shirt, which was described as a
"stickman figure of a hangman."
No action is planned against those officers in attendance.
6)
York Provincial Police (Canada):
The York Provincial Police identified and interviewed seven police officers
who attended Roundup(s) in the past. The statements they received from
their officers indicated that "no racial incidents were observed" nor were
they aware of any that took place."
No action is planned against those officers in attendance.
7)
Bradley County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department:
The Bradley County Sheriff's Department identified ten police officers who
attended. the Roundup(s) during the 1990s. ,In 1995, one officer reported
hearing an unidentified person call a local African American police officer a
"nigger." That same year, another officer saw the 0 .J. Simpson t-shirt. He
also heard an unidentified male, whom he believed to be from Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, yelling at _ " h e y nigger, get away from that white
girl. "
In 1995, a third officer saw the O.J. Simpson t-shirt and a t-shirt "with
black males on the hood of a car bent over the hood in handcuffs." This
officer, a female, also related that strippers at the Roundup would go into
the restrooms and invite several unidentified men to go with them. Officers
from this department believed that the strippers performed sexual acts in the
restrooms, but they did not know whether the strippers received
compensation for performing these alleged sexual acts.
This same female officer stated that on several occasions during her stay at
the Roundup she was addressed in degrading sexual tones. She reported
that while going to the restroom, unidentified men would try to go into the
restroom with her. This was confirmed by another officer, who also recalled
that this female officer was approached by an unidentified Canadian who
asked "who's the cunt7".
In 1995, another officer saw a t-shirt with the letters N-A-A-W-P written on
it. He was told that the letters meant "National Association for the
Advancement of White Policemen."
59
All of the officers in attendance were given verbal counseling. Five officers
in supervisory pOSitions were given ·stricter· warnings for failure to take
action.
.
8)
Shelby County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department:
Shelby County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department advised that five of their
deputies attended the Roundup(s) during the 1980s and 1990s. According
to the records made available to the OIG, only one deputy observed anything
of a racial nature at the Roundup, and he stated that at the 1995 Roundup
he observed O.J. Simpson t-shirts being sold.
No action is currently planned against those officers in attendance.
Although investigative reports were not received from the following police
departments, the OIG received information relative to administrative action taken
against their employees:
9)
Boone County Police Department, Flor.ence, Kentucky, advised that two
police officers in attendance in 1990 retired, two officers resigned and one
was suspended for five days without pay. Two other officers were
exonerated for their part in the racial incidents of 1990. A disciplinary
hearing into the activities of the 1990 KKK "klansman" resulted in the
following actions: he was demoted to the rank of Police Officer 1, he was
suspended for six months without pay, he received a letter of reprimand;
and, he was barred from applying for a promotion for two years.
10)
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Police Department advised that they did not initiate
any investigation into the activities of their officers at the Roundup(s). They
further advised the OIG that no action is warranted against their employees
since their attendance occurred while in an off-duty status.
60
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
Number
Description
1.
Washington Times article reporting racist
activity at the Roundup, July 11, 1995
2.
Copy of computer printout of 1995 Roundup
invitation and registration forms, daily event
schedule for May 15-20, 1995, the golf
schedule and pre-registration data
3.
Press release by Secretary of the Treasury,
July 1', 1995
4.
Letter by Senator Orrin Hatch, providing
several affidavits to the Inspector General,
July 21, 1995
5.
Letter by Harol~' Stockburger, founder of the
American Patriot Federation, July 20, 1995
6.
Redacted Affidavit, prepared by
Stockburger's confidential source, describing
an event at Grumpy's, July 20, 1995
7.
Redacted Affidavit, prepared by
Stockburger's confidential source, describing
events surrounding the Roundup,
July 20, 1995
8.
Redacted Affidavit, prepared by
Stockburger's confidential source (later
identified as Richard Hayward), describing
events surrounding the Roundup,
July 20, 1995
9.
Photographs depicting Pump Station #3
and picnic grounds at original Roundup site
61
10.
Photographs depicting the entrance and
surrounding campground area at the 1984
through '995 Roundup site
11.
Photocopy of 1984 Good a'Boy
Roundup invitation inviting "men and
teenage males only"
12.
Photocopy of 1995 Good O'Boy
Roundup invitation reflecting Rules
13.
Photocopy of 1993 Good a'Boy
Roundup invitation reflecting "we are not
political and we will not be"
14.
15.
Photographs of t-shirts depicting -Boyz on
Hood'"
16.
New York Times article detailing the
interview of Hayward, August 27, 1995
17.
Photocopy of an NRA "Election Alert"
18.
ATF Director's Notes, July 1980 edition,
announcing the 1981 Roundup event
19.
Photocopy of the first official Roundup
t-shirt (1983)
20.
Photocopy of 50. Annual Good a/Boy
Roundup t-shirt (1984)
21.
Photocopy of 60. Annual Good 0 'Boy
Roundup t-shirt {1985}
22.
Photocopy of 1986 Good O'Boy
Roundup invitation
62
23.
Photocopy of 7'1tt Annual Good O'Boy
Roundup t-shirt (1986)
24.
Photocopy of S'ltt Annual Good O'Boy
Roundup t-shirt (1987)
25.
Photocopy of 9 th Annual Good O'Boy
Roundup t-shirt with "Don't Touch My
Duck" logo (1988)
26.
Photocopy of 10'ltt Annual Good O'Boy
Roundup t-shirt (1989)
27.
Photograph depicting a cardboard sign with
the words "Nigger Check Point"
28.
Photocopy of 11 'Itt Annual Good O'Boy
Roundup t-shirt with "Where The Hell is
Ocoee, Tennessee?" logo (1990)
29.
Photocopy of 1992 Good O'Boy
Roundup invitation
30.
Photocopy of 12th Annual Good O'Boy
Roundup t-shirt with "Kick Butt" logo (1991)
31.
Photocopy of 1992 Good O'Boy
Roundup registration form with liability
clause
32.
Photocopy of article in NAAWP NEWS,
July 1992
33.
Photocopy of 13'1tt Annual Good O'Soy
Roundup t-shirt (1992)
34.
Photocopy of 14'1tt Annual Good O/Boy
Roundup t-shirt (1993) and photocopy of
1993 commemorative t-shirt depicting logos
from all previous years
35.
Photocopy of 1994 Good O'Boy
Roundup invitation
63
36.
Photocopy of 15th Annual Good O/Boy
Roundup t-shirt (19941
37.
Photocopy of letter from
Gene Rightmyer requesting his name
removed from the membership list,
May' 22, 1995
I
38.
Photocopy of 16th Annual Good O'Soy
Roundup t-shirt (1995)
39.
Chart depicting Treasury Law Enforcement
Personnel Surveyed
40.
Table depicting Treasury Employees who
attended the Good O'Boy Roundup
41.
Chart depicting Treasury Roundup
Attendees by Year
42.
Chart depicting Treasury Attendees by
Bureau
43.
Table depicting Treasury Attendance by
Bureau
44.
Chart depicting Roundup Attendance by
Current Treasury Personnel
45.
Chart depicting Frequency of Roundup
Attendance by Current Treasury Personnel
46.
Chart depicting Racial Incidents
Witnessed by Treasury employees at
Roundup events
47.
Table depicting interviews of retired
Treasury employees
48.
Table depicting GS-l 5 Managers who
attended Roundup events
49.
Table depicting Treasury management
interviews
64
50.
Table depicting Treasury minority
management interviews
51.
Internet message regarding the Good Q'Soy
Roundup, May 19, 1995
52.
Photocopy of Gadsden Minutemen
Newsletter, June 1995, with additional
articles regarding the Roundup
53.
n
54.
55.
10tlOC()QV
of Memo to File from
on June 8, 1995
~tterfrom
_ t o Senator Hatch,
July 20, 1995 ,
56.
Photocopy of ·Cold day in Hell· cartoon,
July 7, 1985
65
EXHIBITS 1 THRU 5
JBasfJinRtun ~1D1£S •
•
,4 {
TUESDAY. JULY II. 1995
Racist ways die hard at lawmen's retreat
.Annual"Good 0" Boys Roundup cited as evidence of "Klan attitude" at ATF
".
By __
JerryiCITOI,...
Seoer
ocua.
'Im'~ - ':'~ey're trYiDI
10 toOl: dolt.." !be racist aappinp
of ~ "C~ o· Bops R.ouDdup"
bere in me 1&'4Iessee biDs east of
Cbartanoop. wbere buDdreds of
federal. state and local lawenfon:emeat offic:crs ptber e9IrT
StJr'IDI to l.er otf scam.
Th~ was a 1« to tQae dDwn.
Gone. far exaaq,Je. are IDUIY of
the c::rude siIDS that ooce g:reeud
arriviDI offic:ers. lilre tbis one:
"Nigger c:beCk poim."
The "Good O' Bays R.ouDclulJ" is
organized by acearsoftbe Bureau
of Al~ 1bbacmaDd F'trearmS.
and it was l1eId ~ year OIl May
1bdd ~ adiDI ageDt in
dlar'leof r:be GreeImlle offIce. de-
diDed c:r!II'!De!!f. refa rial iDqqir.
ies 1D me KrF ~ office in
CbutIIxm. N.c.
Setaal KrF
aaeaa
ill GreeD-
aware of the
ftII"wt'lP. aDd darizII iml:rviews
Uw:r expz es:wd CIXIcenl aDd disviDe. bet
$C OC:; 1IIIft
III8f CMr' tile IIIIIUa! swat.
-t
bage IIICWer'
a!leaded. nor
WIIlUId I." said cae qcm. addiDa
dial . . aDd adIets IaIew about the
racist activit:ies ad felt me evatt
reflec:DId poorly OIl me q~
-I am DDt sarpri.sed about tbe
sips fir me adler acriviI:ies, aad
wbedlertbe racism is 0W!!'t or subde. it is WI'OII2g,'" Slid aDOtbe!' KrF
official. ..t c:riDIe OIl bebalt of me
18-20.
Also gone tbis year was the traditional SaNrday-nilbt skit tligb-
~'
cIinner." ta
qems iDIIIrviewed ~
tbar mer bM ever aaeaderl the
lighnng the "Good O' Boys S12:aJt
skit. an officer ill
fake Ku lOux KlaD prb pu.Ued a
dildo from his robe and pretended
10 sodomize mama- offic= who
ODe
was in bladcface.
But acc:orciiD8
CD law eaforcernent officer'S wbo artmded this
yars and other ewnts. a whitesonly policy remains in effect..
Still on sale were T-sbirn with
M.artm Luther Ki,q's face behind
a target. O.J. Simpsoa in a hangman's noose and white O.c.. police
officers with a black lDall
me
spr:lwled across
hood of their
car tIIlder the wards "8oy% OD me
Hood."
"Nine!' Inmting licenses" also
were anilable tnrougbout me
coml)CNJld. c:oa.sistiDI of !D01DI'
homes. trailers. talts aDd pickulJS
gathered around a larIe beer
truck.
At this year's
officers -
event. some black
induding !JF agents
me
_ anempteci to aasb
partY
and were turned away after having
~blmr
words" WIth some of me
white officers in arteadaDc:e. me
sources scud..
,
An attempt by roundU1' orgamz·
en to tone down the ew:uc's raClSt
actlvioes comes at a nme wtten
black 3&ents nave charged
AlF
,
NODe of tbe several GreeavWe
evcat.
Eari Woodham KrF spokesman
ill c:::buioae. said be wu aware of
tbe aaual rauDdap aad bad been
iDvimd 011 ODe occasim 10 aaezu:l
bat dediaec1 He aoa=d mac me
evear was Dar Al'Ctimed or aumoriZed Dr ATE:
'
'"Tbe KrF does DOt aDd will not
!DleraIe allY Ic:ind of disc:nmiDatioa." be said. "But wbat people do
OIl
0WIl time is dJeir busiftes.s:
we caDDX c:oarrol iAtemal moral-
mer
ity."
Mr. Woodham said. hOWl!'Yer.
duI, M!: Ricbm2)'el' UMd "])COr
jud.gment'" ill usiat the ATF address ana teieQbooe IlUIIlbu lD hit
iDvitatioa. He sai4 if M1: Rightmyer were still eD1l1ioyed by the
agency, he wouJd be subject to "a
full review aad possible sanc-
tions."
He also suggested mat ATF officia.Ls who attend the annual eYeDt
~ "a lot of me older ageats.
spinoff's from the days of me revenuers and moonshine c:basen."
'"The younger agents just don't
have time for tJUs kind oC ac:tivicy,"
_..
':j "
~....
he said.
ATF Sl'Okaman Jack Killonn in
WashingtOn did not reEUm ca.U.s for
.
...
>
comment.
The l'OIIJldul) was orpni1ed in
1980 by ATF agents in Chattanoogaanct Kaoxville.lt begaD with
58 persons. mostly ATF agears.
from AlabaDla. GeorgJa. tam~
see. Kentucky and North CaroliDa.
Roundup aneadaDc:e jumped to
341 last yea
According to ~ Rightmyer's
tnVltation. mere are few ru!es.
-
Among tllose listed were no fighting, no rl1'eWQrics and "what goes
on at the J"DUDdup
stayS
there."
Jeff Randall a carmer Attalla..
Ala., policeman who attmded tl1is
}ar's ewmt. said that while he
would not "c:om1emn" tbe eaate
group, there was "an obvious racist overtone" by many of mose in
attendance.
"Pl~p!e on gather and have
fun. and there was a lot of goocl
clean fun available," he said. "But
the obviously racist sru.ff was just
not acceptable."
Mt: RandaU also confirmed seeing oiacJ( agents at this years
eo.<ent being turned away, ~
that some of the program partici·
pants were '"rea1 mad" tbat mer
had trted to gerinm the com~
A fonner Alabama pollee oiftdaJ who asia:d not to be ideftafied
satd entrance to me roundup has
in the past been tigbtly controlled
along a one-lane dirt road. He sud
he personally saw ana photograpb~ raClally inflammamry
Signs alOng that road.
/
D.C. police are depact80 In one
raClaUy lnsensrtMt souventr.
The fonner police offiaal. who
said he attended three of rae
rounaulls. said the majority of
parriClpartCS identified themselves
as ATF agents. '"The roundup has
been a place for law enforcement
personnel to go and let their haIr
down." he sald. "But some of this
avert racism is just inappropnace.
plaia and simllie."
J.1: Lemons. owner of Grumpy's
WhileWater' Raftinl here. whose
comllUIY sponsored rafting tnps
ilt the rounaup. said that organizen have "done what they c:m over
the past few years II) clean up th~
Mlcsm" and that some avert slgns
~ ordered taken down.
~ Lemons confirmed. howeover. that racially SeftSIOYe Tshirts "aDc1 otber sruff'" remained
00
sate.
Qmer business owners in t.bis
Polk County, Term.. commurucy -
east of Chattanooga. adjilc:ent to
me Cherokee NanonaJ Forest also confirmed they had seen the
Signs. T -sturts and other r:lClSt
t~PPlngs but declined. to be
quoted on [he n:c:ord.
ROUNDUPINVlTAnON
'aw
ofcondud:
The invrtaUon fOr the MGood O' Boys RoundUp" el~llIjns the
~ of the gathering of
enforcement officers and the niles
The anginal idea tor the Good O' Boys Roundup was for the
0Iatt.an00ga ana Knoxville ATF agents to get together'Mth their
mendS. 00tn laW enforcement and petSOnaJ tnendS. to raJt ride and a
little fellowship. The first year. 1980, there were 58 peoote from
Alabama. Georgia. Tennessee. KentucKy and Nonh Carolina. Georgra
ATF agents naa been having an event for a couple of years pnor to 1htS.
Th.purpoae of the roundup ... and Is to promo.. fetlowatltp
within and outskte of . . . entorr:erMnt. This purpose IS stili the main
reason we meet. The compebtiOn came about trom the nature of the
attendees. The ~ Joined in 1984 and have been an event in
themselves. WIt . . not politlcai and _ will not be. Over the years
we nave had to estaClisn a tew rules.
RUUS:
1. 'rbu are respa ISibte for wnom you irMt8. (New attendees must have
a law enfOrcement soonsor.)
2. No figntlng. Aignt or wrong tnis wiU not be toJeratec1
3. No firewcncs oi tJnf kind.
.... No one under 18 year.s of age. Ages 18-21 must be accomparued by
thett oarent.
50 Wnat goes on at munduQ stayS Ihere. (No press.. 0t'8SS ....ases.
No stCt18S that WOUld embaITass any attendees. unless among
Good O'Boys.)
L IM"IsIr:IanQs must be worn tor beer and food.
penaQ.
The
--=c;u:.
r~
"I cringe on belwlf of the agency," one·ATF
otficiaJ said of the roundup.
50
-
-
· : .....-.,..;
...
-
.*
~
':-10.':' '::"l.n ,:t~"':,=n,:'.:.tf'.ce ·~,f
:J.t~Dl"·:':.:::r.!l:-=ly 350 DF!o:,ole. \.J<:, lc.~r;:i::~d -;:h-:,
e~-:-:?r;.:'e':?=. ::"".-::1 ':i:=f~~-~r~,: .':-ategr:r:i~:. ~~o·)d ')1' B('·!·~ (:;..~-2-:-:. I.('It:a~
::w ~r.~·::':-~rne!;t:'::'L. .:--:-r~=,
:'':'ca.i law ~r:=r:'r:·~me!'".t :f=i:t;-!,,~ ;.st,5::~ ~.
_:>:-,l~
·::r:I,,-~~·.-: fr':;m ?:):J.: a.nd B!"id!'?Y:-·:·1.lntie~ wtl~' 5::.:::, "" f,:>r
=-:-~ >~,wship ..l : :.1:: =-:'~.
':'.1-:-::-:::-: Tho;!~' ~·!,:·;:t will p=:; fc:: ~hel!' m,,=,.=.l
3nd ':'::'-T:lmat'~d i:-'"'",,!" ':'-'r.s'.lmDti0n.
7h!3 :.nr::!'.ld<::~ the ~mpi·:,y"?--?=
·>:-·~·~e
0:
'}1!:-:!':":'~·.7·
a.nd \~l·'.lrnt)v _.
f Nr::'1"ma~ lv
tl"le :-,:df:ers [lIl!,·:,:--t:-.e.:- ,i10C0
::-!l.":'':':''i.~y -?'!.::r~ln9· m-:-::l f·:,1:' ::::-eir Glll':i.~
Tw.) years age- we ·v'ot.:-'::' t:
-?l :m:':i,:H-? r~(i1J':,ed pl-ir:-e-s t·-·r- s<)me who h.~ve '.1:ropped by f:>r a day in.j
:'1>;1'1: ·)r to? I >:';";.3i'llC'. ~":-:>:""':';I-? wi ~ 1 pe.y the full fee,
::'.ll'"!:.... $": ,:'r -:he R0 1.:ndur:' '..ras and i~ ",' Dr':'mr:-,T:<:> !<:>ll,')w::hi::- w: ~:'I~::
':':.JT::= ::.-:~ . - l a;·; "='n:'·-·r··:-~mo:-n,:.
• hE-:-":,mp-=t: i t :.·:'n ("a.r:~~ l.b.)ut rr':'!IJ
:-,:H~_n',? .:': :hE- 3.t::~;l':ieE:::.
Th~ I~onad.i:ins j0ined :n 1.5Je.4 -:t!',·:l :"'l~':'?
~!.~
"."J..:..
hori
:-1(:\":
1""\-
t":.:.:~:
...
O:>5~o!.:'; t~d;
.....
y·)U
rr!l.l':~
are
.:-~:.::.
~ew
a
~k,
~
l ~v.7
.: l1"o:-;";('1"}::
6c~~mp~nl~d
:::r.7'~::
1J~.
for wh·:· y,:u invi te,
-:-r,f,:'r(".~mer:.~
e
~v
':·ri
:h-?IT
at
t·'7'i~':1.:3"'s
1)1"07:=:='
r.1:\~
=t>:ir'.sor. 1
;:;~i';ht ,)r wl":'ng ,:h15 will n'::>t be tole~·a.·-7:'.
'.'''' :inv id nd ,
1
vears .) f3.lJ'~ .
A'J-as 18 - .: 1 mus~ .:.~
N':-:·:1':- "tnd.:-!"
~~~:~.~~
wi:1
~'~sor:'nsible
ha"''?
N.;· :,:·;:-.::1".g.
..,. .
~,;.:..
rul~::.
par~nt.
R('1..1n ,i IJr' ·:~~a'/~
~11~
r"~l-:(\d,
!'k
~t':"rles
~h~r~.
(N(:"
~01.l1d
that
=.!"~~~' ~
emr:·fJ.!'Y''i:-;!3
any ~~:~nd~e. uni~Ee ~m0ng Good 01' Boys. 1
·..h'i~~.band~· m'.l:t be W(/l-n i:,!:" be~r and foe..:i.
:i':' ,:-:-~m -..;::: :::'0:- ~llr:.wf:'o~ ':':. ~nt~r inc· ·:-r:mpetiti,:·n 1.lnless :h~'" a.r~
:: ~ !lrlnl;j::; ':,.:. ':?Lt-=-l" a -:-a.n,iidQt~ f':'1- P..:-dn-:-,:·k 0f ':f:.:: 'y'o?ar.
f·:>:t' :jF':~~
',":'1j
wh·:, ha'/o:. neV~l' :l.,:,~~nd~d ~h-: :::':'lln,::uD th:~ :!'1}.:e~ a. !':'': .:>:
;:!' 7
~~·5 T.: 1 0:: n
:t r: -:. ~. Q r. ~ :t r:; 1 r. cr '
r.!I.
~:.!=:
,~,-,!-!;:
.,
'-:::'
,..
~ne
,."
B:~'YS
:::.~~E!-!'9;::-;:.
'''\ '
I.., ..
=':~
-;::"
:.r:,
t'10T :!i', ... ·:d
~::.~_(=E
E:;("~::5'= :~i::
::~:?J;:IIJ':::.
:..:rr!:';h' w-:-:::~·: T.,:1 .::;' Y :~riEN.
'f,-·T.t T_:" !-l.t. VE
:? ":;~,r: :';:;.:!':!~ ::'-4 y!(,:iE:RATI·:'N. :':-:!~:-:er'~S3i..:rneS
~J!('F..:.
Gene
.~.,.
RE:~!:::~'5::R
;'1.1!-:
~ ~r..
~igh:my~r-
!30('1:'
Y~:.r)' :..~
',,.'
~l-.e
':r
...i I
wri:': N :
~ 1'" 3.
i ! -:-!'"":-:.
i!') ': t":-:'l
't: ~ n -:: ~.
~'':P: ,:tnd.
:: ~ -= -= !:. ! !:.g
-:-N
~:r
-:--:: .
.;~J(l..J'~S.
N-':·$~':''lt:'l'~. !"'::"1.~
stato:-.s.. l')'::~l-:ffi('~'~:::,
n.:-~crhtll:·rs, and ·:lnv Ij.).),j ::1' Be,y in·~-it.ed 1:0 at-:~rl,:i.
WF':"
on r·-·}'··:ement
lew
~ n:: ,:,1- ':'-eme r.~:-
r0ssibl~.
2'.::'=:.5:
mus~
-: ': ""l"l'i,:.o:-!':
'3.
~o?
st:'<,!,"::,:-·-·!,.:-,"!.
1: h-:- ::;:'~'l.lr, :\,1_: t:' .
'= -: ~ ridE
t-v
-:t
: ,,,:w
h0wpv~r .,.
~"'·JisT"r'3tl·:·n
:=':,r -7Cl·:h :::;,:: :-.:tn~. i
:: :'n:D i -:-": -=-., "{-'T ~ fr.::- =.
~
f! ~ .-: ~~. wh·:
:~'l~n(.i.~.
N~w :1-:·n-
=. .::, '
':' -:.r~lop =- ~ : ~.
4 '=' '. -~ n ~ r.·:]' :rJ~: 1 ~. !~ I~t n ~:-rl .3·:;. "= !_~!' ·:i -:. \". l31~ ..-:1.:i
-:. . (,. T-S'hiJ'''~ 5.r.:i t..~~!' m'l~. ;:-l'J::: .:z.:: :.: ~:le "::'7"~!.a. :/.:.'~
t (, .1r: nk .
N,~' n --:t ~ .~ :' ·n·:, 1 i,= be'l <'; l' 01'='=5 D1':V 10:.=,:1 .
Se.::: :t\.ached.
:.:::.~:7_::-\i::::
':;l~!": ~
:.:,.
i."3.
~an":'-:>l :.:"J: :"~·n::·
i..:l:,jt::
be r-:-iunded.
_ ~ :.:l ~ ~ .:.! n ': r i
wi:
3.
A
~~
la~~
·~n::' j,
~harcre~f
~~.:;-:
;'!a'-'
$:0.00 w:l:
n~~ti
m·::I-:-'·,'
~~
~dded
.
in ':-as~ ,~,t :s.!1 ::-·"!~~':';E?';i~·i
(J!lL'{ ~,J17 ':-an t'e r""!t("!i-?·j "::--t!··-".l·.:rh ch.:. :::;~:
·:~·qnt·.! 2h::-:-lf::'$ :"p1:.. in B~!":'»n. :-:·i
r;,!r:
wnli~
':;':,:~r!(iiLj;r.
':;''70-::1915.
----_\~-:,;.~
E>1'..:.~'\rr·n-=
:
::'.l'J'a~s~
rrtJ~T
t:h.~ t
.... ,-,' I
~nd
a 1ac}:et.
~~;::'::::~1~ ~~II.~
'~'-~l-'r'~ -:~lfF'
~..1:-,':-T
L'l
;JNi).:·l_iA~:
-:' -: ':-.
-: iI,5o ~ t .=tsi: ~
-;:1,---
~·?E5ENTA
::. ~.'igE:~ .
'r")
!
,~.:::
:
'T':"":"']'
:-:':IN:
'_i:='-? :/("~J1'
~.L:"
=E:37
il,Ee.7:i·II:·';
. t· ... ,:,
~!1~~~
~:.=!-~r.~
-::"
"!'illl ::-''7
1
n,:r~' ~I]
~n r:~'
'-
."'-
. mo:-d. ~.=: .
_~'.l,i'J'es
i 1i :
!':·n.
7h:- ,:hi::' ": h~
!-k,w
~:"'~l":'':'
1
~~
~
!~7!;::.r;;:~
t, , ..... '"'!'.::lo.:.!
.....
"
::;,: '"11 7':1. 11ffi '
L' ,
1_," , ..
- ':'!!!~:::-::': !-~.:: ..- ......
... ...
Arr',.." .'~ (1·j i - : ".:-!;... l' ~ ..: ~ 7.::' .. ....:. .....
:~ ~
i
·.:r~5
~
~
."..,
upon
~nd
.... _
.. -
.... r ...
......
----,
~
~~
~
..
_----
... _......
'.'.' . '
-~ .
.-..' ,.:. =
~
s:g~i~~ ~p
=~!-mer
..
\.:~
__
~ecn~c~s
........ -....:. =.--'..:,
'
'-.';:'
-,.
.:1,
.
=..- ..:.
:v1(~:C~.Y
1 ';l~:,
S. r.!E8DJI.Y
_- ......
,.
)F?ICIALLY BEGINS - EEER
4
=i"l ....
UP FOR' CHILI
r" _.....
..
n~L.J..
'~(Y)K-I)FF
(MOST r)NTJS;]~.~, BEST ?S'.ESE~'rr~::":'~:N,
"p':'C"T"
...'-- ... ALL .Zl.RC,r.rND)
:' 'J ::'!v'!.
- -""P ... __
_'_1'~'1:":-:
BY
.~
.t. T
\~ ~.E, l:!T:'
M.:) . .3.
"'.---...... .
:~1.!:.. :'"_ ..... • ':
,
<Of
.
_-:-;:.r'l 5~=~:':'E: Any !l1lJ~1.-:-:iar.s t'l"ir.7:ing ~heir ~ql~l-;)mE'n: aro:- -::::r:-:u:':!;~,:!
'l~t ,,='-",;r~':hl?r '':'In pc'rr~!1 of cal:,~;,~
:~~l :'i~:e ~1: ~rl~l-r:itn~ E'ach ni9"r-.:.
t':"
r:r"
- : 3 1)A!w! .. ...
':'l:'':;'
. '- _ _ J.
=1,1: I~TE=3
C
~.Io.._
i~0
to Dl~'1 .... 1"1-:.<: -:h<:''.··
PLAY GOLF
AND
REPRE5'ENTAT:VES.
ELEC7:·:1;-.T
(IF
7E)':·.rvr:' A?T,~ INS
1 ?~-4
.~Nr'
\1
..~i.i[.:::: 5: .
=
:-::AM~Ar---:-;.. :N:: ANI' ;r.!0GES MEE7:N(~ .~ T~A2, '!"
"-P.T= l BE .... =::: ~E3EN i E[I P-,N[' REG IST::REI' W!T.~
::-113 ~IEAH3 '~':'MF!..ETE ROST::R2 il.N[1 ·~:))\3E=.
?OF. ~.~':'M?ETI:-:::'!'l WI:":" ~.~ '~C~I·IL';~!1~7EI'
~.!:!>
.--:: :E2
.~S=! i3NE~ :;VEN7S.
IF' Y01IR TEAM ]l.lD(3E DC',E::I, - :.:: ?E:,~::
ANt· CONI'i},::' ~! 3 ::'!E~~T YOUR TEAM WIL:" BE ~::::;;..:...: =::::~
::, PC! I~'"T8 .
I
A1:-L TE1-Jv!:
:v!')3~
BE
?P~E=-::1'·i7
Ai';D
--. =_.-. ._.
...
~
~
....
!
70 ?LAY. '
--
~Tr-·7'"\~I''''/:-'''
.............
- .:\ . . .
::,
...
:.. :. .<I.I'-!. . . . R.L.F"TERS
~
_ .:. 1
....
- -., ..t T
~.!. (." r. !
2. ~ :z..M .... 2~.FTERS
:ND
?~IGHT
~.-
-'--,
,
.
- -----.
...
r"~ .~_ :- .:..:. ~.:
,
- _.....
~-M;:-=
;'"
.1-":.1
- .......
......
.;.
~T
-~
-
:
-~
-r··......
t.:-..:~
.-"-'
3! READY AT
3EE~
-_"'t_"_
I _'_I' ......
~
..... --,
.. .
...
:'?M.
.. oo
-
--.. -- ..... --- .. ,.
JI.WJl..RDS
,.... ,
.....
.. ::' INtj£?
S7E~_E.:
- ..... ,.::( .. :. . -!.:" .
...
"
""
?H~SIDENT
-~·~I
•
--or _
,J _ _ _
....
-- ..-,
.~~".~ ..
- ..
'::,.','./""
-:.:-=-"
... _.J.
.' ,
FT~::~T
NAME:
_".
..,...,-,....,... .... .. ...
}~
-------_._._-------- --.. _------_.. _------------ ---------------- ----_._-..
H':}ME TEI.::F~'~'NE:
5'_1:0:: I ;·iEE.:· <I.L'L'!;!::::'.:::'
..
--- - - - - - - - - - , - - ._..._._. ____________ TE:1.EPH(INE: _______ . ________ ._ ._ ..
wriT ':'"T"j ':' ,();::',-"l'i":: !: 7---;'1'nN'~'-'
. " -. ........ - - ..,. ... - .
-
.?E:?rr S::E:
,------------------ ,---------_.-
--------------------------------
(ci!·':·!~·1
.3 M L XL ",XXI.
---1:'
s
::.. L ........ :
: t..J::?:-: T(,
:N THe,SE EVENTS:
:~()MFF-TE
_._:=:E[,t~=:>:I\ :F" if-E 'i"EAR
~:i'-;'::-.~-:"!.;G
i
t·'!
Go:..r SHIRTS AF:::
SIZES: - - L XL XXL
or":, ,-,
~-
.'
chl?ck event=:l
.vr:1LLE"iBAL:
T?.t-"~~: ~1.1SHING
_TT.!,'-')F-:..JAE
_M('T()RCY'~LE
'CHECY YES OR NO)
L":' '{,:.r) :N~_N7 T~) f~nM?E7E :N TE~_J1.1 ':-0MPETITII)N?
T.F !'KT r)N .~ TEAM ·~.;;N WE ~SSI'::N "{r)l) T(I A TEAM?
,Al-r RAFTING
'~-E5
N') __
.... - r::E'3 I ~-:=~AT! I:I~: ----,
3nd
l i
!C,~=.
.:t ~ i
l ~ -: l' .
YES
~
!':.. :l':
,::r:--:'
'/-:-c,'
- --'
11!!,j':'!'"5tand
-=:-- 'In·i'JD.
that
a"-Q
rand.
~-~st,'''·rt::::
:1'''':':
-::
:-:-nE'
- .......
~~.'\. .
.. AM
---' -"... , ...... -...
-
_fo
_
If
'
_
.... " ..
f
... -- .. -;,...:.."" ~ t:..::>
--~
.t:"
~.."
~ ~~ .•'~.:..
"7 .
f'~" ?1"!E?I..·x'
M7'l\T -:--,
....... i
_ ..
? (l
~..
~Y1
:v1~... {
'"-';;::!:·!;E'::·;:.·{.
.~j'ir
',J
:::ALTC'H. ,:- ....
_
--~-=.. .. -""'""
??":'M
!: ~.M?
..-
... :-
:',
~
:
~/
:
:
:
I~
-_- ..-.
~
,~M :~::·:·:-·:trr;
',~,~:
;;... ~! .
-..,. "1(1-,
:- A7~_~;:r·;._ .'i.
::30
1:-
??0M
_--. :..
.. - ......
....
-.~.~:.-
: .:J -:. c::
-,.
.;. !'i
··;'.MF ~-.. -~- M
.-,,.. -
-:y.
1:-:---_.
,:,.:-:::
... - ...
~"._
-, .;.. :'
,-
--,.
!'"':.!:.",
j
.....
---"-__... __-... --
:
-,
II
:.;.
-..
-'~
----- ..... ....
...
.. ,.,. ...
.""... ;'.~
.:.,
DE-PARTl\'lI~NT
0 ..·
THE
IREASURY ( .
TREASUR\'
NEW S
1789
ornCE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS • 150() PENNSYLVANIA AVENU'E. N.W. • WASHINGTON, D.C.•
%1)U(). (20~) 6!%-~60
FOR IMMEDlATE RELEASE
July 17, 1995
STATEMENT OF TREASURY SECRETARY ROBERT E. RUBIN
Today, I am announcing a comprehensive and independent investigation of the sO
called "Good 0' Boys Roundup." This inquiry will be conducted jointly by the-Inspector
General of the Treasury Depanmem and by our Under Secretary for Enforcement. It
will be overseen by an outside group of eminent Americans who will be asked to assess
the inquiry's thoroughness, accuracy and independence. Our purpose is to get to the
truth, period; and then to take all necessary steps so that we can tell the American
people: This will not happen again.
Before discussing the inquiry, I would like to comment for a moment or
why this matter is of such critical importance.
twO
on
[n our society, we cherish the rule of law. The rule of law can only have meaning
\.vhen law enforcement and law enforcement officers act as instruments of justice and
fairness.
An enduring legacy of American racism is the belief -- justified in many
instances -- among African.Americans and other minorities that justice at times is
enforced against them in a discriminatory fashion.
For these reasons, law enforcement officials -- in perception and reality -- must
demonstrate on and off the job that they are as free from bias as their jobs require them
to be. f\nd it is the responsibility of their supervisors, right up to the Office of the
Secretary, to be vigilant - so justice is administered with integrity, fairness and freedom
from bias.
Vie condemn as totally abhorrent the particip3.tion of law enforcement officials in
the "Good 0' Boys Roundup," because it included abjectly racist and anti-semitic
behavior totally inappropriate for law enforcement officers, and because no one who
(More)
·2-
participated in it had the good sense or decency to do anything about it. That is
unacceptable and we will make sure it does not happen again.
When the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, John
Magaw, previously the head of the Secret Service, first learned of the so-ealled
"Roundup," he ordered an investigation by ATF's Office of Inspections.
That was nearly one month ago.
Before this investigation was fully completed, reports of the "Roundup" appeared
in the press. Director Magaw, quickly and without reservation, spoke Out against the
racism apparent from descriptions of the "Roundup." Ronald K.. Noble, Under
Secretary for ~nforcernent, did the same thing before a national assemhly of AfricanAmerican criminal justice officials in Denver. 1 fully identified with their condemnation
in response to a question from Senator Moseley-Braun 3:t a hearing on Mexico held this
past Friday_
But word$ are not enough; deeds are what matter.
That is why we are taking the additional actions we announce today. At Treasury,
Valerie Lau, the independent InspectOr General, and Ron Noble, Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Enforcement, will jointly conduct an inquiry into tbe alleged participation of
active Treasury Department enforcement employees in the "Good 0' Boys Roundup."
The heads of all enforcement bureaus .- Director Magaw, Secret Service Director Eljay
Bowron. Customs Commissioner George Weise, and IRS Commissioner Margaret
Richardson -- fully support this independent inquiry.
The purpose is to ascertain the facts: determine whether participation by Treasury
employees constituted violations of law. regulations or procedure; and judge whether
existing policies are adequate and sufficient to prevent participation by Treasury
personnel in similar events in the future.
The inquiry is expected to be completed within 120 days, and a report with
recommendations shall be made public. The members of the independertt board will be
announced shortly.
Once the inquiry is complete, we will take whatever appropriate actions are called
for by the fact~ \ve unearth. This process will be comprehensive and candid. I
personally have the utmost confidence that the Inspector Gcnen;l, the Under Secretary
for Enforcement. and the hoard of inquiry will get to the bottom of this issue.
-3-
I am proud, I will say it even more strongly, deeply proud, of the men and women
of the Treasury Department's enforcement bureaus.
They do dangerous and difficult work; they place their lives on the line every day
so that the rest of us can live in greater safety and greater security. r was in New York
this morning with agenL<; of the Customs bureau, and we talked about the undercover
work they were doing with extraordinarily dangerous crirnihals and the arrestc; that have
been made in response in the areas of narcotics, in the sale of nuclear material, fraud,
smuggling of various kinds and other dangerous activity inimicable to public safety.
Similarly at the A TF, roughly 30 percent of their arrests are of armed drug
traffickers. This is dangerous and difficult work, and it absolutely requires our support
for them to be effective. Iu1d that suppOrt in turn depends on law enforcement officials
conducting themselves with scrupulous fairness, without any hint of racism or bias. And
that support also requires that if problems develop, and inevitably there will be problems
from time to time as there are in any organization. that ~hose problems be dealt with
fully, candidly, openly and as expeditiously as possible. It is for all these reasons that this
investigation is so important.
·30-
OIIA1,.. G 1-tATCH. UTM. C....... AMAN
'",uAMONO. SOUTH CAIIOLINA
• ~. SIM~ON. WYOMING
....AL£S E. GIUlSSI.EY. IOWA
..'H.£N SPfrnll. PfNNSYLV..".....
~ANKBA~.COlORADO
FRED Tio<OM~N. TENNESSEE
JON ('fL. AIIIlONA
MIKE Dr WINE. OH1()
SPENCEA ABRAHAM. MICHIGAN
JOSE~ A BIOEN. J_ .. OELAWAIIE
EOWAIIO M. UNNEOY. M.ASSACHUSETTS
PA~ICK J. l.£AHY. vtAMONT
HOWIU. HEFUN. ~
PAUL SIMON. ILUNOIS
HER8£1IT KOHL WISCONSIN
DIANNE FEINSTEIN. CALIFORNIA
RUSSEU. O. FEINGOlD. WISCONSIN
""'ARK II. OISLEII. Ch,., COUII_
". ... NUS COONEY Sr." Or-.crOt .fW1 s.n- C",,".
CYNT""A C "'OGAN. """to'''Y Ch,., COUll_
~AEN'"
AOB8. ""'IlO"~
'linirrd ~tatts ~rnatt
COMMITTEE ON THE JUOICIARY
WASHINGTON. DC 205'~275
s,." o....:to,
July 21, 1995
BY HAND-DELIVERY
Valerie Lau
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington; D.C.
20220
Dear Ms. Lau:
In preparation for today's hearing, "Federal Law Enforcement
and the Good aI' Boy Round-Up," the Committee received the
enclosed affidavits and statement. Pursuant to the request of
the makers of these statements, we are providing this information
to you in order to assist you with your investigation of these
events. We have assured these individuals that you will handle
this matter in a confidential and professional manner.
I have not been able to assess fully their credibility or
verify these serious allegations.
Nor have I been able to give
individuals an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Nonetheless, I believe these allegations warrant your
investigation.
Again, I thank you for appearing before the Committee today
and I look forward to hearing the results of your investigation.
Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
OGH: lkk
- •M • vI). _".run.
- •lnl
~
: r,:./'
11. .• - . - ..
.llJ\dJ'.. . :
........
-,.,
.v
..
~...
'
;,;.,;
,.,
....
.
"", ..;,..,-
~m2rtcan ~attiot jfeberation
P.O. Bo:: 24253
Chattanooga. TN
37"22~283
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1IIIIf
July 20, 1995
U.S. Senate
tto on the ~udioiary
224 Dirksen Senate ott ice Building
Washinqton, D.C.
20510
De
In reference to the Congressional Investigation of the
involvement of Federal Law Enforcement in the "Good 01'
Boy
Round-Up," enclosed are the affidavits or the witnesces we
talked with. One of these witnesses you have already personally
interviewed by telephone.
As you' are already aware, this is on1 y t.tote "tip.Jl.f the iceberg."
It is apparent. from our investigations. the levels of corru~tion
run deep and rise to the highest levels of federal law
enforcement agencies. The agency whicb is most repeatedly
mentioned i3 the Bureey
o~
Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Fircarm~.
AS I stated, we have many other sources whioh need to be
developed, ana we are willing ~o coordinate with your aftica in
these endeavors. We are willing to do whatever is necessary to
help you Qet ~o the truth in this matter.
To reiterate the facts in this case, in addition to the racis.,
there are:
charq88, or al1eqctione, of
drug uee;
bla~nt
~e~u.l
harassment; sexual misconduct; rape; violations of local liquor
ordinances: and many other issues which raise questions ot
credibility within these aqencies.
With the number of sources we have. it is our sincere belief.
given additional time, all of these charges should be
substantiated by attiaavits or possibly sworn testimonies. There
are many others with auch aore to tell in ~hi5 case.
Please stress to the members of the committee the importance ot
moving as quickly as posBiD!e ~o ge~ ~o ~e DO~~om ot ~1B.
Thank you aqain tor allowinQ us to help you in this important
matter. Also, in the interest ot security, let me again str •••
the importance of confidentiality regarding the identities ot
the~e
witneesee.
Sincerely,
~
t'..l*£J.. r
Harold E. stockburger
Founder
EXHIBITS 6 THRU 10
In Re Congre•• ional Inve8~19ation
into the Involveaent of Federal
Law Enforceaent 1n the -Good 01'
Boy Round-UpAFFIDAVIT QL
beinq duly svorn state. the follovln9:
I,
1.
I have personal knowledqe
2.
On Hay, 1990:
ot
the tacts .et forth below.
I attended a party at OCOee OUtdoors at their
b4r, Grumpy' s th4 t the 'Good 01' Boys' were throWift9.
Understand that after aidnit. the bar ia closed to the public
and those left are by invitation only.
Anyway.
I
vas curioua to
how law enforcement beh.ved at this roundup, 80 I vent to ••••
At the dance I vas approached by a .an who 1dentif1ed b1. . . 1~ as
being a Drug Enforce.ent officer.
I asked why.
do
SOlie.
He asked
a! to
step outaide.
He says he -has the best drug- available- and we'd
I infonaed hi. I didn't do c1ruqs and asked hi. how be
could do that since he had said he vas with Drug Enforce.ent.
He lauqhed and said that's why he hed the best.
I lett hi. standinq on the dance floor and angry.
Here .a.
a person that was paid to uphold the lav - .worn to do so and he
is making fun of that fact.
After thie, I decided I .anted nothinv to do with this party
and I left.
I did not like anything that I ••v at thi. party
which was the obvious intent of the ofticer8 there to break any
law they wanted.
Their attitude wac 'We are the law.
going to arrest us or call us to account?'
Who ia
Paqe 2
There vas no respect for any WOIaan there.
qame.'
I was told it was un.ate
~o
51• .,er. 'open
90 into the ca.pqround
because if I did I vas subject to rape or anything el •• that the
"Good 01' BoysR wanted to do to ae.
go into the caapqround.
Needle.s to Bay, I d14 not
I have been troubled about this, t1. .
and everyt1 •• the round-up 1& held since.
I had no idea that this type of thing and
th1n~.
CDQ1d
happen and be qoing on invo1 v1ft9 the very people that are swam
to uphold the law.
Sone thin9s I .ean are:
At on. round-up, 2S otticera qot a
very attractive young va. .n drunk.
She passed out and they
placed her on a picnic table in the campground and took turn.
havinq sex with her.
Sbe didn't have sex.
She was pas.ed out.
They 9athered around her and urinated on her.
what
kind -of state. .nt vas that aakinq?
Nov I aek
Think about it.
you,
Really
think about it.
At another round-up, the 'Good 01' Boys' purchased a qoat to
commit beastia11ty on.
If the ones involved didn't want to do
the goat, they had to drink a quart ot IIOtor oil.
How sick are
these people?
They 9ather around and expose theaselv•• to see who i .
biggest.
At this year's round-up (May, 1995) they perforwed
public sex on the aakesh1ft stage that the band played on and
so.e had oral sex performed on thea on the dance floor.
Are these truly our beat and finest?
I
.incerely hope and
pray not.
I believe they are about as sick and inclined to co.a1t
cri.e as any criminal they arrest.
You've qot • lot at cleanlnq
up to 40.
Theae things I've related aounda like tiction.
were.
The nightmare ia they are all too true.
I wiah they
Affiant further sayeth not.
Name
o~
Arriant
..-------
subscribed and sworn to before
me this 20th day of JulYI 1995.
.
Notary Public
Hy commission expires: _
.'
'.
#.Y~/ Is; 15
~.
-"
.: ", .. ,...
.. "
In Re congressional Inveetig4tion
into the Involve•• nt of Federal
Law Enforca.ant in the -Good 01'
BOy Round-Up·
I, _
being duly sworn states the following:
_I
1.
I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth belovo
2.
On 1995-May:
Party in campground bad qotten
80
bad over the
years I stayed away - heard about the drugs and _en at the bar
droppinq pants and
1994-May:
campground.
flashing.
I saw a female stripped on a table in the
This was in the pre8ence of both men and va.en.
The
men in attendance were tippinq her by inserting paper currency
into her vaqina.
During this show, a friend of mine and myaelt
were offered $1,000.00 each if we would do the saae.
offended by the conduct
or
I vas
the men present and vas extra.ely
disturbed that I was approached and asked to perform.
1993-Hay:
(their penis).
I saw men runninq around fla.hing theaaelves
I was told by friends of drugs.
I can1t remember the year but I do know I
I
ven1: to the campcJround for dinner.
My
breasts were grabbed at and someone tried to flip up my skirt.
One of the men (from Canada) came to ay aid and watched over . .
so no on@ else would try anything.
I was in the caapground Vben
a girl was 'gang-banged' by .any otficers.
(enough) to pass out.
Sbe vas drunk
After they were finished, they all stood
around her and 'pissed' on her.
Page 2
Many made the stat.ment that this vas one week out at the
year they could do as they pleased.
I also heard ot one vary
upset because he got pulled over and put in jail tor drinking
and drivinq.
A friend told .e of tour rapes.
nothinq vas ever dona.
He (the friend] knew
Affiant further sayeth not.
Name ot Att1.at
.
>1'\
,\\\\1'.' l,f.. "
"9 ~
.' .. ,,' t
.,'
\:1\
····1.\·· ..···
Subscribed and sworn to before
me this 20th day of July, 1995.
:'
,.
.'"
'\' '
~ •..•
"
.
My commission expires:
"
"..
' \.
:\. !J\'"):"" .
..,
:.:. i ~ :",_
Notary Public
1.,/
. ",
..
I ..~.",
AFFIDAVIT
I lin ~ w retired u a law enforcement
officer but have been in law eaforcement since 19n.
rfnt lcamed about the .coood O· Boy Roundup" from I mend It t ~ enforcement agency where
I bad previously been empIoyaL 1 first attcDded the Roundup in 19S9. The R.oundup is always held
thcwt'X'kmd before Mother's Day in Ocoee. Tennessee. and I'IIt frcm Wednesday to Saturday. The
RaJDdarp was organized by Gale Rigbbueyer. I Special Agent in Cb'~~ with the Bureau orAlcohol.
Tobaoeo. and rareanns (BATF), ad attended mostly by petSO~ tj'om various federal stile. aad
local law enforcement lseociec. I attended the Roond&Jp each ycz.; rrom 1989 until 1992. AJ the
Roundup. in various: years. 1 observed penonneI from the Drug Em',;.:-::c:ment AgeN:y (DEA). U.S.
Secret Stnice, Jnmigraticm and Na1lnizadoa Service, as well as perS.:i:mel from various state police
agencies. incluamg MvylancI. Geoqpa. North and South Carolir.::r. Mississippi, as wdll$ major
metropoitan pofice depautmeDtI, iaduding Atlanta. Georgia, and Bi.;"c1aham, Alabama. Among the
attendees were agents from the Canadian Morals Unit {VICe).
When I b arriwd at the R.c:u1dup in 1989, TWCIJt to theched:-in pc,ir.z: \OIhidl was tnanned primarily
by BATF 19CDlS. This chcck:poiat bad &CYCrIl signs po$kd sud :i.> ~o N"ZSStll Allowed" and
~gger Deposit Point." These signs reaWned posted duriDs tit: blt£t~ event. The chec:k-in point
also had an effigy or dummy of I black person hanging from ,tree. This effigy remained at the
check-in point throughout the evea1. Mon:ow:r, BATF agarts..ac ~tilC:f law enforcemalt officers'
\\OJId &UmJUnd ea.ch vehicle IS it approadled. stop it. mel rock the vdaic:le whale shouting "got any
JJisBen in that car?"- IDd other such renlarla. When I signed in .6l fr.~ ched:-in point. 1 n:ceived a
shirt, ~ ftI& meal ticket. and an iScmification bracelet. ..ne alC"i.::..:'; fee was $50.00 in 1989, but
I DOW believe it is gone up to $90.00.
00....
~ the 1989 Roundup. agaltS hm SATF but on I. skit or ~.o-it iJl:y which was performed for
lh: cutire assemblage up
One BATF agent wer" a Kc Klux Kbn robe and bad another
asent, in bIac::k face, with • dIIia arouDd his ncct. The agents cx:h.:;nged raaal alurs and the Klan
BATf agent produQCd a dildo ft'Om under his robe and fon:ed tl-..: blade race agent to sirm.date
aodomy. The Klan . . . -=ted • irbe was aroused and. whea he ttu"...:d toward tbc auwd, • liquid
sJbstaac.e po.nd from the cui oCtile dildo. A racist amateur "co~y club" tben ensued with racial
cpitbetJ and slurs. mosdy aimed at bIacb. BATF SAC Gale Rigtame)'~ observed aU of thil activity
and took DO &et.ion to stop it.
I ncct attended the Roundup in 1990 and toot a video ~ W;\f& ulC. This year, the racist signs
were again at the cbeck-ill poiot and I look some video fooUg.! ci \hem; one of the rigns said
"N"JggCI'I. .17lpound," "Nigger
In Point." and lnCtherw~ ~ F~si:& efa black person with an
am
axe through thm! head. Again. these signs were up for the entire l!V~l The 1990 Roundup was
similar to the one in 1989. camplete with racial sJdts u before.
In 1991, there were DO n.cist signs at the c:ntr'IIICe ~ but the ~YJ enfOrCClnCiIt '8eaQes wecc
engaged in racist t-sbirt swapping. For example, the Diarict of Coll!rr.bia MttrOpOlitan Police had
I shirt with blact suspectS sprel(heagle on the hood of a parol car wiih the dosan: "Boyz-a~tbc
Hood.- Another agency had • ~ct Nigge(' shirt which r~ed the image of Buckwheat coming
out of the pocket. Another feawrod the siIbouette of an ~Americ:lll with cross hairs.
commonly known u a ~ ggger" tuget. BATF shiru featural & grim reaper, ·Icidc~" and
death beads. Oae law cnforccmcftt agcat bit the bead off of 8 live !!}!;,Xe.
When I attended the 1m Roundup, I observed a SA1'F agent dktMUtiDg bomenw1e tcmoollshinewhich was consumed from mason jars. Some had pcaches and S;:J~~ cherries in the jars with the
moonshine. I have • still photograph of the agent drinking thG uxnshine. Several ageats &om
various agencies were selling CISSdte tIpcs with racist songs. QJcil ;Q; Flight oj NAACP 109 and
others by David Alan Coe which featured lyrics like "my wife ~ of: with a niBBer.·
Abo during the 1m RoUndup, the last I attemed, • skit was perlonr.•-d by wious law enforcemeat
penoanel entit1ed ""Birth of the Blact lW:c." The sl-it was a ~ on the opening oC1bc movie
1001 and when the rmsic reached a aescetdo, one ofthe actors broke open a watermelon and pulled
out a black doll, holding it up for the aowd to see. L3ter. S!v.:..-..] ftmak: professional ducc:tS
Gripped oft'1heir dothe$ and peri'onued in the DUde.
A1 each of these events, I observed armed 1sw enf'orcemetlt offic.::.·.. it. states of scvere intoxication
although I did not ObSCNe anyone brandishing. weapon.
Again, I would n::itcrate that BATF SAC Gene Rigiltmtyer. r»~ of U-~ orsWzers. was always in
attaldance at these events and did nothing to aab the rACist (h~oric and cfispI.ays. Ruks for
attendance were Etated in the literature advertising the evant. ~oag them were that you ue
responsible forwbo}Ql invite (New ItteDdee$ must have" la.w tnrurcemeat sponsor); whit gOCl CD
at the Roundup stays there (DO press. press releases period. No £i~fies that would embanus any
attmdees. unless among Good 0' Boys); Dew ooo-law enfotc:emeni ::.ii=lees must be spoosoted by
.. law enrOl cement offica- vmo ancods the ItouDdup. Tbeae ru~ '"'~ made to be known to us ill
the ·litel'lture aad were constructed along the lin~ of th~ ~ "eode of silence- tbIt DO law
cmoreement officer eva' infOnl15 on another law eafo~ o~·.
lam prepared to take. polygraph examination. adminkter~ by :.z. ~eIlt examiner, to prov~
the veracity of the statements contaiDed Mrein.
FURTHER. AFFIANT SAYE1H NOT.
2
01-20-95 10:50PM
P003 #10
On the ;. 0-11.., day ofIuly. 1995, I.
• do d~ose and say that, under the ~ty
of perjury. the foregoiDg is true and correct within my pmOlW knowtcd~c, except where such is
based upon information and belie( then I believe it to be trut:.
07-20-95
lu:':,0PJ,I
P004
U10
•·
.
.
•·
.....
·
t
f
·,
••
(
-
.~
j
,
,
.
I
EXHIBITS 11 THRU 15
! AM :-tA.P?Y !O ~CRM ~ ~1' 'tiE A?Z GaIN} 70 SAVE :':£ r ~ !.H A~~\JAL "G-....""OD 0 t :CY
R.OiJNDt1?". IZI" S AlL ?BAY :-OR ~~t::3 jrcEA'::-::::a TE::.S !EAR,
QIPT BE A.Nr '.,.rOP£
THAN US! aR.
rr
or
GOOD ~ws :.s \'iE DE?OSITm 31057.00 IN A SAVINlS ACCOUNr Ai'~..:..i
IAS! 1!AR. fu-n:R I PAY TI--::! ::NCOliE '!AXES ON Tm: INI'ZR!.S1 l ' U. m.t YOU THE
EXACT AlIaIN!.WE row HAVE. TE.IS MONEY WI!.L BE Us::D TO SU?Pm!ENl' TIrE INCRZASE5
OJER THE NEIl' ram OR F!VE :rrA?.S FOR mE
A~"O'1'HER
BIT
?L--rz:as.
l1JW FOR SOHE EAD ~..;S AND nr:: c:ruU~. n vr.:u::a TO AVOID ANY :I:?.THER ?R.OEu:MS
iot"ITH n;::; FaRES!. RA~c:E:?S iolE ARE MOlDti TO' p:u.vA.~ PROP.E?:rY. - nus "WILL coS! MC?3
3U1', I THINK TF.A! ~YONE WI!.!, BE HA1'Pr::R AfiD 'lE c.tN ~.AVE THE £E:a !'RUCK ON Sr-~.
DU?--DIZ nus ?ASl" I!A.R T. V. A. CTI.I"I' 'riU: :-fJMEER cr; !Ja\ YS !N ~11ICH' YCU CAN RAFT TEE
OCCZE R.1VZR TO 116 DAYS. TI-:r.5 WIll G.\~ us 70 CF.AlG: TO fR::D,\Y AND SA ~y
INSTIAD or r5UP~Y AND ~y:-- t.'l .. A.. ALSO ?!ACED A SURC"'dARGE OF $2.00 ?!..'t
RAFl'ER,?CIA COUNI'Y ?IACED A La OF $.1.50 P..:•..'t 3Al--n:R A!ID OCOEE aJr.tOO?.5 HAS
INCREASZD !EIR ~ • 50 ?OR A TOIAl INCR:ASZ OF Sl..OO PER 3Ai .:.~. aTER ~
NE:cr m; rrAP.5-':. V.A.. SURCHAF.GZ.S Ali3 S"v'?ros:::iJ IO GO O? TO $5.00.
~"E ?ECllV ZD NUMERCU S SUGGES7!ONS TI« l' W! PrACE nrE
WHICH "HE INtEND TO ttl.
?Al'~
ON Bt\SEEALL TYrZ CA?S 1
TI-3 PR.XYAT! CAMP G?..otrnD iflll :-rAY:!: $C'tlE?..5, TOIIZl' FAcr-rr!! c$ AND 3E CONl~J,~
1'0 A. G?.oCZ?.! srcRE, z;o YAP.D.5. 1E GaOCZP..r srox:; 'R!LL HAVE SAUAGZ AND 3I.SCJI:'S
7.AC"d Mo?.!~l~ FOR THOSE OF TOU EO ::ON'! ";iAN!' TO COOK.
:'FeZ oco~ r~m lA.A.P.I..~ IS ;.a:'EL'1 A HIZZ OF nG OO!?.BOtHm FOR -:nOSE m:sI?.!lC :'0
S~ IN A MQ'j,"E1.
Tn:; BAT!:S AE S30 P1:a ~nGiil', S2 FOR 7Aca AIIDITIONlS.I. ?EaSON,
MOS! EOQ.'1.S .....-:u.r. StEZ? FOUR, Hu~, SGZ£ W-JJ,l, SIZE:? su. nu:?E ARE ONLY 10
.R.ro.~ so IF YOU WAm' TO RESZ:...VE A ROOM CAll 615-33~206L.. THE OCOSS INN ALSO
HAS A RF.sl'.AUiiANT AND ;au. BE ~ BEZA.KrASl' AT 7: 00 A. M.
~~
•••••••• s~O.OO
I1iC:LJ":lES: "GOOD 0 'BOrn !-~~::cr, FA. Y'PAU CA:i' '.a~r.
r1GC<ID 0 t oor' PAT ~ A.PPIIEJ), 3A.R- 3-o:E
pO?! ?.!3 DL~, STEAK Dr.~, ALI. TI-3
a::::a OR COlA ::ou CAN ~..L~
ZXI?A ClP •••••••••• $5.00
iA ~T
S2 'liZ
:1iI.S
HA]
~.
0i.:.R
3X)
"SOOD 0 TEO~n AT iF..:. RaHID~! ll:.T' S TRY TO 3.:.I.....:...-.
©.
,~~
J""\"""4IId)
l~
J r,,}"
() Ii
: v. :' "~ , ,l~
.. '
.,
.. 1
• Y.
I"
~.
.rO~'
t
",,: ~";~:rr' , (.l~i!:::!JJ-1 I~.
~
iJu\;t)~(jU v
',~rC~l:
ijlj
IS'.! l! - 19. 1981.
~;
ocott,
u:tC;~:
~~'ts:3Et
w?IN:i, ~ HCt1!::S,
!z'\1'S, ~IZEl"I~ 2I\GS,
c:.MP"t1t3, nv.Il..CS, ~.
~ CCCZE :ltll WoRD:.\.
- - 615- De- Z)6i..
c~.rm,
rca
!N
I~
HZA1a:ST JC'I'!l.
ABOJT Z) ~. AiiAt.
!:l.!2:
~, cmiEA
~..AI. AC:Z~lI'S, l'F.OZtctJ'I'CmS.
,\T: Ac:D.T.S,
::;\~«
:DC\1. o."7lC'OG,
?;r.:Lc;;tOORS Ai;:)
~S,
fI.:rr C'IttIn "COeD
~ .\'mHO.
MOO ':.E:04\GE: HUE;:; OIil.I)
"':'W')r' :;riO ::'A f~
(;~
ZVM.~NI: l·~~ ""lj\l\ SNtAY.U.S
~
rllllO. mr.~
i\! IZ\S~
Q~KiZ
CID'!'HIJG.
jJiJ'RI:C
~: RtU"!DS -
or
4ncIUm:S: J\R- ~QJZ ?OP.X 1UD:S, rJ'tIj)\"! ZVl:lUNi
l'ZAt.; ''COeD O'~l'" !-~; "COOD
O' 201" I>\stLY\t:. 'CAT; SIUlK DINN:E:it'
~O. ~
!D~AA.t-u:?S
nAn
ora;
- S:3j. ~
SI\ !"",im,U' ZVIllIlli MFA!.; Au.. Tl~ ~
on CO:J. ~ j%C) 10 DRI~. (L\ST
1LU 17~)
~:
1. ItlJ Al\Z
2. ttl
it::S?OfGrau:
nCH'I':~.
~~~ ~AiZS
-
i"'.A '''riCH !Oil DlIr::!.
·fit f.A7! tlEVDt HAO A CICH!. 9{CVID ONE OCCUR ALl. ?1\P.T"2:S
!}:lOr:l'1::) F.IQn" OR ',,;mIG ··jIll 1m ~ Au.a:t~ ~QC.
RI1US AP1l: PIUS c;.\..o.:? .\l~ 'AAf'T TCCM\!irI:A. na:st
A.Ji:E ;.•\L't ~ INS"..m:::: ~L\ ~ PA iiZr.:':; AND t.e,.. pfo.U?,n
CA)/ n:n AT-tAS! "'''' rMT ~It a:ns en TO 1\NJ" T.AO{ C'rKt!.
niIS tlaC:s
APP!.r '!'O 18 u. 19 'tL\lt OC)S.
S\.~
C:;t~r.:ONS
tar
r-:u!
"0
-L
P
-~
r\f)
0
lJ,..
'r-
..:t.
~
0
p
'%! UJ
0
~
~
.,....
00
~
,..J.
-
UJ
..n
::s 3
G
<:.
u
'3
........"
\JJ <t
-Z
~
"'f'_
4.
~
v>
&:1
-:
,...
'"
-
tI\
~
~
..-
~-:-
- 50
fi~)
I
I
....
-- - --
':'6th Anm..:a: Good 01
BeN ? :unju~·
had 3n at:enj~nce ·)f ~cpr~x!~~t~lv 350 ~e001e. we lde~:if:ed :h~
c. ..'_\..- e .!.~
,. ,-l ___e . '_ ...r "_~.- .___
- l ; " ; .,: t=> r po ~ i
r .:t
- r__
.::. l;·:·r:"?:.
'.
~
- -_, '.
B0y. (:Y\~-=:-:.
~
.
,
r~:--:I~':.
L(1/:-'::.!.
:3W e!;r-:l-C'-=-rnent ·:,rfi':,=,rs.
Local law ,-?:::=i:·r:~!r!~::t :f:icers :Stat:'? s..
~r:'::-al
r:,tf:'ce!-,3 fr'.:'m Folk and Brs.':~e~1 ~·:I.l;!:::.e= ·... h,~ 5-:::' t:-' [ ) r
:~ll':'wship,): N'0 !-=-e.
':;'.le5~s: Th~::.r :'i:::~ wl~l ::~y t,::~- ::helr me:!.l
Q Q
~111j
J.._
Q~'tlmat:~d
b~~!"
...
n
__
1~''")r,Sl_lmDti0n.
7:~:s
~!1I:·i\J,j~.-:
:he
enl~'l,:'y~~=~
I)ut·:k,,)r~
and (;1-'.lmpY·3.
'N':'l-mal~\: the ~::t!":.-=rs C"ll":-:--dse e!l'"'
~5.t'-l!-.jay ~\?enlng rn-=a 1 f,:'r their Gu!'i~.
Tw.:: ve:J.r-s acro w~ voted t:
e:imi:"late r..::du':ed pl-ices f')r S0me wh·:, h;,.ve d;'::['oed b-y:- f'Jr- a day an':
rl::.·;rht 'J! fell·)wshlD. e~/el--/(·ne ;.;:i 11 Pc.~/ ~!"le r1Jl'i fee-,
Cl'::-c·ee
.... .:. ':"lr:>''"'s'? ,)r :h~ Roundup ',,;as a.nd '-=3.!,,:,j (llJts:,je:-r law en!()y("em~-!lt:.
The
:he
:)~C'0m"?
r:he ~~tendee5. nl~
ar. -?'.'~!l+: in":. hem:~ 1'les .
'''';~
nr)":
~~r:ur'?)~
:3. ... ..:.
had
r
-,
o-l:it::,:-~:
esr:ab~
?~d
l.3h a few
''';~
Q::mr~r:'?
... i:'
r:,-·r'
r'?!l')-;....-.::.-hi::- with::.:!
1 r: l:'n r::an:-::-:tb·)ut fr':·m
]01ned In 1984 and ~ave
:-:'rn~er:
~~nadia~5
!::-:-.
l-ul~::,
y,)U are resDonsible for wh:·
RU:"ES:
,,:,-
y.:~..:
law -?r:f:'rC'.~mer.':
Right ')r f.,·'1"':,ng
.:.. Nr:' fi~h:ing.
:-k· firew0rk: of ~nv ~:ind.
rn'l.=t ha"e a
accompanied by !helr
:'!''l'.·:te.
~i:,:r::3':-'1'
-:~1:3
s.r:+:er:i07-=-~
(N,:,;.;
~
;..;:ll n0t be
':')le!,-a-::::-:~
.
par-:-n~
rt-i'r.:5.t g'~~: ()n at ~11~ ?,_ltln1iur' :~~a\/= -:!1~!"'?
(N(~
Ol-~~S.
press r',:,~eases P~l-lOd.
~r:" St:r)r"lE'~ th3.r: wC"_lld -:-mJ:.ar!"s,s=:
=\
un 1 e:s ~m·:-ng ':;00d () 1 Beys.)
'Ill"l:':bands mu:t b~ w0rn t:r beers.ncl food.
any .s. t
6.
~endee.
,
Ik, te::.m w:.:.. be al10w~d t:0 enter in1:·:· i:()moe~lti(ln 'lnle:=s ::hev al"~
[:.: ,:innlnq t:':. enteY d candidatp t01'" Redn-:-c'J..: ':'of th-:: Y~ar.
rr)r' th·:.:;::'
.'"' ~ y 0 U wh·:: h a' / e n eve r a t ten de d ':. h -= ~:' u n d l\ :) t h : s ': 3. J..: ~ =- ~ L (' ~ r'" ~
pl-epaY'ation ~nd l"pnearslnc;r.
7i!~r-p
~'Je~-::-
'/1":-
;";i.~~
-?':,::> n
~:,:,:,eC'-:
b~
~ ~ W1
:-'::>m('~r:it::i'/~
1 1 De
~'.'er·:·cm7
e'lPnt.=
3.nn ')'ln:- ed
:0
with all the ~eE~~~t he
~:r
~ a -:: ~!~ .
m(r::'~-:-V('115ts
·)fl
rr:r:~:;'"
(.:tmp i
n~r.
~t(".
wr~<·
:
::lJd'J'~5.
~raill?~~.
:tv""11..;bl~
pr':,s~(:-'.lt.:,r~.
r..:.,j;:·
i!l
or: r!':'
s~at-:'
':.
&.
t~nr:::.
3l-:-~!:'l::g
:l r ~:'! .
!r:J!ai."~
, ... 1 .... _
at:~nd.
.,,: r:: ': ~n'-l'='-:-:3 must
be
5 t:".'n;o::-·-· !'-:O'''!.
·)ttl'-:--:-~- wh·: '3.r:::tends tho:> ~:';lJr,jl_:r:'.
"',ay,~'I'"\;t:>
~
........,' .. .,., -.-.
....
.:.....,p,('"i...
.. ! .I.
r-•.. _.:::
J
_
h()wl">v~~-
possiblo:-.
::-':'mDl~":-:>
:':·r -:-o,:-h
T-
- :.... (I.
~h
.
l')c~l-:-·ffi(",,:,'-s.
""n t·-'l-··:ement
-:-nt':'l-("o?ment
ba;:~
1 ~,; P.- l ;j, n d. "?N
neighbors. and any Good Jl' Bey invited to
low
N.::-w :,,\·:·11by
'::"'n·
(~!"n"";; ~(-lat .. -~ m"r.',,"
~~.
...."'. e 1:'i·-r·rlt'm'It:>
. "4o:.' . . .. ' • ... ·
0 .:
.. "_
~~(,;ristT3~1·:·n
f<n-m musr: !:>f7 :-:::·r!-e':-: .s.nd
-:t
.l..
...
_
_
'_
...
... ...
__.
::::"
..
::c:;,ll·:-~n,:.)
h' "::" r;:i b <? ~!' m' v:;,. p h.l ~ 0.: ::'::: :. h e D·? -= !N(:'n--s.:~:lh·:·lir:: bever-ages iJl-:·Vllj,.~d,
~,: 'i
n'7 -:- (i
te:· .:J.r:'nK.
SE-~ at':ached.
'T-_!:. ;:. :
~.
1_)
.~
":I·-rn>?s.
nl(-'''' ':T
~·~)":>?l:::
.:'.l)!··:'l
'.'3. L?(~~ - ~a!"i·:--:>l:.~r:i;~·n:3 :..;,n'tii. ~1~v:. ~?~::-: m;::l-:-'/
will be r~flJnd~d. A late charae~f $10.00 w111 be ~jded
: .:,.5, ~: l·5, ~ ~ ~ n':. r i -:-:: .
?HO:T;='
~JT_TMBER:
wl'1:ile
t:tt:':~rL(jjc~';r.
ir!
r:;a=~
,-:-i
~!1
:::..!E:?.':~:::';(~.!. .
~,.J'7 ':-an be rt:>:t("h~d ':h~"-",L~rh ~h,,:, -'~'l,~:
':;ltnt·:, :3h~!-ltt'5 [Ipt:. in Bo:'r-:r:')n. :-?-T ·6l':.
4 7Q -;:)915.
(INLY
E> !.:.~vr. n<:'
m~.l:=T'
::llqlJ'~5or:
~nd
2-;:::!E~t~~:-{ I 1. I
th.;,t '/'~ll'
iac}:et.
a
';.T.=.~r
:)1" i
:::n~-:t~~':'~'~
no a ~
rJNi)et.Til,L:
~-~
:ha":
:: i
',le
t:h,=,
,::-hancri?:?
Tn -:- r -= -,.; 1 1 I ::-7 ~ :-,1 -:0':' .::- s. -;:, ~-:::r':'l' 1 -:-:? :
(lif:=-!.'<:-r. . : in·:p:~-:ii-?nr:::·. meat.~. ~:::.uC'~~.
tast~ J~0d ~0
::'?ESE!'IT?,T:~~~lN: :1(1\.1 ~~ili
'=~rve'-:
rJ.'ll"lnlJ"
'~-)('r: _:~l fF:
\1r',=-r
';:\':"=---:-
1 ea:3i:'
;: :·r -:-\,"-:>n j n·; !i:':;::l:.
=-
.:x!"\ rj
Anv
available to oartici~an~5 upon .=: 19'r; i ~';r ".lp.
.. '::'~~.::.';"'r'r ';:""'. ....- T ~ r ~ '. ~!"\d ?:~'!,'mer ~e(~r:"?(":-:s
-~;...T\):::~C:..
-.-~.
--' ~---'
.".. ----
..
•
r
: ...;
...
'-..
_
•
-" -.-
_
-,
-
-
-
-=-
--
• _."..". _. ~
b~~n~.
_'T1Jd}F.'s.
'"__
. .::1_
- ,.
..,;)
.
. -.. -
f~l_il_',:,,1
·-'r_-_..~/-.~(
R(\T~r"'T'.tr:'
- . - ---.:....;..
---: .--..:....
1 ;J'~ ~
M(' :··n:· ~. '~.
.~
T~:E:::L) ~:i
--~
:.
~: ..
7 : :;.) 1I.M.
....... .
R~.FTE~:: ~= :jN-:
..
Ip Fr)R ,{(,rrR ?!..I (~HT :l-
I~OME fIRST SERVE 3.lI.ST~.
:::- ~ -:H.;;:'"'r
...
........
4 ?iv! .......... .
ri: 30 P1\i
'7:
I
A?,:,I.lTi .. ('HILI '~(tOr:-()FF' (M(:.~7 r.rN!.r:~;.~~.:'. BEST PEE=~~rT~.;:r::IN.
BEST ALL AR(,I)NP 1
30 ?M ..... .
DINNER.
1~?71.l:
...:11.!:----... -.
:-... .;, ,;
R.E.X
~
WITH
~ ~
_7;',!~! SE~S!i::N: Any mU~l(;ia:;s brin11ng :heir ~ql11Clm€'n~ en·"= -:-nC'.:,u~;:,: ... j
to gPt t'~g~ther on D0r~h of C'~bin~ t~ Qlav wha~ ~~~V
feei
~:
30AM ....•.
lC.~lJ! 'SP~!
lH:e at anyt:ime
,?-3. r:h
ill'l::t .
. GCLfER~
arM . . CHECJ<:-!N STA7ION OPEN.
.
2 1.rS INESS
MEfT!1·1GS
AND
REPRESENTATIVES.
.~B0!.r7
6: 30
?~J! ..
AFTER
~INNE~
DINNER (PIG ?1}LL:i:!i'
1 .
ELEC7:: l!-1
,:IF
TEAIv!~~.!=·T~ INS
l? Sl4 ;':.::ANi, ji.r:·:::3~
L
9AM .. 7EAM 1~(Ir-!FETI!i>:'N BE,: INS .
ALL TEl-.ME' ~·rr)2T EE ?RE.3EN7 MID ;:\E.:"DY
TO PLAY. \
I
.......... CHECK-IN 57A T1 I~:N iiOTJRS
,'.1
ANNiITJr-iI~Er,
r:5 ;
30PM .. I'INNER
~:
JOAM .... !~0~:ERS I..EAVE 70 ?!..AY IN 70T.T?NAMENT
e: 15.£1.1\1.
... R.L.FTERS 1ST FLIGh"T BE READY AT BEER TRUCK
:?: l5AM ..... ?ll.FTERS 2ND F!..I'3HT BE F:.EAI:~f AT BEER. TRUCK
:1;:
1 5A~!
R??7ER.:
3F!1-5PM ... ·:'HE':'K-!N STAT!ON SALE :::F
S?M ....... AWARDS
PRESEN7A7It)NS.
PRESIDENT AND
AI:'ArT
"7 PM
.. :nNNER.
STEAKS
W;'.KE-i)P.
H:J:·IE.
EX~;'A
5H!F.TS & CA?5
?U:3ETESS
~Y!E~nT(::.
V!CE-PRE~rrln1T.
11-::: IN7E;::NATI':mALLY ACCLA IMED "GOOD OL'
THE' TJENNE('::::.
E('1y"
WITH~I.i.
-::"LE;'.N-r.iP SEI.:.
~~Ar.otPSITE
AND 5T)RRC1.iNr~TNG AEEA.
:':-:EN GO
MT.
fIRST NAME:
! '-HE"~I\
PREFERRFi) MA IL!NI;: .:UI[IRE.35)
I
Hi}JlrrE
I
H'")ME TEL EF'Hr::'lNE :
!31)SINE::-S u.I!['RE::.:;:
.~ri[IE:::-33:
BUB INEB5 7ELEFH(:NE:
LAW
E:NFQR(~EMEi'TT
SPONSOR S'. DEPT,
::i~!E?(3EN("YI~0NTACT:
iUl=:F:GI~
________,_ _ _ _ TELEPHf)NE: _ __
:
lIn.."--TL-I~'
-_
-_
- -_-_
-_
- -_-_
-_
- -_-_
-_
- -_-_
-_
- -_-_
-_
--_
-_
--_
-_
-.t.:Inr~
__ . .Jr',':',!.
__
_
_
_ :'~l~':'
{~lC
(cir~i~'
SHIRT SIZE:
E):TRA '-:A ~':3
pv~~~
_A _ ••• ,
." --.
1-(,); ':-
'~AF'3
4~RE
:
*
3HIR7=:
·£7
3 M L XL XXL
EXTF\}I.
7-:3HI~TS
ARE '£7 : GOr.F SHIRTS
•
EX7P.A I-SHIRTS:
SIZE: 'circle!
#:
wt:F, T -:-EAiv! ]I.F.E '{(If} ()N?
I W'l:?E Te, :~(lMPETE IN THt:SE EVENTS:
S
(ch~cJ.:
_REDNE.=K ':ir mE '{EAR
VOLLEYBALL
_,:'HU,3-A - !,).rG
_ TRTJCK PUSHING
: N0N-TEAM EVENTS i
r1
...
T
SIZES:
XL
ARE
:5 2 ':'
XXL
event=-l
_TTY;-OF -iNA R
_M(IT0RCY':-LE
_('HI!..I CO')K-OFF
'(,HE("r~ YES OR NO J
DCI ,{Of) WANT Tt) (,0MPETE IN TEJl.M r:-OMPET!TIC'N?
YES
IF NOT ON ,~. TEAM (~AN WE lI.SSI'3N YOLJ T(I A TEAM?
YES
.1
~r.r RAFT ING
YES
NO_
i Avg scor~
I
Days ___- - - , AM ?L.~YrW; r;;(ILF YE5_ N()
NO
r)FFI("IP>.TING
mE
SVENTS
YES
I W('!)LD LI:-:E TO HEL? WITH:
CHE':I<- IN : SE(,UR IT{ YES
~;(I
Rll.fTERS i~HE(,K-·'\FF
YES
Nt"1
RE,~n=!?ATI(I!,: ::'E:::S:
RAFTING -
70TAL AMCII.TNT ENCLOSED:
ANTIC IPlI.TE:,
[)AY
OF
$100. NON-RAFTING -
PLUS EXTRA5 -
$75
$ ______
:5 _ _ _ _ __
~.RRIVAL
-_I,
... h
'_. eo U n'
'=I.e.Y''::l'aned
- _
. reail-~
-..:. - and unijerstand that! and n(~r: ~-.'ne
Rightmy~r n.:,r ~ he ':':"')ci 0 l' B0Y R·:'I.lndlJo, ar~ !"esp,~,n: ":.::: 1-= -: ~': ~\,.:iC":lons.
: ~h~r~f·)r~ :-~l-=,~=~ both :'=rl)rr. any ~laims 0! ~!i.i'l!-:: ')!'
Ii·;.!"']
1"'~
oM
•
e
••
.
o
""•
"
.I
....,."
.
r: ...
~.
:J3:::
II;W
••
:w
!1
c
.. ..
..•. .....It
I
...
"1.
,..
.0
Ow
.,.
...•.
•
~~
i.::
I.
-I
--
is.. "
.
• II
:
~
I
fit
CIo
...
0"
""
.. ....
~
.. ..
•
iI
...•
•••
•
•
..... . .
e_
.all
ec:
I:~
.~
J~
t!
I=J:
3:
....
t~
..••..,
!}
wI
1
•
1
.,
1
J
-
-.-
l~
0"
".
. ...
•• ....
••
..-.". .I':'.,.,
•
IIJI"
.~
...
"...
.aa
ie:
1.'
"I
I-
I~
1:
.~
•
.~
~
80
...-.. ·
g-
•
•••
•"u• AI
•
•• •• .....
••
•o •.
,• • 81
&.
FAX NO.
JUl-17-95 lUi 11: 10
P. 03
May 11, 1993
Bonaventure Roa4
Simons Island, GA 31.522
oear_
The 14th. Annual Good. O'Boy Round.up J:a.i.sed. $1,70Q.00 tor
tne AT!' Waco Hamorial t:'und.
This was accOJllplishad by
pa=rsinq the hAt and. t:.vo raf~l•• , one truc:k and a.
revolver. Armual.ly the Rowulup consists ot sixty
percant l~v Gn£orcaman~ o~fica:c &Dd forty pcaraant are
friends ot law anforcemant o~~i~ars. w. have an annual
qolt tournament tor the American cancer Society.
Thera we:-e four individua-';. who want above anc1 Qeycnd
the norm.
They are:
.. .... -.
_
... .
I alii sura that they would. appraaJ.a.tQ .. l.t.t.ar from
lana and i~ you could let the S.A.I.C.'S in their
respectiva areas aware that ~ey donated these amounts.
The c;reenville Elks LodlJe 858 sho\Ud ~& lIIail.inq a.
contribut1on at
I~
I can ba
$~OO.DC
o~ any
within tne next few
~ayB.
assistanca to you please teel free
to call.
Sinccaraly yours,
~'l'h.tmy
.. r
.
.,
~
.J
/
EXHIBITS 16 THRU 20
Removal Notice
The item identified below has been removed in accordance with FRASER's policy on handling
sensitive information in digitization projects due to copyright protections.
Citation Information
Document Type: Newspaper Article
Number of Pages Removed: 2
Author(s): Fox Butterfield
Title:
"Questions Raised on Report of Agents at Racist Outing"
Date:
1995-08-27
Journal:
The New York Times
Volume:
Page(s):
URL:
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
The Justice Department has identified Richard Hayward, right. as the source of material about a racist
event where Federal agents got drunk. Mr. Hayward had been prevented by the events' organizers
from distributing campaign material of David Duke,
center, the fonner Ku lOux'Klan leader who campaigned for the 1992 Republican Presidential nomination. Mr. Crawford's wife. Mary, is also in the
photograph from a publication by the National
Association for the Advancement of White People.
32-
~
-
-
-
.
u ua)
.-1,: III
~I A
I
".
~r7YMUft'ed
Retires
,
~"I tpIa
1\
hI'
Ci'
,~'
t;,e l.F
t~e.
the mor",,. oIlUftf! If
011
ootlCrd
In. ~.~ £
Pohct'
•fou.,.m..".",.uftflift,04 theII upilOi
Ief
I..",,,,lnl In "'ndcuff
m.n .,
I
IW.~ II·
two O'Mr~
IU",ed " .....
T~
kItpftt:
P'rl ,
the
i
~
. h.d
I
/U\;
"lie cM~~1I CMh~
In.
a
cahter . •nd ,~ c.ff'!~".!
m.n.!!rr twd ch.~ I~ IIHln, ~uJPf'(! IIth,.r
_~ted IIw th,OftI.
I
IUockrd lhe ~'s n~~ 01 f"'.
c.pt' "" drMn, hk .~n·~nl ,Ulo onlo In"
\ldt'W,ll, bolin, hIm betwftn lhe Ut .nd Iht·
g.u .. Jte ...
W,lh
11. TM ""'hC!Ip,
esY.lIWOiiiii,kiirjd•.• • • •
"PPf('n~ded
1M IUsprc-t .. nd
IIXM.
nlm 10 ~
Clft paller 'I'lion, w~p hf' ..., ch"lrd wIth
.rmed rotJb!,.,.
Good 0 'Boy Roundup
~,
~, ,"Ip
,nd loc,l 01pra.ecUIOh . • n<!
frtt'Nt. from \il "~fl COn"ftlied on Due 1.Iown. Tenn.,
lhe F,nt Ann~1 Cuod 01'
loy Roundup.
Fony'IWG bf.ft soul' wen' wt"t_JI.~·
r.k,ng on thp Oc~ Rllrrr. 1M I'\IP' flv .. , In
,I-w x,ulh Ot~.. p&.,.ed ~olt. b4ck.~C'&r-d,
f.~ht>d.
lour-whft1tnl Of iV" lold 1_
A I4rlPt' c~o.,d 1\ pLanned tor ~t ,. ...... ,~t'
1111' \(.MtkJl.n" of I~ "R.dnf'rl O'~mplo "If
On
16, 57
"u~". fe.dft.1
.nd
lUI.
'Ot
_n,
VIIU ()(
nt'~\
your
Y~II \
T,'nn , Ito\t
0111<.1' ... InIf'rrwPd In oIltf'nd.n!{
"Roundup:" ('O""CI "'no1"III('
01
DUly.
1I"•••
Fore!
from ,nt, • • • • •,
_ w o n tht" .nnu..1 .... Tf Col! L'urn.
mI'n' ~' ,hnolln~ • IWO o~\"' Poil round n'
72. Thf' tourrulne'ftI .,-'\ h~ld Junt' ~- dl rh,'
wt"\1 (OU,.," of Andr_\ ...... f ()t <. K.I"
uuhldol' of Wnhtnltfon 1) (
!'.IfW!\ ... 1i
oInd Jft!. ""ploy~. 1('1"--. ~n, ~ ~ \lI ,I·
~tll(llUt~ .nd C'ht'~,\"d !;.trn.I' ~. t1.,
won Iht- 10nR~t dflvP C'nmfX'ltllf,'
OlM' .. if wtnnt'r~
h.indK.p JlI~hh,
4nd
Women's Equality Week
August 25-29
tnt luOt'"
Ir
T'"
Dear "Good O'Boy".
We went international last year. Canadians and T.ex.ans each had full
delegations in attendance. Both delegations, to say the least, had an
impact.
For the past 2 years, we have had the best ~ounaups ever. The weather,
campsite, and river were great. Interest in this year's Roundup seems
to be at a peak, as I received inquiries in December.
I signed the incorporation papers last year, and they have been sent
to the Tennessee Secretary of State.
We have money in the bank, and there is no price increase for attending
the convention (Roundup) this year.
We plan on having a golf "SWAT" at 10: 00 a.m. on Friday, Hay 16, 1986.
I~ you want to pl~y, be there prior to that time.
We are going to do the preliminary matches for the team competition starting Friday at 3:00 p.m. These include volleyball. horseshoe pitching,
dart throwing, washer pitching, and tug-of-war. Have your teams ready.
F;-iday night' 5 meal 'Jill be Bar-B-Oue chicken prepared by the Georgia
delegation with their own secret recipe.
In order to comply with Tennessee drinking laws, no one under 21 years,
unless over 19 years of age and accompanied by their parent, 'Jill be
permitted to attend.
We are going to expand the campsite to accommodate 300 people; hO'Jever,
we ask that only one vehicle per campsite be parked in the campgrounds.
Additional parldng is available at the river outfitters. Last year 'Je
·had a total count of 258 people in attendance. We will have a cutoff
COunt of 300; so get your registration forms in early. As a 1 '<1ays, 1£
you notify us prior ~o May 2, 1986, that you must cancel, we will refund
your money. Anytime thereafter we will refund what we have not obligated.
!!!!!!:
Kl7 16-11. U16
~:
OCOEl,
LDDC lie:
T!JiI!Ssa
CAHPnr:, HOtol HOKEs. ruTS.
S1.IUUIC lACS, c:.t.HPW,
nutw. ETC.
!!2m1 OCDU IlIN HAnMA
(615) 33'-2064
a.EVEI-Um, nt, IS Mat
NUUST HOTEl. - AlOIn
20
~I
HDIUT!S AWAY.
ATY AGDrZS. JUDGES. ODa TEDEI.AJ.
ACEln'S, PIOSECIJTO&S. STAn AID
LOC.U. OFFICDS. RIDDS. IIEICUOU.
A.JIY o'Dta -COOO 0' lOY" ova 21
lUI.! or ACE \110 WIoII'TS TO ArrDD.
AlII)
]!!!!z
EVDYOIII HUn VEA& SII!.&dU
na un UDI. .UlI: AT
t.ZAST ou CWlCE OF a.onuMr:.
DUaI~
DEADLINE 101 I!ClSTlATtOlf:
.£Em:
HAt 2, 1916
* INCLUDES:
lAFTE1S - $SO.OONONIlAFTtllS -
BlQ CHlaD - TUnA! EV!lIIIC
HEAL.
"coQD
O'IOT" 1-SIIlt.
"GOOD o'lar" lA.SDALL·Co\P,
sn:.u; DIPD. - SATUlDl.Y !VENUle
KUl.. AU. mE" lED YOU MUD TO
Dun CWT U.U 26 UCS. I..IID
$ 28. 00*
20 WES).
!!!!:!!:
1.
2.
YOU AU lESPONSIIU FOI. WHCtI YOU UIYITE.
NO FIGllTIHG.
SD~ 0111 OCCUlt AlJ.
WI HAY! NEVEl IIAD It. rICKT.
PAUIES INVOLVED. 11'lt 01 WlOIle, \lIU MOT II .u.LOWID 1ACX.
NE\.I RULE: - NO ONE UNDEI. 19 YEAi$ OF ACI. ACES U A!IJ) 20 !(UST II ACCOKP,orIEn
BY PllENT. WE KAVE DONE nilS 10 COMP1.Y WITH STAn OF TENYESS!I
J)IlNUHC L.AWS.
- - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - D E U C H , SUIHIT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ CITY/sun _
ADDRESS _ _ _ __
OCCUPATIO.. _ _ _ __
EHC1.OSED IS
Uo.oo -
I'K COlNe IA7TIJIC.
ENCLOSED IS $2'.00 - 1'K JUST CO 1M: 10 EAT
m.
T-SUlt SU! (CUe.! YOU. SIZE)
c:u -
DIlMl AHD HAY! It. COOl) TIMl.
(XL)
1 A.LSO WAMT .A.H EX1'I.A. T-S1iI.l.T (CIICU 5t%£)
USDAlJ.
AJG)
t.
XX!.
x
K
L
5
It.DD $5.00 FOI tACH IJ)DInotW. InK
I WoUIT TO PUI COLI' niDAY At 10: 00 o\.H. (CI.I.CU ONl)
YES
(
NO)
l! yOY MY. to cancel priOr to Kly 2, 1M6, your .cIIlIY ",111 be re.fuzUteci. Aftu
t~t d~t •• v. 101111 Itt .. p' to rlturCl your aoalY (ao.. , 1f noc all), d.pCDdlDC
on I\Ow auc:b _ bav. obl1&a,ed.
HAIl. YOUl llESPOHS!S 1'0:
.. , i
_
•
ht
IF YOU !{AVE ANY SUCCE:STIONS 01 COMPLAINTS, LIST THEM OM THE lACK.
EXHIBITS 21 THRU 25
,r, u.~/tl'l T'lh"~
@(i(o)f) @1l3@JZ.18!i1l!!1
~y
~:
16-17, 1986
::::!!!!!: ocot!,
l'ENNtsS!!
,
CAMP INC, HOTOI HOH ES, !Em,
LO DC I He :
SLlUINC BAGS. CJ.HPElS,
nu.ILElS , ETC.
HOUl.: OCOEE tNN HJ.J.lNA
-
(615)3.38-2064
",UVtuND, tN, IS NaT
Nt.U.EST HOr!l. - AlOUT
20 HIH\1T!S AWAY.
~:
ArF AGENTS, J Ul)C ES. OtHEl FEZl!JW.
AGENTS, PROSECUTORS, STArt ANn
LOCAL OFFICElS, FRIENDS, NEICRBORS,
ANI) AJl't OnlEII. "COOD O'BOY" ova 21
Y!I.&S OF ACE WO IoIAJIT$ TO A%TEND.
E!lli:
DEADLINE FOR REGISTRATION:
£VUlONE MUST WEAl. SNUXlllS
DIJUHC nll R.U'T lllJ!. nINe AT
LUST ON! OWiGE or CLOntINC.
MAY 2, 1986
RAFTtRS - $50.00*
UQ CHICKD - FRIDAY fVtNINC
HfAL, "CoOD 0' BO,(" T-SHIRT,
"cooo 0' BOY" BASEBALL·CJ.l'.
ST~ DI~NE1 - SATUInAY EVENING
HEAL, ALL THE' litE!. YOU NE..ED TO
*INCLUDES:
NONR..U'T£RS - S28.00*
ORINX (LAsT YEA1 26 KiCS, AND
20 CASES).
~:
~EIJ
1.
YOU A1.E RtSPONSULE FOR WOH YOU INVITE.
2.
NO FIGHtING. '.J! ttAVE NEVE.I HJJ) A FICttT. SlIOUIJ) ON! OCCt11, ALl.
PAArIES INVOLVED, RIGHT OR. WIOHe, WIU HOT BE AUOWEII !ACX.
llUL! - NO ONE UNDtlt 19 YEARS OF Act.
ACES 19 AND 20 HUST BE ACCOMPANIED
BY PARtsT. 'oJE HAVE DONE nus TO eOMPLl \.lIn! STAT! OF TENNESSEE
DRINKINC UWS.
------------------
ilEtACH " SUBMIT - , - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADDRESS _ _ _ __
_ _ _ CITY/STATE
OCC!J!'ArION _ _ _ __
ENCLOStO IS S50.00 - I'K COINC &AFTINe.
ENCLDSED IS $28.00':- I'M JUST COU~ '!'O EAT AND DUm: AND l1.An A COOD TIMt.
T-SHUT SUE (CliCL.t YOUR SIZE)
(XL)
XXL
Xl
1 ALSO WANT AN EXTRA T-SHIRT (CIRCLE SIzt)
XXL
5A.5UALL CAP - ADD SS.OO FOR. EACH ADDITIONAl.
IT~
~ANT
x
L
TO PLAY GOLF FRIDAY AT 10:00 A.M. (etRCL! ONE)
S
YES
(
NO)
I! you have to I:.nc:el pr 10r ~o Kay 2, 198 b, your money will be refllnd ed. Ai t er
Ulolt Oilte. 'ole ",111 attempt to retllrn your !Doney (.solDe, 1.! not .11). c1epend1ng
on
1'10'01
muc:h we have Obligated.
KAll YOUR RtsPONSES !O:
iF YOU HAVE ANY SUGCESTIONS OR
. ....
CO~PLAINTS,
.
LIST
!H~~
ON THE BACK.
EXHIBITS 26 THRU 30
•
,
O'DOY ,
'l'lnS -EVENT- BAS GONE ON !'OR 12 Yl!:ARS WI'l'!!OtJ'1' INCIDEN'l', NO FIGH'l'S, NO
ONE litmT SERIOOSLY, PRIDE DOESR'T COON'l'. ARC RO ORE PC'T IN JAIL.
CONSIDEllING THE NC'MBER AND WIllE RANGE OP COHPE'l'I'l'IVE PEOPLE nClt ALL
WE
OVER NORm AMEltICA WIlO AftENC 'l'D -ROUNDup· '1'lIIS IS~.
lW) ASOO'!' 29l PEOPLX IN A'l"'l'ENDENCE.
LAST n:AR ..otnt GOLF OOTING RAISED ABOtrr SSSII POll 'l'B!! AMERICAN CAHC!!lt
SOCIETr.
WE HAVE MOVEI) BACX TO 00tt NORMAL. '1'IM! OF tEAR, BOWlWElt WE MISSED
MO'l'EEll' S DAY.
THIS Y!!AR RAP'l'ING AND GeL!' 1f'ILI. '1'AD PLACE AT THE SAME
TDm mt1S YOU MOST MA1tE A DECISION AS '1'0 WBE'mEll YOO WAN'!' TO RAFT OR
GOLF.
MOST O~ '1'BE n:AH EVENTS WILL BE OR SA1"tJRDIJ.
EMERGENCY nom: NmmEB: Df CASE OF All EMDGDCr mJI.X WE CAN BB LOCA'r!:t
'l'mlOOGB '1'2E POLE COON'l'! SDRD7'S o:rnCZ III BBIft'01!I. 'm (615) 338-8215 •
"MM; ocoa, fi!NNESSD
LonGING; CAMPING :- Ma'1'Olt HOMES, ,'l'1QU·DS, ±D~, CAII1'D ~IJmS,
SLEEl'DlG BAGS, B'fC. 'lU APPLE'1'RB:& HO~, o.s. mfT '4 Bl'PAS S, CI.EV'Er.AND,
WILl'. 0!'!'Elt GllOtrP BUS '1'0 'mE rIllST 3 I
'mE M~ AU SINGLE oa.DotmLB $%1, "PEOPLE TO A
ROOMS.
ROOK $31. -rm.L 'mEH %00 AR.E WIm 'rBB -GOOD O'BOYS· WEEN YOO
PHOHB 615-.79-9915.
l:mC.L JtJ'DGES, PROSEX:t7'l'ORS, n:DDAL AGZ!r1'S, !'rAD , LOCAL O!'1'ICZltS,
PRIEH'DS, NEIGHBORS, AlID NIX pml GOOD O'VOX OVU 21 YU.U OF AG!
WHO IS INn'l'ED '1'0 Ai fJbil).
PRESS; EVEIa'ONB MUST WEAR SNEArDS DtJRnG mz RAP'!' RIDE.
StlGGZST mA'l
YOO BRING 1.'1' LZAS'1' POOR CKANGBS OP ct.omnm AHD A JACD'r.
D!!APL:rg: APRIL 23, 1992' - CANCEX.I.AnONS OR'nL URn 311, 1992 HONE!'
WILL BB ltE'raItNEn.
COSTS; RAPTDS - $81 NOII-RAPT!:ltS - $ 68 (MAD I HPCXS '1'0 GDZq
IlIGB1'XtEiIJ
INCLtlD!:S; CAMPSITE, 3 EVENING Ml!!AI.S, LtmCB SA'l'trlmAY, -GOOD O'SOY
ROORDOP- CAP, 'l'-SRIRT AND BEER MUG, PLUS ALL 01' mE BEER yet
REED 'rO DUNE.
NOB-ALCOHOLIC BBVER"GES PROVIDED.
RULES: 1. YOU ARE RES1'ONSIBU POll WHO YOU INVITE.
2. NO FIGBTIllG.
lUGE'!" OR WRONG mIS WILL NC11' BE '1'OLE». 'l'E!) •
3 • NO !'IREWOlUtS OF ANr lCIlm J
4. NO ONE tJNDEll l8 YUltS 01' AGE.
AGES l8 TO 21 MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY THEIll PAllD'1'.
XS TO, GDE UGHiiiiDy A. ~..P .• ,
MAIL REG1STMnONs ANI) MAP
P.O... BOX 11112f
G".RBElIIY:t:LLZ, SC 29 61a.mtEll: MAY 1", 15, 16, 1992
m,
cm:
GOOD Q',O% INC .. potS NOT ENCOURAGE aCEssm PErmING.
JU:M:tmER GQOl
Q' BoyS mCM WHDi TO SAX ffiWN·
YOU'LL HAVE MORE FQlf IF YOU pRum IN
MOP!:M'l'YQN.
N1!:I'l'EER GENE RIGlI'l'MYElt NOR mE GOOD O'SOY· INC., ASStJHES ANr tIABILI'l'!
FOR ANY INJURIES SUSTAINED OR ACTIONS Opt ANI A'rtElWD •.
'7<.
,J
~.~
1 ...'1
.;
, ('
~.")
(J
~
Cf
r -
k ...".. .
•
AL
Y
EXHIBITS 31 THRU 35
..
FIPSI' W.ME: _
(***
MAKE ~CNS HEm: ***)
TITLE/CO::.: ATICIRNE'f
************************************************************************************
SHIRl' SIZE: (circle)
EX'IP.A CAPS: I
OOLF SHIRrS:
IX)
(EXmA CAPS ARE $6/l'-SHlRl'S ARE $5)
(CDLF SHlRI'S ARE $20)
S M L XL XXI.
EXmA.
#_ _
,___
T-~:
SIZE:
(circle)
S
M L
5IZES: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
WHAT
'l'F.Mo{
ARE YOO:
_ tr:r.resr
_
oo()
RB:iISmAT.ICN FEE:
YES
l«) _
P.AFl'nC - $80,
-
CR -
_
CHtX;-A-IU;
_
1RD< rusHN;
_
'ImXX PUSHm;
tu:;-<)F-wAR
ARE YOO eN? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
P.AFI'Im
Jm:MX:l< OF !HE YDR
G:XXl 0' f!lJY
VC1Ll..E'iBAIL
_
YOO WAN!' 10 a::t4PEI'E IN YES ( ) 00 ( )
TEAM a::MPEl'ITIar?
check a1e - >
YES()
XXI.
XL
PI.AYIN:; OOLF
oor RAFTIN:;
am un::ierstarIi
N:) _
AM.XJNl' ENCl.OSID: $_ __
- $60
***************************
*. I, the un:iersigned, realize
YES
*******
****
that I ani rot Gene Rigtltmyer*
* ncr the Gcxx:i 0' Boy Ire., are res~lSible far T1tf actialS. I therefore *
* release l:oth fran arry claims of injury or liability.
*
**************************************
SI~:
_______________________________
~:
__________________
· J..,lm
The Politics of 1992
LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUP HOLDS ANNUAL ROUND UP
Duke Barmer auctioned for charily
by rucb Hayward
1M c;..4 ()' ~ • If'OIIP 01 a-calon:r:IDCIII oIliccrs .rOOl .." C1>IU lbe aMla'ry aDd ~1Uda,
bc:iJ ,Jib Inn"" ptkri",iD Ocoee, Tall)(ssee
,ad,
urtia' Ihil 'UIaIDa'.
<her ~ Good 0' ~ ...coded llaU
yar. 'Ibis aocnt ciw:s IbcK affec::n a WIKle \0 let
lhc:ir IWr dowII ACId Cd ""'troe ,be bacUc job of
a:r.
cafon:cllKftl. 1lu: CUIp opcDI OIl Thu~
~ a!Wi beci- .r"" ,he p,s KUinc .p lIIcU'
a.pUIes 1M COGlfIeti. rqistnboa. Soec: AI'ri¥c
c. IJIOklrqclcs,lIki1l& adwaauec at Ik: oppor1uNC)'
ri4in,
III
Ibroup lbe SIBOlcy MDllauiu. I:riday
t.cpQs willi. p' lOUJ"U1laI1 ud lhc lirst round of
oocapetiax.. -t.icla ilduda IU! nI ~,., ....,._~ ~..!!.
l:uct pwIa. ~ slw:Jcs.. alWi auDy tnae lCJM,io,.
Fon IAIadc:nulc fo:i.ce ~ ill as lbe
.sdC'lldiA& _cn1l da:ulpions and ~ a IOUP liwc
.!d~ ~ lilk. Atkt -1/'014 ~ '" «w.lJC'iaiocl,
~ Ict\All)Cd w .:::eap .... batbccuc dUd.ca
c1.oouoa. S..u.nlay :0UIId lbc Good O· ~ -tUtc-,co nIl",4owft ahe Ocoee Rna, &II .aMI} ddi·
Dildy not COl" lbe wnl·bc:ancd.. AI Salurd.ty aller'
DOOI', fuWi ia.U 0IC:tIu. 'lie Secrd $aWe UITO\IIty
dcIea1Cd aile &kUadiPJ eta ..... ,...,. fOIl uUdeycble. 1bc eoaapailion was sua., dais JAI. ""Ih
Ic:aDS lroIa Ik ATf', Dr~ Cauda. Alabaaa pa,.
Tettl!'3~ ~ Scv.c:o:, f ..."t l.iw.i.!lo1ioic, WA.I.Ia-,
in,eo.. DC, alld MidIipn.
.\hu I
~ ...... tKUlOCt tDCaI SaIUnsay
I
,
fldd lor die Vllicsll
Gc.od o' eo, aDd Ik: ""Y prClllpoau Good O' Boy ,.
'" lhe Vear _41115. Clanic lro.'1I Fan lIbdcnLk
Yo... awarded u~. alld Dub from WaslirII'on DC
look IaocIaoc aK Good O· Do, '" IW )'C:Ir u!.k.
A:iC.o io.: _aN~. ~ pR'
KIlled I tNc foot by htoII:ary froo Duke: f'" ~
I~ be auctioned. II -.enl for SI6S.00. 16iIb II)(
I~ PDJ IOdlmiy. t...uu uI i>uU for f',-a;dcnl
hala ~~ abo bc:i-c worn 101 IJ-.is I'OIIOdDp.
elfftli"a. ,be
ClOaIfClihoa _
u,.
Wi~ StrIwby monaioc came tk pawns
lIP ud hadia&~. with m.aay cood ~ ol
aoclbC1' R.ouad Up
•
.~.~-
-lilL
runth annual
Dear Good 0' Boy:
This will be the 15th Annual Good 0' Boy Roundup. Last year we had -attendance of 349 .people.
We identified the attendees by differe~
categories:
Good 0'
Boy, quest, and local law en!~rcement otfice~~
Local law enforcement officers (state and local officers from Pol:_
Bradley and McMinn counties who stop by for fellowship:
no fe=Guests:
their nests will pay tor their meal and estimated be&~
consumption.
This includes the employees ot Ocoee Outdoors ar.~
Grumpy's. . (Normally the ratters purchase the Saturday evening meal f==
their quide.)
The year before last we voted to eliBinata redue~
prices for some who have dropped by for a day and night of fellOwShip
everyone will pay the full fee.
The purpose of the Roundup was and is to promote fellQwship within a~
outside of
law enforce"ent. This purpose is still the m~in reason *~
mee~.
The competition ca~e about trom the nature of the atte~dQQs_
Tne Canadians
joined in 1984 and have beco=e an event in themselve~_
We are not political and we will not be. Over ~~e years we have had ~~
es~acli5h a few rules.
RULES:
are responsible for ,who you invite.
(Newattepde =
must have a law enforcement sponsor.)
No fighting.
Riqhe or wrong this will not be tolera~ed.
No fireworks of any kind.
No one under 18 years ot age.
Ages 18-2l m~st C~
accompanied by their parent.
What goes on at Round~p stays there.
(No press, pres~
releases
period.
No stories that would embarass ar.";
attendees, unless among Good 0' BOYS.)
Wristbands must be worn for beer and food.
You
1.
2.
j •
4.
5"
6.
g
Ho teao will be allowed to enter into competition unless they ar~
planning to enter a candidate for Redneck of the Year.
For those 0=
you
who have never attended tne Roundup,
this takes a lo~
prepara~ion and rehearsing.
0=
Musicians are encouraged to
each day, evening and niqhe.
There
even~s
Now
bring their instruments tor jam
session~
will be competitive events for motorcyclists on Friday.
will be announced la~er.
that
I
ar.t
the, possibility
Thes~
retired we are looking for soma corporate sponsors anc
of having other Roundups durin~ the year at differen~
locations.
0' BOYS DO HOT ENCQURAGE EXCESSIVE PRINKING. REMEMBER coop 0'
KNOW WHEN TO SAY WHEN. YOU'LL HAYE MORE FYH THAT YOU'LL 8EHLMBE~
If YOU DRINK Itl MOPERATIOij. Heitner Gene Rightmyer or the Good 0' Boys
assu~es
any liability for injuries sustained or actions of anv
attendees.
GOQD
eOYS
EXHIBITS 36 THRU 40
f.
:
-..
. •• ' ..
Ref: Goud 01" Boy Roundup
Deu GeD8;
This letter is directed to you for tho purpoee o~ request1nQ
tbat IIJ' raame be l"eIIIOVed. !rom the Good Ol" Sol" RaanclUp JDember~
Uet. tt7 reaaona for makina this request are set forth below. I
reespectfullY Nqueet that yOU provide copies of this letter to
tha O:f:f1cora and -.embers of the Board o~ Directcrs.
I tiret attended. the Good 01
Boy Boundup in 19S4 and I saw
and heard mIS%lY thinc8 which disturbod me as a pro!oeeicnal law
~orcement offieer.
However, I reaUzed that the Good 01-'. Boy
Roundup is a time for law enforcement ofiieere to "let their ha.1.r
down"
in
an env1rcmment
which
should
net cause
them
emb&rraaemsnt. There~ore. I elected not to aav ~hina; but, I
also elected Dot to act in the manne~ that I observed oth.~
act1n8.
So that you miaht know what I saw and heard that
cU.aturbed me, I cite:
Grown men drunk beyond anything I had ever 1maa1ned; to
the extent that they did not mow amrthinlt about what
-..e SC1:l1 on around. them.
In fact. I saw at least one
taken tc a hompital for treatment of what was described
&8 "alcohol paitJonina".
Femalee who were not in allY way. shape. form or fashion
1..nvolved 121 or aseociated with law enrorcement.
I
heard at least one such female ecreamin~ and fiaht~
to let awQ' from some Good Ol" Bop &%'01D1d 3:00 AM.
Grown IDeD. preeumably law ernforcemant officers. drunk.
naked and exposina themaelvee to the aeneral :n.tblic by
ridina up and down the hiahwu.
The 19915 Good 01" Boy Roundup had deteriorated even further.
In :faat. th1e year there were :!emalse in attendance for the
enUre t1lDe who pve every appearance of beina prostitutes.1udclnc from their dress. or lack thereof. anel their act1orus. I
pereonally don"t th'nk the Good 01· Boy ~ 18 the pl.ace for
8UCh aat1one.
Purtber.
there
were
mmeroue
vcuna
men.
who
one would
were law ~orcelDent of:!1oers.
whoee l~e wae
extreme17 loud and profane. Such doee Dct pro:) eat an iDlae with
Which I desire to oont1.nUe to be a.seoo1.ated.
PN8'llZDe
oi-I 9 -
9 S 09: J 8 AM
? 0 C S :: Z S
r..stu.
there 1Ia8 • lara" m.zmber of y~ !'emalee who
arrived at the Ro11rl~ on Frid.ay ...venina to "v1ait" Good. 01- BoYS
who were already encamped. Based on what I heard. some of these
7OUn8 females were only 18 years of &ae.
Thie fact create8 4
situation which could lead to TROOBLK - Trouble with which I do
Dot wish to be associated.
I . . well aware that the Good 01' Soy RotmciuP etarted out
wi th 8'OOc:l. verY aood.. 1ntent1ona. And I tully support the ideus
on wJUch the Bcnmdup vas ol"1a1nally based. However. for re~ns
of wb.1cb I am not &'IIrU'e. the Raundup has been allo1l7!!d to
deter~orat.e - and th1a 18 not 800d.
'l'berefOl"e. I
reapectfully rec;:ueat
that
lIlY
nalle
be removed
froID the JDe2l1berehip list of the Good. Ol· Boy RounC1up.
S1nc8reu.
•• TOTAL PAGE.006
0"7-19-95 0938AM
*¥
?005 ::25
Department of the Treasury
33,000 Treasury Law Enforcement Personnel Surveyed
uses
59%
~
/
IT] uses
f21ATF
~~~r;;dd!!j
~
1
",,"'''" e,
· Other
2%
665
nusss
lS3'AS
O· Other
IRS 12%
3,657
4.671
4.200
• FI. FTC' {.tr}(,l IlrI~'(1n (163) OIG (42)
Treasury Employees Who Attended the Good 0' Boy Roundup
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
TOTAL
2
1
1
1
1
2
13
2
3
1
TOTAL
---,------ 2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
6
9
7
1
TOTAL
-
----1
1
2
1
1
4
2
2
1
3
3
5
BUREAU
1980
1983 1984
1986 1987
--,-------
. ___
----~--~----~I
199<4 1995
r-
TOTAL
1
1
2
5
3
1
1
1
5
10
BUREAU
•••
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
~1iifit*
liiji• •_i1.;i!:lL~_ _ _mX$i$lllM~~l~
TOTAL
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
2
3
3
3
TOTAL
--'6
2
3
7
3
9
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
TOTAl...
----1-
3
14
1
1
1
14
4
1
4
1
2
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
19~
1995
TOTAL
3
J
TOTALS
21
16
12
19
14
21
29
29
21
18
19
28
125 Treasury Employees attended the "roundup· flam 1980 - 1995. (64 ATF, 13 CS, 15 lAS, 30 SS, 3 FLETC.)
* - approximately the year the person went to the ·roundup".
17
24
24
24
EXHIBITS 41 THRU 45
Department of the Treasury
Roundup Attendees by Year
1,'ILd Nllllllll'l
,;
11,1,1\",
,I
I I , 11111l'I'
400-:
350 -~
300 -::
250 -'
200 :
•
150 -:
1 00
Total Attendees
~ Treasury
-~
50 -'
0-'
--------1
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
!b~ !b' !brt,. !b"" ~ g,f;:J _o..'IJ ~ !bib ~OJ p,~ 9' 9'l- fb~ P!Jt,;,. P!J~
....OJ ,~ "OJ ......OJ "f?r ,OJ ,,~,Oj ,,OJ ......~ ,OJ ,,OJ ,~ ,C!5 ,OJ .....C!5
•••••
••
Tota\ Attendees •
Treasury Employees ....
58 158 250 300 300 256 300 300 300 300 300 201 341 349 350 325
21 16 12 1Q 14 21 20 ~g 21 18 1Q 28 17 24 24 24
Percentages
36
11
5
«5
5
6
10
10
7
6
~
• ApprOXimate Attendees
•• Current Treasury Employees that attended Roundup
')\,',H
6
9
5
1
7_.
thn h~,' 1fl years
7
*
Employees ... ,
Department of the Treasury
Attendees by Bureau
ATF
FLETC
3
uses
33,000
(99.823)%
13
IRS
15
USSS
30
Total Surveyed
Total Attendees
... Current Treasury Employeo~ thaf eJt10rtdect Roundup over the last 16 years
TREASURY ATTENDANCE BY BUREAU
Subtotals per Bureau
Bureau
1980 1981
ATF
13
uses
1
IRS
3
USSS
FLETC
4
0
TOTAL
21
1982
1983
8
0
5
6
1
0
5
1
0
3
0
8
0
16
12
19
9
1
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
9
0
1
13
13
13
2
7
1
8
0
4
9
0
21
3
3
5
0
0
5
0
8
0
5
9
0
14
21
29
29
4
64 Employees
II times attended
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
13
14
II employees
50%
32
23%
15
11%
7
5°,4
3
2%
1
3%
2
2%
1
2%
1
2%
1
2%
1
13 Employees
fI; times attended
1
2
3
5
IRS
USSS
15 Employees
II times attended
1
2
3
8
10
30 Employee.
II times attended
1
2
3
4
II employees
9
3
1
1
1
60%
20%
7%
7%
7%
FLETC
3 Employees
II times attended
1
3
II employees
33%
1
67%
2
7
9
14
16
8
3
7
0
0
0
2
9
2
18
19
28
17
24
3
3
8
II employees
7
54%
8%
1
15%
2
3
23%
(I
1995
10
4
2
14
uses
ATF
1992 1993 1994
10
0
2
7
0
employees
47%
14
7%
2
20%
6
10%
3
3%
1
3%
1
7%
2
3%
1
6
2
4
5
8
3
3
2
2
9
2
24
24
6
Department of the Treasury
Roundup Attendance by Current Treasury Personnel
USSS
Year I ATF
IRS
FLETC
USCS
TOTAL
1980
13
4
3
1
0
21
1981
9
5
0
1
1
16
1962
6
5
0
1
0
12
1983
6
8
0
3
0
19
1984
9
4
1
0
0
14
1985
13
5
0
3
0
21
1986
13
8
5
3
0
29
1987
13
9
5
2
0
29
1988
7
9
4
1
0
21
1989
8
7
3
0
0
18
1990
10
7
2
0
0
19
1991
14
6
3
3
0
28
1992
6
5
4
2
0
17
1993
8
9
2
3
2
24
1994
10
6
2
4
2
24
1995
8
9
2
3
2
24
NOTF' Numbers roflect in,iivI.jwlb •. \:h"
I.~rtunded
the Roundup ont"l tllne .:'!r
"I. II I,
Department of the Treasury
Frequency of Roundup Attendance by Current Treasury Personnel
NlIl"nl)er of attendees
/r~--
.. -- ..
- - - ----
~--
.
-
--- --
.-~--
--
- - - -- -- --
70
~------------~---.-----.---------
60
50
~
40
30
t:::
_ .,..
......
••
------
-
20
10 --
o1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
16
t'-lum\J81 uf tlllle~ <.tttencled
NOTE:
Numbers reflect mdlvirjual8 whn attended the Roundup one time or mor8
EXHIBITS 46 THRU 50
Racial Incidents Witnessed by Treasury Employees
Name
Bureau
Incident
Returned
Response ...
ATF
90 Sign;
Yes
None
Yes
None
90 KKK skit
ATF
91,94 Vehicle check;
94 Simulated KKK hood;
95 Racial T-shirt
--
~
ATF
Racial Jokes during 1he skits
Yes
None
ATF
95 Victim of racial slurs
NA
None
ATF
90 KKK skit
Yes
None
ATF
Racial T-shirt
Yes
None
ATF
Two different racial T-shirts;
Yes
None
Witnessed racial Incident with
ATF
Racial T-shirt
Yes
None
IRS
90 Sign
Yes
None
uses
Racial T-shirt
Yes
None
USSS
90 Sign;
Yes
None
No
None
90 KKK skit
USSS
90 Sign;
90 KKK skit
USSS
90 Sign
No
None
USSS
90 Sign;
Yes
None
Yes
Told others to take sign down
90 KKK skit;
Racial T-shirt
USSS
1c
90 Sign and 90 KKK skit
"Respon se" indicates the specific action taken by the named individual at the time of the incident
INTERVIEWS OF TREASURY RETIREES BY BUREAU
BUREAU
ATF
ATF
RACIAL EVENTS
WITNESSED
YEARS
ATTENDED
DUTY
STATION
19110. 81 . 82°. 83°.
&4°. 81. sa
KnollVl.... TN
NtA
NONE
1885.88.87.
Glynco. G"
Nt"
NONE
MOB/REX
ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS
90.• '
"TF
-----
1980.81.82.83.
&4.85• • . • 7....
... 80•• 1..... 85
CM~.NC
MOB ;RElt
S_ the °NIogef ChectpoinI'" sign
in 1990. o-.-h~Mw_
tM "Soyz on tM Hood" t-Wlilt .
conInt two yMfS In •
Mf
NlA
hI.. Chun:h. VA
NtA
NONE
ATf
HI"
W.$hlngton. D.C.
HI"
NONE
ATF
HlA
ChlCago.1l.
Nt"
NONE
ATf
1982".85"
CMrtoh.NC
Nt"
NONE
ATF
1983.84"
A!I.".GA
NtA
NONE
Nt"
NONE
Nt"
NONE
ATF
HI"
"TF
NlA
WuhingtDn. D.C
MOB
ATF
1980.81.82.83.
84.85.86.87.88.
89.90.'1.92.93.94.
Meon.GA
ATF
1980.81.83.1W.
116.87.88.".90.
92.93.95
Brunswick. GA
Nt"
1980.81.82.83.
uk. Butler. Fl
HI"
"TF
94.95
He won • Redneck of !he Y.r
comnt In \he e.rty 1tMID'.. He
.Iso won \he beef enduro drlnldng
,
S_ h "Nigger Checkpolnf" sign
In 11190
S_. rKiIIl sign In 1990. In 1992.
he uw Or.rid Duke ......... end •
sign .. \he '*"PUround
NONE
fVW.
~.':.,.
~
...
-
INAME
----
BUREAU
ATF
ATF
YEARS
ATTENDED
DUTY
STATION
MOB/REX
1980,81,82,IlJ,
M..,on,GA
MOB; REX
19&4,85,88,87
Gulfport, MS
&4,85,86,87, ea,
89,90,91,82,84,95.
ea, 89, 90, 81,92,
MOB
RACIAL EVENTS
WITNESSED
Ssw ItM 'Nigg4f Cheekpoint'" sign
In 1990. He Ilso saw ... 'KKK' sIdt.
In 1992, DIMd Dub lieern.1 _
left on ... ,eglstrdon • .,...
Saw the '~r Checkpoint'" sign
In 1990.
93,84,95.
ATF
NlA
W . .hlngton, D.C.
NlA
NONE
He _s __ ,e of ... G08A
its beglnlng.
ATF
1980,81,82,83,84,
G'Mnvllle, SC
REX
Sin Frlnclsc:o, CA
NlA
85,88,87.88,89,90,
91,92. 93, 84, 95,
ATF
ATf
NlA
NlA
'983', &4',86',87",
89',90,91',92',93',
"nee
S_1he rKlst sign Ind 1he 'KJO("
skit In 1990. In 1992, _1hI . . .melon skit. In 1985, _ _ hid
wriIIen rKili slurs on ... por1IIbIe
toilets.
NONE
Saw I rKt,a sign In 1990.
94',95
ATF
ATF
USCS
1981',82', &4',
116',87
1980
SIg ...1Mount.ln. GA
NlA
NONE
8ristol, VA
NlA
NONE
NlA
NONE
199<4,95
IRS
1968
Rocky Mount. NC
NIl\.
NONE
IRS
1988
Franklin, TN
NlA
NONE
USSS
NlA
Allin., Gil.
NlA
NONE
, app,o"Ima'ely tt.e yea, 01 attendance.
He bealme _ . d the G08R
In 1981
GS-15 MANAGERS WHO A TTENDED THE GOOD O' BOY ROUNDUPS
RACIAL EVENTS
WITNESSED
NAME
Non~
ADDITIONAL
RESPONSE
COMMENTS
He
b.l1~ve~
op~n
Invlt~t
th~t
h. f@,ponded to
Ion.
Hone
Hone-
--
None
None
~ttend.d
the
Roundup~
~ith~.
Non<@'
None
None
~onp
Nonp
Non~
fL[TL
199 J,
IHS
• approximately It>e Y'" "' 01 mnendmnce
Nonf'
1994
Glynco. GA
H~
..... a
He
3t.lyed
~
~
H:JB.
In ,. motel
In
1990,
1991
~n
nt:'pallmellL of the Trcdsliry
it·p of Inspect.or- (ienel d 1
Of f j "r:.- uf Inveat,lgat iuns
(If If
ResullH of
~h@
Managemp-nt
Interviews
(Solted "lphabetic~llYI
lIureau: ATF
Date of Report:
Last Name
I-'lrst Name
-
DZ/"J.6/'J6
"g~n"y/Grad"
Year Became
Title/Position
CUrrent POD
Aware of
Roundup
•
•
What they
heard about
Roundup
BATON ROUGE
LA
CAMI'INI; ANI.) RAFTING TRIP
FOR lAW ENFORCEHENr
OFFICt:R'S
85
OKLAHOH CITY
OK
SAW A FI,IER OR
INVITATION ADDRESSED
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
~HPLOYEE
THE FLIER
STATED ·WE ARE HAVING
TilE (JOOD O'BOY ROUNDUR
IN KNOXVILLE,
TBNNESSEB,88
-•
1'0
A OKloAHOHA COUNTY
NEM ORLEANS
LA
~
RET
What did Management
do about Roundup
(if anything)
96
--..
•
- - •
•
.........
Place of Duty (POn) when
they heard of Roundup
CAHPOUT/COOKOUT
RAFTING, FISHING AND
BEER DRINKING
92
DETROIT
HI
FOR ATF AGENTS - OIrrlNG
FOR RAFTING
'J!J
WASHINGTON
DC
THRIJ A NBWS LETTER
ISSUED BY THE GASDBN
MILITIA l.ETTER TO
FOR lAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICBRO's - FISIIINO,
RAFTING AND COMMUNE
90
811
LOUISVII.I,E
ICY
COOKOIn', RAFTING WITH
ATF lAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFlCERO's FAMIl.Y EVENT
NO ACTION BECAUSE
NO REPORTS OF
NEGATIVE
INFORMATION ABOUT
THB ROUNDUP
Ih"p,iII t menl"
ot t i.,'p of
llf f
H("suit s
uf
lCE!'
of
of
the 1'1"easury
Inspect-or Ueneral
Invest 19at lOlls
the Milnagement
lutel"vieW9
ISolted Alphabetically'
Bureau, ATF
Date of Report,
Last Nam..
Flrst Name
-
02/26/96
Agellcy/Gude
Year Became
PICIce of Dill y
Title/Position
they heard of Roulldup
CUrr"'llt POD
Aware of
Roundup
ATF
8!:>
WASHINGTON
tiIr-
What they
heard about.
Roundup
whe"
DC
II
What did Management
do about Roundup
(Lf
anything)
!..AN ENFORCEHEN'r
OfFICER's GATHERING FOR
RAFTING
TO WHITE MANAGER .
FAMIl,Y GET TOGETHER
8S
THE ~.oBR BECAUSE HE
DID NOT THINK IT
MOULD 00 ANY GOOD.
..
(POOl
•
~~~"~'EVER ~E A
fORMAL PROTEST TO
GODA.
TO B!..ACK SA'g - A WHITES
ONLY FUNCTION
!..AN ENFORCRMENT
80
OFF.leER's GATHERING FOR
RAFTING IN TN, GA OR
N.C.
68
WASHINGTON
DC
AN EVENT INVOINING
FISHING, CAMPING AND
RAFT I NG .
NOT KNOWN AS
GOBR
-
•
BS
WASHINGTON
DC
FOLKS GETTING TOGETHER .
MAY HAVE SEEN AN ARTICLE
IN A RETIRED AGENT
PtffiLICATION
88
WASIIIHGTON
DC
CAMP OUT - A "GUY
B~ER
DRINKING - SE
REGION EVENT
THING"
Ilt'pdltment
oft
il"f;.'
of
ut
th~
Tlt"·tlISUIY
Inspe<:tox"
O( f ice of
G,pneldl
Invest igat
i(lllS
Results o( the Manaqempnt IntervIews
(Sorted .... lphabet ically)
Buteau:
ATP
Date of Report:
I",at Name
Firat Name
-
02/26/96
Agency/Grade
Tille/Position
CUrrent POD
ATF
RET
~
-
An'
Year Became
Aware of
Roundup
90
..
80
89
Place of Duty (POOl when
they hea I d 0 f Roundup
What they
heard about
Roundup
MIAMI
FL.
(.AW ENFORCEMErIT
OFFICER's SOCIAL EVErIT
What did Management
do ahout Roundup
(if anythio9)
DOES NOT RECALL ATF
MANAGEMENT
ENCOURAGING OR
DISCOURAGING
ATTENDANCE.
IF
ALCOHOL BEING
SERVED, ATF WOULD
NOT SPONSOR SUCH AN
EVENT.
INVOLING CAMPING,
FISHING AND RAFTING
ANNUAL PICNIC AND GET
TOGETHER IN SE U.S.,
POSSIBI,Y TN.
NEVER SAW
FLIERS.
WASHINGTON
DC
IIEARD ABOUT GOBR THROUGH
IN 1981,
OFFICE GOSSIP.
A ERIEND
ATTENDJ:::D
TOL.D HIM
~OUT IT.
ACTIVITIES DESL~IBED
INCLUDED NAKED HEN
JUMPING OUT OF TBEES,
MIAMI
FL
IN THE WOODS fOR
LAW ENFORCEMErIT
On'IC'ER'g, CARD GAMES.
BEER DRINKING, TOLD I,IES
Ol~ING
OlD NOT
REt'LIKT THIS ALLEGED
INCIDENT.
IJf-"f,.'ltmcllt
OftLC'e of
Rf"'!.Hi I
t.
Of
t
.lC~
8
0
f
of
rill"
TIPd.HUI~·
Jnspector- Gt"'IIPlrlol
of
IlIvt""sL i'jcu ion9
the Md.nagement
J nt
C1.
v i e-ws
Alphabetically)
lIureau:
ATF
I~"'t.ed
nat e uf Report
Wst
Name
First; Name
()2/26/96
Agency/Glade
Title/Position
Current POD
•
.. ...-.
- ' - ..
..,.... -
Year Became
Aware of
Roundup
Place of Duty IPOU) when
they heard ot Roundup
84
ATLANTA
Gil.
What they
heard aboul
Roundup
What di(i
WEEKEND OUTING ,
CAMPING, RAFTING,
UNKNOWN - DOES NOT
RECALL MANAGEMENT
ENCOURAGING OR
DISCOURAGINU
ATTENDANCE
PICNIC, AND BEI::R
DRINKING
05
"rHUG A LUG" CONTEST
EXCESSIVE DRINKING
81
MONTGOMERY
AL
RAFTING AND DRINKING FOR
I.AW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's AND FAMILY
MEMBERS
90
JACKSONVILLE
FL
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's FUNCTION
FRATERNAL GATHERING
SOCIALIZING AND SIIARI::
EXPERIENC8S
A~
COLIJMllI A
SC
OECAME AWARE OF THE GOBR
THROUGH "Io/OR[J OF HOlTI'll."
TWO ATF AGENTS MAIlE IT
CLI::AR TO
PtAT
THE GOSR WAS ANTT BLACK
THESE AGENTS STATED
'OULD BE
TltAT
OFFENDED BY SOME OF TH8
At~IVITIES THAT TOOK
PLACE AT THE GOBR .
S
81
rIlAROI,ET
Ne
Manaq~merlt
do about Roundup
(if anything)
CAM POUT , RAFTING, BEI::R
PRINKING BY FJlMILY
MEMBERS OF LAW
EN~·ORCEMF.N1' UFF I CER' 8
Ilt-pel l"t mt-"Ilt
of
Of (ICC"
o[
l he
Insp~l:l
of f icc of
y
Oe.rH:"l •• l
TI'~':HJ\Jl
...")r
Invesl jq.i\l ;'0119
rh."fHllls of tht! Manage1ncnt
Intt:!'lvit:'ws
(BoTted Alphabetically)
BUTeau:
Date of f/epon,
Wflt
NdnH:;"
01./26/96
At)Prlcy/l:r"ddeo
Year Be-came
......
..
-.. ... ..
"."... ..
--.#
..
,.
- ... •"
- First Name
ATF
Tit leI pos i t Ion
AWal"e of
Cur"rent
Round\lp
POD
81
A TF
_
place of (>uty (POI)) when
they hea.·d of Roulldup
BOSTON
MIl
What they
heard about
Roundup
What did Management
do ahout Roundup
(if anyl II 1 fig )
NOT AS GODR - RAFTIN(;
fOR I.AW ENFORCEMENT
NO REASUN TO
DISCOURAGE/ENCOURAGE
ATTENDANCE BECAUSE
OF NO NEGATIVE
INFORMATION UNTIL
95
OFFICER's fAMILIES
85
WASHINGTON
DC
95
WASHINGTON
DC
~
GET TOGETHER fOR I.AW
ENfORCF.MENT OFfiCER's,
CAMPING, RAfTING AND
COOKOl1l-
HEARD ONI.Y WHA-r WAS
LISTED IN THE ATF NEWS
LETTER
81
ATF
80
WASHINGTllN
DC
CAMPING FOR WEEKEND_
RAFTING AND BEER
DRlIlIUNG
ATF
84
FAI,I,S CHlmeH
VA
ANNUJU, EVf,N"f OF RETIRED
I\TF SA's fROM Sf; REUION
ATF
80
fLINT
MI
FOR SE REGION AGENTS,
PICNIC, OIrrOOOR
ACTIVITIES AND DRINKING
ATF
82
MIAMI
FL
CAMPING, SOCIJU, EV!,,;NT IN
TN FOR I.AN ENFORCEMENT
liE TOOl< NO AI-nON
llECAUSE IIF. WAS NOT
AWARE OF ANY
NEGATIVI; EVENTS AT
{;UUN
OFI'ICER' "
U.·p.u: C mt-"l1t
O'fic"e of
ot
the
Tl f"dSUI
Y
Jllspe,."lur Ge'I1c:'l.al
Of f u:t! of
I "vest igat tons
k.·sul,s of the Management Interviews
(Sl>rt"d Alphabelically,
Bureau:
ATF
Date of Report;
Last Name
Pirst Name
-
02/26/'J6
Agency/t;rade
Tit h./Pmlit ion
Current POll
ATF
HAGAW
JOttY
,.,
--
.. ---
SES
ATF
01 RECTOR
WASHINGTON
Yeal Bel"ame
A.. a.... of
Roundup
Place of nuty (POOl when
they heald of Rn .. n~up
83
GLYNCO
What they
hea .. d aloout
Roundup
GA
Khat did Management
du about Roundup
(if anything'
A1'P SPONSORI::O £VI::NT
RAFTING
82
BATOI'f ROUGE
LA
8S
WASHINGTON
DC
9S
CHARLOTTE
NC
lib
CHICAGO
IL
SOCIAL GATIIERING,
RAFTING AND CAMPING FOR
LAN I;;Nt'URCEMENT
OFFICER's AND FAMILY
MEMBERS
--'iii'
HEMD ABOlIT
DC"
•
•
•..
GOl,FING,
BI KING,
RAFTING, COOKOUT J\I'ID
BEER DRINKING
8)
TUCSON
AZ
CAMPING AND t'lSHING IN
TN FOR AT... SA's
89
CIII l:AUO
II,
ING
GENE R IUH'JltYER
£IR I NK I Nt: AND FUJ,L OF
"GREY PEOPLE"
Ih~pdlllfH.:·1I1.
() t f u-p u f
Office
Rf~~ulls
of
Last
Fill.l
Name
Name
Tlt"".lSUIY
C;p.ru-". a I
Illvesligdtion.o
nt ltle Management lrlt~rviF"ws
(Sorted Alphabet ;callyl
HUI-eau:
Date of Report:
the
lll~pect 01
of
ATF
02/26/96
Year Became
Aqency!Gr'ade
Title/Pusit.ion
Awale of
Roundup
Current POD
•
Pla~e of Duty (POUI
when
they heard ot Roundup
What
8]
- ---- -- • ••
•
-..........
•
- - -
80
GOBR FOR CIIMPING,
RAFT! NG AND COOKOlIT
NEW ORI.F:ANS
LA
&
SOC I AI. [JlW F:NFORCEMENT
OFFICER'" GATHERlN!;,
RAfTING ANU DRINKING
BEER
tI~~""II~MPRESSION
80
AT!'
they
heard about
Roundup
Of
GOBR WAS JUST 1\ GROUP Of
AGF:NTS WHO GOT TOGETIIER
FOR RAfTING, FISHING AND
UEER DRINKING. ETC",
81
ATLANTA
GJI
ROUNDUP WAS AN Olfl'OOORS
EVENT WITH WHITE WATER
RAfT I NI: AND ALDT Of BEER
DRINKING,
86
WA.<;III NGTON
DC
OITH NG fOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OfFICER'S
GET TOGETHER FOR IJlW
EIH'ORCEMEIIT 01'1' I CER ' " •
CAMPING, BBQ
ATF
90
AT~'
80;
GLYNCO
GI\
RAfTIN<l AND fM1II.Y EVENT
FOR IJlW. EN FUR CEMENT
OFt"leER's
80
WASil I KGI'ON
DC
CAMPING IN SOlITH
80
WASil I NGT( IN
DC
FOR IJlW ENFORCEMENT
OFF 1 CI::H' s - CI'.MP I NG AND
FISIliNG PRIMARILY FOR
SA's FROM SE REGION
ATF
What did Manaqempnt
do ahout Roundup
(if
anylhing.
NOTlII NG NEliAT I VE
UNTIL 1995
lit-poll (fnll:'nt
of t
H~I'"
of
ot the Tl
Inspect '')1:"
Offlce uf
Ih'~Hlts
of
th~
t~.t.SUI
(If'"''lh...
Y
t"a 1
InvesLigat luns
Management
Intelvit!w!:I
ISorted Atphabelically)
[Jureau;
ATF
()ate of Report
02/21>/96
t,.,.st Ham..
Agency/O,ade
first Name
Title/Pullilion
Current P()!)
Year Becdlme
"ware of
- •
-•
--90
•
-"
-- -.."
- ---.
........
ATF
What rh .. y
h""rei about.
What d~d Management
do about Roundup
( i f "nylhing)
Roundup
Roundup
81
DRINK BEER AND RAFTING
85
81
88
ATF
Pldee of !Jut y (P()!)) when
they heal·d of Roundup
WASHINGTON
DC
l'IT LANT A
Gil
CAMPING fOR LAW
ENFORCF.MENT OFFICER' 9
WASH I NnTON
DC
WHITE WATER RAFTING.
FAMll,Y EVENT. BONDING
WITH OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER's
W.0.5111 NaTOH
DC
85
85
FIRST BECAME AWARF. OF
IN DECEMBER l!l88,
GUBH
. . . . . . . . . .11' N THE
WASHINGTON FIF.ID OFFICE,
WASllINGTON. DC.
CAMPING AND RAFTING IN
TN
so
84
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's GATHERING FOR
RAFTING, COOKOUT AND
DRINKING IJEER
HOllSTON
TX
FRO~A
BlmCIl OF
WHITE AGENTS GETTING
TOGETHER AND PARTY ING
FIII,LS CIIlJR('H
VA
FISHING.
RAFTING AND
BEF.R DRINKING
Ih'I·~lIltmt."nt
(H lll"l! (){
of. It.'Po of
Rt'sll}t~:J
Ilat e of Repolt:
thf:'
Tl"f"'".1SIIIY
(~cnelc.Jl
Invest igdt ions
of the Managempnt IlIte.vl~ws
(Sulled Alphabeti~dlly)
Aureau;
ATF
O:.!/26/'J6
R~came
Ldst Name
Aqency/tirdde
Year
First Name
Title/Position
Aware of
Roundup
-
ot
Int:;pt"'cl(tl
Cu 1 uml
POO
•
.. "
- •
80
"''I'F
. .
AT~'
- -
ATF
ATF
Place of I~ty
they hea,d of
IPOOI
Wildt th .. y
heard abollt
~hen
~oundup
Rnundup
KANSAS
CITV
MO
ANNUAL CAMPINe; ANI)
RAFTING TRIP IN SE ruREA
OF COUNTRY.
OPEN TO ALI,
ATf SA's AND FAMILY
EVENT. GOBR NAME WAS
NOT USED
FISHING, CAMPING,
HUNTINU, AND GOLF FOR
ATF AND OTII~:R LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER's
80
'/9
ATlANTA
GA
WHITE "'GENTS GETIING
TOOETIIER TO SOCIALIZP. .
HE lATER HEARD THAT
ATIENDEES WENT THERE TO
GET DRUNK AND TO
PARTICIPATE IN GENERAL
ACTS OF STUPIDITV.
81
NASHVILI,E
TN
WAS TOLD TIIAT THE EVENT
CONSISTED UF CAMPING
UUT.
WHITE WATER
RAFTING TRIPS, PLAYING
VARIOUS SPORTS AND
SIHI1~ ACTIVITS.
THE
ONLY NEGATIVE
CONNOTATION TO TilE EVENT
"
liE HEARD ABOtIT WAS
- •
".
80
; 80
EXCESSIVE USE OF ALCOHOL
AND ROWDY BEIiAVIOR
WASil I NGTON
DC
IIEARIl TIIRU ATF MAGAZ [NE
CAMPING ANl1 RAFTING
DRINKING, RAFTING AND
rOOKOlJR FOR l.AW
ENFORCEMI::NT OFFIClill's
What did Malld'lement
do about Roundup
lit anything)
II'-Jl.lt I n't"nt
uti if:'" of
of
r h .. "1 t"dS1I1 V
lUSI,Pt-tol
of f It:'e ut
Ib-nl'"l_'.
InveAt iqdt ions
Nf-Isults of
lhe Management Intel:"VieWS
ISnl"ted Alphabet icallyl
Bureau:
AT~'
Dale of Report.
02/26/96
Aqency/Grade
Tit Ie/Posit ion
loast Nam..
First Name
- -
<.'urlent
-
PUD
•
Pia" ... ot (lut V (POUI when
they heard of R"unrlup
88
WILMINGTlIN
_
Ne
•
•
•
What did Management
heard about
Rnunelu.,
do about Roundup
Ii f anything,
liE IIA[) A SUBORDINATE, . . . .
Al"TENDEP "HE
GOBR EA<'11 YEAR. _ _
STATED HR HAD GOOD TIME
AT GOBR,
IEARD
TIIRRE WAS AI.QT OF
DRIHGKING,
SAN ANTONIO
TX
.,•
•
•
What t hey
1IIii• • •wIIO
82
ATF
ATF
Year Became
A.... r ... of
Roundup
CAMPING, FISHING,
RAFTING IN TN - BEER
S
HEARD FROM
ABOUT A "KKK" SKIT;
TIME FRAME UNKNOWN.
DRINKING
ao
ATF PICNIC AND RAFTING
ao
GOBR FOR ." SItiNG,
COOKOUT ANIl UR I NK I NO
80
WEEKEND CAMPING TRIP FOR
!.AW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's
URINKING
BEER
80
UMAHA
NE
nSlIlNG AND BOATING
NEVER HEARU THE TERM
GOBR
ao
PH 1 LlWEI,PIIiA
PA
THRU ATF NEWSLETTER IN
EAHI.Y 80's SF. EVENT IIITH
PICNI~ NKO BBQ FOR ATF
I.AII ENf'ORC"EMENT
On'IeER's
AS
GLYNCU
GA
.'AI,L I.AII ENFORCEMENT
OFFICRR' a - FI Sill Nr.,
('AMP J NG ANn REER
URINKING IN A REMOTE
AREA
NO DER()(;ATORY
INFORMA1"lON
"'~P"l·llIlf"llt
01
t
I
(of"
of
l)f
of
the
hot....
TI:·~~.'~UI
y
CJe(lPIa 1
Illvpst 19..=tt iuns
ot f lee of
J.le~~ults
I
1IlsPF"CIO[
Mdnat..Jemenl
lute[·VlPwf]
(Sorted Alphabetically)
Burec:lIu;
Date of
[..ast
Repor-t:
Name
Firat Name
Number of
ATF'
02/26/96
A.gency/Gtade
Year Became
Tit ie/Posit ion
Current POD
Aware of
Roundup
•
.- 81.
inte1·view9
by BuredU:
76
What they
heard about
Roundup
Pl .. ce of Uu'"-y (1'001 when
they heard of Roundup
CHICAGO
11.
!.All ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER'" WITH AT~'
F~Il.Y OUTING. CAMPING,
COOKOITf
84
NASHVII.t.E
TN
CANOE TRIP AND BEER
DRINKING
What did Management
do about Roundup
(If anything)
Ih·p,ll tmellt of t"~ T.-e~9t11 y
or Ilce of lnsppcto.l- Gt-!'''t~[·dl
offIce ot
kesult.9 01
t he
Inve'sti'JatiuI19
Management.
Intel"v.iews
(SLHted Alphabetically'
Rureau,
FLETf:
Date of Report.,
Last Ham"
First Name
•-
Number of
02/26/96
"yency/Glade
'leal" Became
Title/Positiun
Cun"cnt PUI)
Aware of
Place of Duty (PODI when
they heard uf Roundup
What they
heard abuut
Roundup
Roundup
95
GLYNCO
Gil.
l.AW ENFORCEMENT
UFFICER's CAMPING AND
MOTORCYCI.ING
94
GLYNCO
Gil.
LAW ENFORCEM~NT
OFFICER's MOTORCYCI,ING,
DRIN~ING AND PARTYING
FAMILY ORIENT[;[) DlITIElG
FOR lAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's, CAMPING,
COOKOlIT AND MOTORCYCI.E
RACING (WIVES AND
CHILDREN II'IVITEDI
0"1
II
..
90
interviews by Hureau,
4
(,LYNCO
Gil.
WEEKEND PICNIC AND
MOTORCVCLING FOR (.AN
ENFORCEMENT OFt'l CER' "
What did Management
do anout Roundup
(if ""ythlng'
Ut·ll.lllm ..... n\
o f f j'·e
ot
()t
the 'Tlt:d!~lIly
lnspec:tol" C;eIU:'·l .. ll
Of rice of
Ut-:'9ull s
of
Invest. igat ion!3
t he Management
I nl et' VI (>ws
(Sorted Alphabetically)
Hlll'eau~
n"te of R .. po~t,
I-<lst Name
first Name
Number of
IRS
02/26/96
Ag .. n('y/<ira,lE'
Tit le/Posit inn
lu~
.. ent POD
Yea.r Became
Aware of
Roundup
Place ot Duty (PUDI when
they he,... d of Roundup
87
SAVANNAH
What they
hea I"d about
Roundup
GA
II
SOFTBAl.L,
"-
1
ATLANTA
GA
92
WEEKENLJ PICNIC
I.AW t:NFORCEMEI'IT
OFFICER's CAMPING,
91
.... by Bureau,
COOKOUT,
CAMPING AIffi BEER
88
lntervle~s
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's OUTING WITH
SPORTS, RAFTING,
BOA1'1NG, GOLFING,
VOLLEYBALL AND BEER
DRINKING EVEI'IT
SPR J NGF'l EI,O
IL
A DRUNKEN BRAWl.
What dId Mandgement
do about Roundup
(if anythingl
"I.·.,et. r 'm" .. t
uf I he "r.",adKlIl"V
,)f InsJ,ector n ... 'ltal.f.1
uf f ic-e uf Invest. iql"" juns
C.)t
f
I
c· ...
RtaNlllts .,(
thp. Hanaqement
InteIVlC'w~
(Su.l ed Alphabet_ icallyl
Bureau: uses
Dat. e of "'''POI-t:
Last Name
First Name
-
112/2&/91>
Aqency!Gra.le
Tit I .. !J'n!! i t ion
r,n-rent POD
Y" •..- Became
uses
90
Ava.-e of
.~
What th .. y
h .. ard about
Roundup
Roundup
---.--
Number of int erVlewa b y Bureau:
Pia".. ot [Juty (POUI when
they heard of Roundup
"
DETROIT
I'll
NON-EVENT WITH I~W
ENfORCEMENT OFFICER's
LOCAL TO TN
What did Managem"nt
do about Roundup
Cif anyt hingl
fh·p.:l1 • nlp..11
oft i ...... · of
ot t he TI'('a~"I'y
Inspt>ctc:.)I" I;CIH:I"a.l
office cd
HeslJll s
of
Inve:.HigatloIlS
the Management
Int
f"rvi~ws
(Sc..u"ted Alphabet i<...:ally.
BUI eau:
USSS
Date ot RPI'"r-t
LdBt Name
First. Name
02/26/96
'tear Becdme
AgencylUlade
Tit Ie/Posit ion
Aware of
C\u"rent
Roundup
POD
- ., •
- .." •
-.- •
- •
lJSSS
USSS
_
Placp of Duty (POO) when
they hea.d of Roundup
What they
he.Hd abuut
ROllndup
8]
WASIIINGTON
DC
I.AW f:NF'ORCEMENT
OI'FICERO's FAMILY EVENT
80
MIAMI
f'l.
OVERItEARD A CONVERSATION
BETWEEN STATE ANn LOCAL
I.AW ENFORcEMENT,
HEARD
ABOUT SPORT
COMPETI TIONS.
80
PI.AINS
til'.
I.AW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER' 9 GET TOGETliER
FOR RAFTING, ROPE PULLS,
GOLFING AND DRINKING
CONTESTS
85
ATI..ANTA
GA
ATF INVITED OTHER I.AW
ENFORCRMENT AGENCIES TO
ATTEND THE SOCIAL
What did Management
do about Roundup
(if anyt.hing)
NU ACTION RY
MANAGEMENT
~FFAIR.
84
WASH I NtiTON
DC
SOCIAL GATHERING FOR I.AH
ENFORCEMENT OFFiCER'S
AND WATER SPORTS
RO
NASIIVII,\.E
TN
POSTED INVITATION IN
NASHV I LLE, TN.
LIIH
ENFORCEMENT OFF'lCER' s
tiET TOGETliER FOR LIAISON
MID RAFTING
90
CIIICINNATI
011
SOCIAl. GATItERING FOR I.AW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER's
AND SPORTING EVENTS,
RAFTING, GOI,FING, BEER
PRINKING, ALONG WITH
TELl, I NG WAR STOR I ES
HE T<X)K NO Ac'TION
SINCE NO
INFORMATION THAT IT
HAS RACIST
Ihal,.tltmttnt
ul
lhl::!' "IP.JHUIV
(). f it'°e- (If Inspect"., t;eul·."cll
C)l t U-f"' of Invest igat ions
Ht"sults uC th~ Manayemr.nt Illt~rvlPW~
ISorted Alphabet i."allyl
lIureau;
USSS
Date of RE'polt:
Last Name
Filat Name
02/'l6/Q(,
Year Became
Ag.mcy /C.h .. de
Titlell'osit.ion
Aware of
Roundup
Current POI)
•-
•
-•
--- .". •
•
usss
81
lISSS
88
II'
IlSSS
--
Humll'-.
"I
Ib
88
they
heard .. hout
Roundup
Place of Out y lI'Oll) when
t.hey hea"d of Roundup
ATLANTA
Wlhll
GA
IllS UNDERSTANDING OF THE
(lORR WAS A FISHING,
HUNTING, COOKOUT AND
l1RINKING BEER.
IlF.TTINtl TOGETHER AND
DRINKINtl BEER
WASHINGTON
DC
ATF SA's CAMPING OVER
THE WEEKEND, SOCIAL
EVENT
SOCIAL EVENT AND BEER
DRINKING
88
WASHINGTON
DC
GST TOGETIfER rON AN
OUTING
'II
CINCINNATI
011
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's FROM SmTl'H FOR
RAFTING, VOLLEYBALL AND
BEER DRINKING
OF GOBR
HE IS AN At"RICAN
AMER I eM ANO NEVER HEAAD
ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABUUT
THE GOBR .
89
UI::CAME AWARE
1989.
94
ATLANTA
GA
HE
HEARD
PEOPLE IN THE
OFFU'\; TALKINll ABO\1\'
GOING TO GOBR.
88
SAN ANTONIO
TX
FOR I~W ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER's
What did Management
do about Roundup
I i f anythln<J)
""p.....
of I
t Inel1t
i("C"
of
of
I
h ..
TII·.I~IJI
Inspect.al"
lit f l(!e ..,f
(;pnPl
Y
ell
InvPsl iqal iUII!I
N,'suit s of t h" Mana':Jement f nt e. views
CSurted Alphabetically)
Bureall:
USSS
Date of Rp.port:
Last Name
First Name
02/2&/96
Agency/l;l"ad"
Tit le/Pusit ion
CUr rent POll
Total number ot pecson""l interviewed:
Year Became
Aware of
Roundup
ID6
Place uf (Juty (POI)) when
they heard of Roundup
What they
heard about
Roundup
Whal did Manaqement
do about Roundup
I if anything)
Pt'pdlllOl~llt
olfic'{-'
of
Office uf
Rf::>~lIit.c:l
ut
tllte'
ot
Mdlldyt'"rncllt
(Sort ed
of
L.d9t
Namt:>
fi.rst
Repo[ I
Nam~
Query
All-'halH~t
Buteau:
Ddt e
t 11t,
' l l t'd:HIt
y
fn5pectol ( ; / ' f I P l n l
Investlgatiulls
{)f
MllllJIlly MdnaYPls
ied lly)
I\TF
02/16/~b
AYf~Il{'Y/(;1
ade
Tit le/Poslt
- -
CUl'rent
iOIl
PUU
ATF
~
..,
-
Year Became.
A-.are ot
Roundup
Place of
85
OKL.AHOM ,ITY
()lJly
(POD)
wlien
Wildt
t hpy
What dld Managemf":flt
heard about
Roundup
they hea[d of Roundup
OK
do about Roundup
(if anything)
SAW A fLI ER OR
HIVITATION ADDRESSED TO
A OKLAHOMA COUNTY
SilER) FF VEPAR1loIENT
EMPLOYEE
THE FLIER
STATED "WE ARE HAVING
THE GOOD 0' BOY ROUNDUP
IN KI'IO)(VILLE,
TENNESSEE."
TO WHITE MANAGER
as
FAMI LY GET TOGETHER
THE GOBR BECAUSE HE
DID NOT TIlINK IT
.,
•
1010111.0 00 ANY GOOD
UEVER MAllE A
FORMAL PROTEST TO
GOBR
TO Bl.ACK SA' 9
ONLY FUNCTION
AO
WASil I NGTON
DC
A WHITES
HEMD ABo\rT GOSR TIlRO\JGH
OFFICE GOSSIP
IN
)Qe7,
A FR IF:ND OF • • • • •~
A1TENDEO THE ROUNDUP AND
TOLD HIM ABOlrT IT
A(TIVITIES DESCRIBED
INCLUDED NAKED MEN
JUMPING OlIT OF' TRf:P.S,
-=AND AN INCIDENT OF ~
TIM!;
..-l)[DNOT
REPORT TillS ALLEGED
INC[DENT
lI(,Pdrlrnt~lll
{)t
t
)("e
uf
ut
Olfice of
RI"S\) 1 t ~
of
t lip
Report:
of
L.ast
Name
F'il9t Name
TlectSlIlY
c;enel.3 l
Investlgations
M,~natJelllellt
QuPt y of M~nor 11 y
ISorted Alphabet ,,'ally)
Bur-POilu·
[)dte
thp
lllS(leClOr
M(UICt.g~, s
ATf'
n2/1G/9b
Tltlf>/Pn~ltlOJl
Year Becamp
Awa[e of
C'"u[lenl
Al)ency/(i('rlde
POD
Pl;u::e
of
Duty
(POD)
What
""'hen
they heatd of HOllnrlup
What did Managp,nent
do about Ruundup
Roundup
ROllndup
l i f anythillg)
85
"CHUG A LUG" CONTEST
EXCESSIVE DRINKING
1/11
•
....
-
90
JACKSONVILLE
FL
LF:O FUNCTION - FRATERNAL
GATHERING
SOCIALIZING
AND SHARE EXPERIENCES
85
COLUMBIA
Sl'
BECAME AWARE OF THE GOBR
THROUGH "WOIW OF HOlJTlI "
TWO ATF AGENTS MADE IT
CLEAR TO
fHAT
TilE GOBR WAS ANTI - BLACK
THESE AGENTS STATED
THAT
'OULD BE
OFFENDED BY SOME OF THE
ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK
PLACE AT THE GOBR
If
2
HOUSTON
TX
FROM
& A BUNCH OF
WHITE AGENTS GETTING
TOGETII£R AND PARTY I NG
85
FALLS CHURCH
VA
FISIIIW;, RAFTING AND
B£ER DRINKING
79
ATLANTA
GA
W\l 1TE AGENTS GErr I NG
TOGETHER TO SOCIALIZE
HE LATER HEARD THAT
ATTENOEES WENT THERE TO
GET DRUNK ANV TO
PARTICIPATE IN GENERAL
Ae,S OF STUPIDITY
84
III
- -- ArF
they
heard about
IJI'P'" tlncnt ot the Tr"t"'<-t.SIlI y
t ice ot
Inspect-or L;ellt"'ldil
~)f
otticf>' of
Rr"~~Jults
of
Invesli1Idt.iura.s
the- Mdollaqemeut Uupry of P.1illu[lly Mdrldgers
(Surted Alphabelically,
Bureau:
ATf'
Dale of Report;
Last Name
Fi rat Name
02/16/%
Year Became
Awale of
Aqency/Grdde
Title/Po9ition
Current POD
What th"y
heard abullt
Ruundup
Roundup
.... ..
.. •
Number of interviews by Bureau;
PI ace of [luI y (PlJ[), when
they heard of Roundup
12
81
NASHVI LLI:;
TN
BB
WILMINGTON
Ne
WhaL did Malldqement
do about Roundup
(if allythin9'
WAS TOLD THAT THE I:;VENT
CONSISTED OF CAMPING
OUT
WHITE WATER
RAFTING TRIPS, PLAYING
VARIOUS SPORTS AND
S IMIl.AR ACTIV ITS.
THE
ONLY NEC;ATI VE
CONNOTATION TO THE EVENT
HE HEMU ABOUT WAS
EXCESSIVE USE OF ALCOHOL
AND ROWDY BEIIAVIOR
.1I.E.11AD,A
SUBOIlDINATE, ~
1 WHO ATTENDED T'I'I!"""'"
GOBR EACH YEAR.
..
STATED liE HAD GOOD TIME
AT GOBR.
ARD
THERE WAS ALOT OF
DRINGKING .
80
GOBR FOR FISltlNG,
COOKOUT AND DRINKING
NO DEROGATORY
INFORMATION
Ill a pc'U·tmenl of the Tl"eaaUIV
Office c.Jf lnspet:Cor UlP.ur-."dl
ot f loC:e
Result", 01
or
IlIve.t lC]dt lnus
.he H...."'qem.",t Query
o.
MinorIty Ma"age.s
'Sorted AlphAbet IL'al1y'
8uleClu;
Date of Report :
Last Name
First Name
02/16/96
Aqency/aE ...Je
Ti t le/Pos i t ion
CUr rent.
Year Bt!'cameo
Aware of
P~)
-- .. •
.....
-..
•
- •
IISSS
USSS
USSS
NuMber of
USSS
Lntervlew. by HUEeau:
Total number of per • .,nnel intervi ... wed:
•
What they
heard about.
Place of Out V 11'(0) when
they lIeald of Roundup
Roundup
81
RClUIl<1up
IITl.NITli
Gil
HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GOBR WAS " .'15HIN<I,
HUNT I NO. COOKOI1T AND
DRINKINCl BF-RR .
GETT I NG TOGETHER AND
88
DR Ulk lItO BEER
88
89
WASHINGTON
vc
m:T TOGETHER FOR lUll
OI1TING
BECAME AWARE OF OOBR
\989 .
HE IS AN A.'RICAN
AHI::R leAN ANfI NEVER HEARD
ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT
'I'H£
GOBR .
What d1d Management
do about Roundup
Ii f anything'
EXHIBITS 51 THRU 55
~1 '?-1!:195
89:2£)
FR01
RTF ~IL.LE
TO
P.ffj
rbt .~ '01 10,.." out:Ja, 1e held 8-=1111 at OCOM, !Ii. land on
LntUTieti3 w1th iDs1cl.
~* Dy ; . .
!'J.wht.e1e: (BMT-'rJi .. J Md.
J.~.-..= l&u •
tli.stQ;,], o~ lileinq all aU
_
, W e baa .. JU.atcry, tel
wtlich there !c cIoCUlamt&t1ca/wi.~.;..,:sea, of -ua, "'%)' nc:Ut.
:bl 'Qooc! '01 SOya- ataac:b. a;e-;-;ta &tlm vaC.c:nY ~nt: qacia
~cl1 as Art, biA, hc:ret Servicz, aad othu law C!o=-."t atmd,a.
I &lIe ~erhea..rd c:an~..tJ.on. ttI·~t • GeIIbe~~ ~
CIA l:LarS
atttneftd. t:h1. yeu'. trl'ae, I do not tncw if that 1, C9fteet.
=-
fb.iI wat
Ict~~U.'.
usruaUr
rlyu.
-=.
ttn
bee:' .mug.
~WJd,
-=
aDd!M1.u. \'UinI
CftZt to
nl.:tlll JNOPla,
t~
aDa
! learnad of tbi. eftIlt .e'Verll 1lI011tbe S9'O _
dacUd. to 1J1..8U9a~.
myftl:i:. t arnvecS at the out&; . . o~ the CIIIP ~t approxWtalr
11:00 1ft, J'riday, Xay 19, lS"p pt.ced a pOUca
"p GAr phbod
my e~ JJld. valked in.viA are", WlgU8=:1ri mt:am:.. % VU AOt
CIl*t1~ " to· Nbetlaar g~ ACt I vu ..appose to be tb:e, ~..~
tewudI the e:ad of 11'/ Tislt, I felt that I WU aboUt to be line! to
lATe.
fl)"
•
wIUc! i al..l.otftr ~ atnilOi to tbI
~r f%OIl. bwer. truck 1111~ tbe =-p, • t ....slU.rt...
fit you ncetve _
~
; 0 - ~or seft:cU days,
(~t&UoU) .tow sGZlt
r.u
.. _.- ."iw~t"'-meur;-a..u
~Qed.as !3.IU 1:l4.:"11 ~ we.
P.fY.?
&ea:-"
~t (J~ tile &fC.b ftZ8 tD ~ to g.ny QQ QlllWLAt1oa& V1th
t..~ J: cU.d .,..Jt V1t.1l tNO AqeQz:., wtao I do JllDt CDI ~ ...... WIIari.Ilv
~ lMDda. -.:. b.1q1U.y "PAt .tIWt_ q,aota IrZliqgv- ~tt .,..ea tAt
wen ~t 12l by • ICJ.ta .pat. tbe ZfJ.9h't bdon t~ Q1~t)~
tlIHe ..,.ats MJ.d. tbat: t:iltIy Wtlld DOt Itte4 the WgeD't ill tM ~
beaUM of tne -A14;a:.' lieu.., al.lmmI tn. AU cro\md tlae Ui.a
~QNocc1 t lilian nc:hl elan m4 n.v n:iAl t_~ ~ ctJIe10
well ••. & aal1 ~ buaina~ catd that reacr. .~r:}aJmtiDO'
lie. . .•· r aJ.ao ovwrnMrcl ~e¢rte:M pe.ta (~ &.tit bQU)
talUn1l ·~t
~rs· that w:r. in n. cap aD tU pnor1oUI
it..-,
-the_
A:J.¢t. fba C1DVllnat1= . ., that IA alt~t1cm &l.aost o=z:teci DebitrtD
tile D~ &qeDt.a IIDd • ..,6J:'al. whit" aqc1:!r. I &In w!tz.cawd a pow
fIII8 1ft p=ctss .betwhn .eYUal
·91laeta lr , v.t.tl1,
to
bl • • lu;e lUll of -=-y 00. tAe tu,1e. Snu&l. PtOPl. bad t ••-abJ.::ts
_1~ a,:.
ott a.begin; plloM8. ~t ay awroabat.
1 l'1OUr nay, I dld ~t , .. my ~ peopLe ill ~
0:
~talY lOO ,.,,18 &A4 heaM IlU!Del':Oaa ~ ~lvn &Dd
C1usaUlfaet1on t.b&t tAe.1~ &rmll~ ptb.nng Yd., fer the fU:at timll ..
all.CWed. "ulweo- ~ *tttd.
au..
S'_ICD
ot qpqm
=-
...,.,tLI
I ~ "ftZal pic:t=e., 4eve:a1. of Y81:iotW
law ~
pertc=el, OM of . . . ~ a liJ:m.:lnqlwa JIa:Co.t1c:a t . .a1~. oaa
af a 11&11 1Iith a IJU.l:t u.:bd 1ft! ~ fcUce. HftRl a1Iat..I ct au
tifbtaY.~. "taD J ~1z.:1 from pnvious pictuzu ad v14eo. vtT.31. •
beU
a2Lri vbat ap;eus to be .. bottle clllbilt.1 1Jl • PtPer at,
1 . . .:&1 ;;ictuna of the ~1t'l. 1ncluL\i ft9 U. L1u. t.u t.rue~ ou
pieeun of • Borth CaxoliN. n&tc!aaaJ. o:cwr ot hUe.
plate t _ _
of all ~ QC -nra., ~. plate
1m,
OIl.
.=
.eftru ~ pcpl.e IrOU1Lg e.. ..sh1.ttJ nth tb
n"'1;s.a1l-, and one ot t:hr.: wlCOlDe SllQ11 to U. ~ of
tOl 8ol"l-.
I ¢1d III8t I a . people in ~. e:rcM1 We a.ppbnd to ~ "-Y ~t
1ncf1 ncmu., bcMIftr, U. !Ujanty at Wb.GII t IPOte I4t.1l • . . . - to "
ftry nciIrt, jOd¢Bq ~ my ~t1cm& vith tAa. !!Ie oaly Ul.,al
act.t.ona I vitnail~ val ~ aJ*\ vabltmf ud tDIt ;.R.t I wl.=-atMl
dr1~1nq ~ tn ~~~ &ftU ~t:I.t\'i '~l
a: po. . . .icmfO 11dIO tate It pUt ~
b. . . . . ~ .l.C}Il ftat1ztt •
ct.:k
~t·,
11g;c. ID b t CU-,
caftt.I %.b •• I ~th eQt=-- of.
!Slae' 1*'5'.1.. 'l'ft1. ~ aJ.eg -.boW U\ ...,.SM pUWQCl ~ off
hft%&l. OIDq dol1u IJUla that M lwItIOlI. play1bc ·dUlIu-abJ.t
btnVO"j' wb.1eh 1. & fca of tJ"l~ 1IUli~ ~ , . . 1xaudlc:qw m:&
I
rsave new~
acy,,, r:ut
MLCl ha'le 1%1
.~
-JUl,.
•
-1'
n".
'el
Aqa1n, this .nnt U orp.ll1J:ecl 'by agant6 of t:be mr IZIr:l atitu law
.nto:-c;-...z:al: &9GM:ia, tor law eAfciCGie1\t pc-..,dIIAl.
lIIft'.,.,..l
w.uvsti.oDl, .,st of the.e people an not tM ~ at 1.cd1.v1_~
we ~ truR w1th Uph.old1D, aDd CfDrd.DQ" Q. laW • . , 5MraaD,
twiUtjl..- of bi. pocU:i.-. 1.. abo..-e 0. law. t DeUnw 111W11 .mt ~
sbQWd ~ ~belcl off =t7 u ~ll u em cNty. vft7 t .. d.t1~tIl18 ~
tblt this uat taka, pl..c:e.
1'Zaa..,
M add tD Ws 8tat..-tl au =tt. 1YC1j,~i 0: ft1d&y.y 1t, I 1fU.
1ftfom8Ci t:.bat ClIJl Capital Cav abowC ..-idto af law ~'l'·I.Dt «.;eU
~ll!q c:nzy md Id.lc11.ande • hotel, thcae otfi•• n WK. Us tawa to
pay ro~ to llaJ.a aU!c:us, au 0: tb. peneu, 111 the 't'1deo, ...
",ariDf a -Good '01 1oyI. t ....~~ _yb~ tDU offi~ ~d _
1:ztan1r_ _ lDCIut t:te .nnmrl -G:QQc1 ·01 !o1W- tet ~. I ~ AO~
as yet, ~ 1!h1& nceo xelD:1sed f:cs car.
.
th~ =0.... _tat_eat. ua th. ttsult of mI lznreI:tqatj,oa lat:o all.,.d
:acJ.a wide the An "1' JIlY •• U~ and othar ~ putid. , . . t
that then ."~ta be 1ft. . .t1pted cd thil 1nfonqt1C11l be :.1.uecl to
tr2e ~j.c:. All td.baN_. to 1:1:. ~a Setalled ~ thU rt.at__ t are
ptepand. to bKt all claw.
TO
DATE:
P.ll
MSG.,___GlJ..-B
-. n = _ _ _ <um.m"N WV_ ••• ftJ
SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE
BIRMINGHAM FIEIJ) DIVISION
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND
FIREARMS
FROM:
BIRMINGHAM
2121 EIGHTH AVENUB N, ROOM 725
3: 09
ATF
MINUTEMEN
ETTER
8th ~sue
June 95
The American Crisis
Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the sof~ resentment of a
s~f~ering people, who having no object in view but the GOO~ OF ALL, have
staked thei= OWN ALL upon a seemingly doubtful event. Yet it is folly to
arque a;ainst ~ete~ed hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the
language of sorrow draw !orth the tear of compassion, but no~~~ng can
reach the heart that i~ steeled with prejudice.
There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one.
There are persons, too, who see not the full exten~ of the evil which
threatens them; they solace themselves with hope that the enemy, if he
succeed, will be merCiful. It is madness o! folly, to expect mer=y from
~hose who refuse to do justice; and
even mercy, where cor.~~es~ is the
object, is only a trick of war; the cunninq of the fox i~ as mu=derous
as ~he Violence of the wolf, and we ought to quara equally agai~st bo:h.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have th~s co~so lation wi~ us, that the harder the conflict. che more glor~ous the
tr~umph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to liqhtly----'Tis dea~ess
o::.1.y that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how ':0 pu,: a p!"oper
pr~ce upon its goods: and it would be stranqe indeed, if so cele~::al an
ar~~cle as freedom should not be highly rated.
Thomas Paine
1776
------~------~-------------------------------------------------
Gadsden ~nutgman
P.O. Box 2
At~~a, ~abama 35954
Face to Face
~nel I ~the ~ests o t _
ion ot _ _ no:mally mo~k
show. The shOw was to provide &n opportunity tor fr ..enc1s and enemies ot the
militia to address militia issues in depth and face to face with U3
troublemakers. We are most qrateful tor the invitation.
The show, in our minds At least, w.~ a howling success. It sounds very
strange, but the only dis.pr"'~_ntingo a!l'\ect \iU that our opponenu did not make
much of ~ appearance. We w~~e trtlly hcpinq to meet our detractors and doubters,
"face to face," to answer their
lcerns wj~~ logic and the Constitution.
Few concerns were raised, s o . and ~ ~ok the opportuni-ty to address
unilaterally as many of the conce s as we could r.membar that had previously
been raised.
We were asked wh~e
militia is tOr.minq al~ over the country. I related the
statement given by
of Jews for the ~reserv.tion of F1re~
Ownership: the m1l~
as
e -cel~ of the ~ody politic, much like the
T-eells of the human imDwne system which rally to an infection Qf the ~ody.
Questioned further, I likened the militia to the actions of a cornered
animal. When you corner and threaten any animal, it will show its teeth. We are
the teeth o~ ~ citi%enry of tree men and wamen. As a free people we are
threateneel and cornered., and our teeth are show
• Liberty teeth.
~c were asked if we would s~port
ve assured the phantom
faxer, and.- t h a t _ n e e d
thAt we coulel provide.
Otherwi~e h.a~ma of the OG (
; ve heard from some
qroups .lookinq for a larger pack. with. which to
them3elves. W. heard issues
~ddre!!sed, and qood publicO-servants praised. Ie addrused some of the proposed
federal legislation.
W. heard from individuals with serious expertise and knowledqe, particularly
ecncerninq some of the more qlarinq discrepanciea in the OK City bombinq. One
gentleman, near the end of' the program, ~~ustrated how the numbers ~nd facts
concerning the explosion puts the ~e to the story being told us by the
government and the national med.i.a.
.
Though not apparent to the listeninq public, we al.o heard from several peacr
officers. Thank you, officers, for your off-line .ncour-aq~ent and on-t~get
in!o~tion. We do take note. Keep your powder dry.
A lady asked II she was welcome in the militia. I WAnted to, but didn't
respond "Only if you bring tive ladiea with you.We addressed the lav of the State of Alabama concerninq the militia; we note(
the .tatute invoking the posse comitatu. r "~ed and equippeel as the occasion
may require." We noted the statute whlch critic:a claim makes the militia
"illegal" strictly do •• not apply to the unorqanized m1litia, which is a
creature of our own Constitutions and other separate statutes. We are
brothers-in-a:ma to the National Guard, and are required by lav to stand to the
call of our qove:n.or.
Perhaps the best call of the niqht occurred at the end· of the ti=st hour,
when a younq soldier posed some que!!tions about possible conflict between the
milit~a and ~tary. It v •• pointed out to him that for a soldier to be facing
an unorganized ~ti~manf for instance to collect guns from his home, ~n
111eqal order ~t havw been qiven. His oath to support and uphold the
Constitution ~qa.inst &1.1 anemies foreign and domestic was noteel, and _
asked
if he would obey or d~sobey an illeqal order.
.
He stammered ~nd hemmec and hawed, and
that he would obey
whatever order was qivan him. ~t u
! the Birmingham
rBI, a seemingly ;ood man, said that
W&S told, forget
the Constitution and ~ conscience.
Does anyboely out tnere get it yet? We are in one hell of a mess.
On Friday niqht, May 26,
of WAAX radio, on a special
-
I
•
•
_,
c
The ACLU haS entered suit aqain3t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIItor opening his court with
prayer and also for having a hand ca~Ten Commandments on the
wal'iMill"
"
ourtroom. This case has received national media attention.
faces a long, hard fiqht, which will prove to De very expensive.
The
~
a
eep pockets and will not stop until Christianity is taken out of
our society. oar nation wa. founded on a belie! in"God~ we cannot allow an
honest, Christian judqe to bMiillas
ed oy an orqan.:at10n such as the ACLO. We
~sk ehat you please support
in his fight. Today it's the courtroom,
tomorrow it will be your churc •
If you wish to submit a monetary donat;on, p~ease send to:
Defense
Fund, ~.O. Box 8222, Gadsden, Alabama 3~902.
r thanks qo out to all of you who have stood oehind and supported""""
_
in this important battle. We, the Gadsden Minut~en are proud to~p
r
man who stands up for God and His laws.
GadSden
~ut.men
----~-----------------------~~-----~----------~-----------~------------------
We have heard talk, by various sources, about tirearms being ottered for sale
to militia members ~y other individuals. These !1re.~ have a very attractive
price. I ask anyone who purchases a used tirear.m, whether you are a dealer or an
individual, have your sheriff's dp.partment check the serial numbers Btro~t you
buy. There are ~lot of stolen quns that are beinq bought and sold on a daily
basis. 00 NOT qet Wset-up". Your local sheriff'. dept. will be happy to run the
numbers, if you ask. The feds are looking for ~nything, at this point, to
dis-credit the militia movement. We ~t con~inue tp operate, as we always h~ve,
COMPLETELY LEGAL. If you com. across anyone who is att.mptinq to deal in stolen
mer~andise, report it immediately to the proper authorities. Be extra care!ul
of fir.~~ that are subject to MFA rules (such .. machine quns). Illegal
possession ot these weapons CArry a 10 year sentence ~nd $10,0000 fine. ~ou can
leg~lly possess these weapons on~y after completing the proper paperwork and
background checks, and paying the proper taxes on these weapons. If you come
across any "under-the-table w class 3 weapons "d•• ls w, report it to the ATF, ~s
bad as I hate to say that.
Gadsden Minutemen
---------------------------------~~-----------~--------------------------------
Our meeting for June will be incorporatec with a campout/target shootl social
event. This is planned for the weekend of June 17-18, at a location in Websters
Chapel (see enclosed map). For those who wish to arrive on friday (June 16),
please do not arrive any ear~er than 5:00 pm. All members, triends and ~amily
~re invited. You will ~e for your own food and drink. A special
invitation goes out to............,and
whole staff of the SPLC (Southern
Professional Liars Cent.~). We ask
on out and
t involved with
our "par
ions reg
please call
or
All legal we
must be ace
proper paperwork.
do
no arivers license in a
Ryder truck.
----------~------~-------~--~----~----~~----~--~------------~------~---------
Our thanks go out to all the local law e~orcament and local gov.r~~ent
of!icials who have supported our right to exist . . . citizens militia. We
continue to otter our support and help should we be needed. The ot!icers I have
spoken with find it co~orting to know that there are ·people, such as ourselves,
who are leqally ar.med at all times, ready to defend the sa!ety of all =it~;ens
or lend ouz help to law enforcement, should the situation arise.
RMINGHAM FIELD DIU
How Congress Spends Your Money
$ 375,000 to renovate the Bouse ot Representatives' beauty shop
S 7 million to study air pollution in Mexico City
$ 6 million to search for life in outer space
$ 100,000 to study the sand on Waikiki Beach
S 400,000 to study methane emissions trom cows
S 360,000 fo~ staff at Conqress's private health clubs
S 28.5 million on salary increases for Members of Congress and their stat!
S 6 million for the National Seafood Council to teach people how to
prepare fish
$ 107,000 to study the sexual preferences of the Japanese quail
S 84,000 to study why people fall in love
$ 703,000 to study fish net entanglement
$ 250,000 to prevent wild pigs from attackinq exotic plants in Hawaii
$ 240,000 to develop a weiqht-based technology fro monitoring the
moisture content of lumber
S 37,000 to study the handling of animal manure and the deve~opment of
resoluti~n techniques in Michigan
Source:
The Heritage Foundation
-------------------------~----~~----------~----------~ ---------
The New York Times reported on May 22 that Wayne Lapierre (NRA) said
that his orqanization favored congressional hearinqs .into the scope and
intent of the heavily armed ·citizen militias W that are proliferatinq
around the country. wWe condemn hate groupe, terrorist qroups," Lapierre
saia. "We have never had anything to do with these paramilitary-type groups
you see on teleVision. That's not the National Rifle Association w He
further wen~ on to say that his characterization of aqents as Wjackbooted
thugs" was a poor choice of lanquage.
--------------------~------~-----~-------~-------------~-------------------
In a live CNN interview on May 23 from the bombing site.
mother who lost her kids in the blast, ask "where was the AT
explosion) "All 15 or 17 of their employees survived, and they're on the
ninth floor. They haa an option to go to work that day, and my kids didn't
get that option. And we're just askinq questions, we're not making
accusations. We just want to know, and they're telling us 'Keep your mouth
shut don't talk about it."
later retracted her stat~ent on the G. Gordon Liddy show.
Taken
~rom
transcripts, interview by Gary Tuchman, CNN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------A recent "60 Minutes" interview, Attorney General Janet Reno said
"Obviously I saw what happened and knowinq what happened, I would not do it
aqain," speakinq ot the fiery end to the Branch Davidian standoff. Ron
Noble (Treasury Dept.) said it was a mistake to qo ahead with the initial
raid. Dr. Alan Stone, a Harvard professor of psychiatry and law who
investigated the operation for the Justice Department, said it was
mishandled trom start to finish. wThere was incredible stupidity,
incompetence and provocation by a reckless and over-reaching federal
agency," he said.
---------~-------------------------------------------- ---------------------
G
®
~-----~--~--------------------------------~-~-~~-------~---------------------
The G.dsden !UnU1:emen would like to welccme a new unit to the militia movemen~.
The Appalachian Militia, which has ~pproximately 20 memters, is located in the
Blount I St. Cl~ir couney ~ea. The leader of the qroup is a long time :riend of
the movement, his men are well equipped and we~ trained. We truly thank you
boys for the past support, keep the faith and keep your powder dry.
Code N.me: Hount~in Kati&
~~~---------------~~
~~---~---~-~----~~-----------------------------~-
A True Political Prisoner
Article from C.M.A.
Civilian Military Assistance
P.o. Box
3~Abama 3S602
"The only thinq necessary for .the triumph of evil is tor good men to do
nothinq. If
- Edmund Burke Havinq been ~ member of this organization, I feel you ~re one who understand~
Burke's words. These Are words I have believed and worda I have lived by.
Atter being told in the sprinq of 1991 by the local FBI that they "wanted my
ass", I have been the Subject of intense scrutiny by federal ~gents. I count at
le~st 7 and probably more undercover agents and intor.mants who have been s~nt in
to qet information on me or to try to get me to do so~~thinq illegal. I put up
with being followed, navinq my telephone tapped, having ~ssociates .nd people I
thouqht were friends co~n~ to me wired.
In se~:ember ot 1992 I bought some surplus night
s at ~ gun show
in Huntsville. I bor:owed the money to buy them from
I asked •
Nation&l Guard ASsociate if he could help iet manu.
if chey
wer~ stolen or had any problema. Wcrkinq with CID and the National Guard over
several months, tryinq to qet some broken units repaired, it turns out they
withheld Lnformation trom me that these Units were stolen. I was buying them to
sell .~ gun shows, just like all the other equipment l'v. handled in the past.
The d 1 ! ! e r l l M
thatt sthis time, I was set up. september, 1993, the feds
ar:ested me,
nd 4 other individuals who dealt in these qoggles
charged us wi
cons
y to steal and sell stolen equipment. All
~one was to loan me the money to buy units.
January we went to trial in federal co\.1rt and after a 4 day trial,
and I were found guiltyJ
and I, our attorneys, even the pros
were. floored 1 The detense
y ~dn' t qet the point across to the M t h a
t
the guy we bought the 909;les f r o m _ e d government witness) ~nd
and I were doing difterent things.
is faced with_lOSing his Cl
firearoms license, his buainess, his 0
d up to 5 years in jail because he
loaned me money. I'm facing losing my house, never beinq able to legal~y own a
gun again, plu.s 5 years.
Tom E'osey
Mr.
~~;-~-;;ntlY :e~q t;:;-:~~~:;:9.
federal pr~:~~;-~;-~~~~;-;-;~~~~;
to go be!o=e being released to a halfway house. Se is currently working on ~n
app.~l, howeve= his t~e h&s almost been served. OUrinq the Cont:a war in
Niear~qu., Posey, a Marine veteran of Vietnam, decided to help. A local group 0;
veterans for.med Civi~an K1litary Assistance (CMA) to help the Cont=as fight t~e
eommunists in 198.3. They paid tor tood, medicine, c~othing and transport~t::'on
out o~ their own pockets. In 1984, two of"""triends war. ~hot down ~n a
heli~opter over Nic~ragua. The Sandinista regime claimed the CMA members were
CIA mercenaries. But the national exposure had an unexpected benefit. CMA begar.
receiving private donatio~ and was able to furni~h $16 million in ncn-~ilitarj
ai~.
(continued next p~ge)
liliiii continued)
By 1991, CMA had stopped operating. - m a d e a living
military surplus equ.~.~~ Thia was a~situation tor
t.:adinq in
con2iderinq his
E"SI Special
Bill contained a
wanted. aa an intoanant and told him the FBI "wanted his
s
"
vas later arrested on trumped up charges AS the preceding statement by
; - .explains. OI.e associate-turned-tederal-snitCh vas paid $2000 a month plus
expenses for three years to stay close to him and to try to ~et n~ to do
something illegal. At least eiqht, possibl~ more, tederal undercover agents
approached him to uk him to do somet~q illegal, each time~eported this
to the FBI. It is estimated that about $2 million was spent i~e qovernment's
efforts to "get. his as •• "
Why? Is it because he refused to become a federal snitch
refused7 Is it because he headed a private organization, the ~d
the Contras with food, medicine, and clothing in Nic~during that var? Is
it because he knew, as he relatea to • UPI reporter
(nov CNN), that
George Bush was involved in Irani
omeone s 11 0
9 for a fall guy
here? Did someone need to discredit
or some reason? Ia it 111e9al to
be concerned about the direction of
u_
------~---~----------~----
Although
and/or writ
granted to
al~o.
..--~-------~---~------------.------~~------------
has already served most of his time, we urge everyone to ca~
!en.~or~smen and demand tha~ full pardons oe
and IIIIIIIIIIIIr ~lease, vrite the governor of ~abama
mail to:
..._--.------.--. __.__._---.----------------If you are interested in the complete story about _
(the truth), ve
will be glad to provide you with
of vhat we have. Also, SOF ~qa~ine,
April 1995, has
a story abou~
________________
--------_~_~
l1li we,
~s~,-
-------~----------~--~----------------
the Gadsden Minutemen, appreci.te your past service to your country
and for oeing a true ~atriot. Hanq in ~ere and keep the faith.
-------------------------------~-------~---~------------------------------------~ie~ chronoloqy to the above article: september 1992,
contactedllll
....... Alabama National Guard, to do a computer check to see if NVG's are
stolen. Also asked ~or manuals to repair defective units. ·Late September 1992,
FBI is checkinq out of Montgomery to see U NVG's stolen (FBI testimony at
trial). Not on computer at tha~ time. tate
1992, NVG's finally on
Computer about bein; stolen ~ood.
told his qoqgles are
~n. Late November 1992, _
contacts
he can...iiiiair NVG'!
..... naa in hi~ possession - as apposed t~t
manuals . . . . . . gives ~
pa4rs of NVG's to repair.,.Noepair done . . . . . . not
ed that these units
stolen~ember 1993,
arrestea for conspiracy to steal NVG's. January
1994, . . . . . . found qui~ty n tederal court in MOntqomery.
II1II
----~-~-~---~--~-----~-~~-~--------~-----~---~------------------.
-----~~--------------~---~---------------- -----~-~~-------------------
AnEN'rICN
Sona
r!
Confade:ate Veterans, new chapter
Fer mara intorma~on contact R1ch Bayward.
o~
';.:,'
---------~----~-------------------------~---~---~~-----------------------
Personal Messages
M.G. - ~ppreci&t. the into, keep the fiqht alive
8.J.-- our triend i~ doing ok, st~l ~ struggle
B. in N. J. - qlad to have you aboard
Friend in Kansas-- thanu for the in.!o on Mr. P. , Mr. W.
L.T.-- need that report on M.D.
T.P.-- keep the faith, only short time lett
C~G.-~ neea perso~ situation report
D.N.-- what about our meetinq
Local triend-- &ppreci.te the tip from the wire
c.lit. triend-- .ppreciate you spreading the word
-----------~--~~-~~-------------------~---~------------------------------------
The Gadsden Kinutamen will respond to all inquiries, no identi!1cation 13
required, you can call or write, look for the answer or comment in the
person.ls, you will know it it's intended for you.
---~-----------------~~~~-~~----------------------------------------------
A Response to the Attack on Patriots
By Senator Charles Duke May l, 1995
District 9, Colorado
It is said by some th~t the flak i~ the heaviest when you are close to the
target. Judging from ~ome of the flak, we muat be approaching ground zero. At a
Second Amenament rally recently, I asked a question ot the group attendinq
whether anyone there thouqht the Oklahoma bomoinq miqht be as a result of some
action o~ the federal government. Nearly evaryone there thought so.
Perhaps it w.s no~ prope~ to ask the question so soon atter the bombinq. In
normal t~es, a~os~ everyone wo~d have aqreed with the question as well. Ther~
are also those who, perhaps aqain, correctly, said I should have had some proof
before even askinq the question. Certa1n1y the perceived mi~deeds, if any, are
not perpetrated by the entire government.
Those who attended the rally, and many who called me after April 19, do not
actually need any turther proot to believe some in the government might be
c~pable of killing innocent civilians. they believe it has already happened. the
Randy Weaver incident at Ruby Ridqe, Idaho, is not even 1n dispute by the
government. On that site, in April 1992, a qovernment-paid sniper killed Vicky
weaver, Randy's wife, while holdinq her child in her aens. Then the Weaver's
other son was shot in the back by the same sniper.
Randy Weaver was arrested and tried. Was he convicted ot even a single crime?
No, the charges appear to have been bogus. He returned t~ Ruby Ridge a free man,
but he had lost ~ wit. and a son at the hands of the government. the sniper and
the manaqer who ordered the hit have received only minimal discipline, much less
beinq arrested.
There are many beyond those at the rally who believe the incineration ot
innocent women and children at Mt. Car.mel, near Waco, Texas, was a deliberate
qovernment ~ct. Aa n.ar as I can tell, the bigqest crime the Branch Davidians
COmmitted was in refusinq to come out ot -the compound and surrender to
authorities who had already killed some in their midst. Whether you agree with
the cult's riqht to practice religion as they pl •••• or not, these peaceful
people had Committed no crimes. Is incineration an appropri.te response to those
~hO refuse to yield t~ ~ hostile intrusion? I hardly think so. Eighty-six
~nnocent people lost their lives at the hands of the government.
(continued, next page)
.. ,
......
"
(Sen. OUke--continueQ)
Information published in the Los Anqeles Tim.. and the New York Times
newspapers tell the ~tory of an rBI info~er, who, wearinq ~ wireless mike, held
conversations with members of the FBI. These recorded conversations indicate the
FBI helped plan and ~uild the World Trade Center bomb. The alleqed stated plan
was to, at the last minute, substitute harmless powder for the bomb powder and
thwart the deed. For reason~ that Are unexplained tor ~ertain, the substitute
order never happened. The testimony in the trial of the bombers clearly
indicaces the rEI could ha~ stopped the Trade Center bombinq, but did not.
There are many unanswered questions aDout the OklAhoma City bombicl-/. Sased or:
the current reac~ion, these questions will not even be asked until the answers
are well in hand. If the current propaqand~ proqram to discredit the patriots is
success~ul ~~ permanently silencinq disa9reement, it's po.sible we will never
know the truth about Oklahoma City.
Certainly I aliqn myself with those who consider themselves "patriots", whic~
the American Heritaqe Dictionary defines as -One who lovea, supports, and
defends his co~ntry." I place a further refinement that a true.patriot is
willinq to take peaceful action to defend our country and Constitution.
There is no known connection whatever beeween patriots, Constitu~ionists,
militia or Tenth Amendment supporters with any violent act in the country. What
we do have is a woefully misquided belier that these qroups are linked, along
with all conservative talk shoW host in America, to violence. It is not
surprising that those who want to silence dissension, those who would want to
stop a movement a~ed at de-centralizing qovernmant, those who vant to
consolidate federal power to make it stronger, would attempt this deception. It
is surprisinq that even a few would allow themselves to be deceived by it. It i~
my hope Coloradans are smarter than that.
We still live in the United States ot America. Only tor the moment, we still
have a Constitution &nd a Bill of Rights, both of which are desiqned to prohibit
the kind of government crackdown that is about to happen. The Omnibus Terrorist
Bill now before Conqress did not have a snowball's chance in Hades of passing
before Oklahoma C1ty. Now its passage seem. assured, having now qarnered the
necessary ~bip~rtisan" support that brought us GArT, NAFTA, the Crime Bill, and
HR 666, which nullilie. the Fourth Amendment.
Your Bill of kiqhts is soon to be further destroyed. There are those who say
p~otec~ing those rights is none ot a state Senator's business, su~~ as
Colorado's Governor Roy Romer. But I swore an oath before God to uphold our
Colorado and O.S. Constitutions when I took otfice. I will not apoloqize for
de!endinq them.
---------------------~~~-------
Senator Charles
Internet:
..-..---------~~~-------.---.~--~~~.. _---.__ ._-
ion.
---------
On April 26
Report" ,
stated that he didn't think we were being told tne
Oklahoma City---&bout the bomb type, etc.
( Retired FBI),
what happened in
-------------~---------~------~----~--~--------~~---~~-----------------DiE'ORTANT! 1 1, PL&ASE ll£AC AND RESPOND 8~ CALLING 'l'O REPORT MILITIA ACTIVITY
-The Southern povert~YW
Cen er is asking anyone with information about
militia activity to ~all
The center'. ~anwatch project coll.ct~
information About violent ex r~st qroups, and ~ends reports to law enforcement
agencies nationwide.- Pl ••se do your part and call, I have. Several o~ our black
members have called, but they would not return the calls. We ask allot you to
keep ealling until you qet through. Offer your thanks to ....... and company for
making us 3rd in the nation. SFLC placed this ad in the ~ery Adver~i~er
....
\~
I!1~~rvieW5
with witnesses from past "G00d '01 Boys"
I have viewed and have in my po~~es~ion, video taken a~ pas~ "Good '01 Boys"
that shows a handmade cardboard siqn stat1nq "Niqger Check eoint W - - "Any
Niggers In Tha~ carR -- "17 cen~s lb.", with sketches o! ~lack people. Thi~
video also shows an anonymous person showing o!~ several twenty dOllar bills
that he had won playing "chicken-shit bingo", which is a torm of qambling
utilizing a qame bOArd/cage and live chickens.
rur~her, I have an eye-witness ot a past "Good '01 boys" outing tha~ had a
contest called "redne~k 0: the year", one skit tor this event had an ~r .g~nt
dressed in a KKK uniform holding another ATF agent, with face black~d out, on a
chain. The skit was portraying a mastar/slave relationship. The agent dressed a:
the "Klan" member pretended to force his "slave" to perform oral sex with a !akr
penis that was revealed fram under his "klan" robe.
As an add to the abOv. information: On the evening ot Friday, May 19, I was
informed that CNN "capital Gang" showed video o~ law en~orc.ment personne! who
were involved in the Washington hotel incident, which allegedly involved
o!!icers harassing women, spraying fire extinguishers and ~lidihg naked down a
beer-slicked hotel escalator, one ot the o!!icers in the video was wearing a
~Good 'Ol 80ys" shirt. These o!!1cer~ were in ~own to attend a memorial ceremon
for fellow o!ticer~. I have not per~ona~y witnessed this video seq.men~. Maybe
~his officer should be questioned in regar~ to the ~GOOQ '01 Boys".
The above statements and eye-witness accounts are the result of an
investigation on the matter 9f racism within the aATF. We ask that these ~ven~s
b. !ully investiga~ed and all intormation released to the p~lic. We are
prepared to bring forth &11 witnesses, inclUding myself, if this matter w~ll be
investigated properly, we can be contactec via the information provided on the
cover page of this news~etter.
----~----------~--
-~~-~~--------~-------------~--~------~~------------
Investigation of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC}
We are requesting a~y ~n!o~tion you m.y have on the Southern Poverty ~aw
Center. We as~ that all information be accurate and provide appropri.te
wi~ne~ses and documentation. It is our ~derstanding that several cases ~~y be
pending against this organization due to defamation o! certain individual~ and
groups who are involved in the =ilitia movement. Again, we ask that all
information be proVided with proper documentation, we have always repor~ed the
facts and do not intena to print and/or paas along info~tion that 1S not
substantiated. All in!o~tion will be p.ased to the proper people who are
involved in any ~aae. Please send any info to the addresses on the cover.
-~---------~----------.-------------------~----~---~---~---~---------------~-----
The above ad has been placed for the benetit of tello~ patriot~ who .re not
members of the
• The Gadsden Kinut.men's pOSition remA.~s the
same concerninq
has been a major as.et in the qrowth or our
or9ani%a~ion.
s to grow, m.ny new members have expressed the
the idiocy of
has been the motivating tactor to join our group, •
...... WE
-&NOOGH, please continue your public statements 0 the
~ia, .nd thank you for rating us in 3rd place in your report on the nationz
militia movement. Let us also say that we, unlike _
are in full luppcrt
of our St~te and their position on chain gangs.
-~IRMINGHAM
,., !N-02-_
£lve~tiqative
FiELD DIV
P.
j.l
report by Jell Ranaall, Gadsden Minutemen, and other parties
The wGood '01 Boya W outin9 is held annually at Ocoee, Tn. Basad on my
interviews wi
event is organ1~ed by Gene Ri;htm8yer
(5ATF-Tn.) and
• This event ha. a history of beinq an
all-white qeta history, to which there is
documentation/witnes.e., ot being very racist.
The "Good '01 BoysW attraets aqents trom various government agenci.s such as
ATF, DEA, Secret service, and other law enforcement agencies. The event usually
goes for several days and includes various activities. Flyers (invitations) are
,ent out to seleeted people, tor a fee you receive an arm band which allows you
entrance to the CBmp9round, free beer from a beer true x within the camp, a
~.-shirt, a cap and a beer mui.
I learned ot this event several months a;o and decided to investigate tor
myselt. I arrived at the outer edges of the camp at approximately 11:00 a.m.
EST, Friday Hay 19, 1995. I placed a "police w cap Oft, grabbed my camera and
walked in via a rear unquarded entrance. I was not questioned as to whether or
not I was suppose to be there, however, towards the end of my visit, I felt that
I wa. about to be .. ked to leave.
Inside, I blended in and met people trom all agencies, some of which wore
tee-shirts statinq their aqencie. name and where they were from. Several of the
people were too drUnx to carry on conversa~ioft8 with, however I did speak with
two a;ents, whom I did not know, but were wearing arm bands. These agents were
highly upset about quote "nig;erft ~F agents that were brought in by a white ATt
~qent the previous ni;ht (Thursday). These aqenta said that they would not
attend the event in the tuture because of the "niggers" beinq allowed in. All
around the main campground (center ot camp) I heard racial slurs and saw racial
tee-shirts and other itama, one beinq a small yellow card that reads "nigger
huntinq license w • ~ also overheard quests (wearinq ~ bands) talking about
~those niggers" that were in the camp on the previous ni9ht. The conversation
was, that an altercation almost occurred between various aqents due to the
bl~eks beinq in the camp. I also witnessed a poker game in proce.s between
se~ral other Wquests·, with, what appeared to be a large sum of money on the
table and exch~nqing hands. Several people were wearing tee-shirts depictinq
O.J. simpson on a hAnqin; gallows. Throughout ~y approximate 2 hour stay, I did
not see any black people in the crowd of approximately 300 people. During this
time I heard numerous raci~l slur. and dis.atisfaction that their annual
gatherin; had, for the f1rst ttm., allowed "niqgers" to attend.
I took several pictures, .everal of various anonymous law en!orc.ment
personnel, one of a man wearing a 8i~gh&m Narcotics tee-shirt, one ot • man
marked Metro Poliee, several shots of Gene Riqhtmayer, whom I recognized from
previous pictures and video, with. beer muq and what appeared to be a bottle of
whiskey in a paper be;, .everal picture. of the campsite, including the Lite
Beer truck, one
ur of a North Carolina fraternal order ot police vehicle,
enSeplateloneotananonymouSGMCvan,Tn.licensePlate*1iIIr
several ot
people wearinq tee-shirts with the words "Young Guns II"
~n
·Pigman", and one of the welcome sign to the entrance of "Good '01 Boys".
I did meet aome people (agents) in the crowd who appeared to be very decent
individuals, howev.r, the majority of whom I spoke with, seemed to b. very
racist, judginq !ram my conversations with them. The only ille9al actions I
witnessed w•• the open gambling and the quests I witnessed drivin; trom the
campqround atter drinking (drunk?).
@f
W·
®
The Reauirements of Freed:m
~t~c~e by Reverend J~ G~son
"So you shall keep the cClllUndments of the Lord your God, by w~lkinq in hi3
ways ••• &nd you s~ bless the Lord your God for the good land he has given you"
[Deuteronomy 8:7, 10]
Too many at us take America
~nd
her liberties for qranted, even as we take
~ face up to the
requirements o£ freedom, and too tew of WJ pause at any given t1me to a3k, "f=om
whence eame our rights and our liberties, and how ~an we preserve them ~sta~ned
by qreed or betrayal?"
rreedom is not something handed down by families or governments. It is not
somethinq born ot historic documents. Freedom is like a garden that must be fed
and watered, loved and p:otected. Freedom like good gardens, is the resu~t of
thouqhtful, e.rnest wo:x - work that ~t be done year by year, generation by
qeneration. And the g:e.t enemy ot both gardens and freedom is neglect.
History sh~s that it is ditf!cult and costly to gain freedom, but it is
tziqhteninqly ~!1cult to reqain it.
the people of Israel learned that lesson lonq aqo. onder the heavy hand of
Eqypt's pharaoh they learned the preciousness of liberty. To reqain it, they
made their bitter trek across the wi~derness. A who~e generation died in the
process. rina~YI after such suffering and many battles, they won for themselves
the land promised them. They lQved their new freedom - enjoyed it - made laws to
protect it - ana tnen lost it. When the ple.. ures and pleasant thinqs ot life
became ot more value than morals and ethics, justice and mercy, prayer and
taithfu~ worship, their freedom left, and ehey became slaves in Babylon. They
neglected freedom - tailed to meet its requirements - and lost it.
Will it oe any different with us as we prepare to celebrate another national
buthday this suzrmer? OU%' ancestors oraved the wrath ot rulers and ruling class,
anq:y seas and hostlle wllderness, to gain :reedcm. "e trul.y do not know the
price they paid, cause none of WI have lett fam1ly and homeland to sail for
montha on leaky ships and to find a hemeles. stretch at shore and torest that
had to be tamed betore ve could ~l it home. Our ance.to~ were det.~ned to
be tree, and they asked tor no quarters in their struggle.
The years in which we live are tilled with dAnqers - not merely trom without,
but from within. Nations usually rot ou~ before they are conquered by others.
And so I'd like to list some of the thinqs which I believe can keep us from rot
and rust, and so help us to pro~ect the f=eedom3 we now so carelesaly enjoy. And
so I submit the followinq !equu-ements of Freedom:
our fabulous standard of living for granted. Few of
«.
(1.) Inteqrity. Unless honesty lives
a vital force in each ot us, our nation
i. doomed. A republiC cannot exist, and freedom will not, in the midst of a
people to whom the Ten Commandments are mere worda. OUr way of lite demanas
integrity - hi9h and truatworthy character on the p~ ot each of u., ana unle~~
we ~n produce it in the va.t majority of our people, our days as a n~tion are
numbered.
i
(2.) Unity. America is a diverse nation, made up of diverse people, :rom diverse
of the worla and living unde: divers cl1=ates ana conditions. Ye~, we ~t
be the United States. Unity is the very blood ot our republic, and without it,
life cannot exist. Sameness we do not need. Unity we must have.
a~.&S
rJ.} The right ot the individual. The general good must never be purch~sed
through the a.b~e of the indi vidual or the iCinor.inq ot hi.s right'S in the cow:~
of Christi.n justice. When governments rob individuals of rights in the name of
the general good, it is only a matter ot time until there are no =igh~s.
(see fr.edom, next
~age)
JLN-e2-1.995
10: S6
EIRMINGHRM FIELD DIV
(fre.dom, continued)
(4.) Just law. jus~ly applied to all.
(5.) Compassion. All commandments.must be accompanied by compassion. Justice
must be forever tempered by mercy. Law mu3t never be far from that which God
calls Love.
(6.) Work. Ou~ country ~ built on a person's riqht to work. No one has the
right to prevent a person from workinq when he wants to work and has contracted
with someone who will employ ~. Nor is labor merely a right. Scripture attests
that for those who are able, it is a resP9nsibi~ty: "I~ a man will not work, he
shall not eat" (2. Thessalonians 3:10]
(7.) Vigilance. Everythinq thAt works needs attention, whether i t ' s . tractor,
an automobile, a washing machine, or a state. Everythinq tends to get
out-of-fix- - to run down, to weaken, to lose power, to lose efficiency. Freedom
is no exception. Above all things, it demands vigilance. Withou: constant
attention to tr~nds and ends and means, no sta~e can remain secure.
~y people fear personal responsibility, and most want to live by absolute
4uthorities: it saves th~ from havinq to m.ke. up their own minds and live with
the result$ of personal decisions. But a republic demands that we make up our
own minds - that each citizen learn the facts, ponder them, and reach his own
conclusions. A republic is meaningless if it does not mean freedom from any
source that makes our minds for us.
Of course we believe that God has a right to say to ~, "You must.~ But that
is not the way God spea~ to any of ~. We .re tree to cl~ to Heaven if we so
desire: but we are also free to sink into the depths of Hell.
As I face another July 4th, I wonder how many more wi~ be observed in the
years ahead, rerhaps not too many - unless mere Amerieans stop takinQ freedom
for granted and start meeting the requirements which treedom demAnds ot all who
would live under God in the tellowship of a fre. society.
------------------------------------------------------~-----------------------
The Last Word
A$ you have probably noticed, our newsletter style has changed, we are
attempting to bring more r •• l news to you than the usual fro~h-at-the-mouth
letters and insults we have become so f.mous tor. Dontt worry, we are not
following in Wayne-I-apologize-Lapierre's (NRA) fooe5teps and back1n~ of! of any
previously made statements. The fact of the matter is, we have been on the
federal jack-booted-thuq agenci.s like white on rice for the past year tryinQ to
get them to respond, arque and attempt to prove their side of the eas.. that we
have brought to their attention. No matter how hard ve try, they seem to vant to
stay clear of us "crazy Alabama militia boys." The Ge.tapo agencies aren't the
ones who are aYOiding u., the ADL refused to debate us publicly on the
show, atter View~ir
t
minutes ot fame on a lAter show,
cou
see
y they wo~d not.
mad. a pitiful respon.. to our
show. It WO U1" . heen
a a feeding re zy ~ we would have been able to n.ve a
real deb.t..
is another fine examp~e
hoy man times have ve •• ked
a heads u , p 1 c ebate with h~. Maybe
~I) told him,
u better
,boy, the.e people wil chew yo
as
w~th ~h.
c s ,
should know. Well anyway, we're stil~ here, we Itill
support
e same e ie:5 and statements we have made, and will alway. r . . . in
firm with absol~tely NO baeking off. Please stay sa~e, watch your bac~id., keep
your powder dry ~nd shout the truth till you're hoarse.
~
M~
~i
~"'~
J.t~ca
~-:~ ~t,IO
t
\()
~1.
, "
" .Jt~
D ~
-~
£j~
~.
e
-a
[l
-~
E
',"
<X:
'-.J
t9
~
G:
E
~
'l
-
~
W
~
Q
:l
c::I:
--+I>"
c\U
"l
0
\.L..
0
~
\U
~
~
~
c::
:t-
w
Q
~
~
~
':l
t:r
\.J
w
3
.
E
~
0
..Q
In
'vol
eJ.
~
a:
IRMINGHAM
~IELD
DIV
j?EC1AI. AGENT IN CHARGE
BIRMINGHAM. ALASAHA
CRAIG VALEKTICK---BATF
2121 8th AVE N
BHAM At 35203
95 JUN - r PH 3: 09
BUREAU OF ATF
GMM
P.O. Box 2
Attalla, Alabama 35954
<----
Who is this man?
.................
..............................
M L ' ' ' ' ' , . , .. '
'iAurAlI'
-
. . UTP. In,....""
111.""
DftfdI ••' .., ......
.-......W-......
o.w, AeuI......
• • II·" ....e .... tM lINt ...... to
... _
Ieft, . . unl.
..... epnt .. ,.....
......... ,..........,. of . . . . . .
.,.. fUII-- tdIlr'Ma11 coA.
fIIIMID: .... ow...
S::l=:Clf>'. :"G~ioli" IN CHARG:
SIRM1L;';r.l,~. ALA9AMA
95 JU~ - t PH 3: 09
BUREAU OF ATF
NOV-17-1995
89: .34
FROM
TO
ATF r+61'V 1u...E
I::tClUESSEE BUREAU CW 11t "Eif11GATION
1148 FOGter AftmJe
NaahviIle. Tl:nnesm: 3121<>-4406
61 :'-74. 'J.-043O
FAX 61S-741~7.88
roD 61~741-0430
n ..........
October 11. 1995
Jrortt-.nl,
Tubacco and FireanTl$
215 Centerview Drive. Suite 215
B~ TQQDessee 37027
With.
in the letter. A
so he could discuss the situation
you a copy since your agents were me
'ed
!mIIl!Idfic2Jv
I hope you enjoyed your trip and, a:; always, if there Is anytfng we can-do
for you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
-I~ . A~"'- W~~c
".--..~,~:o
- ,.' _. Larry 'RaIJaca
Director
xc:
~
+h..o I ft_:tt~.'L.
WtU
~tJ~~
oJ,t:( {fir
t-OJ-17-199S
e9:3S
FRIl1
_.Col
~TF ~HVILLE
Se;x. 19. 1995
The Eoaorabie Fnd 1'hcmpson
cr. S. Sc:mor
- Tmnesse=
.
111
of the Tezmessee BlIRIIU ~ 2I1Jmriect the 'GOOD OLD
CmmtyoearBemcm. 'INdDs}'la[.wirh_-
They didllGt ~ ami ~ is DO recon1 aitDe.:r~I
fOilow.i [ardercl by Gove:mar Don 5u Ddquist to lam die SUB law
mtbic:mem "'pe:lI!I"'IIlSRDid~- mat anrndC;fj 1was ~ettce, a. &a bJowI1 COYER. tIP!!! It was a.
.:iciii>eaa, skiwpj,
eripioni ~ Sumiqais wa DEalVE:D by
m
"'""''''' me
ttm he W~ to tile IlOlJND rIP 011
-'
....
.;
t .......
aztrndrrl.!!! So sapped Or 10 viS mrris
aiso mended me I.C'OND UP ill
A.:IF &pm
giYma.
_was
In addf1:ian to tDe W:l: at c:aaaor sboWI1 t!Ia:t is il ' !," fe4 ~
qugtec1
JuLy ~ 1995 by !be CollUZlCc:iaL Appe:Id llIhiispapc ia.Mcmpbi:s ~I
SUD~S 4tH,rled me 'GOOD OLD
.. Tois W3S DOt true. AJsa, mcmer
~ mDring official ill dJc 'mI.
'R.Omm UP' ill me
yean of1981, 1933 wbm at
in his sworn aDd aBiQa1 c:pacity
TO
cc: The Cormnet cia1 AppC2i
The ~ News-oSemia!
P.2E
""- j
RTF NASriVIl..J.£
10
.29
Removal Notice
The item identified below has been removed in accordance with FRASER's policy on handling
sensitive information in digitization projects due to copyright protections.
Citation Information
Document Type: Newspaper Article
Number of Pages Removed: 2
Author(s): Richard Locker
Title:
"6 Tenn. Agents Cleared"
Date:
1995-07-27
Journal:
Volume:
Page(s):
URL:
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
P.:rl
TOT!=L p.32
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
•
auREAU OF ALCOHOL. TOUCCO AND FlMARIII
INCIDENT REPORT
OFFICI OF
IN . . .enON
.
INFOAM~
.
'''".
o
,
IN PERSON
[XJ
KJ TELEPHONE 0
past several months,
and
Birmingham Field
,
ived
r written propaganda generated by the Gadsden
Minutemen, a prominent extremist militia group in Alabama. Because
this material is typically very critical of ATF and often
threatening to ATF employees, it is routinely forwarded to ATF
Headquarters, Inspection, and the ATF Intelligence Division.
Attached is a copy of the most recent, newsletter and propaganda
material received by the Birmingham Field Division. Of particular
concern is an article on page 10 entitled "Interviews with
't
ses .from Past "Good '01 Boys" (Roundups).
According to
_
Good "01 Boy Roundups, though never ATF sponsored or
d, are week-long get-togethers organized by mostly retired
ATF agents and possibly attended by some active ATF agents. The
core group of attendees and organizers reputedly engage in unruly
and drunken behavior.
The author of the attached article wrote that he was in possession
of a video tape depicting racist activities, and that he knew of
somone who was a witness to more racist conduct.
Page 1 of 2
NO ACTION DEEMED NECESSARY. FILE IN EMPLOYEES INVEmGATIVE FILE.
o
AWAIT ACTION BY REPOATING OFFICE. FlLE IN PENDING FOLDER.
OPEN TORT CLAIM.
0
OPEN INTEGRTTY FILE.
ABOVE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO
i"""'"
- _ :.-1 OTHER (S~KiIy)
ATFFI4OO.1 ("084, PREVIOUS EomoNsARE OBSOLETE
0
'.!
OPEN FORMAL ACCtDENT INVEST1GAT1~O
ON
~_[7
..r
TE
TWX
MAIL
On page ll, one of the key figures in the Minutemen,"""""""
wrote about his infiltration of what he said ~as a~
Good '01 Boy Roundup in Ocoee, Tennessee on May 19, 1995. He wrote
that he observed gambling, drunkenness, racist signs, symbols, and
language among the attendees, who included Federal, sta te , and
local law officers.
said the Minutemen have routinely provided copies of their
ers to the press, the electronic media, the NRA, and
ORIGIN: 20
ACTIVITY: 923
3: 09
ATF
MINUTEMEN
TTER
8th ~sue
June 95
The American Crisis
Say not that this is revenqe, call it rather the sof~ resen~~t of a
people, who havinq no object in view but the GOO~ or ALL, have
stakea thei= OWN ALL upon a seeminqly doubt~ul event. Yet it is folly to
arque a;ai~st dete~ed har~ess; eloquence may strike the ear, and the
lanquaqe of sorrow draw !orth the tear ot compassion, but no~~~nq can
=ea~~ the heart that is steeled with prejudice.
There are c&ses·whiC: cannot be overdone by lanquaqe, and this is one.
There are persons, too, who see not the tull extent of the evil which
threatens them; they solace th~elves with hope that the enemy, if he
succeea, will ce merciful. It is madness of tolly, to expect mer=y from
~hose who =ef~se to de justice; ana
even mercy, where con~~es~ is the
objec~, is only a trick of war:
the cunninq of the fox is as murderous
as !he Violence of the wolf, and we ouqht to quar~ equally aqai~s~ bo:h.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have th~s co~so lation wi~ us, that the harder the conflict, the mere qlor~ous the
~=~umph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to liqhtly----'Tis dea~ess
o~ly ~~at qives ev.r~q its value.
Heaven knows now ~o pu: a proper
pr~ce upon its goods; and it would be s~ranqe indeed, if so celes~:al an
a:~~cle as freedom should not be hiqhly rated.
s~f!er~~q
Thomas Paine
1776
------------~~--------------------------------------~----------
Gadsden Minuteman
P.O. Box 2
Attalla, Alabama 35954
Face to Face
on Fr:i.d.ay n.iqht, May 26,
~nc1 I
Methe
guesb of -
.,
of WAAX ndio, on a special . ' iii •
ion ot
no:znally mo~Jc
show. The show vas to provide an opportunity tor :.enc:t.s &nei enemies of the
militia to address militia issues in depth and face to face vith ua
troublemakers. We are mos~ qrateful for the invitation.
The show, in our m1nds at least, was & howling success. It sounds very
strange, but the only elisapr'" ".nting. a~' :ect "'AS that our opponents c:U.d not make
zwch of ~ appearance. "e Wtu.e tr'Jly hopinq to meet our deeractors and doubters,
Ntace to face,w to answer their
leerns wj~~ logic and the Constitution.
lew concerns were raised, s o . and 1; ~ok the opportunit.y to address
unila~erally as many of the co nee
s as we could r.member that had previously
Deen raised.
We were asked whliiiiiii!e
militia is fo~q allover the country. I related the
statement qiven by
of Jews for the preservation of Firearms
Ownership: the mill:
as
e -cells of the body politiC, much like the
T-celis of the human iannne system which rally to an infection of the body.
Questioneei further, I likened the militia to the actions of • cornered
Animal. When you corner and threaten any animal, it w111 show its te.th. We are
the tee~h of a citi:enry of free men and women. A8 a tree people we are
tnreatenec1 and cornereei, and our t e e i i i i ishovin
i i l l t h• etiberty t.eth.
~c were asked if we would sHPPort
ve &aaurad the phantom
faxer, And _
that_need 0
nything that we could provide.
Otherwi~e hea~1IIII of the OG (underqroW1d); ve heard froll some
q:oups .lootinq for a ).a:qer pack with which to ally themselns. We heard i.ssues
addressed, and qood pub~c servants praised. We addrtlsed same of the proposed
teoeral leqislation.
We heard :'0111 individ~ with serioWi uperU.e and knovledqe, part.icular~y
..concemin; some of the mere qlarinc; clisc:repanci.. in the 01( City bcmbinq. One
gentleman, Dear the end of the proqram, illustrated how the numbers and tacts
concerning ~e explosion puts the ~e to the story beinq told us by the
government and the national .eciia.
Though not apparent to the Listenine; public, we also hea:d !rom several peaet
officers. Thank you, officers, for your off-line encour-aqement And OD-tArget.
in!o~tion. We ~ take note. Keep your powder ary.
A lady asked if she was welcome in the ~litia. I w.nted to, but didn't
respond "Only if you brinq ~ivw ladies with you. w
W. adare•• ed the lav of the Sute of Alabama concerninq the militia; we note(
the .ta~ute iDvokinq the posse comitatu., "&%mad and equipped as the occasion
may require. w .e noted the statute which critics cl.~ make. the militia
"ille9al" strictly do •• not apply to the unorganized m1litia, which is a
c:reature of our own Constitutions and other separate statutu. We are
brothers-in-a=a to the National GUArCl, and are required by lav to stand to the
c:a.l.l of our gove:ncr.
Perhaps the beet call of the night occurred at the end ot the fi:st hour,
when a younq soldier po.ed some questions &bout possible conflict betveen the
militia and military. It v.. pointed out to him that for a soldier to be racing
an unorqanized ~tiaman, tor instance to collect guns from hi. hame, An
i1le9al order ~t havw been qiven. Hi. oath to support and uphold the
7onstitution aqa.inat &1.1 enemies toreign and domestic vas aotect, and _
asked
~f he would obey or disobey an illeqal order.
He stammered and hemmed and hawed,
that he ~ould obey
what • ..,.r order was given him. Just u
the Birmingham
rBI, a seeminqly qood man, said that
was told, forget
the Const1 tution and bi.s co~cience.
00 •• anyboc1y out tlle%e qet it yet? We ue in one hell of a mess.
c
The ACLO haS entered suit aqa~t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfor openinq his court w1~h
prayer and also for havinq a hand ~~Ten Ccmmanaments on the
wal~'urtroo.m. T~ case has received a&tional madia attention.
taces a lonq, hard fiqht, which will prove to be very expensive.
The
a
eep pockets and will not stop until Christianity is taken out of
our society. oar nation wa. founded on a belie! in God, we cannot allow an
honest, Christian judqe to
by an orqani:ation sucn as the ACtO. We
~sk ~at you please support
in his f1;ht. Today it's the c~urtroom,
tomorrow it will be your
If you wish to submit. monetary donat;on, please send to:
Defense
Fund, f.O. Box 8222, Gadsden, Alabama 3~902.
thank! qo out to allot you who have stood behind and supported ........
in this important battle. We, the Gadsden Minutemen are proud to~p
r
man who stands up tor God and His laws.
fill
Gadsden
~utem.n
---~--------------~---------~---~~-----~-----------~---~-.-----------------
We have heard talk, by vario~ sources, &bout firearms beinq oftered for sale
to militia members cy other individuals. These !1rea~ have • very attractive
price. I ask anyone who purchases a used f1rear.m, whether you are a dealer or an
individual, have your sheri!~'s d~p.rtment check the serial numbers Btro~t you
buy. There are alot ot stolen iU~ that are beinq bought and sold on a aaily
ba~i~. 00 NOT ist W,et-up". Your local sherit!'. dept. will be happy to run the
numbers, if you a.k. The feds are looking for Anything, at this point, to
di~-credit the ~l~tia movement. We ~t con:inue t~ operate, as we always have,
COMPLETELY LEGAL. If you come across anyone who is att.mpt~ng to deal in stolen
merchandis., report it tmm.diately to the proper autnorities. Se extra careful
of tirea~ that are. subject to M~ ~es (such .. machine quns). I~~eqal
possession ot th••• weapons carry a 10 year sentence And 510,0000 fine. ~ou can
legally possess these weapons only attar completinq the proper paperwork and
background checks, and pay1nq the proper taxes on these weapons. It you come
across any wunder-th.-t&ble~ class 3 weapons "deals~, report it to tne AIF, as
bad as I nate to say that.
Gadsden Minutemen
-------~~--~-------~-----~----~~-----------~-------~~------~----------------
Our meetinq for June will be incorporated with a campout/target shoot/ social
event. This ~s planned tor the weekend ot June 17-18, at a location in Webster,
Chapel (see enclosed map). For those who wish to arrive on Friday (June l6),
please do not arrive any earlier than 5:00 pm. All members, friends ana ~amily
are invited. You will
for your own fooa and drink. A special
invitation qo •• out to
the whole statt o~ the SPLC (Southern
Professional Liars
out and qet involved with
O~
please call
All leqal
ns
proper paperworx.
ayder truck.
----------~~--------~~-------~--~~~--------......-----------~----~-~-------
Our thanks go out to &11 the local law enforcement and local qov.r~~ent
o!!icials who have supported our riqht to e&iat .. a c1ti:ens militia. We
continue to otter our support and help should we be ne.ded. The otficers I have
spoken with tind it camfortinq to know that there Are 'people, such ~s ourselves,
who are leqally armed at all times, ready to defend tne safety of all :~tizens
or lend our help to law enforcement, should the situation arise.
t'
~.
=.as
How Congress Spends Your Money
375,000 to renovate the Bouse of Representatives' beauty shop
S 7 million to study air pollution in Mexico City
$ 6 million to search for life in outer space
$ 100,000 to study the sand on Waikiki Beach
S 400,000 to study methane emissions from cows
S 360,000 fo~ staff at Conqress's private health clubs
S 28.5 million on salary increases for Members of Conqress and th~ir stat!
S 6 million tor the National Seafood Council to teach people how to
prepare fish
$ 107,000 to study the sexual preferences of the Japanese quail
S 84,000 to study why people tall in love
S 703,000 to study fish net entanqlement
$ 250,000 to prevent wild pigs from attack1nq exotic plants in Hawaii
$ 240,000 to develop a weiqht-based teChnology fro monitoring the
moisture content of lumber
S 37,000 to study the handling of animal manure and the development of
resolution techniques in Michiqan
$
Source:
The Heritaqe Foundation
------~-------------~---------~~---~~----------------~ ---------
The New York Times reported on May 22 that Wayne Lapierre (NRA) said
that his orqanization favored conqressional hearings .into the scope and
intent of the heavily armed Wc1tizen militias" that are proliteratinq
around the country. "We condemn hate qroups, terrorist qroups,· Lapierre
saia. "We have never had anytbing to do with these paramilitary-type groups
you see on television. That's not the National Rifle Association" He
further wene on to say that his characteri~ation of aqents as "jackbooted
thuqs" was a poor choice of lanquaqe.
--------------------~------~-----~------~~-----------~--~------------------
In a live CNN interview on May 23 trom the bombinq site.
mother who lost her kids in the blast, ask ·where was the AT
explosion) "All 15 or 17 of their employees survived, and they're on the
ninth floor. They had an option to qo to work that day, ana my kids didn't
get that option. And we're just ask1nq questions, we're not making
accusations. We just want to know, and they're tellinq us 'Keep your mouth
shut, aon't talk about it."
later retracted her stat~ent on the G. Gordon Liddy show.
Taken tram transcripts, interview by Gary Tuchman, CNN
--------------------~------------~-------------------- ---------------------
A recent "60 Minutes· interview, Attorney General Janet Reno said
I saw what happened and knowinq what happened, I would not do it
aqain," speakinq ot the :1ery end to the Branch Davidian standoff. Ron
Noble (Treasury Dept.) said it was a mistake to qo ahead with the initial
ra.id. Dr. Alan Stone, a Harvard professor of psychiatry a.nd law who
investiqated the operation for the Justice Department, said it was
mishandled t:om start to finish. "There was incredible stupidi~y,
incompetence and provocation by a reckless and over-reaching fecera_
agency," he said.
~Obviously
-~------~~----------------------------~-~------------- ---------------------
__________________--<.
~-'I..
_...---.- _____
~~~
_--..--.-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~..._._
;~;-~~;den MJnutemen would like to welcame a aev unit to the ~lit!a movemen~.
The Appalachian H1litia, which has &pproaimately 20 memters, 1~ loeatea in th.
Blount I St. ClAir couney ~e •• The leader ot the iroUP is a long time !riend ot
tne mclvement, his men ue vell equipped and well e.ained. "e t:uly thanx you
bOys tor the past support, keep the faith and ke.p your powder riry.
Code Name: MountAin Katia
.~-----------------
..
==~----------------------.--------.----.-- ----~--------~
A True Political Prisoner
Article from C.M.A.
Civilian Military AsSistance
p.o.
Box 3~A1Mma 3~602
"The only thinq necessary for .the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
- Eamund Burlce Having been A member of this orqanization, I feel you Are one who understands
words. These Are words I have believed and words I have lived by.
Atter tleinq told in the ~prinq of 1991 by the local FBI tiwt they "wAnted my
ass", I have been the subject of intense scrutiny by federal Aqents. I ceunt at
leAst 7 and probably more undercover agents &Cd intor.mants who have been sent in
to get in!o::mation on me or to try to qet me to do so_thinq illegal. I put up
with being tollowed, havinq my telephone tapped, havinq Associata. And people I
thouqht were friends co~~ to me wired.
In Se~:ember of 1992 I bought ~ome surplus night .
' . . .
les at A qun sho~
in Huntsville. I bonowed the money to buy them from
I as ked a
Natienal Guard ASsociate 1: he could help iet'man~l
ow it ~hey
w.r~ stolen or had any problema ••orkin; with CID and the National Guard over
several monthS, tryinq to iet soma broken units repai:ed, it turns out they
withheld information from me that these units w8%e stolen. I wa. buying them to
sell a~ gun shows, just llke all the other equipment I've handled in the ~ast.
The differM!Mtthatthis time, I was set up. september, 1993, the teds
ar:estad me,
nd 4 other individuals who dealt in ~eS8 go les
charged us wi
cons
to steal And sell stolen equipment. All
done wa. to loan me the money to buy units.
January we went to trial in federal ~o~ and atter a 4 day trial,
and I were found guiltyJ
and I, our attorneys, even the pros
wen tloored 1 The detense
y cU.d.r1' t qet the point acro.. to th. N t h a
t
the quy we bought the g0991e. f r o m _ a d qovernmaot witness) and
and I were dOing different things.
is faced with. losing his Cl
tireums license, his buainess, his
d ut' to 5 years :1.n jail because h.
leaned me money. I'm factnq loaing my house, never beini able to l.qal~y own a
gun again, plWl 5 y.ars.
Tom E'osey
M.r. 8urlce"
-----~----
-
~----
----
--
--.-------~------------------
lllais currently serv1nq time at Talladei& rederal prison, he ~ about 3 mont~
~o betore beinq re1...ed to a ~al!way house. ae is currently worki~q on An
app.al, howeve~ n1~ time ~ almost be.n served. OUrini the Contra war in
Niear~gua, Posey, • Ka:ine veteran of Vietnam, dec:1.ded to help. A lOCAl qroup of
veterans formed C1vi~an H1litary Assistance (CHA) to help the Cont=&s fight t~.
Communists in 19!3. They paid for food, medicine, clothinq and tr.nsporta~~Qn
out.O! their own pocxets. In 1984, two of.....,!riends were shot down ~n a
hel.copter over Ni~ara9ua. The SandinistA reqime claimed ehe CMA member, were
CIA mercenaries. But the national exposure had an unexpected benetit. CMA beq&r.
r~ceivinq private donaeions and was Aole to furnish $16 million in nc~-~~~i~arl
&loa.
(continued nex: pAge,
liliiii continued)
BY 1991, c:HA had stepped operatinq. -macia a livinq
ndlitazy surplua e<I1~I_.~
was an~ situation tor
nt
wanted. u
a
an intoz:mant
traciinq in
co~iderinq
his
FBI Special
tUm the FBI "wanted his
.s~va. latar arrested on trumped up charqe. as the preced1nq statement by
"-explains. 0%•• usociate-turnecl-tederal-snitch vas paicl $2000 & month plus
expenses tor three years to stay close to him and to try to ~et hi= to de
~omethinq 111eqal. At least eiqht, possibl~ more, tederal undercover agents
approached him to uk him to do somethi.nq 11leqal, each time ~ reported this
to the rBI. It is estimated that about $2 million was spent i~e qovernment's
efforts to "qet.his as •• W
Why? Is it because he refused to become a federal snitch as
refused7 Is it because he headed a private orqanization, the
the Contras with food, medicine, and clothinq in N1C8iiiiiiQurinq that var? Is
it because he knew, as he related to a OPI reporter
(nov CNN), that
G.orqe Bush was involved in Iran/Contra? Is someone s
0
for a fall quy
here? Did someone need to discredit IIIIIIIIIttor some reason? Is it 111eqa1 to
be concerned &bout the direc--ion of ~?
-------~----------~---------~-~~-----.----------~-------------------
Although
andlor "'ri
9ranted to
also.
~ge everyone to caLl
and demand tha~ full pardons De
Please "'rite the gove~or at Alabama
bas already served most of his time, we
sen.tor~smen
and _
---..
--------.----.----.--.--.---~-------~-
If you are interested in the complete story &bout _
(the truth), ve
will De glad to provide you with copies of what we have. Also, sor magazine,
~:~-:::::-~~:-~-~::~~~:~--•
and
---------------------------------
we, the Gadsden Minutemen, appreciate your past service to your country
tor }:)einq a true Patriot. Hanq in then and keep the fal-th.
-------~-----~~----------.
--~~~---~---------.--~-~-------~------.
II1II
~iet chronoloqy to the &b0ge article: September 1992.
contac~eallll
....... Alabama National Guard, to do • computer check to se. it NVG's are
stolen. Also asked for manuals to repair detective units. Late Septamber 1992,
FeI U c:heckinq out ot Hontqomery to see i f NVG' s stolen (FlI testimony at
t:ial). Not on computer at that time. Late
1992, NVG's finally on
CCmputer about beinq .tolen ~ood.
told his geqgles ~re
~n. Lat. November 1992, .......... contacts
he can~ir NVG'
~ has in h1a pessession - as appos.d t~t
manuals ....... qives
paus of NVG's to repair~oepai.r done. _
not
that these units
stclen~emb.r 1993,
arrested tor consp1racy to steal NVG's. January
1994, _
tound 9Uil•t y
ederal court in Hontqomery.
------~-~--~--~~-~~---~~~~~~~-
-~-~------------------
-----~-----~~----~------~~~----~------.--------~~~---~~~------~~
AnEN'rICN I!
Son. ot Ccnted.:ata Veteran., new chapter
For mere intoamticn contact R1cb Hayward.
~~~~~----~--~-~-~--~-~~-----------------~~~-~----------~~-------------.
'-
~ersonal
H.G. -
Messages
appreciate the into, keep the _
fight alive
!.J.-- our !riend i~ doinq ok, st~ ~ struggle
!. in N. J. qlad to have you acoarci
Friend in Kansaa-- thanu for the info on Mr. P. , Mr. W.
L.T.-- need that report on M.~.
keep the faith, only short time lett
C.G.-- need personal situation report
C.N.- what about our meetin;
Local !riend-- Appreciate the tip from the wire
Celit. triend-- appreciate you spreading the word
~----------~-~~~-~--------------------------------------------------------The
Gadsden Minutemen will r.spond to All inquiries, no identirication ~
required, you can call or write, look for the answer or comment in the
persQnals, you vill know it it's intended tor you.
~-~--------.-------~----~----~------------~----~-~---~--------------T~P.~
A Response to the Attack on Patriots
By Senator Charles Duke May 1, 1995
District 9, Colorado
It is said by som. that the flak is the heaviest vnen you Are close to the
target. Judiini from some of the flak, we muat be approaching ground zero. At a
Se~cnd Amendm.nt rally recently, I asked a question of the group attending
whe~her anyone there thought the Oklahoma bOmbing might b. as _ result of SQme
action of the federal qovernment. Nearly .v.ryone there thought so.
Perhaps it was not proper to ask the que.eion so soon after the bombing. In
normal ~~es, almcs~ everyone woul~ have aqreed with the question .. well. Ther~
are also those who, perhaps aqain, correctly, said I should have had some proof
betore even asking ~e question. Certainly the perc.ived misdeeds, if Any, are
aot perpeera~ed by tne entire government.
Those who atten~ed the rally, and many who called me After April 19. do not
a~tually need Any further proof to believe some in the government might be
~apable of killing innocent civilians. they believe it has already happened. the
Randy Weaver inCident at Ruby Ridqe, Idaho, is not .ven 1n dispute by the
government. On that site, in April 1992, a government-paid snip.r killed Vicxy
weaver, Randy's wife, while holdinq her child in her arms. Then ~he Weaver's
other son was shot in the back by the same sniper.
aandy Weaver was arre.ted and tried. • .. h. convicted ot even a single c~ime:
NQ, the charg.s appear to have been boqus. R. returned t~ Ruby Ridge a free man.
but he had lost a wite and a son at th- handa of the government. the sniper and
the manager who ordered the hit have received only minimal diSCipline, much les~
being arrested.
. There are many beyond those at the rally who believe the incineration o!
1nnQCent women .nd c~~n at Mt. Carmel, near Waco, Texas, was a deliberate
qovernment act. ~ near .. I can tell, the biggest cr~ the Branch Davidians
COmmitted was in r.fusinq to com. out of -the compound and surrender to
authorit~es who had already killed some 1n their midst. Whether you agree with
~e ~ult's riqht to p~.ct1ce reliqion •• th.y pl •••• or not, th.se pe.cetul
people h~d committed no crimes. Is incineration an appropriate resPQnse to these
~no refuse to yield t9 • hostile intrusion? I hardly think so. ~ighty-six
lnnocent peop~e lost their live. ~t the hands ot the government.
(continued, next page)
.•
'
\
\",(
(Sen.
=Uke--ccn~inuea)
In!02:mation published in the Los Anqeles Time. and the New ~orlc Times
newspape%'s teU the ~tory ot &n !'SI intoz:mer, who, wearing ~ wj.::e~e~s mike, hell
conversations with members of the FBI. These recorded conversations indicate :ht
reI helped plan and build the World Trade Center bomb. The alleged s~Ated plan
was to, at the last minute, substitute harmless povde%' for the bomb powder ~nd
thwar~ the deed. Fo%' reason~ that Are unexplained to%' certain, the sucstitute
order never happened. The testimony in the trial of the bombers clea:ly
indica~es the FBI could h&~ stopped the Trade Cente%' Oomeinq, bu~ did not.
There" are many un~wered questions &COllt the Oklahoma City bombirl";. Based 01
the currant reaction, these questions vi~ no~ even be asked until the answers
are well in hand. If the current propaq.nd~ proqram to discredit the pat.io~s i:
suc=ess~ul ~~ permanently Silencing disaqreement, it's po.sib~e we will never
Jcnow the truth about Oklahoma City.
Ce:tainly I aliqn myself with those who consider themselves "patriot~", whic~
the ~erican Heritage Dictionary define. a. -One who love., supports, and
deiends his ccun~.~ I place a further refinement that a true.patriot is
willinq to take peaceful action to detend our country and Constitution.
There i~ no known connection whatever betveen patriots, Constitutionists,
militia or Tenth Amendment supporters v1th any violent act in the country. Wha'
we do have is a woefully misquided belie! that these groups a:e ~inked, a~ong
with all conservative talk show host in Ame~1ca, to ~olence. It is not
surprisinq that those who want to silanee dissension, those who would want to
stop a movement aimed at de-centralizing qovwrnmant, thoae who want to
consolidate federal power to make it stronqer, would attempt thi~ deception. It
is surprisinq that even a few would allow themselves to be deceived by it. It i:
my hope Coloraaans are smarter than that.
We still live in the United States ot America. Only for the DlCment, we still
have a Constitution and a Bill ot P.1;hts, both of which are designed to prohibi
the kind of qovernment crAckdown that is about to happen. The omnibus Terror~t
Bill nov betore Conqress did not have a snowball's chance in Hades of passing
before Oklahoma C1ty. Now its passaqe seem. a.sured, having now garnered tha
necessary "~ipartisan~ support that brouqht us GAl'T, MArrA, the Cri:De Bill, and
HR 666, which nullU1e. the Fourth Amendment.
Your Bi~ of Rignts ia soon to be further destroyed. There are those who say
p:otec-:inq those rights is none ot • Stat". Senator's business, suc."l as
Colorado's Governor Rcy Rome%'. But I swore an oath befora God to uphold our
Colorado and O.S. Const1tut1ons when I took office. I will not apoloqize for
ae!enctinq them.
Senator Chules
Internet:
ectition of the "Intelliqenee Report·,
stat.d that be didn't think we vere being told the
Oklahoma C1ty-&bout the bomb type, etc.
n
aetired FSI),
t happened in
--~----------~~-.----~~--~----~~-----------~~----~---------~~---~-IMPORTANT 111, PI.EASI! aEAD AND RES1'ON1) BY OUJ.INQ 'l'O aE1'O&'1' !ULITIA AC'!'IVI'rt
"The Southern poverty~V
Cen er i aak1n; anyone with in!o~~10n about
milit1a activity to call
The center'. K1anwatch project co~l.ct
info:mation about violent ez .~st qroups, and ~ends reports to law en!orc~en
agencies nationwide. w Ple.se do you= part and call, I have. Several of our blac
members have called, but they would not return the calls ••e ask all of you to
keep callinq until you qat throuqh. Offer your thanks to _
and company for
makinq us 3rd in the nation. SP~C placed this ad in the ~ery Adver~iser
I~l:e=views
with witnesses f=om past
"Gu~d
acys"
I have viewed and have in my p~ssession, video taken At past "Good '01 Boys"
that shows A handmade cardboard s~qn stating ~1gger Check Point" -- "Any
Niggers In Tha~ car- -- "17 cen~s lb. w, with sketches ot alack people. Thi~
video Also shows an anonymou~ person showinq ott several twenty do~ar bi~13
tha~ he ~d won playing wcnicken-~hit b~nqo", which is a torm of gambling
u~i11zinq a qame baard/eaqe and l.ve ch~ckens.
Further, I nave an eye-witness ot A past "Good '01 boys· outinq that had a
con~est called "red~e~K ot the year", one skit tor ~ event had &n ~~ ~qen~
dressed in a ~ un~torm holding another ATl agent, with face blac~~d out, on a
chain. The skit was portraying A ~~.r/slave relationship. The Agent dressed a
the "Klan· member pretended to force his ·slave" to perform oral sex with A !aKt
penis that was revealed fram under his "klan" robe.
As An add to the above info~tion; On the evening ot Friday, May 19, I was
informed that CNN "capital Gang" showed video ot law enforcement personne! who
were involved in the Washinqton ho~el incident, which allegedly involved
o!!icers harassing woman, sprayinq fire extinguishers and slidihg naked down a
beer-slicked hetel escalator, one at the o!!icers in the video was wearinq a
"Good '01 Boys" shirt. These of ricers were in town to ~ttend a memorial ceremon
for fellow o~ticers. I have not persona~y witnessed this video seqmen~. Maybe
this officer should be questioned in regards to the ~Good '01 Boys·.
The above statements and eye-witness accounts are the result of an
inve3tiqation on the matter pf racism within the aATF. We ask that these even~s
be !ully investiqated and all intormation released to the p~lic. We are
prepared to brinq forth &11 witnesses, includinq myself, if this matter will be
investigated properly, we ean oe contacted viA the information provided on ~e
cover page 0: this newaLette: •
-----~--------
.-----~~---~--~-----------~--~-~--~---~~--~-----~------
Investigation of the Southern Poverty Law Center {S?LC}
We are requesting any into~tion you m.y have on the Southern Poverty ~aw
Center. We as~ that all infor~tion be accurate and provide .ppropri.~e
wi~nesses and documentation. It is our understan~q that several cases ~~y be
pending against this erqaniza~ion due to detamAtion ot certain individual~ and
qroups who ~e involved in the militia movement. Aqain, we ask ~ha~ all
information be provided with proper documentation, we have always repor~ed Che
fac~s and do not intena to print and/or pa.s alon9 in!o~~ion that 1s no~
substantiated. All into:mation will be p~sed to the proper people who are
involved in any case. Ple... send any info to the addresses Oft the cover.
---~~~-----~---------------~--~--------~----------------~~~-~------~-----
The above ad has been placed for the benetit of !ello~ patriots who .re not
mem=ers of the
• The Gadsden ~ut.men's pOSition rem..~s the
same concerning
h.. been a major as.et in tne qrow~~
our
orqaniz&tion.
to qrow, many new members have e~pressed thi
the idiocy of
has been ~e mot1vating 'actor to join our qroup·W
...... ME
·£NOUGH, please continue your public st~~~nts 0 th~
~ia, And thanx you tor ra~inq us in 3ra place in your report on ~~e natio~
milit~a movement. Let us also say that.we, unlike
are in !~ll .uppcrt
af our State and the~ position on cha~n gangs.
0'
IIIIIIII
Investiqaeive report by
G.dsden
M~utamen,
and other
?art~es
The "GOod '01
" outinq
annually at 0C0. . , Tn. Based on my
intervievs with
, this ev.nt ~ o:qaDized by Gene a1qhtmeyer
(SATF-Tn.) and
(ABI-Al.). ThU event ba. a history of beinq an
all-white get
has a history, to which there is
aocumentation/vitnesse., of being v.ry ra~i.t.
The "Good '01 Boys" attracts aqents trom various qovarnment agencies such as
ATr, DEA, Secret Service, and other law en!or~ament aqencie•• The event us~y
goes for several cays and includes various a~tiv1ti::s. Flyers (invitatl.on.s) .re
sent out to sele~ed people, tor a fee yo~ receive an &eM band whieh allovs you
enerance to the eampqround, free beer from a beer trucx within the camp, •
-!e-shirt, a cap and a beer muq.
I learned of th~ ~nt several months aqo and decided to investiqate for
mysel!. I arrived at the out.r edges o~ the camp at appro&imat.ly 11:00 a.m.
tST, Friday May 19, 1995. I placed a "police" cap on, qrabbed my camera and
walked in via a rear unguarded entrance. I was not quutj,oned a.i to whether or
not I was suppose to be there, how.ver, towards the end of my visit, I felt that
I wa. about to be .. k.d to leave.
Insid., I blended in and met people from all agencies, some ot which wore
tee-anirts stat.1nq ehe.i.r agenci . . name and where they were from. Several of the
people were too drunX to carry on conversa~iona with, howevwr I did speak with
two agents, whom I did not know, but vere we. .inq arm bands. !hes. agents were
highly upset: about quote "rU.9qer" M!" agents that wen brought 1:\ by a white AT!
~qent the previous niqht (Thursday). These aqenu said that they wow.d not
attend ~e event in the future beCAuse of the "niqqers" beinv allowed in. Al.l
around the main eampqround (cent.r ot caDP) I neard racial slurs and saw racial
t ••-shirts and other it-=s, one beinV a small yellow card that reads "nigger
huntinq licens.". I aJ..o overh.ard queat. (wear1nq &l:2Il ba.n9) tAlkinq &bout
~those niqgers" that vere in the camp on the previous niqht. The conversation
was, that an altercation almcst occurred beeveen various aqents due to the
blacks beinq in the camp. I also vitneased a pok.r qame in process be~ween
several other "qu•• b", with, vhat app...ed to be • larqe sum of mcney on the
table and exchanging hands. Several p.ople w.re w.ariD; tee-shirts depietinq
O.J. Simpson on a hanqinq qallows. Throuqhout my approximate 2 hour stay, I did
not s.e any black people in the crovd or',: approximat.ly 300 people. DUring tms
time I heard numerous rac:iU slura m\d dis.atisfaction tbat their ann\al
gathering had, for the f1rst t~, aLloved "n1;;era" to att.nd.
I took several pictu:ea, .evera! of va:ious anonymcus law en!orcament
personnel, on. ot a man wearin; a Bi::m.il1qbua Nucot1cs t . .-shirt, one ot • man
marked Metro Police, seftral shots of Gene 1U.qhtmeyu, whom I recoqnized from
previous picture. and video, with a beer mug and what appeared to be a oot:tle c,
whiSkey in a paper baq, .everal picture. of the campsite, includinq the Lite
Beer truck, o~ of • Nortl1 carella. tratunal o:du of police
1.,
license plate
one ot an anonymou. CiHC ftD, tn. llcen.e plat.
BHJ~veral 0
people we.rinq tee-s~a with the words ftYo~nq Guns II
~nd
and one of th. we~come s~qD to the en~ranc. of "Good '01 &cys~.
some people (agents) in th. crovd who appeared to be vary decent
individual.t. howev.r, the major1ty ot whom I spoke with, s ....d to be very
r~c:ist, judginq f.aaa my conversations with
The only lll~qal actl.On.s I
w~tnesaed w~. ~he open qambling and the que.~a I w1tnes.ed dr1vinq trom the
cUlpqround atter cirinJd,ng (drunk 1) •
iii'
th_.
f • ~'.
The
Reauiremen~s of ==eed=m
Art~cle by Reverend J~ Gibson
"So you shal.l keep ttw coaundmenta ot the Lom yow;- God, by w~kinq in hi"
vays ••• and you shall bless the Lord your God tor the good land he has given you~
[Deuteronamy 8:1, 10)
Too many ot us take America and her liberties tor 9.an~ed, even as we take
our t&Q\1l0Wl standard of llvinC; tor granted. rew ot us face up ~o the
raqui.emeats oC !~eedom, and too few of ua pause at any given t~ to ask, "f=:~
whence came our r~ghts and our liberties, and how can we preserve them unstai~ed
by greed or betrayal7 w
rreedom is not somethinq handed down by tamilies or governments. It i~ not
somethine; born ot historic documents. Freedom u Ulee a garden that lIlU~t be !ed
and wa~ered, loved and p:ote~ed. Freedcm 11ke good gardena, is the res~t ot
thouqht:ul, earnest wo:k - work that must be done year ~y year, generation by
generation. And the great eftemy ot ~oth gardens and tnedom. is ne9lect.
H~tory sh~. that lt is ~t~cult and co.t~y to gain freedom, but it is
!riqh~eninc;ly ~ticult to rec;ain it.
The people ot Israel lea:necl that lesson lonq aqo. tJnder the heavy hand of
Eqypt's pharaoh they learned the preciousness of liberty. To .eqain it, they
mad. their bitter trek aeross the wi~derness. A who~e generation died in the
process. rina~y, atter such .u!ferinc; and many batt~.. , they won for themselves
the land p.~ed them. They loved their new freedom - enjoyed it - made l~ws to
protec't it - and then lost it. When the pl.... ure. and pleuant thinqs ot life
became of more value than JllQrus and ethics, ju.stice and mercy, prayer ~nd
faithful worship, their freedom lett, and ehey ~ecame slaves in Babylon. They
neglected freedom - failed to me.t its requirements - and lost it.
'1~ it be any ditferent with us as we prepare to ce~ebrate another national
birthd.y this summer? Our ance.tors braved tbe wrath ot rulers and ruling elilss,
anq:y seu and ho~tlle wlld.erness, to gain freedom. We t:uly do not know the
price they paid, ca~e none ot \ZS han left !am1ly aftd homelAnd to sail for
Montha on leaky ships and to find a hcme~es. stretch of shore and forest ~t
had to ~e tamed before we could call it home. OUr ance.to~ were d.te~ned to
be trae, and they asked for no quarters in their struqq~e.
The years in which we live are tilled with danq.r. - DOt merely from without,
but from within. Nations Qaually rot ou~ before they are conquered by others.
And so I'd l1ke to list som. of the thinqs which I believe can keep us from rot
and rust, and so help u.s to protect the freedoma we now so carelessly enjoy. And
so I submit the !o~lowinq Requirements of Freedom:
(1.) Inteqrity. Unless honuty Uvu .. a vi~ force in _c:h of us, our nation
i. doomed. A rwpubllc c:azmot ez.:Ut, and freedom w1l1 not, in the midst of a
people to whom the Ten Commandments are mare worda. our way of lite demanQ5
integrity - hiqh and tl:Uatvorthy character on the part ot eAch of u., and unle~s
we <:an produce it in the va.t majority of our people, our c:i&ya as a n~tion are
numbered.
(2.) Unity. America i . a diverse nation, made up of diver~e people, from diverse
ar .... of the worlcl and livinq unde: clivers c:l1mates and c:cnd1t1ons. Ye~, we ~t
be the Onited States. Unity u the very blood or our repu.blJ.c r and without it,
life cannot exist. Samen.. s we clo not need. Unity we ~t have.
r3 .. ) The riC;ht ot the individual. The general good must ~ever be p~c:ha~ed
_
throuqh the a,bu"e of the individual or ~e iqnor~q of hj.:J riqht:'S .•n the cour_
of Chri.sti~n justice. When governments rob inc1iv1clla~ of rights ~ the name of
the general qood, it is only a matter of time until there are no =~qh~s.
J'1,.tH32-1995
(freedom,
112l : S6
EJRMI~ FlaD DIU
ccnt~nued)
(4.) Just lawa justly
~pplied
to
a~l.
(5.) Compassion. All commandmenta.must be accompanied by compassion. Justice
must be forever tampered by mercy. Law ~t never be tar !rom that which God
calls Love.
(6.) Work. Our country ~ built on a p.rson's riqht to work. No one has the
right to prevent a person !rQm workin; when he wants to work and has contracted
with someone who will employ ~. Nor is labor merely a riqht. Scripture attests
that for those who are able, it ia a resp9naibility: ~If a man wi~l not work, he
shall not eatft [2. Thesaaloniana 3:10]
(7.) viqilance. Everythinq that works nee as attention, whether it's a tractor,
an automobile, a waahing machine, or a state. E?erythinq tends to get
out-o!-fix- - to run down, to weaken, to lo.e power, to lose e!ticiency. Fre.dom
is no exception. Above all things, it demands viqi~&nce. Withou: constant
attention to trends and ends and means, no state can remain secure.
Many people fear p.rsonal responsib11ity, and most want to live by ab.olute
authoriti.s: it sa?e. them from ha~nq to mak~ up th.ir own minds and live with
the results of peraonal deci.ions. But a republic demands that we make up our
own minds - that each citizen learn the tacts, ponder them, and reach his own
conclusions. A republic is meaninglesa if it doea aot m.an ~eedom from any
source that makes ou~ minds for us.
C! cour3e we belie~ that God has a right to say to u., ~ou m~.t.· But that
is not the way Goa speakS to any ot u. • •e are tree to el~ to Heaven it we so
desire; b~t we are alao tree to a1nk into the deptha of Hell.
As I face another July 4th, I wonder how many more w~ be observed in the
years ahead, rerhapa not too many - unless mere Americana .top takin; freedom
for qranted ana start meeting the requiremenu which treedclll demand.s ot all who
woUld live under God in the tellowship of a free .ociety.
--~--~~-------~---------~-------~--~-~-----~--~------.----------------------
The Last Word
As you have prObably noticea, our newsletter style haa changed, we ar.
attempting to brinq more real news to you than the usual froth-at-the-mcuth
letters and insults we have Decoma so famous for. Don't worry, we are not
!ollovinq in Wayne-I-apoloqize-Lapierre'. (NaA) footsteps and backinq ott of any
~reviously made statements. The fact of the matter is, we havw been on the
federal jack-booted-thug agencies like white on rice for the pa.t year tryin; to
qet them to respond, argue .nd attempt to prove their aide ot the e.... thAt we
have brought to their .ttention. No matter how hard we try, th.y s ... to want to
stay clear of us "crazy Alabama militia boys.~ The c..tapo agencie. aren't the
avo1dinq us, the ADL refused to debate us publicly on the
show, atter View~i
t
minute. of fame on a later show,
they vould not.
made a pitiful re.pon.ae to our
show. It WOU1),Mha
.e & t.edinq r. zy
we would have been able to have a
real debat..
is .nother fine .xamp~e
how man t~es ha. . w• • • ked
• heads
, p 1 c eb.t. with him. Maybe
!'!II) told him,
, boy, the •• peeple w11 c ew yo
as
with ~~.
.
c s.
,
should know ••• 11 anyway, we're still he~., we st111
support
sand statam.nts we hav. made, and will alway. r ... 1n
firm with absolutely NO backinq off. 'lease stay sa~e, watch your b.c~1d., keep
you= powder <tty and snout the truth till you're ho.rse.
~II'G-A1 FIaD DIV
?14
Jl..tH32-1995
H' : 57
IRMINGHAM FIElD DIV
'j?EC/At AGENT IN CHARGE
BIRMINGHAM. AL.ABAMA
95 JUN - r PH 3: 09
BUREAU OF Art
CRAIG VALK~ICK---BATF
2121 8th AVE R
·SHAM At 35203
GMM
P.O. Box 2
Attalla, Alabama 35954
~---
Who is this man?
o C-I
:5::l!CIf..'. A(j~ioi" IN CHAM:
8IRMlI;l.Jht,~.
ALABAMA
gS JUN - I PH 3: 09
SURE AU OF ATF'
~OT.::w..
P.1S
TO:
FILE
FROM:
INSPECTION
SUBJECT:
GADSDEN MINUTEMEN NEWSLE'l-:LJER
THE JUNE, 1995 GADSDEN MlHUTEMEN NEWSLE"rrER WAS SEN'!' 'l'O
THIS OFFICE BY THE SOUTHERH OFFICE OF INSPECTION OB
JUNE 5, 1995 • THIS IS A MlLI'l'IA GROUP III ALABAMA THAT
CONSISTENTLy SEHDI THEIR
DIVISION AND BAS
MILITIA CONTENDS THAT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR
EVENTS AT WACO, TEXAS.
SOME OF '!'HE PREVIOUS NEWSLE'l"l'ERS
AS 'l'O
INSINUATE THAT HARM WILL COME m
AS A RESULT
OF HIS PARTICIPATION IR ~ WACO
OF '!'HE JUNE HEWSLE'Hti nmICA~S mAT A
MILITIA SOURCE AT'l'ENDED A "GOOD OL BOYS" OUTING
WHERE ATF PERSONNEL WERE IN A'l"l'ENIlAlfCE. THE MILITIA
CHARGE THAT RACISM IS RAMPAlI'l' AIm CLAIM THEY HAVE A
VIDEO TO PROVE IT. THE LE'l"tER CI'l'ES RACIAL SIGHS AND
COMMENTS TO PROVE THIS CHARGE.
A
~';!EW
THE NEWSLE'rI'ER CLAIMS THAT AB Am SPECIAL AGEN'l', GENE
RIGHTMEYER, ORGANIZES THIS EVERT. Aft RECORDS REFLECT
THAT RIGH'l'MEYER RETIRED AS A SPECIAL AGElft' Q!f 1-3-94.
NO OTHER A'l'F AGENTS ARE KEB'rIOBED IB mIS 1EWSLE"rrER.
I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE WITH A lItJMBER OF AGENTS IN
ATF.
NONE COULD RECALL AlfY MD'l'IOlI OF 'rIlE "GOOD OL
BOYS" EVENT IN RECEN'l' YEARS AlfD S'rA'l'ED 10 PUBLICITY
WAS GIVEN IT WITHIN A'l'F IB MEMORY. TBERE IS HO DOUBT
THAT SUCH AN EVENT IS HELD, BUT 110 EVIDEJICE THAT ATF
AGENTS ORGANIZE IT OR PUBLICIZE rr WITHIB '1'BE BUREAU.
NO OTHER INFORMATION HAS EVER COME TO 'rIlE A'l'TENTION OF
THIS OFFICE REGARDING THIS OU'l'IHG. 'rIfE IIILITIA GROUP
IS NOT A CREDIBLE ORGANIZATION AND IS cr,EMLY
A'l"I'EMPTING TO HARM ATF.
Uf ADDITIOlI, A'l'F BAS NO
AUTHORITY OVER A RETIRED AGENT AND HIS PARTICIPATION
AND OR BEHAVIOR IS NOT UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.
THUS NO
FU~THER ACTION IS
OH THIS MA'l'TER.
EXHIBIT 56
' - ' ____ • • _
~
. . . . . 40
•
-. - .'...,,~ ... - -
.
.
1CB&\.
DEPAR')'MENT OF .
#)'HE #)'RFASURY
REPORT OF #)'HE
GOODO'BOYS
ROUNDUP POUCY
REVIEW
f\pril 1996
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
REPORT OF THE
GOOD 0' BOYS ROUNDUP
POLICY REVIEW
APRIL 1996
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
GOOD 0' BOYS ROUNDUP POLICY REVIEW
Robert E. Rubin
Secretary of the Treasury
Lawrence H. Summers
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Ronald K. Noble
Under Secretary o/the Treasury (Enforcement) (resigned 2/5/96)
James E. Johnson
Assistant Secretary (Enforcement)
Elisabeth A. Bresee
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Law Enforcement)
CITIZENS REVIEW PANEL
Helene L. Kaplan
Fred Thomas
Julius L. Chambers
Patrick V. Murphy
Norman Dorsen, Chair
Rex Lee
POLICY REVIEW TEAM
Sherryl Elise Michaelson
Marc L. Greenwald
Director
R. Keith Walton
Senior Advisor to
the Under Secretary
Lorraine Rooks Cary
Writer-Editor
Assistant Director
David Medina
Court E. Golumbic
Andrew 1. Mayock
Policy Analyst, Office of
Policy Development
Policy Analyst, Office of
Policy Development
Janet K. Alexander
Lissette M. Flores
Cynthia L. Poole
Logistics SpeCialist
Document Specialist
Administrative Assistant
Director, Office of
Policy Development
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Edward S. Knight
Neal S. Wolin
General Counsel
Deputy General Counsel
Stephen J. McHale
Katherine Kelly
Maurice A. Jones
Natalie G. Coburn
E. Lee Patton
Julie Barry
Andrew W. Winden
Nina Nichols
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
REPORT OF THE
GOOD 0' BOYS ROUNDUP POLICY REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................ .
The Background of the Policy Review
Section I
An Overview of Treasury Law Enforcement: Organization, Mission, and
Demographics .................................................. 19
The Scope and Methodology of the Policy Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Allegations Concerning the Good 0' Boys Roundup ................ 39
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Section II
Disciplinary Policies
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
Chapter Six
Overview of the Federal Employee Discipline Process ...................
The Higher Standard Applicable to Law Enforcement and Positions of Trust .
Existing Ethical Standards and Codes of Conduct Relevant to the Allegations
Concerning the Good 0' Boys Roundups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommended Modifications of Existing Disciplinary Policies . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter Seven
Section III
69
97
Additional Personnel Policy Issues
Hiring: Existing Policies and Recommended Modifications .............. 125
Training: Existing Policies and Recommended Modifications ............ 159
Evaluation and Promotion: Existing Policies and Recommended
Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171
Chapter Eight
Chapter Nine
Chapter Ten
Section IV
45
65
Conclusion
Chapter Eleven
Plan for Implementation of the Policy Recommendations ............... 183
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Individual Comments of the Members ofthe Citizens Review Panel ....... 189
Text of Sample Rules and Regulations of Other Law Enforcement Agencies 205
Bibliography .................................................. 217
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 1995, public attention was first drawn to allegations of misconduct by agents
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other officers of federal, state, and
local law enforcement agencies at an annual retreat outside Ocoee, Tennessee, known as the
"Good 0' Boys Roundup" (Roundup).l The following day, a local Washington, D.C. television
station2 aired an investigative program, "The I-Team," featuring a videotape that purported to
show events at the 1995 Roundup. The initial allegations focused upon the display of racist signs,
slogans, T-shirts, and paraphernalia at what was characterized as a "whites only" event. Later
accusations included charges of rape, bestiality, sexual assault, sexual harassment, the possession
and distribution of controlled substances, illegal gambling, public drunkenness, and lewd and
disorderly conduct. Further claims were made that the event had been organized by A TF agents
acting on official time and had bee!l promoted with government resources, and that senior A TF
managers were aware of the nature of the event but took no action to abate the misconduct or to
discipline those involved.
Secretary of the Treasury Robert E. Rubin responded promptly to the allegations,
announcing that a comprehensive and independent investigation would be conducted by the
Treasury Department's Inspector General and the Under Secretary for Enforcement. 3 Pursuant to
the powers invested in her under the Inspector General Act of 1978,4 the Inspector General
announced that her office would assume sole responsibility for "fact-gathering in relation to the
nature and scope of participation and involvement by Department of the Treasury law
enforcement personnel" in the Roundups. 5
Jerry Seper, Racist ways die hard at lawmen's retreat, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 11,
1995, at AI.
1
2Channel 7, Washington, D. C.
3Statement of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, Department of the Treasury News Release,
July 17, 1995. [hereinafter 7117/95 Rubin Statement].
45 U.S.c. app. 3 (West's Supp. 1995)
5Memorandum from Inspector General Valerie Lau to Treasury Secretary Rubin, July 19,
1995, at 1 [hereinafter Lau Mem.].
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Bo.-vs Roundup Polic), Re\'iell'
Treasury Secretary Rubin asked the Under Secretary for Enforcement to assume
responsibility for conducting a two-part policy review. First, the Office of Enforcement was
charged \vith conducting a retrospective review to "determin[e] the applicability of any existing
law, policy, rule, or regulation to the facts found by the Office ofInspector General."6 Second.
recognizing that such allegations of bias among federal law enforcement officers seriously
undermine the Department's ability to carry out its enforcement mission, the Secretary declared
that the Treasury's policy review would not stop with a simple determination of whether existing
laws or rules had been broken, but would also contain a proactive component. Thus, the
Secretary charged the Office of Enforcement with responsibility for reviewing all current laws.
rules, regulations, procedures, and policies to "judge whether existing polices were adequate and
sufficient to prevent participation by Treasury personnel in similar events in the future."7 As the
Secretary stated in announcing the review: "Our purpose is to get to the truth, period; and then to
take all necessary steps so that we can tell the American people: This will not happen again." 8
The Under Secretary for Enforcement was directed further to recommend any changes in such
policies necessary to ensure that in both reality and perception "justice [will be] administered
with integrity, fairness and freedom from bias.,,9
In his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the July 21, 1995
hearing on the Roundups, Under Secretary for Enforcement Ronald K. Noble repeated that
commitment:
[T]he Under Secretary for Enforcement will make clear that there is no place
within the Department of the Treasury for law enforcement officers who engage
in racist, anti-Semitic, or sexist behavior. ... The Treasury Department's
independent review constitutes the Department's pledge to do everything in its
power to examine this ugly gathering and to ensure that appropriate action is
6Lau Mem., supra note 5, at 1.
77117/95 Rubin Statement, supra note 3, at 2; see also Lau Mem, supra note 5 at 1-2
(allocating responsibility between the Inspector General and the Under Secretary for
Enforcement): Department of the Treasury Memorandum, "Good 01' Boys Roundup"
Investigation Citizens Review Panel," Aug 9, 1995, at 1 (explaining role of Citizens Review
Panel with concurrence of Office of Enforcement and Inspector General) [hereinafter CRP
Mem.].
S7 117'95 Rubin Statement, supra note 3, at 2.
~1d.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
taken and enforceable rules, regulations, and policies are fonnulated. lo
The Secretary invited a Citizens Review Panel, composed of prominent citizens of
unquestioned expertise and integrity on matters relating to race, the law, and law enforcement to
monitor and evaluate both aspects of the Department's review. II The members of the Citizens
Review Panel both evaluated the completed Inspector General investigation and report and
provided ongoing input to and oversight of the Office of Enforcement's work in reviewing and
proposing recommended modifications to existing laws, policies, procedures, and regulations.
Under separate cover, the Inspector General has reported the results of her fact-finding
investigation (IG Report).
Secretary Rubin charged the Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement with
detennining the applicability of all existing laws, policies, rules and regulations to the facts
found by the Inspector General. This Report has done so by detailing in Chapter Six the existing
policies which govern ethical standards and rules of conduct applicable to Treasury law
enforcement officers, and by finding that such policies and rules are applicable to Treasury law
enforcement officers for conduct alleged to have occurred at the Good 0' Boys Roundups.
Any discipline of specific employees, however, will be detennined by the procedure
nonnally followed at Treasury. The Inspector General's Report is submitted to the Secretary as
well as to Congress, and will be forwarded by the Inspector General to the head of each Bureau
with implicated personnel. The Inspector General will also forward to each Bureau all
memoranda of interviews relevant to that Bureau's employees. The Director of each Bureau will
then delegate the task of deciding upon an appropriate course of discipline for each employee.
Of course, each Bureau must comply with all constitutional, civil service, and collective
bargaining rights and regulations. 12 The Bureau official tasked with detennining discipline will
then report her or his actions to the Bureau Director, who will report the outcome to the Office of
Enforcement.
In deciding whether to impose discipline, and if so, in deciding upon an appropriate
IOStatement of Ronald K. Noble, Under Secretary of the Treasury (Enforcement), before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, July 21, 1995, at 1 [hereinafter Noble Statement].
llRubin Statement, supra note 3, at 1; Statement of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin,
Department of the Treasury News Release, July 20, 1995 [hereinafter 7120/95 Rubin Statement];
see also Lau Mem., supra note 5, at 2; (Inspector General concurring in the role ofthe Citizen's
Review Panel); CRP Mem., supra note 7, at 1-3.
12Por a discussion of the civil service discipline appeals procedure, see Chapter Pour, infra.
3
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
penalty, the decisionmaker in each Bureau should consider certain factors. First, the
decisionmaker should consider the employee' s conduct. As part of this consideration, the
decisionmaker should determine whether the employee participated in any racist act; 13
furthermore, the decisionmaker should determine whether the employee witnessed any acts of
racism and what his or her response was. Second, the decisionmaker should consider whether an
employee was on notice that racist events might occur or was genuinely surprised. An employee
who was on notice that racist events might occur may have a more culpable state-of-mind in
condoning the acts of racism than one who was genuinely surprised by the reprehensible
conduct. Third, the decisionmaker should determine if an employee returned to the Roundup
after having witnessed or heard of racist conduct. Fourth, the decisionmaker should examine the
employee's history to determine whether his or her behavior is part of a pattern of racism or
racial insensitivity. Fifth, the decisionmaker should determine if the employee was a manager at
the time of the misconduct, because managers must be held to an even higher standard of
conduct. There are certainly other factors that the Bureaus may wish to consider; however, these
factors are set forth to provide a framework.
The Office of Enforcement will not prejudge any individual case. Indeed, to ensure that
due process rights of employees are not infringed, this report will not comment on the conduct of
any particular employee. However, the Office of Enforcement will monitor the disciplinary
proceedings of the Bureaus in response to the Good 0' Boys Roundups to ensure that Treasury
has zero-tolerance--in deed as well as in word--for racism and other types of misconduct.
If any current employee had engaged in any overtly racist acts off-duty during the
Roundups, he or she should be disciplined. On the other hand, an employee should not be
referred for disciplinary inquiry if he or she only attended a Roundup in the early years to go
whitewater rafting and witnessed no acts of racism. In between these two extremes is a wide
range of conduct that mayor may not merit discipline. For example, Roundup attendees who
might be considered to have condoned racist acts by their continued presence at the Roundups
are properly referred to their Bureaus for disciplinary inquiry.
In short, the Review has found that in connection Vvith the Good 0' Boys Roundups
current Treasury conduct rules are sufficient to enforce discipline in cases where it is merited.
13This passage describes the criteria to be used to determine if an employee committed racist
misconduct. Disgraceful conduct at the Roundup was not, however, limited to racism. The same
model should be employed to determine whether other types of misconduct took place at the
Roundups. such as misuse of government property, abusive behavior towards women, and
extreme public drunkenness. Such conduct could constitute infamous or notoriously disgraceful
conduct and subject federal law enforcement officers who engage in such behavior to possible
discipline.
4
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Nevertheless, the fact finding of the Treasury and Justice Inspectors General makes it clear that a
policy review was appropriate.
The Enforcement Policy Review Report (Report) sets forth the results of the Office of
Enforcement's two-part policy review (Policy Review or Review). Section I of the Report
begins with an overview of the organization, mission, and demographics of the Treasury law
enforcement bureaus. It then describes the structure, scope, and methodology of the Policy
Review. Finally, it summarizes the allegations that gave rise to the Review.
Sections II and III of the Report focus on Treasury's existing disciplinary and personnel
policies. They also identify, analyze, and provide Recommendations concerning the rules and
policies implicated by facts and allegations concerning the Roundups in each of the principal
areas in which the Treasury Department interacts with its law enforcement personnel: discipline,
hiring, training, and evaluation and promotion.
In sum, the Policy Review finds that the Treasury Department and the senior management
of its law enforcement bureaus are committed to the impartial and professional enforcement of
the laws, free from any form of bias based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age, or disability. 14 Existing disciplinary rules, policies, and procedures permit the
discipline of those whose conduct departs from that standard, provided the adverse effects of the
misconduct upon the job performance of the officer or co-worker or upon the agency mission can
be established. Existing training programs communicate these values to new federal law
enforcement officers, as well as to other Department personnel, and seek to instill a code of
conduct pursuant to which the officer's integrity, impartiality, and professionalism are expected
to be demonstrated by both on- and off-duty conduct.
Nevertheless, the Office of Enforcement finds that room for improvement exists. No
current Treasury-level disciplinary rule expressly addresses off-duty manifestations of racial and
other forms of bias such as those alleged to have occurred at the Roundups. The ability to
impose discipline relies instead upon the statutory authority to impose discipline for such cause
as will "promote the efficiency ofthe service" and on the related Treasury rule prohibiting
conduct "prejudicial to the agency." These sources do not offer specific guidance to federal law
enforcement officers concerning the nature of discouraged conduct nor to managers concerning
when to impose discipline. Moreover, employees' perceptions of the applicability of this rule to
off-duty conduct are clouded by another existing Treasury rule that provides that the rules must
be complied with when on duty or on government property, without mention of off-duty conduct.
14These are the classes currently protected under the Treasury Department's nondiscrimination
policy. 60 Fed Reg. § 0.214 (June 1,1995) (to be codified at 31 C.F.R.§ 0.214).
5
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
In addition, no systematic effort currently exists in the Treasury Department's hiring
procedures for Treasury law enforcement officers to avoid hiring applicants whose conduct
evidences invidious prejudices that are antithetical to the Department's nondiscrimination policy
and may lead to the enforcement of the criminal laws in a biased manner. For example, no form
of psychological screening is required in the hiring process, though it is used by hundreds of
police departments throughout the country. No express inquiry concerning prior acts of bias or
membership in hate groups is made in application or security clearance forms or in background
investigations.
Moreover, only a few hours ofthe introductory training of new federal law enforcement
officers is dedicated to diversity and ethics training, and only a small fraction of that time targets
off-duty conduct. In-service and advanced training in these areas is minimal and does not
directly address the issues implicated by the allegations concerning the Roundups: off-duty
conduct and bias-related speech and conduct outside the equal employment opportunity (EEO)
context. Current evaluation and promotion standards do not focus on bias-related issues for
field-level federal law enforcement officers, and, even for managers and supervisors, they
address only EEO decisionrnaking, not manifestations of bias in other contexts related to the
public's perception of the impartial administration of the law.
Section IV of the Report concludes with a plan for implementation and evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Report's recommendations.
Finally, Appendix A contains the Citizens Review Panel members' evaluations of the
Inspector General's investigation and the Office of Enforcement's Policy Review. Appendices B
and C contain sample rules and regulations of other state and federal law enforcement agencies
and a bibliography of other materials pertinent to this subject.
STRUCTURE OF THE POLICY REVIEW
The Treasury Department's Policy Review was begun by Ronald K. Noble, then Under
Secretary of the Treasury (Enforcement), but concluded by James E. Johnson and Elisabeth A.
Bresee, upon Mr. Noble's departure from the Department ofthe Treasury. 15 The Under Secretary
15Under Secretary Noble resigned from the Treasury Department on February 5,1996, when
this Report \vas nearing completi0n, to return to his position as an Associate Professor at the
New York University School of Law. Follov;ing his departure, Under Secretary Noble continued
to advise the Policy Review on a consulting basis. Elisabeth A. Bresee, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement a former federal prosecutor and Director of the White
House Security Re\·iew. assumed Under Secretary Noble's duties within the Treasury
Department and \\'ith respect to the Policy Review until James E. Johnson was sworn in as
6
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
for Enforcement directly oversees the Department's Office of Enforcement which includes the
Treasury Bureaus dedicated to law enforcement activities--the United States Secret Service
(Secret Service), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the United States
Customs Service (Customs), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)--and a
component which provides support for the law enforcement function--the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network (FinCEN).16
The Under Secretary for Enforcement is also responsible for providing law enforcement
policy guidance to the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID). The
IRS-CID, together with the IRS Inspection Service (which serves an internal audit and
investigation function), report to the Secretary of the Treasury through IRS Commissioner
Margaret Richardson, who has fully supported the efforts of the Under Secretary for
Enforcement in the conduct of the Policy Review since its inception.
The last of the Treasury components with a law enforcement mission is the Office of the
Inspector General, which reports directly to the Secretary through the Deputy Secretary of the
Treasury and to Congress. Because of the need to maintain the independence ofthe Inspector
General's Office in its conduct of the related fact-finding investigation of the Roundups, the
Policy Review did not focus on the policies or activities of the Inspector General's Office. 17
In conducting the Policy Review, the Under Secretary for Enforcement drew upon the
advice and counsel of the six distinguished members of the Citizens Review Panel (Panel)
appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to oversee and provide their evaluations of the
Inspector General's fact-finding investigation and the Policy Review. Panel members met five
times to receive briefings on the progress of the Inspector General's investigation and the Policy
Review and to give advice and to provide comments on the Department's efforts. In addition,
members of the Panel met and conferred individually with one another and with the Under
Secretary and the staff of the Policy Review Team. The Panel members reviewed background
papers and received oral briefings on policy and legal issues, considered the written position
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement on March 15, 1996.
16Chapter One of the Report describes the mission and personnel of each of these Enforcement
Bureaus, as well as of the two divisions of the Internal Revenue Service responsible for law
enforcement functions.
17Following her review of the Policy Report, the Inspector General will be given an
opportunity to comment on whether the Office of Enforcement's Policy Recommendations ought
to be applied to law enforcement officers under the Inspector General.
7
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Re .... ielj·
paper and oral comments of the President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).
received a briefing from the Department of Justice Inspector General concerning its parallel
investigation of the Roundups, and commented on draft and the final versions of the Report of
the Policy Review and on the report of the Inspector General's fact-finding investigation.
The following individuals who served as members of the Citizens Review Panel gave
extensively of their time, shared their insights, and contributed their expertise to ensure that the
Inspector General's fact-finding investigation and the Office of Enforcement's Policy Review
were thorough, accurate, fair, and independent:
NORMAN DORSEN served as chair ofthe Panel and is Stokes Professor of Law at the
New York University School of Law, where he has taught since 1961. He is a graduate
of Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He served
as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan. Professor Dorsen helped
write the brief in Roe v. Wade and appeared amicus curiae in the Gideon case, the
Pentagon Papers case, and the Nixon Tapes case. He currently serves as chairman of the
Board of Directors of the La",yers Committee for Human Rights. He was the general
counsel and later the president of the American Civil Liberties Union and was the
founding president of the Society of American Law Teachers.
JULIUS CHAMBERS is Chancellor of North Carolina Central University. He received
his J.D. degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was editor
in chief of the North Carolina Law Review. Chancellor Chambers received a Master of
Laws degree from Columbia University School of Law, and holds seven honorary Doctor
of Laws degrees. He formerly served as executive director of the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund.
HELENE KAPLAN is of Counsel to the firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, where she serves in the not-for-profit sector as counselor trustee of many business,
scientific, arts, and educational institutions. She was a member ofthe United States
Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on South Africa from 1985 to 1987. Ms.
Kaplan was formerly chair of the Boards of Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation of New
York and of Barnard College. She has received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from
Columbia University.
PATRICK MURPHY is Director of the Police Policy Board for the United States
Conference of Mayors. He was formerly Commissioner of the New York City Police
Department and Commissioner of the Detroit Police Department. Director Murphy is a
graduate of the FBI ~ational Academy and holds a Master of Public Administration
degree from the City College of New York. He currently serves as the chair ofthe
:l\fontgomery County, Maryland, Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission.
8
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
FRED THOMAS is Director of Public Safety for Prince George's County, Maryland.
He was formerly Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C.
Director Thomas holds a Masters degree in Justice from The American University and
attended the FBI's National Executive Institute. Director Thomas has received
Resolutions for outstanding leadership and service from the Maryland House of
Delegates, the Senate of Maryland, and the District of Columbia City Council.
The sixth member of the Panel was former Solicitor General of the United States and
President of Brigham Young University Rex Lee, who lost his long battle with cancer on March
11, 1996. President Lee was briefed by Under Secretary Noble and the Review Team in Utah
and he continued to advise the Department despite his worsening illness, even participating in
one Panel meeting via telephone from his hospital room. He will be missed.
To carry out the work of the review, the Under Secretary for Enforcement formed a
Policy Review Team directed by attorneys from outside the Department of the Treasury. Sherryl
Elise Michaelson, who is currently an attorney in private practice at the law firm of Hedges &
Caldwell in Los Angeles, and has been active in civil rights and civil liberties matters throughout
her legal career, served as the Director ofthe Policy Review Team. In that capacity, she reported
jointly to the Under Secretary for Enforcement and the Citizens Review Panel. Ms. Michaelson
is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California, where she
received the Justice Department's distinguished John Marshall Award for Excellence in
Litigation, as well as awards presented by a number of federal law enforcement agencies for
excellence in the administration of justice. The Policy Review Team's Assistant Director, Marc
L. Greenwald, recently completed a clerkship with Judge David Thompson of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after graduating magna cum laude from New York
University in 1994 with a law degree and a Master of Arts in History.
The review could not have been completed without the valuable assistance of the
following staff members of the Policy Review Team: Lorraine Rooks Cary, Writer-Editor; Janet
K. Alexander, Logistics Coordinator; Lissette M. Flores, Documents Specialist; and Cynthia L.
Poole, Administrative Assistant.
Members of the Department of the Treasury's Office of Enforcement provided substantial
assistance to the creation of the Report. David Medina, Director of the Office of Policy
Development, and two policy analysts on his staff, Court E. Golumbic and Andrew J. Mayock,
reviewed and revised several chapters of the Report. R. Keith Walton, Senior Advisor to Under
Secretary Noble, reviewed additional chapters, providing comments and revisions as well.
Because the policy issues implicated by the Review were heavily intertwined with
complex constitutional and other legal issues, the Department's General Counsel, Edward S.
Knight, personally participated in and appointed several attorneys from his office to assist in the
9
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 . Boys Roundup Policy Review
work of the review. These attorneys, whose efforts were supervised by Deputy General Counsel
Neal S. Wolin, included Stephen 1. McHale, Maurice A. Jones. E. Lee Patton, Andrew 'V.i.
Winden, Julie Barry, Nina Nichols, Natalie G. Coburn, Katherine Kelley, and Mary Lewis.
The Policy Review Team's efforts were supported by liaisons representing each of the
Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus and components: Earl Housenfluk for FLETC; Kevin
Richardson and John MaHone for ATF; John Kellog, Alan Doody, Charles Simonson. and John
Varrone for Customs; Lucrezia Rotolo for FinCEN; Doug Gastorf, Howard Mulholland, and
George Fields for IRS; and Larry Cockell for Secret Service. In addition, Victoria Duarte. Jan1es
Emery, Kenneth Kunec, and Elizabeth Mathis of FinCEN assisted in the statistical analysis of
data on Treasury disciplinary actions. Furthermore, the Policy Review is grateful for the
assistance of Anna Dickey, Director of the Office of Finance and Administration for the Office
of Enforcement, and her staff. Pablo Ruiz, from the Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture,
provided much needed clerical support in the final weeks of the project. Finally, the assistance
of Assistant Secretary for Management George Munoz and his staff was invaluable.
SUMMARY OF THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The balance of this Report describes the analysis undertaken by the Policy Review,
together with the Recommendations in which the Review resulted and the considerations
supporting those Recommendations. Those Recommendations are summarized below.
Organizing Principle of the Review's Recommendations
All of the Recommendations are driven by the following organizing principle:
Both the reality and the appearance of integrity, professionalism, and impartiality
in the performance of duty are expected of all Treasury employees, and are essential
to the ability of law enforcement personnel to perform their mission. Both on-duty
and off-duty employee conduct may adversely affect the public's perception of the
integrity, professionalism, and impartiality of the employee and the agency and may
othenvise adversely affect the efficiency of the service.
Disciplinary Recommendations
Recommendation No.1: Off-Duty Conduct In General
The rules of all Treasury Bureaus and components that employ Treasury law
enforcement officers should be amended, as necessary, to include the following
10
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
I
provisions:
(1) Treasury law enforcement officers may be disciplined for violations of the
rules governing conduct and procedure, as defined in Section 0.102(a) of the
Treasury Rules of Conduct, whether the violation occurs on or off duty,
when violation of the rules adversely affects the efficiency of the service.
(2) Treasury law enforcement officers shall not engage, on or off duty, in
criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or any
other conduct prejudicial to the government.
Recommendation No.2: Bias-Motivated Conduct by Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Each Treasury Bureau or component that employs Treasury law enforcement
officers should adopt the following rule prohibiting law enforcement officers within
their agencies from engaging in bias-motivated conduct on or off duty:
Treasury law enforcement officers shall not use or engage in, on or off duty,
abusive, derisive, profane, or demeaning statements, conduct, or gestures
evidencing hatred or invidious prejudice to or about another person or group
on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age, or disability.
As reflected in Recommendation No.1 above, such conduct will result in
disciplinary action when it adversely affects the efficiency of the service.
Recommendation No.3: Membership or Participation in Hate Groups
Each Treasury Bureau or component that employs law enforcement officers should
publish guidelines for the application of the Bias-Motivated Conduct rule set forth
in Recommendation No.2 above to membership in hate groups or other behavior
through which a Treasury law enforcement officer might associate himself or herself
with the prejudice-related conduct of others. Such guidelines should contain at least
the following language:
A Treasury law enforcement officer who knowingly becomes or remains a
member of or participates in a hate group or otherwise knowingly associates
himself or herself with the hate-motivated activities of others, proceeds at the
risk that his or her membership, participation, or association could
reasonably be taken as tacit approval of the prejudice-related aspects of
those groups or activities and could subject the officer to disciplinary
11
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
investigation and possible disciplinary action. As used here, "hate group" or
"hate-motivated activities" are defined as an organization, association, event,
or activity, the sole or a primary purpose of which is to advocate or promote
hate, violence, or invidious prejudice against individuals or groups on
account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age,
or disability.
The guidelines should also inform officers and their supervisors of the factors that
will be applied in determining whether disciplinary action will result.
Recommendation No.4: Misuse of Government Resources
The Treasury Department should consider what additional guidance is necessary
concerning the permissible uses of government resources and, in particular, the
method of obtaining approval and standards for approving the use of government
resources in support of professional development and community service activities.
Recommendation No.5: Study of the MSPB System and Treasury Law Enforcement
Officers
The Treasury Department should study the role of the Merit System Protection
Board system and the training, education, and accountability of managers in the
screening and discipline of Treasury law enforcement officers.
Hiring Recommendations
Recommendation No.6: Selection Criteria for Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Impartiality, as demonstrated by the absence of statements or conduct evidencing
hatred or prejudice on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age, or disability, should be a minimum hiring standard for all
Treasul1' law enforcement officers. Information concerning this standard, together
with the standards of conduct that apply to Treasury law enforcement officers onand off-duty, should be provided to all applicants for Treasury law enforcement
positions.
12
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Recommendation No.7: Background Investigations of Applicants for Positions as
Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Prior to hiring individuals as Treasury law enforcement officers, Treasury Bureaus
and components should endeavor to determine whether the candidate has engaged
in any act or statement evidencing hatred or prejudice against an individual or
group on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age, or disability.
Recommendation No.8: Applicant Hiring Safeguards
The Treasury Department should require that when a candidate who is deemed
otherwise qualified and suitable for a position as a Treasury law enforcement officer
has engaged in an act or statement evidencing hatred or prejudice against an
individual or group on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age, or disability, a determination shall be made by the appropriate
agency as to whether such conduct creates a reasonable basis to question (1)
whether the candidate would perform duties as a Treasury law enforcement officer
with impartiality; or (2) whether the candidate's employment as a Treasury law
enforcement officer would otherwise adversely affect the Treasury Department's
law enforcement mission.
Recommendation No.9: Evaluation of Psychological Screening of Candidates for Positions
as Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Subject to an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and methods of implementing such a
program, the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus should move toward the
adoption of a program of psychological testing and screening for emotional stability
and psychological fitness for employment in law enforcement, to be used in
conjunction with the background investigation as part of the initial hiring
procedures for Treasury law enforcement officers.
Recommendation No. 10: Promoting Workforce Diversity
The Treasury Department and all Treasury Bureaus or components that employ
Treasury law enforcement officers should continue to promote racial and gender
diversity and a prejudice-free work environment at all levels of the Treasury law
enforcement workforce.
13
Depar{men{ of {he Treasury Repor{ of {he Good 0 . Boys Roundup Policy Re\'ieH'
Training Recommendations
Recommendation No. 11: Training in Diversity and Ethics
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and all Treasury Bureaus
employing Treasury law enforcement officers should evaluate the effectiveness of
existing training in diversity and ethics issues on an ongoing basis, to determine
whether increased or modified training is necessary, and, if so, how such training
should best be integrated into their regular curriculum and training programs.
Recommendation No. 12: Accessibility of Ethics Standards and Rules of Conduct
Treasury Law Enforcement Bureau-level rules should be streamlined and
assembled in one place, together with government wide and Treasury ethical
standards and rules of conduct, for easy reference by employees in a manner similar
to that currently employed by the Internal Revenue Service. Examples of
application of the rules should be included where feasible.
Evaluation Recommendation
Recommendation No. 13: Evaluation of Managers and Supervisors
All Treasury Bureaus and components employing Treasury law enforcement
officers should evaluate all managers and supervisors on their success in
implementing the organizing principle of this Report as well as on the specific
Recommendations of this Report for which they are responsible. Evaluations
should assess the individual's success in promoting both the appearance and reality
of integrity, professionalism, and impartiality in their subordinates.
Implementation Recommendations
Recommendation No. 14: Responsibility for Implementation of Policy Recommendations
The Department of the Treasury, through the Office of the Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Enforcement, acting in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service
Commissioner, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management, the General
Counsel, and the heads of all other Treasury Bureaus or components that employ
Treasury law enforcement officers, should implement the Recommendations set
forth in this Report. Each Treasury Bureau or component charged with
responsibility for the implementation or consideration of any Recommendation
14
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0) Boys Roundup Policy Review
should be required to adopt a written plan for implementing, monitoring, and
evaluating the implementation of the Recommendations. Such Bureau-level
implementation plans should contain, but not be limited to, a program of periodic
review by senior Bureau managers of the handling and disposition of all disciplinary
charges against Treasury law enforcement officers, and in particular, of charges
involving violations of the rules set forth in this Report.
Recommendation No. 15: Implementing Recommendations with Respect to Members of
Exclusive Bargaining Units
The Recommendations in this Report are relevant for all Treasury law enforcement
officers. In determining to apply these recommendations with respect to bargaining
unit employees, the Bureaus should be reminded that their statutory bargaining
obligations must be satisfied.
15
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Revie.1'
16
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Section I
The Background of the Policy Review
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
18
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER ONE
AN OVERVIEW OF TREASURY LAW ENFORCEMENT:
ORGANIZATION, MISSION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The Department of the Treasury and Law Enforcement
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has jurisdiction over some of the nation's
oldest law enforcement agencies. Today, the Treasury Bureaus and components that contain law
enforcement officers employ over 29,000 employees in all. Together, these Bureaus and
components serve Treasury and the nation through law enforcement, revenue collection, and
regulation that reach a broad range of regulated and criminal activity.
The following Treasury Bureaus and components employ law enforcement officers:
United States Customs Service (Customs)
United States Secret Service (Secret Service)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID) and
Inspection Service
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)
The United States Mint (Mint)
Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement
Treasury's Office ofthe Under Secretary for Enforcement coordinates law enforcement
matters, formulates policies, and oversees Customs, Secret Service, ATF, FLETC, and FinCEN.
Although the IRS operates under the direct supervision of its Commissioner, the Under Secretary
for Enforcement provides policy oversight for the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS.
The Office of Inspector General, the internal auditor and investigator of alleged offenses within
19
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good O' Boys Roundup Policy Reviell'
the Department. is an independent office headed by the Inspector General. Treasury law
enforcement officers at BEP and the Mint report to the Directors of their respective Bureaus. IS
Definition of Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
For purposes of this report, the term "Treasury law enforcement officers" is limited to
personnel of Customs, Secret Service, ATF, FinCEN, and IRS-CID and Inspection Service who
are authorized to arrest individuals suspected or convicted of violations of federal criminal law,
and to carry firearms and badges in performance of their duties, as well as FLETC instructors,
training supervisors and managers.
In arriving at this definition, the Review analyzed federal statutes, judicial decisions,
administrative decisions, executive orders, agency studies, and personnel rules and regulations.
This examination yielded no consistent and authoritative definition of Treasury law enforcement
officer. Having reviewed these and other sources, the term "Treasury law enforcement officer" is
used to define those persons authorized to make arrests on behalf of the United States, to carry
firearms, and to wear badges because these are the characteristics that most often mark an officer,
in fact as well as in public perception, as one who is entrusted to exercise law enforcement
powers on behalf of society.
Other definitions were rejected as either too narrow or too broad. For instance, as used in
federal statutes and regulations, the term "law enforcement officer" is limited to measures
governing salaries and benefits. 19 While inclusive of many Treasury personnel, this definition
excludes certain other Treasury employees who make arrests, carry firearms, and wear badges. It
therefore would exclude some Treasury law enforcement personnel who display the outward
characteristics of an officer of the law and maintain the ability to exercise the significant powers
of an officer's authority.
Conversely, the definition suggested by certain opinions of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit Courts and the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) is
l8To avoid any appearance of conflict with the Inspector General's ongoing
investigation into the subject matter of this Report, the Review did not include an examination
of the polices, rules, and practices of the OIG. Moreover, because the BEP and the Mint each
employ a relatively small component of Treasury law enforcement officers and pursue a
mission unrelated to law enforcement, the policies, rules, and practices of these two entities
are not explored in this Report.
19See. The Civil Service Retirement System. 5 U.S.c. 8831 et seq.; the Federal Employees
Retirement System. 5 U.S.c. 8401 et seq.: Law Enforcement Availability Pay. 5 U .S.c.
5545: and Pay Administration, Premium Pay: 5 C.F.R. 550.
20
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
broader and extends the term "federal law enforcement officer" to employees who are beyond the
statutory definition and without arrest authority, but who nevertheless have what the decisions
call an "integral role" in the law enforcement mission. 20 Without addressing the merits of these
decisions, this broader meaning is unsuitable for this Report because it expands the definition of
law enforcement officer far beyond the Review's purposes and scope by adopting a definition
that would depend greatly on the context of acts of all employees of law enforcement agencies
and that would not necessarily implicate the use of police powers by those with arrest powers
who carry guns and badges.
The definition ultimately chosen is supported by the United States Department of
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. In its survey of law enforcement officers in federal
agencies, the Justice Department defined "federal law enforcement officers" as personnel who
have arrest authority and are "also authorized (but not necessarily required) to carry firearms in
the performance oftheir official duties."21 Therefore, "Treasury law enforcement officer" is a
federal law enforcement officer employed by the Department of the Treasury.
Demographics of Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Under the definition adopted, there are 19,627 Treasury law enforcement officers among
the Bureaus and other components covered by the Review. The largest employer in this regard is
Customs, which has 10,573 Treasury law enforcement officers. IRS employs 3,814 Treasury law
enforcement officers; the Secret Service has 3,182; and ATF has 1,893. While the majority of
FinCEN Treasury law enforcement officers are detailees, FinCEN has four law enforcement
officers on permanent staff. Other than two officers who provide security to the training center,
FLETC does not have its own Treasury law enforcement officers with arrest authority and
authority to carry guns and badges. However, because FLETC is the place of instruction and
training for those who ultimately fit this description, the 161 instructors, training supervisors and
managers of FLETC who are responsible for training Treasury law enforcement officers are an
indispensable part of any review of how Treasury law enforcement officers fulfill their missions.
For this reason, the policy recommendations also extend to and cover these FLETC instructors,
training supervisors, and managers.
The average age of a Treasury law enforcement officer is 41.5 years. The total work
force consists of 16,378 males (83.4%) and 3,249 females (16.6%); and the racial composition is
shown in the table that follows.
20See, Hickman v. Dept. of Justice, 11 M.S.P.R. 153 (1982), Padilla v. Dept of Justice, 64
M.S.P.R. 416 (1994).
21Reaves, Brian A., Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 1993, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, December 1994.
21
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Polic)' Rel'iev,'
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF TREASURY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Position
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Native
American
Total
Officers
14,945
1,625
2,396
529
132
19,627
Percentage
76.1 %
8.3%
12.2%
2.7%
0.7%
li:/
[Source: Treasury Integrated Management Informaaon System February 3. 1996 and FLETC March 28. 1996)
The following sections provide a brief overview of the Treasury Law Enforcement
Bureaus and components over which the Under Secretary for Enforcement has line authority or
policy oversight responsibility. Specifically, it sets forth their missions, the duties of their law
enforcement officers, and their demographics.
United States Customs Service
Established in 1789, Customs was created to collect duties. Today, Customs continues to
assess and collect revenues from duties, fees, and penalties on imports. It also enforces and
administers over 400 provisions of laws on behalf of forty agencies. Along with processing
people, carriers, cargo, and mail across United States borders, Customs enforces laws regarding
narcotics and other contraband smuggling; copyright, patent and trademark provisions; and
illegal high-technology and weapons exports.
Among the 19,638 Customs employees, there are 10,573 law enforcement personnel who
have arrest authority and who carry a firearm and a badge. These law enforcement officers are
divided among the positions of Special Agents, Customs Inspectors, Canine Enforcement
Officers, Marine Enforcement Officers, and Pilots. 22
The Special Agents, who number 2,734, conduct investigations, make arrests, and help
bring indictments against persons violating the laws, rules, and regulations which Customs
administers. The 7,094 Customs Inspectors are responsible for enforcing Customs laws
regarding passengers and cargo. They conduct searches, order detainments, and, if necessary,
make arrests of persons who violate civil and criminal laws. The 430 Canine and Marine
Enforcement Officers enforce the Customs laws through the use of dog patrols and boat patrols,
respectively. The 315 Pilots fly the aircraft that Customs uses to patrol the nation's border
against narcotics smugglers.
22There are twenty-seven Customs Patrol Officers who also have arrest authority and
carry firearms and badges. However, due to Customs restructuring, the duties of the position
are being incorporated into other Customs law enforcement positions. Therefore, even though
the Review Team's recommendations apply to the Officers that remain, the Officers are not
treated as a separate group in the Review.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Customs' law enforcement officers are found in forty-eight of the fifty states, the District
of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. They also work in
twenty-two foreign countries.
The average age of the Customs Criminal Investigators is 41.7 years. Customs
Inspectors' average age is 44.2 years. Canine and Marine Enforcement Officers' average age is
36.7 years, and the Pilots' average age is 40 years. The following statistics provide a view of the
racial and gender composition of the Customs law enforcement officers.
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF CUSTOMS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Position
White
African
American
Hispanic
Native
American
Asian
Amencan
Total
Special
Agents
2315
84.7%
102
3.7%
250
9.1%
18
0.7%
49
1.8%
2734
Canine &
Marine Enf.
Officers
285
66.3%
26
6.0%
109
25.3%
4
0.9%
6
1.4%
430
Pilots
304
96.5%
1
0.3%
10
3.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
315
Customs
Inspectors
4698
66.2%
573
8.1 %
1496
21.1 %
38
0.5%
289
4.1%
7094
Total
7602
71.9%
702
6.6%
1865
17,6%
60
0.6%
344
3.3%
10,573
[Source: Treasury Integrated Management Informauon System February 3. J 996J
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF CUSTOMS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
MIDWEST
Position
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Amencan
Native
American
Canine &. Marine Enf.
Officers
10
1
0
0
1
12
Special Agents
136
9
4
1
1
151
Customs Inspectors
435
81
31
7
6
560
Customs Bureau Total
581
91
35
8
8
723
Percentages
80.4%
12.6%
4.8%
1.1%
1.1%
i·.··,i'.". >.·,• •.• • )
Total
23
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
Canine & Marine Enf.
OffIcers
2
0
0
0
1
3
Special Agents
60
0
4
1
0
65
Customs Inspectors
179
6
14
1
4
204
Pilots
22
0
0
0
0
22
Customs Bureau Total
263
6
18
2
5
Percentages
89.5%
2.0%
6.1 %
0.7%
1.7%
Canine & Marine Enf.
Officers
37
4
2
0
0
Special Agents
505
18
26
13
I
563
Customs Inspectors
1558
163
99
25
5
1850
Pilots
5
0
0
0
0
5
Customs Bureau Total
2105
186
127
38
6
2461
Percentages
85.3%
7.5%
5.1%
1.5%
0.2%
Canine & Marine Enf.
Officers
151
11
66
1
0
229
Special Agents
1063
45
101
7
14
1230
Customs Inspectors
1215
138
772
13
11
2149
Pilots
196
1
4
0
0
201
Customs Bureau Total
2625
195
943
21
25
Percentages
68.9%
5.1%
24.7%
0.6%
0.7%
Canine & Marine Enf.
Officers
84
10
26
5
2
127
Special Agents
494
25
52
27
2
600
Customs Inspectors
1180
140
393
242
11
1966
Pilots
67
0
1
0
0
68
Customs Bureau Total
1832
175
472
274
15
2761
Percentages
66.0%
6.3%
17.0%
9.9%
NORTHEAST
-
294
43
SOUTH
WEST
[Source: Treasury~
24
0.5%
..
3809
_
llllJOrmauon System February 3.1m
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
GENDER COMPOSITION OF CUSTOMS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Position
Male
Female
Total
Special
Agents
2440
89.2%
294
10.8%
2734
Canine & Marine Enf.
Officers
384
89.3%
46
10.7%
430
Pilots
313
99.4%
2
0.6%
315
Customs
Inspectors
5573
78.6%
1521
21.4%
7094
Total
8710
82.4%
1863
17.6%
10,573
[Source. Treasury Integrated Management Informauon System February 3. 1996]
United States Secret Service
The Secret Service was created in 1865 as the first general federal investigative agency.
Its initial mission, which it still fulfills, was to protect the integrity.ofthe United States currency
against counterfeiting. After the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, the Secret Service
acquired the additional responsibility of protecting the President. Today, the Secret Service's law
enforcement personnel with authority to make arrests and carry firearms and wear badges are its
2,036 Special Agents and 1,146 Uniformed Division Officers. The Uniformed Division Officers
provide security for the President and the First Family at the White House, the Vice President
and family at the Naval Observatory, foreign dignitaries at foreign diplomatic missions, and at
the Treasury Building, Treasury Annex, New Executive Office Building, and Old Executive
Office Building. The Special Agents provide protection fro the President, Vice President, former
Presidents and their spouses, major presidential and vice-presidential candidates, foreign
dignitaries, and other officials at the discretion of the President. They are also responsible for, on
a priority basis, the conduct of intelligence investigations and related issues that could pose a
potential threat to the President or Vice President. Special Agents also are responsible for
investigating and arresting persons who commit offenses against United States laws regarding
currency, coins, obligations, and securities of the United States, or foreign governments. They
also enforce laws concerning electronic funds transfers, credit and debit card fraud, false
identification, computer access fraud, food stamps fraud, and certain laws regarding financial
institutions.
The average age of Secret Service law enforcement officers is 40.1 years for Special
Agents and 35.7 years for Uniformed Division Officers. There are 1,866 male (9l.7%) and 170
female (8.3%) Special Agents, and 1,043 male (91 %) and 103 female (9%) Officers ofthe
Uniformed Division. The racial composition of the law enforcement officers is as follows:
25
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SECRET SERVICE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS~3
Position
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
American
Native
American
Total
Special
Agents
1690
83.0%
168
8.3%
126
6.2%
32
1.6%
20
1.0%
2036
Uruformed
Division
855
74.6%
239
20.9%
44
3.8%
6
0.5%
2
0.2%
1146
Total
2545
800%
407
12.8%
170
5.3%
38
1.2%
22
0.7%
3182
,
[Source. Trea.sur) Integrated Management lnJonnauon S»tem Februar) _. 1996J
Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Although ATF was given separate bureau status within Treasury in 1972, it existed as a
division of the Internal Revenue Service since the early. 1900s. Over the .vears, its mission has
evolved as the regulatory and criminal challenges have changed, and the 1,893 current ATF law
enforcement officers, known as Special Agents, carry out numerous law enforcement and
regulatory functions.
A TF Special Agents enforce federal statutes regarding the criminal use of firearms and
explosives, incidents of arson, and the evasion of taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Special
Agents also assist federaL state, and local law enforcement agencies in the fight against violent
crime through direct investigative efforts with the agencies and participation in a number of
formal and informal task forces.
The average age ofan ATF Special Agent is 39.3 years. There are 1,674 male (88.4%)
and 219 female (11.6%) Special Agents and the racial composition of the Bureau is shown in the
follo\\'ing table.
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF ATF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Position
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
American
!"ative
American
TotaJ
Special AgentS
1535
186
134
27
11
1893
Percentages
81 1 %
9.8 "
7.1 %
1.4%
06%
[Source: Treasury Integrated Management
~O
26
I:.:.'·:···.:
System February 3, 1996]
Secret Service demographics by region are not available due to security concerns.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF ATF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BY REGION
White
African
American
Hispanic
Midwest
361
50
16
Percentages
84.0%
11.6%
3.7
0.2%
0.5%
Northeast
386
54
20
6
2
Percentages
82.5%
11.5%
4.3
1.3%
0.4%
Rocky Mt.
56
5
2
0.00
Percentages
87.5%
7.8%
3.1
0.0%
1.6%
South
512
59
56
3
5
Percentages
80.6%
9.3%
8.8%
0.5%
0.8%
West
215
17
31
17
Percentages
76.5%
6.0%
11.0%
6.0%
Asian
American
Native
American
Total
2
430
0.4%
[Source:
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division and Inspection Service
The Treasury law enforcement officers at IRS are the Criminal Investigators (Special
Agents and Inspectors) who work in either the Criminal Investigation Division or the Inspection
Service. IRS-CID Special Agents enforce federal income tax laws as well as criminal statutes
relating to other financial crimes such as money laundering, tax fraud, health care insurance
fraud, and bankruptcy fraud. The Inspectors in the Inspection Service investigate threats and
criminal activity directed at IRS employees, allegations of criminal activities or misconduct by
IRS employees, and other criminal activities which may affect the integrity of the IRS.
The average age of the IRS Special Agent and Inspectors is 40.7 years. There are 2,931
male (76.8%) and 883 female (23.2%) Special Agents and Inspectors, and their racial
composition is shown below.
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF IRS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
American
Native American
Total
Special Agent
3110
326
225
120
33
3814
Percentages
81.5%
8.5%
5.9%
3.1 %
0.9%
Integrated Management
27
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 . Boys Roundup Policy Rel'ie)\'
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF IRS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BY REGION
Wlute
African
American
Hispanic
ASIan
American
Native
American
Total
MIdwest
699
80
20
5
8
811
Percentages
86.1 %
9.9%
2.5%
0.6%
1.0%
Northeast
881
64
29
22
1
Percentages
88.4%
6.4%
2.9%
2.2%
0.1 %
Rocky Mt.
137
6
21
0.00
2
Percentages
82.5%
3.6%
12.7%
0.0%
1.2%
South
912
137
80
11
17
Percentages
78.8%
11.8%
6.9%
1.0%
1.5%
West
478
39
67
82
5
Percentages
71.2%
5.8%
10.0%
12.2%
0.7%
[Source. Treasury Integrated Management
I.··(}<
-...
,997
166
1157
I·.::::·.:~:)·
671
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
FinCEN was created in 1990 to provide a multi-source intelligence and analytical
network that supports federaL state, and local law enforcement efforts in the detection,
investigation, and prosecution of financial crimes. The agency supports law enforcement
organizations by collating, analyzing, and disseminating information on financial crimes,
particularly money laundering. In 1994, FinCEN was given the authority to administer and
enforce the Bank Secrecy Act.
FinCEN's permanent staff consists of 166 employees, four of whom are Special Agents
who currently serve in secondary law enforcement positions. (Three of the four were originally
detailed to FinCEN from other agencies.) In addition, FinCEN has twenty-five Special Agents
who have been detailed to FinCEN from other agencies including the Department of Defense, the
Justice Department, and Treasury Enforcement Bureaus. The Special Agents who are on the
permanent FinCEN staff are four white males whose average age is 49 years old.
Federal Lmi' Enforcement Training Center
Created in 1970, FLETC provides law enforcement training for all Treasury Law
Enforcement Bureaus, as well as for other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement
organizations and officers. FLETC trains law enforcement officers from over seventy federal
agencies. It offers over 200 individual instructional programs covering such areas as basic police
criminal and investigative training, specialized training and management, white-collar crime,
advanced law enforcement photography, money laundering, marine law enforcement, and law
enforcement instruction. FLETC also provides the use of its facilities for organizations to
28
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
conduct their own training, and produces curriculum and training techniques for outside
organizations in the development of their training programs. FLETC's staff includes
investigators, lawyers, auditors, research specialists, police, and security professionals. The
administrative and financial operations of FLETC are overseen by the Treasury Department, but
training policies and programs are set by representatives of eight departments and independent
agenCIes.
FLETC is based in Glynco, Georgia, and has satellite training facilities in Artesia, New
Mexico. FLETC's permanent training staff consists of 161 instructors, training supervisors, and
managers whose average age is 48 years, and is comprised of 150 males (93%) and 11 females
(7%). The racial composition is as follows.
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF FLETC LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
American
Native
American
Total
Total
149
4
2
0
6
161
Percentage
92.5%
2.5%
1.0%
0.0%
4.0%
[Source:
29
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
30
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER TWO
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE POLICY REVIEW
Review of Allegations and Factual Findings
Immediately after the allegations concerning the Roundups became public on July 11,
1995,24 Secretary Rubin and Under Secretary Noble directed each of the Treasury Law
Enforcement Bureaus to conduct internal investigations into the nature and extent of their
employees'involvement. However, on July 19,1995, the Inspector General exercised her
prerogative under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, (IG Act)25 and assumed sole
responsibility for the fact-finding investigation. 26 As required by the IG Act, the internal
investigations being conducted by the various Enforcement Bureaus ceased and all affidavits and
evidence previously gathered by the Bureaus were promptly turned over to the Inspector
Genera1. 27 Accordingly, the Policy Review did not undertake its own investigation into the facts
underlying the Roundups.
Factual investigations were also conducted by other law enforcement agencies outside the
Treasury Department. The Under Secretary of the Treasury invited the Department of Justice
Inspector General who was conducting a parallel investigation to brief the Citizens Review Panel
at its January 25, 1996 meeting on the results of his investigation. The Policy Review asked the
Treasury Inspector General for information concerning any other federal, state, or local law
enforcement agencies that had conducted investigations of the Roundups. On October 26,1995,
the Treasury Inspector General identified five such agencies to the Policy Review Team: the
24ATF's Office ofInspection had opened its own inquiry of the Roundups approximately four
weeks previously, after ATF managers learned of the event through a newsletter and an Internet
posting, both by the Gadsden Minuteman militia group. Statement of ATF Director John
Magaw, ATF News Release, July 11, 1995, at 1 [hereinafter 7111195 Magaw Statement];
Transcript of Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 21, 1995, at 44 (testimony of
ATF Director John Magaw) [hereinafter Senate Tr.].
25 5 U.S.C.A. app. 3 (West Supp. 1995).
26Lau Mem., supra note 5, at 1; see also Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 34 (Testimony of
Valerie Lau, Inspector General, Department of the Treasury).
27Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 34 (Lau Testimony).
31
Department of the Treasur:v Report of the Good 0 . Boys Roundup Policy Review
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, the Boone County and Florence. Kentucky
Police Departments, the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). and the
Maryland State Police. The Policy Review contacted each of these agencies and requested
copies of any reports of their investigations. In each case, the Policy Review was advised that no
formal public reports had been prepared; instead, the fruits of these investigative efforts had been
memorialized through entries in the personnel records of the officers under investigation. With
the exception of the MPD, these agencies further stated that the records of their investigations
were available only by subpoena. The Policy Review did not have subpoena power and,
therefore, was unable to obtain copies of the reports of these other law enforcement
investigations of the Roundups.28 The Review did receive redacted versions of the letters of
counseling placed in the records of three members of the MPD. These letters confirmed that the
MPD's Internal Affairs Department investigation had established that certain unspecified racist
activities had occurred during the Roundups, but that no active-duty MPD personnel had been
implicated in those activities. The letters also corroborated one of the Treasury Inspector
General's findings concerning one "Redneck of the Year" skit on a scatological, but nonracial,
theme.
Because of the Department's desire to complete both components of its inquiry into the
Roundup in a timely manner, it was necessary for the Policy Review to proceed in tandem with
the Inspector General's investigation. During the course of that investigation, the Citizens
Review Panel and the Policy Review received periodic briefings from the Inspector General and
her staff concerning the allegations under investigation and the general investigative procedures
and methodology being pursued. However, until the Inspector General's initial report was
submitted to the Secretary on December 12, 1995, the Policy Review was not privy to the
evidence discovered or the interim substantive findings of the Inspector General's independent
investigation.
To advance the Policy Review during the pendency of the Inspector General's
investigation, the key allegations concerning the Roundups were analyzed as reflected by press
28The Inspector General subsequently identified to the Citizens Review Panel several
additional law enforcement agencies which had conducted investigations of the Roundups.
These included the Tennessee Bureau ofInvestigations, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Hamilton Provincial Police (Canada), York Provincial Police (Canada), and Bradley County,
Tennessee Sheriffs Department. Because the Office of the Inspector General informed the
Policy Review that it intended to incorporate the results of these investigations into the final
report of the Treasury Inspector General, the Policy Review did not attempt to obtain copies of
the reports ofthese agencies. The Policy Review did interview Lt. Col. Michael Graham, the
officer in charge of the Army CID' s investigation, concerning the policy implications of that
investigation: Lt. Col. Graham provided copies of pertinent Army policies to the Policy Reviev.; .
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
accounts, the Senate hearings, and the Inspector General's briefings, and to identify the policies,
procedures, rules, and regulations implicated by those allegations without regard to their merits.
The Policy Review identified six general categories of alleged misconduct, which it used to
identify existing rules and policies implicated by the allegations concerning the Roundups:
(1) racist speech and conduct such as the use of racial epithets and racially
demeaning symbols;
(2) sexist speech and conduct and sexual harassment not rising to
the level of sexual assault or criminal conduct;
(3) criminal conduct, including rape, bestiality, prostitution,
possession and distribution of controlled substances, and illegal
gambling;
(4) other off-duty conduct discrediting to the Department of the
Treasury and federal law enforcement, such as public drunkenness
and lewd conduct;
(5) misuse of government resources; and
(6) failure of Treasury law enforcement officers and supervisors to
report offenses and take appropriate remedial action.
These categories enabled the Policy Review to move quickly, once the Inspector
General's Report was submitted to the Secretary, to assimilate the factual findings and determine
which existing policies appear to have been implicated and the sufficiency of existing policies
and regulations to prevent incidents such as those alleged to have occurred at the Roundups.
All of the individuals whose conduct might have violated existing Departmental or
Bureau policy rules and regulations with regard to their participation in the Good 0' Boys
Roundups will have their individual cases reviewed by the respective Bureaus. Nonetheless, in
carrying out the function of assessing whether existing policies are sufficient to avoid such
conduct in the future, the allegations concerning the conduct remain instructive in their
description of the kind of conduct the Department wishes to deter in the future.
Effect of Bias on the Effectiveness of Law Enforcement
The Policy Review conducted an exhaustive, systematic study of the issues relating to
bias in law enforcement. 29 The Policy Review requested research support from the National
Institute of Justice (NIl), which responded with abstracts of all relevant publications held in the
29The resources described in this section include only the most significant of the materials
used in the course of the Policy Review. A more complete listing of relevant items can be found
in the bibliography provided in Appendix C of this Report.
33
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) library and other pertinent materials.
Members of the Policy Review conducted independent research at the NCJRS library as well as
at the United States Commission on Civil Rights library and Treasury's ovm library. In addition
to receiving guidance in this area from Citizens Review Panel members Patrick Murphy and Fred
Thomas, the Policy Review interviewed Temple University's James J. Fyfe. The Policy Review
consulted the major studies on this issue, including the benchmark work, The Challenge of Crime
in a Free Society, authored by The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice in 1967. The Policy Review also surveyed many publications
authored by the Civil Rights Commission; examined a number of studies arising from the
Rodney King beating in Los Angeles; consulted studies of ethics in law enforcement; and
reviewed as well numerous resources on the nature and resurgence of racial and other hate
groups in the United States. In addition, the Review interviewed Brian Levin, director of the
Klanwatch project of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Review of Disciplinary Policies and Regulations
Because of the complexity and sensitivity of the legal and policy issues surrounding the
government's power to remove or otherwise discipline federal law enforcement officers who
engage in such conduct. much of the Policy Review's effort was directed toward the
identification and analysis of existing disciplinary rules and policies. The Review reviewed all
current rules of conduct and ethical standards governing Department of the Treasury law
enforcement personneL including federal statutes, such as the Civil Service Reform Act; the
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of the Treasury
and the Department of the Treasury's Employees Rules of Conduct; and the rules and codes of
conduct promulgated by the Secret Service, ATF, Customs, and IRS. The Review also surveyed
federal personnel manuals and other published interpretations of the foregoing rules and
standards.
With the assistance of attorneys from the General Counsel's office, the Review also
analyzed hundreds of federal employee discipline cases decided by the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and, for years prior to
1983, by other United States federal courts, as well as the leading treatise on federal employee
discipline, Peter Broida's, A Guide to j\1erit Systems Protection Board Law & Practice (1994).
The Reyiev,; also examined hundreds of additional cases, treatises, and law review articles, which
addressed, among other pertinent constitutional issues, the speech rights of public employees
under the First Amendment, recent Supreme Court and federal and state jurisprudence related to
hate crimes and hate speech statutes, the freedom of association, the right of autonomy and
confidentiality branches of the right of privacy, and the implications of recent equal protection
and affirmative action cases for policies targeting bias-animated conduct and for claims of
reverse discrimination. The Re\'iev, also considered federal and state cases addressing the higher
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
standard of conduct imposed on law enforcement officers and other public employees holding
positions of special trust.
The Review also examined the relevant disciplinary policies of other agencies of the
Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), the Bureau of Prisons,
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS); all agencies of the Justice Department; the United States Army, particularly with respect
to its policies on membership in extremist organizations and on sexual harassment; the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Additionally, the Review consulted relevant portions of the Federal
Personnel Manual and the United States Attorney's Manual.
With the guidance of Citizens Review Panel members Patrick Murphy and Fred Thomas,
the Policy Review Team solicited examples of disciplinary policies addressing issues of bias and
off-duty conduct from a number of local police departments throughout the country. 30 The
Review interviewed representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (lA CP)
concerning their efforts to draft model policies concerning bias-related and off-duty conduct, and
obtained copies of the IACP's Law Enforcement Officer's Code of Ethics, which is widely used
in police departments throughout the country. The Review also interviewed a representative of
the Police Foundation concerning a recent study it performed on issues pertinent to bias in law
enforcement.
The Review queried each ofthe Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus concerning their
records of disciplinary actions taken during the last three years for charges of on- and off-duty
racial, sexual and other bias-related misconduct; other forms of off-duty conduct prejudicial to
the government; misuse of government resources; and failure to report or take appropriate
remedial action in cases involving misconduct. Redacted copies of the disciplinary proposal
letters and dispositions were examined to determine what generalizations, if any, could be made
concerning the nature of the conduct giving rise to discipline and of the Bureau's disciplinary
response thereto.
Hiring and Screening Policies
The Review obtained data from the Treasury Integrated Management Information System
(TIMIS) concerning the race and gender distribution, educational background, and geographical
30The Review interviewed representatives of, or obtained copies of disciplinary policies, and
information on the hiring, background investigation, and psychological screening procedures
from the police departments of New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago,
Houston, Phoenix, and Prince George's County, Maryland.
35
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
distribution of assignments for all supervisory and field-level Treasury law enforcement officers.
The Review consulted OPM's Qualification Standards Operating ~\1anual to review
qualifications for the occupational codes applicable to Treasury law enforcement officer
positions. It examined the security clearance forms used in conducting background checks of all
law enforcement officers employed by the Treasury Department, and interviewed representatives
of each of the Treasury Bureau offices responsible for conducting pre-employment background
screening of such officers to determine what questions were typically asked in the course of
background checks and what responses were viewed as disqualifying or indicative of the need for
further inquiry.
The Review interviewed representatives of the Commission on Law Enforcement
Accreditation, which accredits hundreds of state and local police departments throughout the
country, concerning their standards for hiring and psychological and background screening of
law enforcement applicants and reviewed copies of the accreditation standards in those areas. It
also interviewed representatives of the IACP and the American Psychological Association, as
well as two psychologists whose duties include serving as pre-employment screening consultants
to several federal and state law enforcement agencies, concerning the efficacy of psychological
screening, in general, and attempts to screen for attitudes of racism and other forms of bias, in
particular. The Review also interviewed Dr. Jane Barsaloux, Chief of the Validation And
Analysis Unit of the DEA, a psychologist who is responsible for DEA's recent implementation
of a preemployment psychological screening program for its Criminal Investigators. The Policy
Review also examined the recommendations of the numerous studies on bias and policing with
respect to their recommendations on hiring and screening criteria.
Training
The Review interviewed an Assistant Director at FLETC concerning the entry-level
training it provides to all Treasury law enforcement officers on diversity issues and ethics. The
Review reviewed the syllabi and lesson plans for the entry-level training courses on those
subjects; it also examined a list of advanced course offerings and resources available through
FLETC.
The Review queried each of the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus concerning inser;ice and other training they offer to or require for their law enforcement officers on bias and
ethics issues and examined course materials for such training. The Review also examined
handouts, newsletters, business plans, and brochures used by Treasury Bureaus to update and
inform persoIll1el on ethics standards.
The Review also informally inter,iewed approximately two dozen Treasury law
enforcement officers at random concerning their recollection of entrv-Ievel and other trainin2:
-
36
~
~,
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0) Boys Roundup Policy Review
and their beliefs concerning the standards of conduct expected of them by the Treasury
Department, as these pertained to issues presented by the Roundups.
Evaluation and Promotion
The Review reviewed the standard evaluation forms and performance criteria used by the
Enforcement Bureaus for the various categories of law enforcement officers they employed to
determine whether and how issues of bias, tolerance of and respect for diversity, cross-cultural
sensitivity, professionalism, and ethics are evaluated.
Analysis and Recommendations
Drawing upon all of the foregoing resources, the Review met regularly with Office of
Enforcement officials to formulate a range of policy options for consideration. These options
were submitted to the members of the Citizens Review Panel and the Office of Policy
Development of the Office of Enforcement for review. Comments received from both these
groups were considered carefully and, where necessary, additional legal research and policy
analysis were performed. Once the options were narrowed, they were again circulated for
comment to the Citizens Review Panel, as well as to the heads of each of the Treasury Law
Enforcement Bureaus, the General Counsel's office, and to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
of the Treasury. The Recommendations set forth in this Report are the result of this collaborative
process.
37
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Revie)'t'
38
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER THREE
THE ALLEGATIONS
As noted above, the allegations concerning misconduct by federal, state, and local law
enforcement officers at the Roundups first surfaced publicly on July 11, 1995. 31 The following
day, the Washington-based television investigative program "I-Team," which had been
broadcasting a series of programs critical of the A TF, aired a segment on the Roundups. 32
Featured was a videotape showing a sign with the inscription "Nigger>3 Checkpoint" in large
letters and announcing, among other epithets, "Niggers--I7 cents a pound"; an anonymous law
enforcement officer charged that this sign had been posted at the entrance of the Roundup to
maintain its "whites only" status. The program also included an interview with a member of the
Gadsden Minutemen,34 who claimed to have infiltrated the 1995 Roundup and found wide-scale
evidence of overt racism, including the distribution of "Nigger Hunting Licenses" and the sale of
T-shirts showing, for example, a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King superimposed on a target, and
a drawing of 0.1. Simpson with a noose around his neck.
In the weeks that followed, various other newspaper and magazine articles, television
programs, and individuals alleged that members of federal and state law enforcement, including
Treasury law enforcement officers, had participated over the last sixteen years in similar
Roundups organized by a former ATF agent and supervisor, Eugene Rightmyer. 35 The initial
31Seper, supra note 1, at AI.
32Videotape on file.
33Readers are warned that they are likely to find offensive language and activities described
throughout this Report. Such material is contained in the Report to provide as complete and
accurate an account as possible of the conduct alleged and/or found to have been committed at
the Roundups and to permit the reader to form his or her own judgment concerning the nature of
those activities based upon the behavior itself and not upon a sanitized version of it.
34The Gadsden Minutemen is a militia organization based in Gadsden, Alabama. The group is
critical of federal gun control laws and of the ATF for its role in enforcing those laws. See David
Jackson & Cara Tanamachi, Treasury inquiry targets all-white parties, DALLAS MORNING NEWS.
July 18, 1995 at 3A.
'
35See, e.g., Seper, supra note 1, at AI, col. 1; THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 13, 1995, at AI8.
col. 1; THE WASHINGTON POST, July 14, 1995, at A5, col. 1; THE WASHINGTON POST, july 18, .
39
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Rel'ielt'
allegations focused primarily upon racist speech and conduct including, without limitation. the
attempt to exclude African Americans from attendance, the verbal harassment of those who did
attend. the posting of the "Nigger Checkpoint" sign at the Roundup entrance. the distribution of
"Nigger-Hunting Licenses," the performance ofa "Redneck of the Year" skit portraying a robed
Ku Klux Klansman sodomizing a kneeling individual in blackface, the display of Confederate
flags, and the sale and wearing of T-shirts portraying acts of violence against and otherwise
demeaning African Americans.
Ten days after the original allegations made the news, the scope of the alleged
misconduct expanded when, during Judiciary Committee hearings on the Roundups, Senators
Hatch and Feinstein indicated that the Senate judiciary Committee had received affidavits
describing illegal drug use and multiple rapes at the Roundups.36 The Committee later provided
these affidavits to the Inspector General. The Committee noted that it had not had the
opportunity to verify these allegations or to assess the credibility of the affiants.
Witnesses also testified at the hearings that the Roundups included performances by paid
strippers, excessive use of alcohol, fistfights, lewd conduct, and sexual harassment. For
example, male agents were alleged to have hidden naked in trees to jump on and grope women
who passed undemeath. 37
In addition to the allegations of other forms of misconduct, the original charges of racism
were further elaborated during the hearings. For example, the Judiciary Committee heard
evidence from an African-American ATF agent and his white partner. These agents testified that
the African-American agent attended the 1995 Roundup at the invitation of his white partner;
both agents, as well as an African-American officer from a Tennessee local police department,
left after a group of local police officers in attendance called the African-American police officer
1995, at AI, col. 1; THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 19, 1995. at A12, col. 1; THE NEW YORK TIMES,
July 20, 1995. at A 16, col. 1; THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 22, 1995, at AI, col. 1; THE
WASH{;\jGTO?\, POST, July 22, 1995, at AI. col. 1; THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, july 22, 1995, at
A3, col. 1; THE Los A1\'GELES TIMES, July 22, 1995, at AI, col. 1.
36Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 92-96; see also Charles Pope, Senators ask how a racist fest
endured. THE PHILADELPHIA I~QCIRER, July 22, 1995, at A3: Jerry Seper,
to probe possible
rape. drug use at 'Roundup'. THE WASHINGTON TIMES, july 22, 1995, at Al [hereinafter, Seper,
Possible Rape): THE \\'ASHI~GTO~ POST, July 22, 1995, at AI, col. 1: THE Los A~GELES TIMES.
July 22. 1995. at A L col. 1: THE BOSTO); GLOBE, July 22, 1995, at AI.
u.s.
3~Senate
40
TI.. supra note 24, at 168,189: Seper. Possible Rape, supra note 36, at AI.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
a "nigger" and berated the white ATF agent for "ruining" the Roundup by bringing "niggers" to
the event. 38
From the outset, the allegations have also included charges of misuse of government
resources in organizing the Roundups. For example, the article originally breaking the story
reported that the ATF's Greenville, South Carolina, office was used as a collection point and
location for registration fees and telephone inquiries. 39 Other articles specifically alleged that
Gene Rightmyer, a former supervisory agent in ATF's Knoxville, Tennessee field office and the
principal organizer of the Roundups, had used ATF stationery, envelopes and resources to
promote the event. 40 Senator Fred Thompson, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
expressed outrage concerning reports that ATF agents had "participated in and perhaps organized
the Roundups while on duty."41
In addition, Director Magaw testified before Congress that ATF officials learned of the
Roundups soon after their inception in 1980 and should have been aware that African-American
law enforcement officers "would not have felt welcome there," yet failed to investigate or
intervene. 42 Senator Arlen Specter, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also expressed
concern that Treasury Department attorneys had failed to investigate or pass on to management
the substance of deposition testimony in a civil rights suit by African- American agents against
the ATF in which the Roundups had been cited as an example of racist attitudes within the
agency.43 This led to allegations that ATF management had either ignored or condoned racism at
38Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 182-92, 211-20; Seper, Possible Rape, supra note 36, at AI.
The white agent testified that he did not leave on the night of the incident with the two African
American officers, but waited until six o'clock the following morning before he departed. Senate
Tr., supra note 24, at 141.
39Seper, supra note 1, at AI.
40Jerry Seper, ATF Ignored Tales of 'Roundup, ' THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 14, 1995, at
Al (also alleging that Rightmyer was admonished in 1988 for use of ATF property to promote
the Roundups).
41Jerry Seper, Armey up in arms over ATF racism, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 13, 1995;
Sam Fulwood III, Investigation ofATF Whites-Only Retreat Sought, Los ANGELES TIMES, July
14,1995, at A4.
42Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 140, 158-59; see also Abramowitz, Early 'Roundup'
Allegations Were Ignored by ATF Officials, THE WASHINGTON POST, July 22, 1995, at AI.
43Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 75-77; Abramowitz, supra note 42, at AI.
41
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
the event and to demands from Congress that Treasury investigate whether the conduct alleged to
have occurred at the Roundups was symptomatic of a culture of tolerance for racist conduct
within Treasury Department law enforcement agencies.""'""'
These allegations dictated the scope of the present Policy Review. As the Review learned
the preliminary factual findings of the Inspector General, the focus was narrowed. Nevertheless.
the Recommendations of this Review seek to ensure that no Treasury law enforcement officer
ever participates in the conduct alleged above.
""'""'Transcript of Hearings before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee,
July 14, 1995, B-14-18, at 1 (Remarks of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun) [hereinafter "7114/95
Senate Tr.·,]: Senate Tr.. supra note 24, at 35, 39-40 (remarks of Senator Specter), 41-44 (Senator
Heflin), 48-49 (Senator Feinstein, proposing possible solution of statutory code of conduct for
military and federal law enforcement personnel), 63-66 (Senator Grassley), 77-80 (Senator
DeWine): Abramowitz. supra note 42, at A2: Jerry Seper. ATF Ignored Tales of 'Roundup,' THE
\\'ASH1~GTO~ T1:'1ES. July 14. 1995. at AI.
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Section II
Disciplinary Policies
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER FOUR
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE PROCESS
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
The appointment and discipline of Treasury law enforcement officers is governed by the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (the Act).45 The Act embodies the first major reform of the
federal civil service system since 1883, when the political patronage ofthe "spoils system" was
abolished. It delineates a merit-based competitive system for the appointment and retention of
career federal employees and the substantive and procedural rights of employees who face
disciplinary actions. The Act also codifies the procedural requirements that federal agencies
must follow when imposing serious disciplinary sanctions.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) was established under the Act as an
independent, quasi-judicial administrative agency. It consists of three members who are
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for nonrenewable terms of seven years.
The MSPB replaced the Civil Service Commission as the body charged with adjudicating
appeals by federal workers and applicants from disciplinary or other adverse personnel actions. 46
This adjudicative authority is in practice delegated by the MSPB to administrative judges
stationed in regional offices throughout the country. The administrative judge develops a record
and issues an initial or recommended decision, which becomes final. If a petition for review is
filed by one of the parties, the MSPB will review the case. If the employee is part of a
bargaining unit, the employee is entitled to file a grievance that is heard by an arbitrator pursuant
to the terms ofthe applicable negotiated grievance procedure.
45
5 U.S.c. §§ 1101-7703 (1995).
46 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513, 7701. An employee can appeal a removal, suspension for more than
14 days, a reduction in grade or payor furlough for 30 days or less. Personnel disputes reach the
MSPB in one of two fashions: either the employee contesting an adverse action brings an
individual appeal to the MSPB or an independent Special Counsel, established by the Act to
investigate and prosecute prohibited personnel practices and employment discrimination, and
other violations of law within the federal civil service, petitions the MSPB for "corrective action"
against an agency or employee engaged in such practices. 5 U.S.c. § 1214(b)(l)(B).
45
Department of the Treasur:v Report of the Good 0' Bo}'s Roundup Policy Review
Decisions of the MSPB or an arbitrator may be appealed to the federal COurtS. 47 Since
1982, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been vested \vith exclusive
jurisdiction over appeals from MSPB decisions in disciplinary actions under the Act. 48 The
government may appeal from an MSPB decision adverse to an agency only if (i) the Director of
OPM (Director) first requests the Board to reconsider its decision and the request has been
denied; and (ii) the Director has determined that the decision is based on an erroneous
interpretation of law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel management and that the decision
will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation or policy directive. The
Court of Appeals has discretion to grant any such petition by the Director. 49
Despite the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from MSPB
determinations in disciplinary matters, if an employee alleges that an adverse action was based
on discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, the employee may appeal
unfavorable decisions of the MSPB to another federal court as provided in the relevant act. 50 In
such "mixed cases" in which federal courts other than the Federal Circuit review appeals in
which an employee requests review of an MSPB decision on the merits and on the basis of a
discrimination charge, the courts must apply the same standard of review to the merits of the
adverse action as that applied by the Federal Circuit. 5 I
47
5 U,S.c. § 7703.
48
5 U,S,c. §§ 7121(f); 7703(b)(l), Prior to the enactment ofthe Federal Courts
Improvement Act of 1982 (FCIA), which became effective on October 1, 1982, MSPB decisions
were appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the petitioner's domicile, The
FCIA vested exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the MSPB in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 5 U.S,c. §7703 (b)(l); Long v. Dept. ofAir Force, 751 F.2d 339
(lOth Cir. 1984); Carroll v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 703 F,2d l388 (Fed. Cir.
1983), While the decisions of the other federal circuit courts are not binding on the MSPB or the
Federal Circuit, they remain persuasive authority and are included in this discussion when
relevant.
49
5 U,S.c. § 7703( d),
See 5V,S.C. §7702(a)(l); 5 U.S.c. §7703(2). See also Williams v. Dept. of the Army,
715 F.2d 1485 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(finding that the Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction over
"mixed cases" in which a federal employee challenges an adverse action both on the merits and
as an impermissible act of discrimination).
50
5 U.S.c. §7703(c). In rare instances in which employees charge that their
constitutional rights haye been yiolated by prohibited personnel practices for which there is no
51
.+6
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Procedural Requirements for the Imposition of Employee Discipline
Both procedural requirements and appeal rights involving federal employee disciplinary
actions are dependent upon two principal factors: (i) the severity of the discipline imposed and
(ii) whether the employee is a member of a collective bargaining unit.
Most Criminal Investigators are prohibited by Executive Order from being a member of a
collective bargaining unit. However, some Treasury law enforcement officers, such as Customs
appeal to the MSPB, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
permitted employees and applicants to vindicate their constitutional rights through suits against
their supervisors and employing agencies through direct suit in federal district court for
injunctive relief, but not for damages. See Hubbard v. EPA, 949 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir.
1991 )(providing injunctive relief to an employment applicant rejected for employment because
of protected speech activities in a prior job); Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir.
1988)(finding that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 precludes damages claims but not
injunctive relief for employees and applicants, such as Hubbard, seeking vindication of
constitutional rights not otherwise sufficiently protected by the administrative remedies provided
in the Act).
The District of Columbia Circuit appears to be alone in this position, however. Other
circuits have refused to create a judicial alterative to the administrative remedies provided in the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). See, e.g., Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 &
n.27 (9th Cir. 1991 )(finding that the CSRA provides injunctive relief by permitting employees to
petition the Office of the Special Counsel of the MSPB to seek a stay of a prohibited personnel
practice; noting that the D.C. Circuit Court differs from other circuits in providing an alternative
equitable remedy); Hallock v. Moses, 731 F.2d 754 (11 th Cir. 1984)(dismissing constitutional
claim for equitable relief); Braun v. United States, 707 F.2d 922 (6th Cir.), cert denied sub nom,
Hardrich v. United States, 464 U.S. 991 (1983)(dismissing claims for equitable relief under 5
U.S.C. §702); Broadway v. Block, 694 F.2d 979, 986 (5th Cir. 1982)(holding that minor
personnel actions are "committed to agency discretion by law" within meaning of 5 U.S.c.
§70 1(a)(2), precluding judicial review).
With these two limited exceptions, the sole venue for federal employee discipline appeals
since the enactment of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 is the Federal Circuit. See
generally, Brockmann v. Dept. a/the Air Force, 27 F.3d 544, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
47
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Inspectors, are typically represented by federal employee unions and may therefore have
procedural rights that are different from those applicable to Treasury's Criminal Investigators. s:
Disciplinary Suspensions (Suspensions of 14 Days or Less)
When the agency initiates a disciplinary action to suspend an employee for fourteen days
or less, it must comply with the following procedures:
(i)The agency must provide the employee with a written notice setting forth the
charges proposed against the employee as well as the facts supporting the charges.
The agency must also inform the employee that she or he has the right to review
the material the agency relied upon to support the reasons for the proposed action
stated in the notice;
(ii)The agency must allow the employee a reasonable amount of time within
which to review the material relied on to support its proposal and to respond
orally and in writing to the charges;
(iii)The agency must permit the employee to be represented by an attorney or
other representative at the employee's own expense;
(iv)The agency must provide the employee with written notice of its final decision
as well as the reasons for the decision at the earliest practicable date; and
(v)In arriving at its decision, the agency cannot consider any reasons for the action
other than those specified in the notice of proposed action. It must also consider
any answer provided by the employee. 53
52Executive Order 12171.44 F. R. 06565 (]979), reprinted as amended in 5 USc. 7103
(1995), issued pursuant to 5 U.S.c. § 7103 (b)(l), finds that the employees of the following
agencies or subdivisions of the Department of the Treasury do primarily investigative work
directly affecting national security and thus should not be in a bargaining unit status: United
States Secret Service; United States Secret Service Uniformed Division; Office of Special
Assistant to the Secretary (National Security); Office oflntelligence Support (OIS); Office ofthe
Assistant Secretary (Enforcement); Office of Criminal Enforcement, ATF; Office of
Investigations, Customs; and the Criminal Investigation Division, IRS. Additionally, "any
employee primarily engaged in investigation or audit functions relating to the work of
individuals employed by an agency whose duties directly affect the internal security of the
agency" can be removed from coverage if dealing with integrity and honesty issues by 5 U.S.c.
§ 7112 (b)(7).
53
48
5 U.S.c. § 7503
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
An employee may not appeal a suspension of fourteen days or less to the MSPB.
However, the employee is entitled to file a grievance through the agency's administrative
grievance system or, if the employee is a bargaining unit member, to file a grievance pursuant to
the terms of the negotiated grievance procedure. 54 The decision of an arbitrator in such a
a case may be appealed to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).55
Adverse Disciplinary Actions
The procedures enumerated above for imposing disciplinary suspensions of fourteen days
or less also apply to adverse actions. Adverse actions are defined to include removals,
suspensions for more than fourteen days, and reductions in grade or pay.56 However, in cases
involving adverse actions, the employee is entitled to additional advance notice before the
agency can impose disciplinary sanctions, and the employee has the right to appeal. Generally,
the agency may not impose disciplinary sanctions until at least thirty days after the employee
receives notice of the proposed sanctions. The employee generally is entitled to remain in a duty
status in his or her regular position during the advance notice period. An exception to the thirtyday advance notice period applies when the agency contends that the employee has committed a
54Employees may also file complaints of discrimination pursuant to regulations
promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if they believe that any action
taken against them was based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,
handicapping condition, or in retaliation for having participated in activities protected by the
various civil rights statutes. See generally, 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (1995).
55Decisions of the FLRA on appeals of arbitrators' awards are by their very nature of
extremely limited precedential value. The FLRA has consistently held that in cases of
arbitrators' decisions involving disciplinary actions which can be appealed to the FLRA
(admonishments, reprimands, suspensions of fourteen days or less), it is for the arbitrator to
determine whether the penalty was for such just cause as required by the parties' collective
bargaining agreement and, if so, whether the penalty assessed was reasonable. See e.g., Dept. of
Veterans Affairs and International Association of Machinists, 45 FLRA 1164 (1992); Social
Security Administration and AFGE, 32 FLRA 765 (1988). Thus, its decisions would only be
binding on the specific signatories to the agreement. Further, any such decision would depend
on the specific language of the relevant sections of the collective bargaining agreement in
question. Accordingly, we have not included FLRA decisions on appeals of arbitration cases in
this report.
56 5 U.S.C. § 7513; 5 C.F.R. § 752.401, et seq (1995).
49
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Reviell'
crime punishable by imprisonment. 57 In cases where there is reasonable cause to believe an
employee has committed a crime punishable by imprisonment, suspension is acceptable. 58
Standards of Proof under the Act
The "Efficiency of the Service" Standard
The Act provides that federal agencies may impose serious disciplinary sanctions
(suspensions, demotions, or removals) upon employees who have completed their probationary
periods only "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service."59 Less serious
disciplinary sanctions, such as reprimands and admonishments, are not covered by this statutory
standard.
Although the Act does not define the term, the "efficiency of the service" standard drives
all government-employee disciplinary actions. Congress left it to the discretion of the
governmental agency, subject to the appeal rights 60 described below to determine when a
disciplinary action is warranted to promote "the efficiency of the service." In essence, the MSPB
and federal courts have held that disciplinary actions promote the efficiency of the service if the
57
5 U.S.c. § 7513.
58
5 U.S.c. § 7513(b)(l).
U.S.c. §§ 7503, 7513 (emphasis added). See also 5 U.S.c. § 2302(b)(lO) (prohibiting
discrimination in personnel actions for or against any employee or applicant on the basis of
conduct "which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the
performance of others .... "). The Act establishes a different standard for disciplinary actions
taken against administrative law judges, employees of national security agencies and members of
the Senior Executive Sen·ice. 5lJ.S.C. §§ 7521-7543.
59 5
6°Bo)1an ,'. C. S. Postal Service. 704 F.2d 573 (11 th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S.
939 (1984); Adkins V. Hampton. 586 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1978).
50
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
grounds for the action are sufficiently related either to the employee's ability to accomplish his or
her duties in a satisfactory fashion,61 or to some other legitimate governmental interest. 62
If an employee challenges the disciplinary sanctions that have been imposed by an
agency, the agency must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the action in issue
promotes the "efficiency of the service." This burden may be met by the agency upon proving
(i) that the employee committed the acts of misconduct charged by the agency; (ii) that a
sufficient "nexus" exists between the misconduct and the efficiency of the service to sustain the
disciplinary action; and (iii) that the specific discipline imposed was reasonable and selected only
after consideration of all relevant factors. 63
An agency is not required either under the Act, or by the MSPB or the federal courts, to
allege that an employee has broken specific rules before disciplining the employee for
misconduct. Moreover, there is no statutory or other legal requirement that federal employees
must have violated a specific written rule or policy before they may be disciplined. 64 An agency
may not impose disciplinary sanctions for violation of its rules or policies, however, unless the
agency can prove the effect of the rule violation upon the "efficiency of the service." Thus, it is
essential for the agency to prove conduct that is detrimental to governmental efficiency in every
employee disciplinary action.
61Most appellate decisions reviewing agency disciplinary actions do not attempt to define
the tenn in the abstract; rather, they detennine on an ad hoc basis where the agency has made a
sufficient showing that its actions will promote the efficiency of the service under the facts of a
particular case. PETER BROIDA, A GUIDE TO MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
LAW & PRACTICE 827 (1994)[hereinafter BROIDA].
Hatfieldv. Department of the Interior, 28 M.S.P.R. 673 (1 985)(upholding removal
after erroneous appointment in order to protect the competitive process for civil service
appointments) .
62
63 Parsons v. Department of the Air Force, 707 F.2d 1406,1409 (D.C. Cir. 1983);
Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M. S.P .R. 280 (1981). The Douglas factors discussed in
this chapter are the standards that the MSPB requires agencies to consider when detennining the
appropriate penalty for a particular instance of misconduct.
64 Boyer v. Dept. of the Navy, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 12956 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(unpublished - Table Case Cite at 56 F.3d 84)(citing Mings v. Dept. of Justice, 813 F.2d 384,
389-90 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Fontes v. Dept. of Transportation, 51 M.S.P.R. 655 (1991).
51
Department of the Treaswy Report of the Good 0' Bo}'s Roundup Policy Review
The "1\'exus" Requirement
Under the Act agencies are prohibited from imposing disciplinary sanctions for conduct
unless it is ""for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. "65 This evidentiary
requirement commonly is referred to as the "nexus" requirement. The MSPB and the federal
courts have held that to promoted the "efficiency ofthe service,": an agency action must: (i)
establish a nexus between the misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and (ii) impose
disciplinary sanctions that are reasonable in light of the gravity of the conduct and any
mitigating considerations. 66
Nexus And On-Duty Misconduct
The MSPB and the Federal Circuit generally have not required the agency to establish a
nexus between an employee's conduct and the "efficiency of the service" when evaluating onduty conduct. There is often a presumption that disruption of the office occurred where sanctions
65
5 U.S.c. §§ 7503(a), 7513(a). See also 5 U.S.c. § 2302:
(a)(2) For the purpose of this section-(A) "personnel action" means-(iii) an action under chapter 75 of this title or other
disciplinary or corrective action;
(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or
approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority
(10) discriminate for or against any employee or
applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which
does not adversely affect the performance of the employee
or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into
account in determining suitability for fitness any conviction of
the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any
State, ofthe District of Columbia, or ofthe United States .... "
One commentator has noted that "the MSPB and the courts have had extraordinary
problems with nexus. The best approach in revieVv1ng these cases is to review them all and
anempt to pick out bits and pieces of opinions that apply to a particular set of facts. This is
because the holdings regarding nexus are so varied and broadly stated. There are no hard and
fast rules.'" BROIDA. supra note 66. at 877.
66
52
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
have been imposed for on-duty misconduct. In most instances, the agency is not required even to
produce any actual evidence of the nexus between the misconduct and the "efficiency of the
service."67 Thus, nexus is rarely an issue when disciplinary sanctions have been imposed for
conduct such as misuse or theft of government resources, failure to report the misconduct of
others, use of insulting or derogatory language, sexual misconduct, or sexual harassment that
occurs on the job. 68 For example, the MSPB and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit have found sufficient nexus to support disciplinary actions in cases involving the
use of racial epithets69 and verbal or physical sexual harassment,70 where such conduct occurred
in the work place or toward a co-worker.
67See, e.g., Kum/erman v. Dept. a/the Navy, 19 M.S.P.R. 5 (1984); Gray v. Dept. a/the
Army, 12 M.S.P.R. 639 (1982).
68See, e.g., Bivens v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 8 Board 139,8 M.S.P.R. 458 (1981)
(stating that there was no doubt but that the employees' unauthorized removal, storage and use of
government property adversely affected the efficiency of the service); Watson v. Department of
Justice, Doct. No. 94-3440 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 1995) (upholding the agency's removal of a
border patrol agent, and finding nexus between the efficiency of the service and the employee's
failure to report a coworker's violation of a rule concerning the misuse of firearms), McClaskey v.
Dept. of Energy, 720 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1983)(affirming removal of agency electrician for
"knowingly participating in a plan to prevent Government investigators from leaming the truth
about the unauthorized acquisition and use of wire paid for by the Bonneville Power
Administration") .
69See, e.g., Henry v. Dept. of the Navy, 902 F.2d 949 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(upholding removal
of payroll technician for insubordination including using abusive language toward a supervisor);
Johnson v. Dept. ofJustice, 65 M.S.P.R. 46 (1994)(upholding demotion of supervisory
correctional officer for disrespectful conduct and using abusive language toward a co-worker).
70Curry v. Dept. of the Navy, 13 M.S.P.R. 327 (1982)(upholding demotion of shipyard
foreman for denigrating a female apprenticeship program; though the isolated incident did not
violate Title VII standards the remarks were "subversive of good order, efficiency, and
discipline"); Howard v. Dept. ofAir Force, 877 F. 2d 952 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(upholding removal of
medical machine technician for offensive and unwelcome sexually suggestive conduct which
impacted colleagues' work habits and threatened their psychological well-being); Alexander v.
Us. Postal Service, M.S.P .B. Docket No. SF075-94-0600-1-1 (March 24, 1995) (upholding the
removal of a supervisory maintenance operator for numerous specifications of harassment of a
verbal and physical nature of a female subordinate employee); Morrison v. National Aeronautic
& Space Admin., 65 M.S.P.R. 348 (1994)(upholding 35-day suspension of an electronics
engineer who had 148 unauthorized files generating sexually explicit images on his computer
and allowed one of them to be shown to a female colleague).
53
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Nexus And Off-Duty Misconduct
It is often difficult for a federal agency to establish a nexus between off-duty misconduct
and the "efficiency of the service," because it is often less likely to affect the direct job
performance of an employee. In this area, the MSPB will not conclude that the requisite nexus
exists in off-duty misconduct cases without affirmative evidence of such a nexus.
The MSPB first outlined the means by which an agency can establish nexus in an
appeal from a disciplinary action brought for off-duty misconduct in Merritt v. Department of
Justice,71 shortly after the enactment of the Act. In Merritt, a Bureau of Prisons Correctional
Officer was removed for off-duty use of a small quantity of marijuana in his home, including one
instance in which he shared the controlled substance with fellow employees. The correctional
officer argued that his removal did not promote the "efficiency ofthe service." The agency
contended that his use of marijuana destroyed their ability to trust him to enforce rigorously the
prison's contraband regulations and caused concern that he might be subject to blackmail or other
pressures by inmates who learned of his in"discretion. 72
According to the MSPB, "the issue of when off-duty misconduct may justify disciplinary
action involves the historically perplexing question of how such misconduct must
relate to the 'efficiency of the service' before action may be warranted" and "the impact on
[the "efficiency of the service"] standard of a statutory provision newly enacted by the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 ... , which now [makes] it a prohibited personnel practice to take a
personnel action on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the
71
6 M.S.P.R. 585 (1981) 6 M.S.P.B. 493 (1981).
In Merritt, the MSPB overturned the officer's dismissal, holding that there was no nexus
between the officer's off-duty marijuana use and the efficiency ofthe service. The continued
vitality of this ruling is in doubt in light of the holding of subsequent cases recognizing the nexus
implicit in a law enforcement officer's illegal use of controlled substances. See, e. g., Thompson
v. Dept ofJustice, 51 M S.P.R. 43 (1991)(deciding that removal was justified because DWI
conviction and possession of marijuana disqualified a correctional officer from 1973
Rehabilitation Act mitigation consideration because it "struck at the core of his job and the
agency's mission"); Kruger v. Dept ofJustice, 32 M.S.P.R. 71 (1987) (finding nexus for
discipline of a correctional officer for using marijuana outside a local tavern because the agency
was charged with enforcing the nation's drug laws and drug rehabilitation programs and the
employee's actions, which were antithetical to the agency's mission, could impair the efficiency
of the agency by undermining public confidence despite the fact that his act was not publicized).
Nevertheless, .Merritt continues to be cited by the MSPB for its analysis of the three avenues for
proving nexus.
72
54
Department of the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
employee or the performance of others. ,m Noting that the Act's "efficiency of the service"
standard was effectively a Congressional reenactment of a previously existing standard, the
MSPB turned to earlier case law for instruction concerning the meaning of the term and the
standard of proof required. 74
The MSPB's examination in Merritt of the case law relating to nexus disclosed two
different approaches to the issue. One method was exemplified by the Court of Claims decision
in Wathen v. United States, 75 which adopted a limited "hands off' approach to judicial review of
an agency's claim of a connection or nexus between disciplining an employee for off-duty
misconduct and the "efficiency of the service." The MSPB observed that the courts adopting this
approach gave substantial deference to administrative decisionmaking of the governmental
employer: 76
In our estimation, the agencies and the Civil Service Commission are far better
equipped and in a better position to make these sensitive judgments of whether
and how a discharge promotes efficiency of the service. It is their prerogative, not
ours, to do SO.77
In contrast, the MSPB cited the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in Norton v.
Macy,78 as illustrative of a second approach, requiring closer judicial scrutiny of the purported
nexus between off-duty misconduct and governmental efficiency.79 Here, the court emphasized
the importance of the limitations placed on agencies by the "efficiency of the service" standard:
73Merritt, 6 M.S.P.B. at 493.
74Id. at 495.
75
527 F.2d 1191 (Ct.Cl.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 827 (1976).
76Merritt. 6 M.S.P.B. at 496.
77
Id. at 496 n.1l (quoting Wathen, 527 F. 2d at 1197-98).
78
417 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
79Merritt, 6M.S.P.B.at498. In Gueoryv. Hampton. 510F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1974),
which involved the removal of a postal employee convicted of manslaughter, the Norton
approach was qualified and refined. In Gueory the concept that "such a serious crime
[manslaughter] supplies the requisite nexus even without a showing of an explicit deleterious
effect on the 'efficiency of the service '" was introduced.
55
Department of the TreaswT Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Poli(v Review
"[T]he notion that it could be an appropriate function of the federal bureaucracy to
enforce the majority's conventional codes of conduct in the private lives of its
employees is at war with elementary concepts of liberty, privacy, and diversity.
And whatever we may think of the Government's qualifications to act in loco
parentis in this way, the statute precludes it from discharging protected employees
except for a reason related to the efficiency of the service."80
For the MSPB, Norton "represented the cutting edge of the decade-long trend toward
judicial insistence that federal employee discharges for off-duty misconduct must be related to
the efficiency of the service."81 Lending itself to this view was the MSPB's consideration of
whether the inclusion of Section 2302(b)(1 O)'s prohibition of discrimination resulting from
conduct unrelated to job performance added anything to the "efficiency of the service" standard.
MSPB concluded that the enactment of section 2302(b)(1 0) constituted "Congressional approval
ofthe trend in judicial interpretation of the efficiency ofthe service standard ... toward closer
scrutiny of nexus determinations made by agencies. "82
Based on its analysis in Merritt, the MSPB has announced three methods by which
an agency could establish the necessary nexus to link an employee's off-duty misconduct to the
"efficiency ofthe service":
(i) a rebuttable presumption of nexus arising in certain egregious circumstances,
generally involving serious criminal conduct;
(ii) a sho\\'ing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct has adversely
affected the job performance of the employee or the employee's colleagues or the
agency's trust and confidence in the employee's job performance;
or
(iii) a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct interferes with
or adversely affects the agency's mission. 83
Egregious Circumstances Resulting in Presumption of Nexus
The MSPB and federal courts infer nexus when the employee's off-duty conduct is
egregious. Employees may rebut the presumption of nexus by demonstrating not only that their
8°Jlerritt, 6 M.S.P.B. at 499 (quoting Norton, 417 F.2d at 1165).
SIJd. at 505.
82 Jd. at 508.
83 Kruger I'. Dept. o.f Justice. 32 M.S.P.R. 71 (1987); .Moten v. G~ S P. S, 42 M.S.P.R.
282 (1989). See also Ro:rster 1'. Dept. of Justice. 58 M.S.P.R. 495 (1993).
56
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
off-duty conduct will not interfere with or adversely affect their own performance, but also that
their off-duty misconduct will not interfere with or adversely affect the job performance of their
colleagues or the overall achievement of their agency's mission. 84
The Federal Circuit has affirmed this presumption as a means of proving nexus in cases
involving egregious circumstances 85 and involving violent criminal conduct or other serious
conduct. Cases in which the Federal Circuit and the MSPB have found egregious conduct
sufficient to establish the presumption of nexus have generally involved serious
criminal activities, such as violent acts,86 child abuse,87 narcotics trafficking or substance
84The MSPB rarely reverses a presumptive finding of nexus. In one case, Broadnax v.
Us. Postal Service, 24 M.S.P.R. 319 (1984), the MSPB found that a letter carrier had rebutted a
presumption of nexus finding through a psychiatrist's testimony that his violent behavior, which
was caused by flashbacks associated with his service in Vietnam, was not likely to reoccur. In
addition, in contrast to other employees engaging in egregious behavior, Broadnax was never
charged with criminal misconduct. See also, Arthur v. Dept. ofArmy, 10 M.S.P.R. 239 (1982)
(fmding a disorderly conduct conviction insufficient to support a presumption of nexus); Vilt v.
Us. Marshals Service, 16 M.S.P.R. 192 (1983)(failure to pay debts insufficient to support a
presumption of nexus).
85Hayes v. Dept. of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Prior to the creation of the
Federal Circuit, a few of the other circuit courts questioned the propriety of the presumption
standard, suggesting that it allowed agencies to shirk their responsibility to prove their findings
by "substantial evidence." 5 U.S.c. 7703(c)(3). The most important decisions questioning the
presumption standard involved sexual misconduct. D.E. v. Dept. of the Navy, 721 F.2d 1164 (9th
Cir. 1983)(reversing removal of Naval engine mechanic for child molestation since off-duty
conduct cannot give rise to presumption of nexus and Navy failed to show a connection between
removal and the efficiency of the service). The MSPB has explicitly rejected the position of these
courts Johnson v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 22 M.S.P.R. 521, 526 (1984).
86Robinson v. Department of the Treasury, 42 M.S.P.R. 181 (1989)(holding felony
conviction arising out of assault with a deadly weapon warranted a presumption of nexus that
was not rebutted by a showing that the employee had performed successfully in her job during
the one-year period between her arrest and conviction).
87Allred v. Department of Health and Human Services, 786 F .2d 1128 (Fed. Cir.
1986)(holding a plea of nolo contendere to a felony count of child molestation arising out of a
sexual encounter with a 12-year-old boy was sufficiently egregious to raise a presumption of
nexus); Graybill v. United States Postal Service, 782 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 963 (1986) (finding misconduct involving child abuse and engaging in sexual intercourse
with a minor was sufficiently egregious to raise a presumption of nexus).
57
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Poli(v Review
abuse,
88
and falsification of records or fraud against the government. 89
Conduct Adversely Affecting Job Performance or Trust
Federal agencies may also establish a nexus between the efficiency of the service and
employee misconduct when the actions of their employees have a direct impact on the day to day
activities of the agency. Off-duty misconduct by federal employees may reflect poorly upon
their ability to perform their duties, affect the abilities of other employees to perform their
responsibilities, or impair the confidence reposed in them. When an agency attempts to establish
a nexus between conduct and "efficiency of service" by this method, an agency is not required to
prove an actual adverse impact on the employee's ability to perform specific
duties. Rather, it is sufficient for the agency to show that a meaningful risk of adverse impact
on the efficiency of the service exists due to the employee's misconduct. 90
Mings v. Department ofJustice 91 is typical of cases questioning the trustworthiness of an
employee or the impact of an employee's presence on the work environment and "efficiency of
the service." Mings, a Border Patrol officer for the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS),
was discharged after writing a letter to his supervisor that contained abusive language
disparaging Catholics and Hispanics and accused agency employees of incompetence. The
agency discharged the officer, on the grounds that his strong bias against Hispanics and Catholics
raised a serious question concerning his ability to perform his duties as a Border Patrol officer in
a fair and unbiased manner, particularly given that the majority of aliens with whom he was
88Brook v. Corrado. 999 F.2d 523 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(upholding removal of NASA
employee following conviction for selling cocaine); Parker v. Us. Postal Service, 819 F .2d 1113
(Fed. Cir. 1987)(upholding reversal for narcotics trafficking both on and off duty).
89See, e.g., Kissner v. Office of Personnel Management, 792 F.2d 133, 134 (Fed. Cir.
1986)(falsification of records, such as an employment application, is a type of misconduct from
which a nexus between the misconduct and the efficiency of the service is presumed); Crofoot v.
Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661,664 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(defrauding the government, if
proven by substantial evidence, is grounds for a presumption of nexus); Beardsley v. Dept. of
Defense. 55 M.S.P.R. 504 (1992)(upholding removal for falsification of employment application
information); Hutton v. Office of Personnell0anagement, 37 M.S.P.R. 67 (1988)(upholding
negative suitability rating for the same).
90See. e.g.. Spotti v. Dept. of the Air Force. 49 M.S.P.R. 27 (1991)(holding that by the use
of marijuana before coming to work and during lunch, an aircraft mechanic clearly raised the risk
that his intoxication might affect his ability to repair the guidance systems of the Minuteman
missile on v,hich he worked).
91
58
813 F .2d 3 84 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
working were of Hispanic descent. Furthennore, the agency asserted that the employee's
expressed antipathy toward his co-workers and supervisors would have a disruptive effect upon
the operation of the agency. Although Mings was also charged with threatening to change his
testimony in an INS case unless his son was hired by the Service, the Federal Circuit focused on
the bias charge in affinning his removal. The court held that the agency had established the
nexus between the employee's conduct and the "efficiency of the service." The court found that
the employee's bias against and intolerance of Catholics and Hispanics and his critical attitude
regarding his superiors and co-workers cast grave doubts on his ability to discharge his duties in
a fair and impartial manner. While the MSPB and the Federal Circuit rarely reverse a finding of
nexus based on adverse impact on employee perfonnance, they have been reluctant to accept
bald assertions of negative impact unsupported by substantial evidence."92
Conduct Antithetical to The Agency's Mission
Although off-duty misconduct may not bear a relationship to an employee's job
responsibilities or to the mission of an agency there are, instances where an employee's off duty
misconduct "mocks the mission" of an agency.93 Nexus may be proven in these cases by
demonstrating that the employee's off-duty conduct is antithetical to the agency's mission.
Agencies do not have to prove actual adverse impact on their efficiency in such cases, because
forcing agencies to postpone employee discipline until actual impainnent of their service
materializes would be contrary to the public interest. 94 Proof that the off-duty conduct conflicts
with the agency's mission suffices.
92In Moten v. U S. Postal Service, 42 M.S.P.R. 282 (1989), the Board reversed the
removal of a letter carrier convicted of statutory rape, finding that he was duped into a
consensual sexual relationship with a fourteen-year-old, and the agency presented no direct or
specific evidence suggesting that the conviction would affect Moten's perfonnance or the
perfonnance of his colleagues. In Stines v. Dept. ofJustice, 765 F.2d 156 (Fed. Cir.
1985)(unreported table case discussed in BRoIDA, supra, note 61, at 881), the Federal Circuit
reinstated a federal corrections officer, finding that an overblown newspaper story about a
confrontation with a local bar owner and the unsupported statement of the prison superintendent
that the officer had destroyed his credibility as a correctional worker were insufficient to support
a finding of nexus in light of the officer's strong service record. See also, Ahr v. Nelson, 632
F.Supp. 148 (S.D.Tex 1985), affd, 802 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1986).
93 Wild v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 692 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir. 1982).
94Kruger v. Dept. ofJustice, 32 M.S.P.R. 71 (1987); Morones v. Dept. ofJustice, 35
M.S.P.R. 285 (1987).
59
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy RevieH'
The Seventh Circuit's decision in Wild v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development is
typical of "adverse to the agency mission" cases. 95 A Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) appraiser was acting as the manager of apartments owned by his wife.
During the period of his management, the condition of the properties rapidly declined until they
became uninhabitable and were abandoned to neighborhood gangs that used them for narcotics
trafficking. Following complaints from neighborhood associations, Wild's superiors admonished
him either to repair or sell the apartments, but he did nothing for almost two years. Shortly after
a story in the Chicago Sun-Times revealed Wild's mismanagement, the properties were
condemned and he was dismissed from his job. The agency's basis for the dismissal was his
violation of the code of basic principles governing the conduct of HUD employees that
prohibited "involvement in or association with circumstances reasonably construed to reduce
p lic confidence in the acts or determinations of the Department."96 The court stated:
[W]here an employee's off duty behavior is blatantly inconsistent with the mission
of the employer and is known or likely to become known, most any employer,
public or private, however broadminded, would want to fire the employee and
would be reasonable in wanting to do so; and we find no evidence that Congress
intended to deny this right to federal agencies.
It may be replied that all Wild is asking is that the agency be forced to prove a
reduction of its efficiency due to off duty misconduct, rather than being allowed to
infer from the relation between the misconduct and the agency's mission. But
proof of that relation is the substantial evidence that the statute requires; to require
more proof would be unnecessary and unrealistic ... [W]e will not force HUD to
continue employing a "slumlord" in a responsible position until it can prove, by
the cumbersome methods of litigation, what ought to be obvious -- that the
credibility and effectiveness of the department are undermined by such
discordance between public duty and private conduct. 97
Noting the difficulty inherent in proving that a nonsupervisory employee's act of
misconduct undermined the efficiency of an organization as vast as HUD, the court held that
95
692 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir. 1982).
96
24 C.F.R. §0.735-201(b) (1995).
9~Wild,
60
692 F.2d at 1133 (emphasis added).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
such proof was not required in such cases: "We do not think it was the purpose of the Act to
make it impossible as a practical matter to get rid of a civil servant whose off-duty conduct is in
direct conflict with the mission of the agency that employs him. "98
The Federal Circuit embraced this reasoning in Allred v. Dept. of Health & Human
Services. 99 Allred was a supervisory cost accountant for the Department of Health and Human
Service (HHS). He pled no contest to charges of child molestation, stemming from a paid
encounter with a twelve-year-old boy. The MSPB concluded that his conduct was directly
opposed to the mission of the agency: administering health and social services to various
disadvantaged individuals--including children and victims of child abuse. The MSPB went on to
note that the victim of Allred's misconduct was among the beneficiaries ofthe agency's
programs. Thus, his conduct was clearly antithetical to the very programs he had responsibility
for monitoring and his removal was appropriate. The Federal Circuit affinned his removal.
Other instances of misconduct found antithetical to agency missions by the MSPB
include substance abuse by law enforcement officers,loo improper fraternization by law
enforcement officers with criminals or other wards of their responsibilities,lol and failure to pay
taxes by Treasury employees. 102
99786 F.2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
IOOSee, e. g., Thompson v. Dept. of Justice, 51 M.S.P.R. 43 (1991)(deciding that removal
was justified because driving while intoxicated conviction and possession of marijuana
disqualified a correctional officer from 1973 Rehabilitation Act mitigation consideration since it
struck "at the core of his job and the agency's mission"); Kruger v. Dept. of Justice, 32 M.S.P.R.
71 (1987)(finding nexus for discipline of a correctional officer for using marijuana outside of a
local tavern since the agency was charged with enforcing the nation's drug laws and the
employee's actions could impair the efficiency of the agency by undennining public confidence
despite the fact that his act was not publicized).
10lMorones v. Dept. ofJustice, 35 M.S.P.R. 285 (1 987)(upholding removal of an INS
Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer who was charged with having an improper
relationship with an illegal alien).
2
Crawford v. Dept. of Treasury, 56 M.S.P.R. 224 (1 993)(supervisory Mint police
officer); Micali v. Dept. of Treasury, 56 M.S.P.R. 127 (1992)(IRS Criminal Investigator) but see,
Monterosso v. Dept. of Treasury, 6 M.S.P.R. 684 (1981) (reversing removal of employee who
was in dire financial straits due to family medical expenses and failed to pay tax despite making
efforts to do so).
!0
61
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Reasonableness of the Penalty
Assuming that an agency has proved that the conduct in question occurred and that the
requisite nexus between that conduct and the "efficiency of the service" exists, the agency must
still show that the penalty imposed is reasonable. This burden entails a showing that the agency
imposed the penalty after giving due consideration to all the factors the MSPB has admonished
agencies to consider when determining the appropriate penalty for a particular incident of
misconduct. The MSPB enunciated these factors in Douglas v. Veterans Administration. 103
In Douglas, the MSPB stated that its role was not to substitute its judgment for the agency
in determining what disciplinary sanction is most appropriate, but rather to ensure that
the agency's decision or exercise of its discretion in this area fell within the bounds of
reasonableness:
Management of the federal work force and maintenance of discipline among-its members
is not the Board's function. Any margin of discretion available to the Board in reviewing
penalties must be exercised with appropriate deference to the primary discretion which has
been entrusted to agency management, not to the Board. Our role in this area, as in others,
is principally to assure that managerial discretion has been legitimately invoked and
properly exercised. 104
This approach to the review of an agency's selection of penalty, has been validated by the
Federal Circuit. 105 As the court stated, "[d]eference is given to the agency's judgement ... unless
the penalty is so harsh and unconscionably disproportionate to the offense that it amounts to an
abuse of discretion."106
The specific Douglas factors are:
(i) The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's job duties
(including whether the offense was intentional, was committed for gain, or was frequently
repeated);
103 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981).
104Id. at 328.
105 Beard v. GSA, 801 F .2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding abuse of discretion is the proper
standard for MSPB review of agency penalty decisions).
106Parker v. USP.S, 819 F.2d. 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
62
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
(ii) The employee's job level and type of employment, including supervisory or fiduciary
role, and contact with the public;
(iii) Past disciplinary record;
(iv) Past work record, length of service;
(v) Effect of the offense on supervisor's confidence in the employee's ability to perform the
job duties;
(vi) Consistency of penalty to these imposed similar situations;
(vii) Consistency of penalty with those called for inapplicable table of penalties;
(viii) Notoriety of the offense or impact on the agency's reputation;
(ix) Clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules which were violated or
warned about the conduct in question;
(x) Potential for employee's rehabilitation;
(xi) Mitigating circumstances, such as job tensions, harassment, provocation, etc.; and
(xii) The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative discipline. 107
Although an agency is required to consider relevant Douglas factors when determining
what penalty to impose in off-duty misconduct cases, the factors that the MSPB and Federal
Circuit appear to consider most closely include the employee's job level and type of employment,
the nature and seriousness of the offense, its notoriety, and the resulting effect on the supervisor's
confidence in the employee's ability to perform job duties. Cases describing the operation of two
of the factors are described for purposes of illustration.
There is no requirement that the employee's conduct in question must be a matter of public
knowledge to constitute notorious conduct (Douglas factor number viii). For
example, in Taylor v. Dept. of the Navy,108 the MSPB sustained the removal of an employee
convicted of manslaughter in the death of her son. Though the newspaper reports of the
conviction did not connect Taylor with her agency, the removal was reasonable since her conduct
was well known throughout her place of employment and her co-workers considered the conduct
disgraceful.
Finally, in considering the factor of a supervisor's trust and confidence in the employee,
the MSPB found in Dolezal v. Dept. of the Army, 109 that because the responsible agency officials
had lost trust in an SES employee's ability to exercise his professional judgment after he carried
out an adulterous relationship with a subordinate employee and used the agency electronic mail
107Dougias 15 M.S. P. B. at 332.
108
35 M.S.P.R. 438 (1987).
109
58 M.S.P.R. 64 (1993), aff'd, 22 F.3d 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
63
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' BOJ's Roundup Policy Review
system to write love notes, his removal was reasonable. In Schulmeister v. Dept. of the 111m),. //11
the agency removed an employee for off-duty possession of cocaine and methamphetamine. Her
position required an extraordinary degree of trust and confidence because defective work could
cause a catastrophic radiological accident. In sustaining her removaL the MSPB noted that her
conduct had severely undermined the agency's ability to repose trust and confidence in her.
In short, employees may be disciplined seriously for any misconduct that detracts from
the efficiency of the service. If the discipline is a suspension of more than two weeks, a
reduction in grade or pay, or removal, the employee may appeal to the MSPB. The MSPB, in
deciding these appeals, looks at whether the agency has proven the employee committed the
misconduct charged and whether the agency has shown a nexus between the misconduct and the
efficiency of the services. The MSPB also may mitigate the penalty after applying the Douglas
factors. The next chapter discusses how agencies are granted more discretion by the MSPB and
the courts in finding nexus and the Douglas factors when considering discipline of law
enforcement officers.
11
64
°46 M.S.P.R. 13 (1990).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER FIVE
THE HIGHER STANDARD OF CONDUCT APPLICABLE
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
The Higher Standard in Federal Employment Discipline Cases
When reviewing disciplinary sanctions that have been imposed against law enforcement
officers, the MSPB and the federal courts generally hold federal law enforcement officers to a
higher standard of conduct than that required of other federal employees. In some cases, the
authorities invoke the higher standard of conduct when they address the nexus between the
officer's conduct and the "efficiency of the service." In others, the authorities invoke it to justify
the imposition of higher disciplinary sanctions for law enforcement personnel than for other
employees. This chapter will describe the higher standard for law enforcement officers both in
the context of the civil service system.
Justifications for Higher Standard
There are six justifications generally cited in MSPB and federal court opinions for this
higher standard of conduct: (i) law enforcement officers hold positions of public trust and
responsibility, III (ii) they are required to maintain a reputation for honesty and integrity, 112 (iii)
they are expected to refrain from notorious acts reflecting poorly on the law enforcement
community,1l3 (iv) they are expected to act responsibly, I 14 (v) they are expected to demonstrate
sound judgment, llS and (vi) they may be required to testify in court and in grand jury
proceedings. I 16
IIISee, e.g., Hickman v. Dept oj Justice, 11 M.S.P.R. 153, 155 (1982).
1I2See, e.g., Austin v. Dept of Justice, 11 M.S.P.R. 255, 257-58 (1982).
il3See, e.g., Wilber v. Dept afthe Treasury, 42 M.S.P.R. 582, 588 (1989), afj'd, 780
F.Supp. 837 (D.D.C. 1990).
114See, e.g., Scajieldv. Dept of the Treasury, 53 M.S.P.R. 179, 187 (1992).
llSSee, e.g., MacDonald v. Dept of the Navy, 4 M.S.P.R. 403, 404 (1983).
116See, e.g. ,Rhoads v. Dept. ojTreasury, 12 M.S.P.R. 115, 118 (1982).
65
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Categories of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Subject to Higher Standard
Neither the MSPB nor the Federal Circuit has defined the tenn "law enforcement
officer."117 Criminal Investigators obviously meet this definition. JlS The MSPB has also applied
the higher standard to Treasury Department non-1811 enforcement personnel, such as Customs
Inspectors I 19 and the Unifonned Division of the Secret ServiceYo The courts have applied the
higher standard to many non-1811 federal personnel, including Veterans Administration police
officers, 121 correctional officers,122 and Border Patrol officers. 123 The Federal Circuit has even
applied the higher federal law-enforcement standard to a security guard at the National Gallery of
Art.124 Therefore, Treasury law enforcement officers (those with arrest authority and the
authority to carry a firearm) should be held to a higher standard by the MSPB and the Federal
Circuit.
The Higher Standard and Roundup Activities
The MSPB and the Federal Circuit have held law enforcement officers to a higher
standard in numerous cases of misconduct similar to some of the activities that were alleged to
have occurred at the Roundups. Law enforcement officers have been strongly disciplined for
misuse of government property (particularly government-owned vehicles), substance abuse,
sexual misconduct, and sexual harassment. These cases largely address the veracity and
credibility of the individual law enforcement officer.
Law enforcement officers have been disciplined for some activities which would not
otherwise be subject to legal sanction. In many cases, the MSPB has strictly applied the high
conduct standard in cases of obscene, abusive, and insulting behavior that demonstrates either
117See discussion of the various definitions of the term "law enforcement officer" in
Chapter One, supra.
118See, e.g., Wilber v. Dept of the Treasury, 42 M.S.P.R. 582 (1989), ajfJd, 780 F.Supp.
837 (D.D.C. 1990).
IJ9See, e.g., Rampado
v.
Us. Customs Service, 28 M.S.P.R. 71 (1985).
120See, e.g., Canevari v. Dept of the Treasury, 50 M.S.P.R. 311 (1991).
121
See, e.g., Huntley v. Veterans Administration, 18 M.S.P.R. 71 (1982).
122See, e.g., Boatman
v.
Dept of Justice, 66 M.S.P.R. 58 (1994).
123See, e.g., Barnhill v. Dept of Justice, 10 M.S.P.R. 378 (1982).
124
66
Wiggins
v.
;Vat'l Gallery ofArt, 980 F.2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
insensitivity or a lack of tolerance toward others. Law enforcement officers have been
disciplined for physically abusing aliens, making obscene and threatening phone calls, and
addressing colleagues, inmates, and even strangers with obscene, abusive, racist, or otherwise
offensive speech. Law enforcement officers also have been disciplined for fraternizing with
individuals subject to legal sanction. The overriding concern addressed in these cases is the
threat such activities posed to the impartial execution of the nation's laws.125
The MSPB and the federal courts have considered law enforcement employee
relationships with individuals and organizations that are dedicated to abusive behavior toward
other members of our society. The opinions in this field, however, include only incomplete
references to relationships with hate groups in federal employee discipline cases. For
example, membership in the Ku Klux Klan has been mentioned in two appeals from negative
suitability fmdings in applications for federal law enforcement officer positions.
Unfortunately, the opinions are not instructive on how those appellate panels would treat such
an association.
In Thomas v. Justice,126 a correctional officer was removed for falsifying his
employment documents and security investigation fonns. Although Thomas initially made a
suitability discrimination based on his possible affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, the MSPB
did not pass on this claim because it was not raised in his petition for review. Also, in
Schaefer v. Dept. of Justice, 127 in which an individual appealed a fmding of negative suitability
125The following is not an exhaustive list, but gives examples of the other kinds of cases
for which the MSPB has upheld discipline of federal law enforcement officers. Devine v.
Nutt, 718 F.2d 1048,1056 (1983) (misuse of a government owned vehicle); Kruger v.
Dept. of Justice, 32 M.S.P.R. 71 (1987)(use of even a small amount of a controlled
substance); Stephenson v. Dept. of the Air Force, 40 M.S.P.R. 431 (1989) (drunkenness
combined with other misconduct); Dunnington v. Dept. of Justice, 956 F.2d l151 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)(illegal acts of sexual misconduct); Hackney v. Dept. of Justice, 23 M.S.P.R.
462 (1984) (off-duty sexual misconduct with a twelve-year-old girl); Alsedek v. Dept. of
the Army, 58 M.S.P.R. 229 (1 993)(repeated or deliberate sexual advances, or overt
physical contact of an unwelcome nature to sustain discipline for sexual harassment);
Royster v. Dept. ofJustice, 58 M.S.P.R. 495 (1993)(non-physical and off-duty abuse, such
as the abusive phone calls); Mings v. Dept. of Justice, 813 F.2d 384, 389 (Fed. Cir.
1987)(abusive and insensitive remarks addressed towards colleagues).
12644 M.S.P.R. 460 (1990).
12725 M.S.P.R. 277 (1984).
67
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
for the Border Patrol, the MSPB determined that the agency had not supported its allegation of
Schaefer's membership in the Ku Klux Klan by substantial evidence.
There are, however, cases where the courts have upheld discipline of federal law
enforcement officers for improper fraternization with suspect individuals such as felons and
aliens illegally present in the United States. For example, the MSPB upheld the removal of
two correctional officers for soliciting the aid of an inmate in the fmancing of a liquor store. 128
The relationship violated the agency's standards of employee conduct and responsibility:
accepting favors from inmates is strictly forbidden. Another correctional officer was subject
to these sanctions after he was caught giving marijuana to an inmate. 129
In those cases involving police officers who engaged in deceitful behavior to protect
felons with whom they are acquainted, the biased enforcement of the laws is obvious. In one
case, a Deputy United States Marshal received $100 from a known felon upon whom the
Marshal was supposed to serve a grand jury subpoena. 130 The target of the subpoena was an
acquaintance of his, and the Deputy Marshal also provided advice on how to avoid the
subpoena. The MSPB did not, however, address the nexus standard in determining that the
Deputy's removal would promote the "efficiency of the service," perhaps because that conduct
was clearly contrary to the mission of the agency.
Federal law enforcement officers who consort with foreign nationals who are
unlawfully present in the United States also are subject to disciplinary penalties based upon the
higher standard. In Morones v. Dept. of Justice, 131 the MSPB upheld the removal of an INS
supervisor who harbored a foreign national for over a year even as she was facing deportation
proceedings. The MSPB concluded that this conduct violated both federal statutes and agency
rules. Despite the officer's candor, unblemished and exemplary work record, expressed
remorse, and plea for continued employment, the agency's deciding official sustained the
proposed removal due to the serious nature of the violation. And although the officer's
misconduct was neither deemed notorious nor found to affect either his own or his colleagues'
job performance, the MSPB found a nexus between his removal and the "efficiency of the
service" because the conduct was considered antithetical to the mission of the agency. Again,
the MSPB emphasized the necessity of avoiding any appearance of impropriety in the conduct of
the agency's mission.
l28Bolton and Turpin v. Dept. of Justice, 26 M.S.P.R. 658 (1985).
1~9Bain
v. Dept of Justice, 15 M.S.P.R. 515 (1983).
13°Middleton v. Dept. of Justice, 23 M.S.P.R. 223 (1984).
131
68
35 M.S.P.R. 285 (1987).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER SIX
EXISTING ETHICAL STANDARDS AND CODES OF CONDUCT
RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING
THE GOOD 0' BOYS ROUNDUPS
As discussed in Chapter Four, no specific rule or standard of conduct is a prerequisite to
discipline; the Department may take action without reference to any other rule or policy if it can
demonstrate that the discipline imposed promotes the efficiency of the service. However, rules
and policies serve a number of other important functions. They help to crystallize for the
Department as an institution its fundamental values and priorities. They communicate to the
public the values that the Department considers most important. They provide guidance to
supervisors and managers on what behavior the Department expects them to discipline. They
also serve as training tools for employees, marking the outer boundaries of expected and
acceptable behavior. In this regard, the promulgation and communication of rules and policies
also serves a deterrent function. To the degree the rule also establishes penalties for its violation,
or otherwise conveys the importance which management attaches to it, a rule or policy also
serves as a caution light, illuminating the types of conduct in which employees engage at their
peril. Further, express rules and policies help to establish that employees have ample notice that
particular fonus of behavior will be considered misconduct and subject to discipline. Although
notice is not necessary to impose discipline, it is one of several factors to which the MSPB looks
in determining whether the penalty imposed was reasonable. For all of these reasons, it is
important to analyze what guidance current rules and policies governing the conduct of Treasury
employees, especially law enforcement officers, offer.
The Hierarchy of Governmental Conduct Codes and Ethical Standards
The executive branch of the United States government imposes upon its employees a
multi-tiered system of behavior requirements that fall into two general categories: (1) ethical
standards, and (2) rules or codes of conduct. In theory, the ethical standards govern one category
of behavior, and the rules or codes of conduct govern another. In general, the ethical standards
tend to focus upon structural relationships that might create a conflict or appearance of conflict of
interest on the part of a public employee; in contrast, the conduct codes and rules deal with all
other kinds of behavior deemed inappropriate for government employees. For instance, the rules
with respect to seeking employment outside the government, which could create an actual or
apparent conflict of interest on the part of the employee, appear in the ethical standards, but not
in the rules or codes of conduct. On the other hand, rules relating to drinking or gambling while
69
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
on duty or on government property appear in the rules of conduct, not in the ethical standards. 132
In practice, however, the distinction between ethical standards and rules of conduct is not always
clear, and there is some degree of overlap between these two categories of regulations.
Similarly, rules relating to the general misuse of government property and resources appear in
the governmentwide ethical standards,133 while a rule prohibiting misuse of government vehicles
appears in the Treasury Conduct Regulations,134 and both the ethical regulations and the conduct
rules applicable to Treasury employees address the personal financial interests employees may
hold. 135
Ethical Standards
The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Standards of Ethical Conduct
(OGE Ethical Standards)136 set forth the ethical guidelines applicable to all executive branch
employees. The OGE Ethical Standards focus on matters such as the acceptance of gifts from
prohibited sources or given because of official position, conflicts of interest, appearances of lack
of impartiality, misuse of position, and limitations on outside employment and other outside
activities.
In addition to the OGE Ethical Standards, all Treasury employees must abide by the
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of the Treasury
132See Office Personnel Management Rules on Employee Responsibilities and Conduct.
5 C.F.R. §735.201 (1995)(gambling) [hereinafter OPM Conduct Reg]; 60 Fed. Reg. at 28.537
(1995)(to be codified at 31 C.F.R. §0.204 (use of controlled substances and intoxicants)
(proposed June 1, 1995)). [hereinafter Treasury Conduct Rules].
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. [hereinafter
OGE Ethical Standards]. 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.l01 (6)(9),26355.7042635.705.
133
134Treasury Conduct Rules, supra note 1; 60 Fed. Reg. at 28.538 (1995) (to be codified at
31 C.F.R. § 0.209).
l350GE Ethical Standards. 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.601-2635.606 (1995). Compare Treasury
Conduct Rules. 60 Fed. Reg. 28.535, 28.538 (1995)(to be codified at 31 C.F.R. § 0.217 (personal
financial interests)), with Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Department of the Treasury, 60 Fed. Reg. 41.193. 41.194 (1995) (to be codified at 5 C.F.R.
§31 01.103 (prohibition on purchase of certain assets)) [hereinafter Treasury Supp. Ethical
Standards}.
136 C.F.R. Part 2635 (1995).
70
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
(Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards).137 As their title suggests, the Treasury Supplemental
Ethical Standards supplement rather than supersede or modify the OGE Ethical Standards.
Among other things, the Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards prescribe rules governing the
acceptance of certain types of gifts; outside employment; financial interests and sources of
income; and third-party relationships for employees of certain Treasury Bureaus and, in some
instances, their family members, where such activities, interests, or relationships could cause one
to question the impartiality of the employee's execution of his or her responsibilities.
Employee Rules and Codes of Conduct
Generally, rules and codes of conduct control behavior outside the purview of the ethical
standards referred to above. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Employee
Responsibilities and Conduct Regulations 138 (OPM Conduct Regulations) regulate the behavior
of all employees of the executive branch of the federal government. The 0 PM Conduct
Regulations consist of only three rules: (1) prohibiting (with limited exceptions) gambling while
on duty or on government property; 139 (2) prohibiting misuse of official, non-pUblic information
relating to OPM and Foreign Service examinations;140 and (3) broadly prohibiting employees
from engaging in "criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or
other conduct prejudicial to the Government."141 The OPM Conduct Regulations expressly
contemplate that they may be supplemented by regulations issued by the employee's agency and
provide that a violation of such supplemental regulations may be cause for discipline. 142
The Department of the Treasury's Employee Rules ofConduct l43 (Treasury Conduct
Rules) supplement the OPM Conduct Regulations with guidelines that apply solely to Treasury
employees. The Treasury Conduct Rules contain provisions relating to such topics as political
activity, strikes, gifts or gratuities from foreign governments, use of controlled substances and
13760 Fed. Reg. 22.249 (1995) (to be codified at 5 C.F.R. Part 3100).
1385 C.F.R. Part 735 (1992).
1395 C.F.R. § 735.201.
14°5 C.F.R. § 735.202.
141 5 C.F.R. § 735.203.
142 5 C.F.R. § 735.103.
143 60 Fed. Reg. 42.042 (1995) (adopting without alteration interim rules published at
60 Fed. Reg. 28.535) (to be codified in 31 C.F.R. Part 0).
71
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
intoxicants, disclosure of infonnation, use of government vehicles, solicitation, and distribution
of literature, conduct prejudicial to the government, and personal financial interests. The
Treasury Conduct Rules also set forth the Department's nondiscrimination policy.
Laws Enforcement Bureau Rules or Codes of Conduct
In addition to the OGE Ethical Standards, Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards,
OPM Conduct Regulations, and the Treasury Conduct Rules, most, if not all Treasury Bureaus,
including each of the Law Enforcement Bureaus, promulgate their own rules or codes of conduct
which apply only to personnel employed by the issuing Bureau (Bureau Rules). For example,
Customs issues standards of conduct governing the behavior of Customs Service personnel only.
Prior to February 3, 1993, when the OGE Ethical Standards became effective, Bureau
Rules commonly addressed both conduct rules and what are now considered to be ethical
standards. Today, as a general matter, Bureaus lack authority to supplement ethical standards;
this can be done only at the departmental level and then only with the concurrence of OGE.144
However, the Treasury Department may delegate to the Bureaus the Department's authority to
make detenninations required or pennitted by the OGE Ethical Standards, such as granting or
denying approval to engage in certain activities. Both the Treasury Department and the Bureaus
may also issue instructions establishing internal procedures for documenting or processing such
detenninations, and may issue handbooks or other explanations of the ethical standards. 145 There
are no similar restrictions on the authority of the Bureaus to promulgate rules governing
employee conduct, so long as they do not contradict governmentwide or Treasury-level rules. 146
In addition to the OPM and Department of the Treasury rules of conduct, this chapter examines
the Bureau Rules for Customs, ATF, Secret Service, and IRS.147 For the most part, these Bureau
144 5 C.F.R. § 2635.102(a)(adopting definition of agency set forth in 5 U.S.c. § 105);
2635.105 (proscribing procedure for agency issuance of supplemental ethical standards);
Executive Order 1267454 Fed. Reg. 15159 (1989), as modified by Exec. Order 12731 55 Fed.
Reg. 42547 (1990) (revoking Exec. Order 11222 and authorizing OGE to issue a single
comprehensive set of standards of conduct for all executive branch employees).
145 5 C. F. R. § 2635.105(c)(1995)
146See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.105(c)(3).
147FinCEN's staff includes hventy-five Special Agents on detail from other federal
agencies. These employees are subject to the rules issued by their respective agencies. In
addition, FinCEN currently is in the process of developing an employee handbook which will
address ethical standards and codes of conduct.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Rules cover the same general topics already addressed by one or more of the rules of conduct
promulgated by OPM or the Department of the Treasury. However, Bureau Rules explicate
these standards in greater detail. Of the various standards and rules discussed herein, the Bureau
Rules always give way to Departmental and OPM regulations in the event of a conflict.
Those OGE and Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, OPM Conduct Regulations.
Treasury Conduct Rules, and Bureau Rules that are pertinent to the allegations concerning the
Good 0' Boys Roundups will be discussed below by topic. 148
Employee Familiarity with Requirements of the Rules
The Treasury Conduct Rules direct all Bureau heads to distribute to employees of their
respective Bureaus the OGE Ethical Standards, Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, and
Treasury Conduct Rules. 149 In addition, Bureau heads are required to explain to all new
employees the application and contents of these documents.150 Treasury employees are, in turn,
required to read and adhere to all of these standards.l5l By Executive Order 12674, Part III,
Section 301(c), agencies are required to provide annual training on ethics and rules of conduct.
FLETC has issued several directives which address the matters covered by the United
States govemmentwide and Treasury Rules of Conduct. FLETC Directives 67-35.A, 35.B, 35.C,
35.E and 36.G. Several of these directives are being revised to confonn with Treasury's
Supplemental Ethical Standards and Treasury Conduct Rules.
148It should be noted that the Bureau Rules are, or soon will be, undergoing a process of
revision to bring them into confonnity with the Treasury Conduct Rules, which were themselves
revised and repromulgated in August 1995. Typically, Bureau Rules are repromulgated
whenever the Treasury Rules they supplement are revised. However, the current Bureau Rules
remain in effect unless they have been superseded by or are in conflict with the OGE Ethical
Standards, Treasury Ethical Standards, OPM Rules of Conduct, or Treasury Conduct Rules.
14960 Fed. Reg. at 28.536 (1995) (to be codified at 31 C.F.R. § 0.106). The OPM
standards and the OGE Ethical Standards of Conduct were published by the Treasury
Department in a 1993 booklet entitled "Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch," copies of which were issued to all Treasury employees.
150Id.
151
60 Fed. Reg. at 28,537 (1995) (to be codified at 31 C.F.R. § 107(a)(1».
73
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Chapter Nine of this Report addresses the adequacy of current departmental training
initiatives with respect to ethics and diversity issues. However, one observation concerning the
mechanics through which the Bureaus attempt to comply with this employee familiarization
requirement of the Treasury Conduct Rules is worthy of mention at this juncture. Handbooks
setting forth the OGE Ethical Standards and pamphlets explaining the import of these standards
are widely circulated and are readily accessible upon request to agency ethics, training, or
personnel officers. The Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards and Treasury Conduct Rules
have been published in the Federal Register in both their interim and final versions and will
eventually be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. These publications are available in
libraries but are not readily accessible to employees, particularly those who are not lawyers.
The Bureau Rules collectively consist of hundreds of pages of rules, policy statements,
personnel directives, tables of penalties, and/or administrative manuals covering a wide variety
of topics. Some have been assembled into manuals or handbooks, but these volumes are not
always issued to each employee of the Bureau nor are they always kept up to date. In other
cases, rules, policy statements, and directives appear to have been issued and circulated on an
isolated and sporadic basis to address specific issues or concerns, but have not been collected
into a standardized format for ready reference. In general, the Bureau-level rules could be more
centrally located.
With the exception ofthe IRS, which provides each of its employees with a plastic
portfolio containing a copy of all levels of ethics and conduct rules, as well as other literature on
the topic of ethics, none of the Bureaus has assembled all applicable rules in a single semipermanent but updatable format and disseminated the rules in this format to all of the personnel
to whom they apply. Moreover, except for the OGE Ethical Standards and a now-obsolete guide
to the rules of conduct issued by the IRS for supervisors in 1986, there is no written vehicle for
disseminating explanations and illustrations ofthe rules to Department employees.
In sum, the Bureau-level rules can be difficult to locate. 152 This observation does not
excuse employees for engaging in conduct that any reasonable person would understand to be
inappropriate. Moreover, as Treasury law enforcement officers are sure to know, "ignorance of
the law is no excuse." It does mean, however, that the Department could be more effective in
availing itself of the educative and deterrent value of the standards it promulgates. As a result,
specific recommendations for improvements in training and in the accessibility of the ethics and
conduct regulations are set forth in Chapter Nine of this Report.
152Notwithstanding that there are potential difficulties, it is important to note that Bureau
managers periodically use \vritten reminders to employees regarding standards of conduct. These
reminders in the form of directives and orders, often include specific examples of proscribed
behavior.
74
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
General Rules Applicable to Activities and Associations Creating an Appearance of Bias
The OGE Ethical Standards contain several references to the duty of all government
employees to maintain both the fact and the appearance of impartiality. While these provisions
typically refer expressly to "financial interests" or matters of "private gain" that would create a
real or apparent conflict of interest, some are expressed in broader terms. For example, in
reciting the general principles of ethical conduct applicable to every employee, the OGE Ethical
Standards provide in relevant part:
(8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any
private organization or individual. ...
(10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including
seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government
duties and responsibilities ....
(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that
they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether
particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have
been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person
with knowledge of the relevant facts. 153
Although these broad principles make no specific reference to off-duty participation in
racist activities or other acts of bias, such acts would certainly create at least an appearance that
an employee would be unable or unwilling to act impartially and might give preferential
treatment to certain organizations or individuals on the basis of race or other impermissible
criteria. For the reasons discussed above, such activities would also conflict with the official
responsibilities of a law enforcement officer.
However, the surrounding context, with its emphasis on financial conflicts of interest, has
traditionally caused these principles to be viewed in a more narrow light as requiring financial
independence in the matters in which an employee is called upon to exercise his or her
discretionary authority. This view is reinforced by the specific standards implementing the
general principle of impartiality. One of these standards requires an employee to disqualify
himself or herself from participating in a matter, when the circumstances would cause "a
reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the
153
5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b).
75
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
matter."154 However, by its tenns, this standard applies to situations where the doubt concerning
the employee's impartiality arises because the employee knows that the matter is "likely to have a
direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his household," or that "a
person with whom he has a covered relationship is a party to [the] matter. ... "155 Covered
relationships include "an organization, other than a political party .... in which the employee is
an active participant," as well as certain kinds of business, contractual or financial relationships,
service within the previous year as an officer, director, or other principal of a corporation or
organization that is a party to the matter in question, and "close personal relationships" between
parties and the employee or a member of his or her households. 156 Thus, under this standard any
kind of financial interest that would cause a question concerning impartiality to arise would be
prohibited, but nonfinancial relationships are banned only if an organization or individual with
whom the employee is associated is involved as a party in a matter under the employee's
purview. Under this conflict-of-interest standard, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan would
be disqualified from acting in a matter, for example, a tax audit or criminal prosecution, in which
the Klan was a party. However, Ku Klux Klan membership would not necessarily preclude the
employee under this particular standard from acting in other matters in which the Ku Klux Klan
was not a party but race was an issue despite the Klan's well-known advocacy of discrimination
and even violence against African-Americans and other racial minorities. Indeed, the
commentary to this standard states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to suggest
that an employee should not participate in a matter because of his political, religious, or moral
views."157
Another ethical standard prohibiting the employee from engaging "in outside
employment or any other outside activity that conflicts with his official duties" would at first
appear to be more to the point. 158 The commentary makes clear that the outside activities
prohibited under this standard extend beyond fmancial relationships when it uses the example of
an Environmental Protection Agency employee's presidency of a nonprofit environmental
organization that routinely submits comments on regulations under the employee's purview. 159
By its tenns, this ethical standard would not at first glance appear to require that an organization
154 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a).
155Id. (emphasis added).
156 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(b)(l)
1575 C.F.R. § 2635(b)(l)(v), note.
158 5 C.F.R. § 2635.801 (emphasis added).
159 5 C.F.R. § 2635.802(b), commentary.
76
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
or outside activity be a party to a matter before such an affiliation will be disqualifying.
However, the standard defines a "conflict with official duties" in a manner that incorporates by
reference the preceding standard on "covered relationships," as well as another standard that is
limited to prohibited financial interests. 160 Thus, here again, the employee's participation would
not be expressly prohibited by the standard unless the organization or individual with whom the
employee is involved were an actual party to the matter under the employee's responsibility.
There is a third possibility, however. Under the definitions applicable to this standard, an
activity may also conflict with an employee's official duties if it is prohibited by statute or by an
agency supplemental regulation. 161 Thus, non-financial associations or activities, such as
participation in the Good 0' Boys Roundup, could involve a violation of this standard if the
Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards or Conduct Code or Bureau rules specifically
prohibited them. However, the Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standard rules on this topic
prohibit only "outside employment or business activities, n whether compensated or
uncompensated, unless the employee obtains prior written Bureau-level approval. 162
The Bureau Rules relating to outside activities were all promulgated prior to the adoption
of both the OGE Ethical Standards or the Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards. Unlike
conduct rules which Bureaus are free to supplement with their own requirements, Bureaus cannot
expand the scope of an OGE or Treasury-level ethical standard. The ATF Bureau rules expressly
prohibit employees from engaging in outside activities which (a) interfere with the efficient
perfonnance of official duties, (b) might bring discredit on or cause unfavorable and justifiable
criticism of the Government, or (c) might reasonably result in a conflict of interest, or an
apparent conflict of interest, with official duties and responsibilities. "163 Outside activities are
not defined in a manner that would limit them to commercial contexts. Participation by law
enforcement officers in certain activities alleged to have occurred at the Good 0' Boys Roundups
has already brought unfavorable criticism; participation in hate groups and other racist or bias
16°5 C.F.R. § 2635.802(b)(incorporating by reference 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.402 (conflicting
financial interests) and 2635.502 (covered relationships».
161 5. C.F.R. § 2635.802(a).
162 5 C.F.R. § 3101.104.
163 ATF Order 2735.1, Employee Responsibilities and Conduct 3 8( a)(11) at 6 (May 31,
1974).
77
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
related outside activities would certainly do the same and could also seriously interfere with the
efficient performance of the employee's official duties. 164
The Secret Service rules are similar in some respects to those of A TF, but the
differences introduce an element of ambiguity that could render the application of the rule to
racist conduct such as that alleged to have occurred at the Good 0' Boys Roundups less certain.
In its Guide to Permitted Activities, the Secret Service rules expressly permit all employees to
join, serve, and hold office in civil, fraternal, community, professional, and other types of
organizations, "where such office or services do not entail the management of a business type
activity."165 However, another section of the Secret Service Bureau rules provides in part that:
No permission will be granted to any employee to engage in outside activities, whether
or not listed in the Guide for Permitted Activities ... which:
1. Interfere with the efficient performance of official duties.
2. Might bring discredit on or cause unfavorable and justifiable criticism of the
Government. ... 166
Casting the rule in terms of the giving or withholding of permission, rather than as an express
prohibition of such activities, introduces an unfortunate but readily curable circularity. Under the
OGE Ethical Standards, permission is required only if the outside activity (1) involves a
prohibited financial conflict; (2) involves a covered relationship with an individual or
organization who is a party to a matter under the employee's jurisdiction; or (3) was affirmatively
prohibited by the Treasury-level rules.
The Customs Bureau Rules define a conflict of interest as a situation in which "an
employee's private interest, usually of a financial nature, conflicts or interferes with, or
164 Theoretically, were it republished under the umbrella of an expanded Treasury-level
standard on outside activities, this section of the ATF rules could be invoked to prohibit or
discipline improper conduct related to such activities.
165Secret Service PER-5(2). Guidefor Permitted Activities 1, at 6 (Dec. 1. 1989).
166Secret Service PER-5(2). Other Outside Activities: Restrictions Applicable to All
Employees 1.2. at 1 (December 1, 1989) (emphasis added). Each employee is held personally
responsible to inform his or her supervisor of "any change in status with respect to activities or
circumstances·· that \\"ould result in conflict with these principles. Id.
78
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
reasonably appears to interfere with, the ability to objectively, impartially, and fairly perfonn
official duties. 167 Thus, while the emphasis is plainly on financial conflict, the rule contemplates
conflicts arising from other situations as well. However, although the rule states in part that
"[a]ny activity involving an incompatibility of interest is prohibited," the remainder ofthe rule
which identifies incompatible interests, albeit nonexclusively, addresses only private
employment, the acquisition of interests in private businesses, and the acceptance of fees, gifts.
and things of monetary value. 168
The IRS Bureau Rule on outside activities as conflicts of interest was expressly limited to
"outside employment and business activity": the rule was structured to pennit employees to
engage in any outside employment or business activity with prior written pennission, unless the
activity was expressly prohibited. 169 Prohibited employment and business activities included
legal employment, accounting, bookkeeping, or financial planning and investment services
involving tax matters, preparation of tax returns, appearances in tax matters on behalf of
taxpayers, and employment in casinos or gambling establishments. 17o Membership in social,
community, and similar organizations was specifically authorized under the rules and did not
require prewritten approval. 171 However, the IRS also had a separate rule which provided that
"[e]mployees will be held responsible for any public discredit which may result from unjustified
association with criminal or notoriously disreputable persons."I72 No definition of "notoriously
disreputable persons" is provided, but the tenn is broad enough to have encompassed application
to certain hate groups. However, the IRS considers all of the foregoing rules to have been
superseded for non-bargaining unit employees by the adoption of the OGE Ethical Standards, the
Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, the OPM Conduct Regulations, and the Treasury
Conduct Rules."173
167 United States Customs Service Policies & Procedures Manual 51735, Conduct and
Employee Responsibilities § 41735.2(W)(1)(b), at 20 (December 29, 1977) [hereinafter Manual].
168Id. § 41735.2(W)(1 )(c). at 20.
169IRS Interim Handbook of Employee Conduct and Ethical Behavior, §§ 2211. 225.1
(Sept. 30, 1994).
7
1
°Id § 224.1. 225.2.
171Id § 229.2 (1).
\72
Id § 216.2. The Customs Service has a similar rule regarding unjustified associations.
173IRS Rules of Conduct are still applicable to bargaining unit employees until its
bargaining obligation with the union is satisfied.
79
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Rules Expressly Applicable to Alleged Racist Acts and Activities
The OGE Ethical Standards command all executive branch employees to "adhere to all
laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap."174 This charge commands all employees to
adhere to the equal employment opportunity laws in force in the United States. Accordingly, at a
minimum, it prohibits racial discrimination in the work place.
The Treasury Rules of Conduct contain an explicit ban on discrimination or harassment
of certain persons on the basis of such person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age, or disability. 175 This nondiscrimination rule officially forbids any discrimination
against or harassment of a fellow employee, applicant for employment, or person doing official
business with the Treasury Department on any of the bases listed above. No definition of either
discrimination or harassment accompanies the prohibition.
In addition to the nondiscrimination rules set forth in the OGE Ethical Standards and the
Treasury Conduct Rules. Customs employees have the responsibility of adhering to Customs'
own discrimination proscription, which prohibits employees from directly or indirectly
authorizing, pennitting, or participating "in any official action, event, or course of conduct which
they know or should know may improperly subject any person to discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, partisan political affiliation or
physical handicap."176 Thus, under Customs' rules, employees may be disciplined for
authorizing, pennitting, or participating in at least certain kinds of racist activities and other acts
of bias. The scope of this prohibition depends upon how one interprets the use of the word ...
official. "
A TF has issued an order on sexual harassment and periodic policy statements regarding
its commitment to equal opportunity. On February 2,1995, ATF Order 1050.5 "Prevention and
Elimination of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace" was issued. That Order notifies employees
that engaging in sexual harassment may subject them to disciplinary action up to and including
dismissal. On June 15 1995, ATF issued a specific policy statement concerning discrimination
based on sexual orientation to all its employees. Furthennore, the Director of A TF has
174See 5 C. F. R. § 263 5. 1 01 (b)( 13).
l75
See 31 C.F.R. § 0.214
176See Customs J1anual § 51735.2(D)(1977).
80
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
established a DiversitylPeer Group that meets periodically to review the Bureau's policies and
practices regarding equal opportunity and diversity.
The Secret Service supplements the aGE and Treasury nondiscrimination rules. 177 The
Secret Service Administrative Manual affirms the Service's policy of providing equal
opportunities in employment and personnel operations to all employees regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. According to the Manual, the policy applies to "appointments,
assignments, career development, training, promotion, and to any other action or situation
affecting employment status in the service."178 Thus, like the aGE Ethical Standards and Title
VII, the policy bars discrimination with respect to employment-related activities. This
conclusion, however, is ameliorated by the following sentence which describes the policy as
stating that deliberate sexual, racial, religious, or ethnic harassment, including verbal comments,
actions, and/or physical contact of a sexual nature, directed toward anyone will not be
tolerated."179 The use of this term renders it unclear whether the Manual intends to proscribe
only work place harassment or to prohibit any sort of bias-motivated abuse. Typically, however,
harassment refers to abusive behavior aimed directly toward a specific victim, it would not
usually be applicable toward racially offensive conduct indicative of bias but exhibited toward an
audience other than the victim.
The IRS issued a diversity policy that asserts its commitment to providing equal
employment opportunities to all of its employees. 180 This policy provides:
The Internal Revenue Service is an organization which respects each employee
and tax diverse public which it serves. In working to fulfill the mission of the
Internal Revenue Service, all employees will have the opportunity to develop
fully their potential to be valued for the characteristics and talents they bring to
the organization. 181
177See United States Secret Service Administrative Manual, Employee Responsibilities
and Conduct. § PER-5(2) (1993) [hereinafter Secret Service Manual].
179Id (Emphasis added).
180See Issuance 5. Internal Revenue Service Interim Handbook of Employee Conduct and
Ethical Behavior (1994) [hereinafter IRS Handbook].
I 8 lId.
(Diversity Policy).
81
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
In a subsequent policy section entitled "IRS Policy Against Sexual Harassment," the IRS
Handbook goes on to state that "[i]t is the policy of the Internal Revenue Service that all our
employees will be able to enjoy a work environment free from all forms of discrimination
including sexual harassment."182 These policies are limited to work place discrimination.
Rules Applicable to Alleged Sexual Harassment and Other Noncriminal Sexual Misconduct
With respect to all employees of the Department of the Treasury, the aforementioned
discrimination prohibitions found in the OGE Ethical Standards and the Treasury Conduct Rules
bar discrimination or harassment on the basis of sex as well as race. The OGE Ethical Standards
command Treasury employees to respect all equal employment opportunity laws applicable to
allegedly discriminatory behavior based on sex or gender. At a minimum, this rule prohibits
sexual discrimination or harassment in the workplace.
As previously mentioned, the explicit ban on discriminatory behavior found in the
Treasury Conduct Rules forbids discrimination against or harassment of an employee, applicant
for employment, or person doing official business with the Treasury Department on the basis of
sex or sexual orientation. Because the protected persons include only employees, applicants for
employment, and people conducting business with the Department of the Treasury, and because
the language of the prohibition item closely tracks that of equal employment opportunity laws,
this proscription targets discrimination with respect to hiring, promotion, and other employmentrelated activities.
As has been previously noted, ATF issued a February 2, 1995 Order entitled "Prevention
on Elimination of Sexual Harassment in the workplace." The order defines sexual harassment as
follows:
a. Briefly stated, unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct constitute sexual harassment regardless of where the conduct takes
place, when:
(1 )Subrnission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individuals employment.
(2)Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis
for employment decisions affecting the individual.
1821d. (IRS Policy Against Sexual Harassment).
82
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
(3)Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work
perfonnance or creating or intimidating, hostile or offensive working
environment.
The Order cites as examples of harassment" unwelcome letters or telephone call."
"distribution or display of materials of a sexual nature," "unwelcome and deliberate touching,
pinching, or physically intimidating behavior," "unwelcome pressure for sexual favors or dates in
an unwelcome sexually suggestive body gestures, teasing, jokes, remarks, and or suggestions."
Proscribed conduct subjecting an employee to protecting sanctions under this Order appears to
include conduct both inside and outside the workplace.
Customs prohibits employees from "authorizing, pennitting, or participating in any
official action, event, or course of conduct that discriminates against any person on the basis of
sex."183 As in the case of race, the scope to this prohibition depends upon whether one views the
word "official" as modifying only the word "action" or the entire subsequent phrase. Customs
has no additional rules specifically addressing sexual harassment. However, the provision in the
Customs table of penalties governing violations of the nondiscrimination rule provides separate
penalties for "[u]se of critical, demeaning, defamatory, ignominious, or degrading remarks,
comments, observations or statements,"184 and for sexual harassment defined as "[u]nwelcomed
sexual advances, request for sexual favors and other verbal conduct of a sexual nature."185
Customs also has a rule requiring that employees "be courteous and business like in every
official activity involving contact with others,"186 and prohibiting the making of "any abusive,
derisive, threatening, profane, obscene, or other insulting, offensive or provocative statement or
gesture to or about another person in their presence."187 This proscription embraces such conduct
that would constitute sexual harassment if directed to or about another person on account of
gender.
In its Administrative Manual, the Secret Service defines sexual harassment as "deliberate
or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature which
i83Customs Manual. §51735.2(1)) (1977).
184Customs Table of and Penalties 44(a).
185Id.44(c).
186Customs Manual. §5.1735.2(G).
i87Customs Manual, §51335.2(G)(l).
83
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
are unwelcome."188 The Secret Service Directive on this issue provides that such harassment
directed toward anyone, will not be tolerated. 189 The Secret Service prohibits sexual harassment
when it "results in discrimination for or against an employee on the basis of conduct not related
to performance such as the taking or refusal to take personnel action. including promotion of
employees who submit to sexual advances or refusal to promote employees who resist or protest
sexual overtures." 190 In addition, a supervisor or any employee engages in sexual harassment if
he or she "uses implicit or explicit sexual behavior to control, influence, or affect the career,
salary or job of an employee."191 Thus, despite the use of the phrase "directed toward anyone"
in describing the scope of its anti-harassment policy, the Secret Service guidelines implementing
that policy focus exclusively on sexual harassment that occurs within the workplace. While the
definition of sexual harassment does not limit its applicability to the work place, the explication
of the concept focuses entirely on work place behavior.
The IRS' policy defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for
sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which create an
intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment or which impact an employee's employment
status."I92 The policy includes as sexual harassment "repeated offensive sexual flirtation, verbal
harassment or abuse, subtle pressure for sexual activity, graphic or degrading verbal comments
about an individual or his or her appearance, physical assault, the display of sexually suggestive
objects or any offensive or abusive contact."193 The targeted sexual harassment for which an
employee may be disciplined pursuant to this policy is conduct that affects an employee's
workplace status.
Rules Applicable to Alleged Criminal Behavior
The allegations of rape, criminal sexual misconduct, illegal drug use, and other alleged
criminal violations of state or federal law implicate both the specific Treasury Conduct Rules
188Secret Service Manual, §PER-5(5).
189 Id.
190Id.
191Id.
192Issuance 5. IRS Handbook.
193 Id.
84
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
providing that "employees shall not engage in criminal. infamous, [or] dishonest conduct,"194 and
a general provision stating that the Rules "provide for disciplinary action for the violation of (e)
any other rule, regulation or law governing Department employees."195 Customs and ATF also
have their own rules prohibiting criminal behavior. 196 The OGE Ethical Standards charge
employees to avoid actions that may create even the appearance that such employees' actions
violations such constitute a violation of the law. 197 As discussed below, certain interpretations of
violations such as illegal drug use, may run afoul of other rules as well. Moreover, certain
categories of racist activity may, be a violation of criminal law. One federal criminal statute
provides that: "[1]f two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any
person ... in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured to her by the Constitution or laws
ofthe United States," they commit a felony. 198 Likewise, anyone who under color oflaw,
"wilfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" commits a felony. 199 The
rights protected under these provisions include all those protected by the United States
Constitution. including rights of freedom of association and of interstate travel. 200
Rules Applicable to Alleged Illegal Use of Drugs
The Treasury Conduct Rules contain a two-part provision addressing the use of controlled
substances and intoxicants. Section 0.204 of the Treasury Conduct Rules provides that
employees "shall not sell, use or possess controlled substances or intoxicants in violation of the
law while on Department property or official duty ... "201 Notably, the rule is not limited to the
use of illegal drugs, but extends to all intoxicants (including alcohol) and controlled substances
194Treasury (Conduct Reg.. 60 Fed. Reg. at 28.537 (to be codified at 31 C. F.R. §6.2 13).
195Id. at28. 536: and 31 C.F.R. § 0.101
1965 ee Customs Manual § 51735.2.2A1 Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Employee Responsibilities and Conduct. § 3.56 (1974) [hereinafter ATF Conduct Rules].
1975 C.F.R. §2635.l01(b)(14).
198 18 U.S.C. §241 (1995).
199 18 U.S.c. §242 (1995).
200See. e.g.. United States v. Ruest 383 U.S. 745 (1966). United States v. Price. 383 U.S.
787 (1966).
201 60 Fed. Reg. at 28.538 (to be codified at C.F.R. § 0.204) (emphasis added).
85
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
(which can be legally issued by prescription). The first half ofthis rule prohibits the sale, use, or
possession of such intoxicants or controlled substances on duty or on government property only
when done "in violation of law." A regulation promulgated by the General Services
Administration (GSA) dictates when the sale, use, or possession of controlled substances and
intoxicants on government property is unlawful. 202 The second half of the rule goes on to address
use of intoxicants and controlled substances off duty and off government property. Here the
requirement that the possession, use, or sale violates the law is abandoned and the rule instead
provides: " ... or use a controlled substance or intoxicant in a manner that adversely affects their
work perfonnance."203
In addition to the foregoing Treasury Conduct Rule, federal law enforcement officers,
like all federal employees, are subject to an Executive Order designed to establish the federal
government as a drug-free workplace. 204 This Executive order contains an express prohibition of
all use of illegal drugs, to go with presumptions of nexus as ineluctably flowing from such
conduct:
(a) Federal employees are required to refrain from the use of illegal drugs.
(b) The use of illegal drugs by Federal employees, whether on or off duty, is
contrary to the efficiency of the service.
(c) Persons who use illegal drugs are not suitable for Federal employment.
202 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.307 provides:
Operation of a motor vehicle while on the [federal government] property by a
person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, hallucinogens,
marijuana, barbiturates [sic], or amphetamines [all but alcoholic beverages
collectively referred to hereafter as "controlled substances"] is prohibited.
Entering upon the property, or while on the property, under the influence of or
using or possessing any [controlled substances] is prohibited. The prohibition
shall not apply in cases where the drug is being used as prescribed for a patient by
a licensed physician. Entering upon the property, or being on the property, under
the influence of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. The use of alcoholic beverages
on the property is prohibited except upon occasions and on property upon which
the head of the responsible agency or his or her designee has for appropriate
official uses granted an exemption in writing.
2031d.
~04Executive
86
Order 12.564; 51 Fed. Reg. 32.889 (1986).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
The constitutionality and regulatory validity of this rule has been upheld. 205
ATF has its own Bureau Conduct rules that expressly ban illegal drug use. The use of
drugs that are illegal to possess and the use of other controlled drugs in an illegal fashion (i.e.,
without prescriptions) result in "severe disciplinary action."206 The rule expressly links the
Bureau's policy on illegal drug use to the ATF's mission in reducing crime and violence, as well
as with employee job performance. 207
The IRS had a Bureau rule, now deemed superseded for bargaining unit employees by the
Treasury Conduct Rules, that provides that: Employees must refrain from using controlled
substances habitually, to excess or in anyway which adversely affects their work performance.
In addition, employees are forbidden from engaging in the illegal sale, use or possession of
controlled substances while on Department premises or on official duty. Customs prohibits the
use or possession of illegal drugs. Customs also has a general rule prohibiting criminal
conduct. 208 Secret Service has its own rule prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. 209
Rules Applicable to Alleged Misuse of Government Property
The Treasury Department may discipline an employee for misuse of government property
pursuant to the OGE Ethical Standards. The OGE Ethical Standards make clear that all
government employees are prohibited from using government time and property for other than
authorized purposes.2IO This rule applies to every form of government property, including office
supplies, telephone and telecommunications equipment, copy machines, government mails, and
vehicles, and employees are required not only to refrain from misusing government property
themselves, but also not to allow such misuse by others. Thus, if an employee knows a fellow
employee is using government property in an unauthorized manner and does not report or
205Id. Because the courts have interpreted this Executive Order as incorporating the
requirement that the government bear the burden of proving nexus in appeals taken from adverse
disciplinary action, the two presumptions must be construed as rebuttable. See NTEU v. Bus,
891 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1989).
206ATF Conduct Rules,
§3.~42a(1)(a) and (b).
207Id.
208Customs Manual, 51735.2Al.
209Secret Service Drug Deterrence Manual Section DDP-l, at 2.
2IOOGE Ethical Standards. 5 C.F.R. § 265.704(a). For official time see 5 C.F.R. 2635.705.
87
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
attempt to prevent the unauthorized use, both employees would violate the OGE Ethical
Standards. 211
The OGE Ethical Standards concerning misuse of government property are
complemented by Treasury and Bureau-level conduct rules. The Treasury Conduct Rules ban
the use of government vehicles for unofficial purposes. 212 This rule notes that unofficial
purposes include transporting unauthorized passengers, but does not further define unofficial
purposes or unauthorized use of a government vehicle.213
Customs prohibits the use or authorization of use of government property for unofficial
purposes. 214 Customs rules do not attempt to define unofficial purposes. A TF Bureau rules
reiterate the prohibition against using government cars for other than official purposes,215 as well
as the broader ban upon using or allowing the use of any federal property for other than officially
approved activity.216 Neither the Secret Service nor the IRS addresses the issue of the use of
government property in its rules. 217 All of these prohibitions are reinforced by criminal
sanctions, since anyone who "knowingly converts to his own use or to the use of another"
property of the United States government commits a felony if the value of the property exceeds
$100 or a misdemeanor if the value of the property is less than $100.218
Despite all of these prohibitions against unauthorized use of government property
generally and vehicles in particular, what is less than clear is when the use of government
resources is and is not authorized, particularly when the use in question is at least partially
related to professional or community relations purposes. The OGE Ethical Standard provides
211
5 C.F.R. § 2635.704(b)(2).
212
31 C.F.R. § 0.209.
2131d.
2
14 Customs Manual. § 51735.2(p).
215ATF Conduct Rules § 3 ~46; see also, Customs Manual 51735.2P(3).
2161d. at § 3,-)50.
217Although not set forth in the Secret Service's Standards of Conduct, the issue of use is
set forth in manual sections which deal vvith each type of property, such as telephones and
government owned vehicles.
218 18 U.S.c. § 641.
88
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
that "[a]uthorized purposes are those purposes for which Government property is made available
to members of the public or those purposes authorized in accordance with law or regulation."219
This standard does not do a great deal to elucidate what uses of government property are allowed
or disallowed, especially where the use in question has at least a colorable connection to
legitimate governmental interests. For example, it is unclear what purposes are "authorized in
accordance with law or regulation." There are very few laws or regulations that expressly
authorize or prohibit particular uses of government resources. The only such Treasury-level rule
is the one noted above, prohibiting the use of government vehicles for "unofficial purposes," and
expressly prohibiting the use of government vehicles to transport unauthorized passengers or to
transport employees between their homes and places of work, unless authorized by statute. 220
The OGE Ethical Standard's provision that a use of government property is authorized if
the property may be used by the general public for the same purpose sheds little light on the
subject. Employees routinely make many uses of government property for which there is no
specific statutory authorization and which simple logistics dictate cannot be extended to the
general public. For example, there may be many legitimate uses to which an employee can use a
government computer that are not addressed by law or regulation; presumably these uses would
nonetheless be viewed as "authorized," even though members of the public would not be allowed
to wander into government offices and use the computers for similar purposes.
A currently pending proposed OPM rule would provide somewhat greater clarity to the
situation regarding use of government property in support of certain civic and professional
organizations. 22I If adopted, this rule would allow agencies to provide nonprofit civic,
professional, and special interest organizations, other than labor unions, with government
resources. 222 Among other qualifications, to receive such assistance, an organization (1) must
provide information, views or services that will "contribute to improved agency operations,
personnel management, and employee effectiveness"; (2) must have a constitution and by-laws
2195 C.F.R. § 2635.704(b)(2).
22°60 Fed. Reg. at 28,538. Use of government vehicles to transport government
employees between their domiciles and places of employment is prohibited by statute, except for
(1) medical officers on outpatient medical service; (2) officers or employees performing preapproved field work; (3) the President; (4) heads of executive departments; and (5) principal
diplomatic and consular officials. 31 U.S.c. § 1344 (1995).
221 60 Fed. Reg. 51,371.(1995).
222Id. Although the rule does not define what kind of resources the agency can or should
provide to such organizations, it offers as illustrations access to meeting facilities, bulletin
boards, internal mail and E-mail systems.
89
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
providing for minimum standards of fiscal responsibility and democratic nomination and election
of officers; and (3) must not discriminate in terms of membership or treatment because of race,
color, sex, national origin, age or handicapping condition. 223 Questions remain, however, as to
how an agency is supposed to determine which organizations it will support, what kinds of
support and resources the agency is allowed to provide, and who within an agency is empowered
to make those decisions.
Most issues of appropriate use of government property can be resolved through the
exercise of simple common sense. Thus, where the use is purely personal in nature and involves
more than a de minimus consumption of public resources, it would constitute a misuse of
government property. However, where the effect on the government is minimal or the use has at
least a quasi-public nexus, the lines are less clear. For example, the OGE Ethical Standards cite
as an example of a permitted use, General Services Administration regulations that permit an
employee to use government property--a telephone--for purely personal purposes, so long as the
employee charges any long distance call to the employee's personal calling card. 224 Similarly,
although there is no particular regulation that applies to such uses, it is common practice within
the government for employees to conduct office social events on government property to mark
birthdays, holidays and special events for colleagues. While employees typically provide the
food and beverages for such events from their own pocketbooks, a strict reading of the use of
government property would prohibit employees from using a federal office facility or the
government's water and power supply to conduct the event or from using telephones or
government computers or office supplies to generate announcements for such events.
Nevertheless, supervisors routinely permit such gatherings because it is clearly in the
government's interest to foster good morale and collegiality among employees. This is done
even though there is no law or rule expressly permitting it and even though the doors to
government offices could not be thrown open to permit any interested member of the general
public to conduct parties there.
Similarly, there may be certain kinds of outside activities related to one's work which the
government may wish to encourage. The Treasury Department is aware that other agencies have
regulations regarding such activities, but until Treasury adopts its own regulations such activities
are not open to its employees. For example, the OGE Ethical Standards cite, as an example of
unauthorized use of government property, a provision of the now obsolete Federal Personnel
Manual which permitted a Department of Justice attorney to use an office computer and
government copy machine to prepare a paper to be presented at a conference sponsored by a
223Id. at 51,372.
224See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.704(b)(2), example 1 (citing C.F.R. § 201-21.601).
90
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
professional association to which the attorney belongs.225 Analogously, the Comptroller General
has held that an agency may grant administrative leave or excused absences for brief periods to
its employees to facilitate their support of professional and charitable organizations, and
employees may be excused from duty without a loss of pay, even for lengthy periods, to
participate in such groups, if the absence would further a function of the employing agency.226
Indeed, government agencies have statutory authority to assign employees, with the mutual
consent of all parties, to certain categories of nonprofit organizations. 227 The Federal Personnel
Manual also cited as instances of permissible support for professional organizations the posting
of messages on agency bulletin boards and the use of inter-office mail on an organization's
behalf. 228 Expenditure of limited amounts of resources is also allowed to support and promote
civic activities, such as blood drives or savings bond drives.229 As discussed below, this Review
recommends that the Department evaluate whether regulations should be adopted to clarify the
conditions and procedures governing authorization of the use of government property for both
civic and other purposes.
Catch-All Rules: Rules Applicable to All Forms of Misconduct Prejudicial to the
Government
Both the OPM Conduct Regulations and the Treasury Conduct Rules prohibit employees
from engaging in conduct "prejudicial to the Government. ,,230 Indeed, the provisions on this
subject that appear in the OPM Conduct Regulations and the Treasury Conduct Rules mirror one
another. The OPM Conduct Regulations state that an employee "shall not engage in criminal,
infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to
225Id, example 3 (citing Federal Personnel Manual, ch. 252 (revoked)). Although much
of the Federal Personnel Manual, including chapter 252, has been revoked, it is still at times
referred to for guidance on ethical matters.
226 63 Compo Gen. 542 (1984); 61 Compo Gen. 652 (1982); 44 Compo Gen. 643 (1985).
227The Intergovernmental Personnel Act, 5 U.S.c. § 3372(b), permits the assignment of
federal government personnel to state and local governments, institutions of higher education,
and to nonprofit organizations which have as one of their principal functions "the offering of
professional advisory, research, educational, or developmental services, or related services, to
governments or universities concerned with public management."
228Federal Personnel Manual, ch. 252, § 1-(4)(l)(revoked).
229 71 Compo Gen. 469 (1992).
230See 5 C.F.R. § 735.203 and 31 C.F.R. § 0.213.
91
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good O' Boys Roundup Policy Review
the Government."231 The Treasury Conduct Rules disallow an employee from engaging in
"criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or any other conduct
prejudicial to the Government."232 Neither of these provisions defines any ofthe various types of
proscribed behaviors listed therein.
Customs, 233 A TF, 234 Secret Service 235 and IRS all have similar catch all rules against
conduct prejudicial to, or which discredits the Bureau or government. Of these rules, only the
Secret Service's rule expressly refers to off-duty conduct, while only the IRS's rule is expressly
limited to "official relations with the public" and to the impact of the misconduct on the
2315 C.F.R. § 735.203.
232 31 C.F.R. § 0.2 13. The Treasury Conduct Rules do not list immoral conduct as one of
the banned behaviors. That one omission constitutes the only material difference between the
two provisions.
233Customs Manual § 5173.2(A).
234ATF Order 3000.1D. December 13, 1984 at 8B. #11. This section places an
affirmative obligation on Special Agents to comply with the standards of conduct prescribed in
Chapter 735 of the Treasury Personnel Manual. See also ATF Conduct Rules. §3.~56. This rules
identifies and explains three specific instances that likely will be deemed prejudicial to the
Government: (a) Association with Disreputable Persons; (b) Criticism of Accountants and
Accounting Systems; and (c) Irregular Arrangements in Examining Taxpayer's Books. The ATF
rule defines some prohibited conduct, such as: "except in connection with official business,
employees may not associate with individuals or groups when the association tends to discredit,
directly or indirectly, the character, reputation or integrity of the employee or the Bureau."
235Secret Service Manual at 1 per-5(1)(Policy). The Secret Service policy differs from the
OGE Ethical Standards, Treasury Conduct rules, and the Customs and ATF Bureau rules on
prejudicial conduct in that it is stated as an affirmative expectation, rather than a prohibition.
Each Secret Service employee is expected to adhere to these written standards and to
standards of behavior in general which reflect credit on the Government and the citizens
we serve, both on and off the job.
The absence of a specific published standard of conduct covering an act tending to
discredit an employee or the Department does not mean that such an act is condoned, is
permissible, or would not call for and result in corrective or disciplinary action.
Jd.
92
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
employee's job perfonnance. 236 The Customs rule is the only one that defines the meaning of the
various categories of misconduct.
Employees will not engage in criminal. infamous, dishonest, immoral, or
notoriously disgraceful conduct prejudicial to the Government. For purposes of
this provision the following definitions or interpretations are applicable:
1. "criminal" conduct means conduct which has been detennined by verdict and
judgement of a court to have constituted commission of a crime, as defined and
made punishable by law.
2. "infamous" conduct means criminal conduct as defined above, but which
results in a disqualification to hold public office, to vote, or renders the convicted
employee incompetent as a witness in the particular jurisdiction, or tends to
seriously and adversely affect the employees credibility as a witness.
3. "dishonest" conduct implies an act of lying, cheating, wrongful taking of
money or property, or deceitful act or practice.
4. "immoral" conduct is interpreted as an act contrary to the generally accepted
moral nonn or standard. Immoral conduct mayor may not involve a violation of
law. It does not encompass every act which may violate a particular religious or
moral concept or tenet. "Immoral" conduct most probably will involve an
interference or threat of interference with a right of another person or other
persons, and/or an element of serious incompatibility with the duties of the
employee's position or a mission of the Customs Service.
5. "notoriously disgraceful" conduct is interpreted as conduct widely and
unfavorably known and discussed. It implies conduct which results in a loss of
public respect for the employee.
6. "prejudicial" conduct is interpreted to mean any act or failure to act which
adversely affects or tends to adversely affect (1) the efficiency ofthe Customs
Service in carrying out its mission and/or (2) the public confidence in the integrity
of the Customs Service.
The alleged wrongdoing connected with the Roundups could constitute behavior
"prejudicial to the Government." In addition, any of the criminal misconduct alleged to have
occurred at the Roundups is likely to be prejudicial to the government since such behavior may
potentially diminish the public's willingness to respect, rely upon, trust, and follow the
instructions of law enforcement officers.
Racist acts and activities and sexual harassment and misconduct constitute immoral and
notoriously disgraceful activities. When engaged in by federal law enforcement officers,
236Customs Manual §51735.2(A), IRS Handbook §211 (Sept. 30, 1994).
93
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
particularly under circumstances that become the subject of public attention, they also result in
prejudice to the government. In the law enforcement context, recent criminal trials receiving
national attention reveal the prominent role that alleged racism plays in people's perception of
individual law enforcement officers as well as entire law enforcement agencies.
Applicability of Rules to Off-Duty, Off-Site Behavior
The Treasury Conduct Rules state that employees must adhere to all conduct regulations
when such employees are on official duty or in or on government property.237 The Rules do not
explicitly charge employees to abide by the conduct regulations when they are off duty and off
government property. However, in the past, the Department of the Treasury and its Bureaus have
disciplined its employees for off-duty, off-government property behavior. 238 This fact represents
powerful evidence that the drafters and enforcers of Treasury Rules did not intend to limit their
proscriptions to violations occurring on duty or on federal government property provided there is
nexus to the efficiency of the service.
Potential Consequences of Violating Rules
The Treasury Conduct Rules state that an employee found to be in violation of any of the
OGE Ethical Standards, Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, Treasury Conduct Rules, or
applicable Bureau rules, "may be instructed to take remedial or corrective action to eliminate the
conflict."239 Such remedial action includes, but is not limited to, the following: (i) reassignment
of work duties; (ii) disqualification from a particular assignment; (iii) divestment of a conflicting
interest; or (iv) other appropriate action.240
Moreover, the Treasury Conduct Rules state that an employee who violates any of the
OGE Ethical Standards, Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, Treasury Conduct Rules, or
Bureau rules may be disciplined in proportion to the "gravity of the offense committed, including
removal?~1 All applicable laws and regulations must be followed when disciplining an
employee. An employee's explanation of his or her behavior and any mitigating factors must be
237 31 C.F .R. § 0.210.
238The Review Team has reviewed every discipline case pursued by Treasury's Law
Enforcement Bureaus in the last three years.
239 31 C.F.R. § 0.102(b).
241 31 C.F.R. § 0.102(c).
94
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0) Boys Roundup Policy Review
considered prior to taking any disciplinary action. Such action may include any additional
penalty prescribed by law. 242
The heads of the various Treasury, Bureaus or their designees must take the necessary
corrective or disciplinary action against an employee who violates any of the OGE Ethical
Standards, Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, Treasury Conduct Rules, or any other
applicable law, rule or regulation.243 In addition, the Bureaus must take the necessary corrective
or disciplinary action against any supervisor who fails to take or recommend corrective or
disciplinary action when appropriate and required. 244 Treasury employees must report to the
Inspector General or the appropriate internal affairs office of A TF, Customs, IRS, or Secret
Service, information (i) implicating any employee, former employee, contractor, subcontractor,
or potential contractor in criminal conduct or (ii) indicating a violation of any of the OGE Ethical
Standards, Treasury Supplemental Ethical Standards, or Treasury Conduct Rules by any
employee or former employee. 245 Any attorney in the Legal Division of the Treasury Department
who, while representing any Treasury Bureau, acquires information such as that described in this
paragraph has the responsibility to report such information to the appropriate Chief or Legal
Counselor the Deputy General Counsel who must report the information to the Inspector
General or appropriate internal affairs officer. 246
Conclusion: Nexus is a Prerequisite for Disciplining an Employee
Ultimately, all rules discussed herein constitute mere guidelines. On the one hand, an
employee need not violate a written rule to be disciplined. On the other hand, a mere violation of
a rule does not provide sufficient justification for disciplinary action. As discussed above, the
law provides that federal employees may be disciplined only for "such cause as will promote the
efficiency of the service."247 Thus, to discipline an employee because the employee violated a
standard of ethical conduct or a rule or code of conduct, an agency must show that such violation
adversely affects the activities and/or mission of the agency. To discipline an employee for
242Id.
243 31 C.F.R. § 106(c) (1995).
245 31 C.F.R. § 0.107. The Bureau rules would appear to be included in the list as well;
however, they were not listed.
247 5 U.S.c. § 7513.
95
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Revie~'f
participating in any of the alleged misbehavior connected with the Roundups, the Department of
the Treasury must prove that such participation adversely affects the efficiency of the service. In
essence, Treasury officials must show a nexus between the alleged Roundup conduct and the
undermining of the agency's ability to do its job.
96
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER SEVEN
RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING
DISCIPLINARY POLICIES
The Need for Clarification of Existing Policy
As discussed above,248 existing rules and policies already allow for the discipline of an
employee who engages in racist, sexist, or other forms of conduct evidencing invidious
prejudice. Under existing law, disciplinary action may be taken, whether such misconduct
occurs on or off duty, when it adversely affects the efficiency of the service. Such an adverse
effect on the efficiency of the service can be shown either by demonstrating a negative impact
upon the job performance of the employee who commits the misconduct, or of his or her coworkers, or by showing that the conduct in question is fundamentally inconsistent with the
mission of the agency.
It is imperative that Treasury law enforcement officers have a steadfast commitment to
the fair and impartial enforcement of the law. When conduct evidencing invidious prejudice is
established, it impairs the credibility ofthe officer, as well as the public's perception of the
agency, and undermines the level of trust that supervisors, co-workers, and members of the
public are willing to repose in an officer who engages in such conduct or in an agency that
tolerates such an officer. 249
Therefore, the purpose of any modification of existing rules resides in the communicative
functions such disciplinary rules would perform, separate and apart from providing the authority
to take disciplinary action. The adoption of rules and policies expressly addressing specific types
of behavior serves a number of purposes that simple reliance upon the general "efficiency of the
service" formula of the Civil Service Reform Act cannot achieve. For example, the
promulgation of such specific rules and policies communicates to employees and the public at
248See Chapters 4-6, supra.
249Certain other forms of misconduct alleged to have occurred at the Roundups--such as
public drunkenness and lewdness--could also have a negative effect upon an officer's credibility
and job performance, as well as on public perception of the Treasury Department, if established.
When such a job-related nexus is demonstrated, such misconduct would likewise be subject to
discipline under existing rules. This Report, however, will focus on the conduct suggestive of
racism and sexism (and, by extension, other forms of invidious prejudice) on the part of federal
law enforcement officers.
97
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
large the values of the institution and the relative significance the institution attaches to those
values. Specific rules and policies give guidance to managers and supervisors concerning the
application of the broad standard of efficiency of the service. Specific rules and policies also
give notice to employees of the expectations of the Department, thereby serving a training and
deterrent function by reinforcing those expectations.
Specific rules and policies also enhance the ability of the agency to impose appropriate
levels of discipline for serious offenses. This is true, first, because the agency bears the burden
of establishing the nexus between the conduct in question and the efficiency of the service.
Especially where off duty conduct is at issue, the process and discussion accompanying the
adoption of the rule or policy can provide substance to the agency's contention that certain forms
of conduct in fact adversely affect the efficiency of the service. Moreover, one of the Doug/as 251
factors the MSPB routinely considers in determining whether discipline is appropriate or should
be mitigated is the degree of notice given to the employee that the particular conduct in question
would subject him or her to such discipline.
Indeed, despite the fact that no express rule is necessary for the Department to exercise its
statutory authority to impose discipline "for such cause as promotes the efficiency of the
service,"252 the federal government, the Treasury Department, and the Treasury Bureaus have
consistently elected to promulgate disciplinary rules and policies because of the obvious
importance the government attaches to communicating specifically and unambiguously to
employees and the public alike those categories of misconduct to which it assigns the greatest
importance.
Public trust and confidence in the fair and impartial enforcement of the laws and in the
integrity and professionalism of Treasury law enforcement officers are of paramount importance
to the law enforcement mission. Due to the importance of communicating specific and
unambiguous rules to its employees and the public and to ensure public trust and confidence, the
Treasury Department should promulgate an express rule prohibiting invidiously prejudiced
conduct, whether on or off duty, by its law enforcement officers. The Treasury Department does
not currently have such a rule. The Department does have a "catch-all" rule generally proscribing
"criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or any other conduct
prejudicial to the Government." Although certain kinds of off-duty misconduct may prejudice
the govemme~!. the existing rule makes no express reference to off-duty conduct. Likewise, the
Department currently has a nondiscrimination policy. However, although that rule
2S1Douglas v. T'eterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981). See Chapter Four at 6163. supra.
:5:-) u
T' .S.C. ~~
"7-0'"
)~, 7-1'"
)~.
98
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
communicates the intent of the Department that employees not discriminate or harass others
based on race and other bias-related classifications, the rule does not define the terms
"discrimination" or "harassment." Departmental employees are also subject to a governmentwide
prohibition on "outside activities" that conflict, or create an appearance of conflict, with the
employees' duties.253 Despite its broad language, however, this rule typically has been
interpreted and applied to outside employment, business, and financial activities, and the
Treasury Department's implementing regulations expressly limit the standard to such
254
Supplemental rules on each of the foregoing topics promulgated by
commercial activities.
some of the Treasury Enforcement Bureaus provide additional guidance, but do not specifically
or consistently address the issue of off-duty and bias-motivated conduct.
To remove any question that might otherwise exist in the minds of employees or the
public on the Department's policy on off-duty conduct evidencing invidious prejudice, the
Review proposes the following recommendations.
Organizing Principle of the Policy Recommendations
All of the policy modifications advanced in this and subsequent chapters are driven by a
single organizing principle:
Both the reality and the appearance of integrity, professionalism, and
impartiality in the performance of duty are expected of all Treasury
employees, and are essential to the ability of law enforcement personnel
to perform their mission. Both on-duty and off-duty employee conduct
may adversely affect the public's perception of the integrity,
professionalism, and impartiality of the employee and the agency and
may otherwise adversely affect the efficiency of the service.
The Treasury Department's nondiscrimination policy currently prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability.255
Conduct, on or off duty, demonstrating hatred or prejudice toward individuals and groups on the
basis of any of these characteristics can reasonably cause one to question the integrity,
professionalism, and impartiality ofthe employee and the agency. Conduct demonstrating such
invidious prejudices undermines the ability of law enforcement personnel to perform their
mission and is inconsistent with the Treasury Department's law enforcement mission. Such
253
5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.801, 2635.803.
254See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. § 3101.104, et seq.
255
31 C.F.R. § 0.214.
99
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
conduct therefore should not be tolerated by the Treasury Department and its Law Enforcement
Bureaus. This principle should be reflected and implemented at all phases of the Department's
dealings with its federal law enforcement officers, from initial screening and hiring procedures,
in introductory and advanced training, through evaluation and promotion measures, and
ultimately by disciplinary policies and actions.
Recommendation No.1: Off-Duty Conduct In General
The rules of all Treasury Bureaus and components that employ Treasury law
enforcement officers should be amended, as necessary, to include the following
provisions:
(1) Treasury law enforcement officers may be disciplined for violations of the
rules governing conduct and procedure, as defined in Section O.102(a) of the
Treasury Rules of Conduct, whether the violation occurs on or off duty,
when violation of the rules adversely affects the efficiency of the service.
(2) Treasury law enforcement officers shall not engage, on or off duty, in
criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or any
other conduct prejudicial to the government. 256
Discussion: As noted in the discussion of existing policies, the Treasury Department has
statutory authority to take disciplinary action when such action promotes the efficiency of the
service. The Treasury Department has in the past taken disciplinary action when employees' offduty conduct adversely affected either the mission ofthe agency or the job performance of the
employee or of co-workers. The MSPB and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit have upheld such sanctions for off-duty conduct when government agencies have
supported their claims and have demonstrated the necessary nexus to job performance or agency
mission. By modifying existing rules to make this principle explicit, employees will be placed
on notice that their off-duty conduct can be the subject of disciplinary action.
~56Because
the mission of the Policy Review, as originally chartered by the Secretary of
the Treasury, was to propose any necessary modifications to the existing rules and policies
governing Treasury law enforcement personnel to prevent a recurrence of behavior such as that
alleged to have occurred during the Roundups, the policy recommendations advanced in this
Report are limited to Treasury law enforcement officers. However, the Treasury Department
may vvish to consider v·;hether corresponding changes to the current Treasury Conduct
Regulations, 60 Fed. Reg. 42,042, 28,535-38 (to be codified at 31 C.F.R. §§ 0.101, et seq.), may
be appropriate.
100
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Recommendation No.2: Bias-Motivated Conduct by Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Each Treasury Bureau or component that employs Treasury law enforcement
officers should adopt the following rule prohibiting law enforcement officers within
their agencies from engaging in bias-motivated conduct on or off duty:
Treasury law enforcement officers shall not use or engage in, on or off duty,
abusive, derisive, profane, or demeaning statements, conduct, or gestures
evidencing hatred or invidious prejudice to or about another person or group
on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age, or disability.
As set forth in Recommendation No.1 above, such conduct will result in disciplinary
action when it adversely affects the efficiency of the service.
Discussion: Racist, sexist, and other fonns of conduct evidencing invidious prejudice257 on the
part of Treasury law enforcement officers pose special problems for the public and for the
Treasury Department's law enforcement mission, and officers can and should be held to a higher
standard in this area. This rule states clearly and unequivocally the standard that Treasury law
enforcement officers should not make statements or engage in conduct evidencing hatred or
invidious prejudice against any of the groups protected under the Department's
nondiscrimination policy. The rule is stated, as are other departmental rules of conduct, in a
simple, imperative fashion.
The Department considers racism, sexism, and other conduct on the part of Treasury law
enforcement officers evidencing hatred and invidious prejudice against any group of citizens to
be reprehensible. There are, however, limitations on the Department's ability to impose
discipline for such conduct. In the first instance, prejudice-related conduct would be subject to
disciplinary investigation only when it has come to the attention of the Department in some
fashion. An officer who harbors prejudice so privately that no statement, act, or gesture is
reported to or otherwise learned of by the Treasury would obviously not be subject to discipline.
Second, the Department is committed to abiding by those procedural safeguards that currently
exist with respect to all fonns of disciplinary action to ensure that the rights of individual
Treasury law enforcement officers are protected. Thus, the Bureau would be required to
257For ease of reference, abusive, derisive, profane, or demeaning statements, conduct, or
gestures evidencing hatred or prejudice to or about another person or group on account of race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability will be referred to
hereafter alternatively as "bias-motivated conduct" or as "conduct evidencing invidious
prejudice."
101
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
establish the veracity of the underlying allegation of misconduct before taking any action.
Moreover, as in any disciplinary action, the Bureau would be required to comply with its
statutory obligation to prove an adequate nexus between the misconduct and the efficiency of the
service in order to impose discipline.
Courts accord substantial deference to a public employer's prediction of future harm from
certain kinds of misconduct in employee discipline cases. As the Supreme Court held in Connick
v. Myers, "We do not see the necessity for an employer to allow events to unfold to the extent
that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before
taking action."258 More recently, a plurality of the Supreme Court observed in Waters v.
Churchill:
[W]e have consistently given greater deference to government predictions of harm
used to justify restriction of employee speech than to predictions of harm used to
justify restriction on the speech of the public at large. Few of the examples we
have discussed [in prior cases] involve tangible, present interference with the
agency's operation. The danger in them is mostly speculative .... But we have
given substantial weight to government employers' reasonable predictions of
disruption, even when the speech involved is on a matter of public concem.259
The MSPB also recognizes that certain types of offenses have an inherent impact on the
efficiency of the service. 260 In such cases, an employee's otherwise satisfactory job performance
or even evidence that the offense has not been widely publicized will be unlikely to be sufficient
to rebut the inference arising from the inherent relation between the employee's misconduct and
the agency's mission, and the agency need not always prove a case-specific impact on the
efficiency of the service before taking disciplinary action up to and including dismissa1. 261
Indeed, the agency need not even "await actual impairment of service efficiency before taking
action, which would be contrary to the public interest .... "262 For the reasons discussed below,
the Bureaus should be able to establish in a disciplinary case that racist and other conduct
evidencing invidious prejudice is incompatible with the law enforcement mission and will
258 461 U.S. 138,152 (1983).
259 114 S. Ct. 1878, 1887 (1994).
260See e.g., Schumacher v. Us. Postal Service, 52 M.S.P.R. 575 (1992) (conflict of
interest from dual employment).
2611d.
2621d.
102
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
J
severely impair an officer's ability to carry out his or her job responsibilities in a satisfactory
manner.
In addition to the generally destructive effects of conduct evidencing invidious prejudice
upon Treasury law enforcement job performance and the agency mission, the Bureau could
present any additional evidence of nexus specific to the individual case. The employee, on the
other hand, would have the opportunity of coming forward with evidence or arguments, if any, to
establish why nexus did not exist. As they do with respect to other offenses, managers would be
able to exercise a measure of discretion with respect to the institution of disciplinary proceedings
in those presumably rare factual circumstances in which the effect of prejudice-related conduct
uponjob performance and the agency's mission is found to be attenuated. Managers would also
have the flexibility to adjust the severity of discipline as appropriate in light of the seriousness of
the offense and any surrounding mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Employees would
retain their current rights to obtain review of these determinations.
Many police forces currently have policies that strictly prohibit racist language or
behavior, at least in an on-duty context, under threat of suspension or termination if the behavior
persists. 263 Racist and other forms of bias-related conduct by law enforcement officers impair the
law enforcement mission, even when the conduct takes place outside the work setting. Such
expressions of prejudice create an unacceptable risk that officers will act on their prejudices in a
professional setting, whether through biased targeting of individuals for investigation, search, or
arrest; excessive use of force; racial, sexual, or other forms of harassment of co-workers or
citizens; failure to provide appropriate backup to a partner, or to respond promptly and
effectively in situations involving a victim or complainant who is a member of a group against
which the officer is prejudiced; or through many other forms of possible discriminatory conduct.
To continue to invest the armed authority and discretion of a Treasury law enforcement officer in
an individual who has through statements or conduct expressed hatred or prejudice against
certain groups of citizens poses a serious danger to public safety. Such prejudice also places the
government at risk ofliability in civil rights actions based upon the officer's conduct.
If left unchecked, the racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, or other invidious prejudice of even
a few officers would cast doubt on the essential functions performed by every one of Treasury's
law enforcement components. The following hypothetical statements illustrate the potential
263Kevin Sack, Racism of a Rogue Officer Casts Suspicion on Police Nationwide, NEW
YORK TIMES, Sept. 4, 1995, at 1, col. 2. This article does not distinguish between rules
prohibiting such conduct in an on-duty context and rules expressly extending to off-duty
behavior. The same article notes that sixty-five cities have civilian review boards that enforce
rules against racism and excessive force--a more than 300 percent increase since 1985.
103
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
problem. 264 For example, a Secret Service protective detail for an African or Israeli head of state
might be mistrusted by the protectees if there was racist or anti-Semitic sentiments ascribed to
even a few agents. Customs checks at the border could become suspect if even a few Inspectors
were known to have previously singled out people for searches for drugs and other contraband
based upon the color of their skin or their ethnic origin. ATF agents working with local law
enforcement agencies to stem the tide of gang-related violence in inner cities may fmd their
arrests of armed career criminals nullified by judges or jurors who came to believe that
defendants have been unfairly targeted based on their race or ethnicity, not on their extensive
felony records. If an IRS agent harbored invidious prejudice based on race or religion, it could
cause the public to question whether investigations of tax cheaters are predicated upon
impermissible factors.
Even if these risks never materialize and the officer's on-duty conduct is wholly
exemplary, off-duty expressions of invidious prejudice can nonetheless impair job performance
and the agency's mission. One of the most immediate effects is the undermining of the officer's
credibility. Criminal cases may often turn upon a single officer's testimony concerning, for
example, a cross-racial identification of a suspect or the officer's reasons for a stop, search, or
interrogation of a suspect. Prosecutors are required to disclose any evidence bearing upon an
officer's credibility to the defense; it does not matter whether such evidence relates to on-duty or
off-duty conduct, once the government becomes aware of the behavior or statements in
question. 265
The nation has recently been exposed to a widely publicized demonstration of the effect
of off-duty expressions of bias upon the credibility of Los Angeles Police detective Mark
Fuhrman in the O.J. Simpson trial. Past cases in which an officer has testified may have to be
relitigated when the government or the public learns of the officer's bias-related conduct; at a
minimum, the criminal justice system is further taxed by habeas corpus petitions from those who
claim their convictions hinged on the officer's tainted testimony.
The damage is not limited to the performance of the individual officer who engages in the
prejudice-related conduct, however. Co-workers, especially members of the group against
264These hypotheticals are intended for illustrative purposes only, and are not based on
actual situations.
265Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972)(holding that prosecution has a duty to present
all material evidence to the jury including a promise of leniency made to a key witness for the
prosecution); U.S. v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1990)(fmding district court erred in
denying defendant s request for discovery of personnel fIles of police officers called as
witnesses in his case).
I
104
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
whom the officer has exhibited prejudice, may be unwilling to work with such an officer or do so
reluctantly or resentfully. Moreover, when the public perceives that a law enforcement agency
has in its ranks officers who have expressed attitudes of prejudice, the ability of the agency to
perform its mission is undercut. For example, the effect of bias upon credibility is not limited to
the individual officer who engages in such bias if potential jurors generalize that such conduct is
accepted within the agency. Hence, a public perception that law enforcement is racist or
otherwise biased can result in jury nullification even when evidence of guilt is clear.
In addition, public perception that a law enforcement agency has racist officers in its
midst endangers the safety of the public and of other officers. Law enforcement effectiveness
depends upon the willingness of the vast majority of the public to comply voluntarily with the
instructions of law enforcement officers and to submit to their summary authority, even if the
citizen believes that the officer is wrong in a given case. If, however, significant segments of the
public believe that they are being policed by individuals with racist attitudes, the probability of
such peaceful acquiescence is diminished and the likelihood of escalating force and violence are
correspondingly increased. Moreover, the public will not usually know that it is Officer X or
Agent Y who has expressed bias against them; if they believe that the agency has prejudiced
officers in its midst.
An example of the consequences of perceived bias upon the ability of police agencies to
deploy personnel was provided in the aftermath of the Roundups. Two "rookie" officers
identified as having attended one of the Roundups were assigned by the Director of the
Memphis, Tennessee Police Department to patrol LeMoyne Gardens, a predominantly AfricanAmerican housing project. 266 Though the two officers were not identified by name, the public
was made aware of the reassignment of two young, white male officers to the project and of the
officers' attendance at the Roundups. The officers and their union sued to enjoin the transfers,
citing the physical risk to both these officers and other officers because of the public perception
that the department was assigning racist officers to the project. The court granted the injunction,
finding that the placement endangered not only the lives of the two officers in question, but also
the residents of the housing project and other officers "because of the inflammatory situation
created."267 The court went on to conclude:
Police Association v. City of Memphis, No.1 06252-1 R.D., slip op. at 2
(Tenn. Chancery Ct. Sept. 8, 1995). The reassignment apparently stemmed from an attempt by
the police department's director to punish the rookies for attending the Roundups without benefit
of any administrative hearing or other due process or evidentiary findings concerning their own
conduct and to teach them cultural diversity by placing them in an assignment in a majority
African-American community.
266 Memphis
267Id.
at 6-7.
105
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 . Boys Roundup Policy Review
Sadly, in a sense, the real victims of this unfortunate controversy have been the
law abiding residents of LeMoyne Gardens, and the needed, effective, and popular
police substation project placed there for the good of the community .... The
overwhelming majority are honorable, honest, good people who simply want a
peaceful, safe, calm community, where their police officers are not suspect or
distrusted, where their police officers are not branded or feared, where their police
officers are not afraid or distracted, but are a part of the community, a welcomed
part, because the police officers want to be there and are wanted .... [T]he job,
the dangerous, grueling job, of a police officer is hard and dangerous enough
without being distrusted and distracted, not because of proven conduct and
character, but because of unintended association with others. Both the officers
and the citizens of LeMoyne Gardens deserve better. 268
In the Memphis case, the court found credible the officers' denial of participation in any
of the racist activities alleged to have occurred at the Roundups, and the police department had
advanced no evidence that the officers had in fact engaged in, or even witnessed, any such
conduct. The court nevertheless found that the safety of these two officers, their fellow officers,
and the general public was jeopardized because of the public perception that stemmed from their
association with racist activities by others. The same job-related consequences obviously follow
with even greater force when law enforcement officers have in fact personally engaged in
prejudiced conduct, even in their off duty hours.
As the cases and hypotheticals set forth above make clear, it is difficult to conceive of a
situation in which the Treasury Department could learn of racist conduct on the part of a federal
law enforcement officer but be unable to show nexus to the officer's job performance and the
agency's mission. Once allegations of such conduct come to the attention of the Treasury, both
the Department and the general public have a compelling interest in maintaining the reality and
the perception that such prejudice is not tolerated.
Although it is true that the rule may impinge upon federal law enforcement officers'
ability to engage in racist and other prejudice-related speech, the Supreme Court has routinely
upheld the constitutionality of analogous restrictions on the First Amendment rights of public
employees. Courts have adopted an approach far more deferential to governmental restrictions
on speech and associational rights when the government is acting not as sovereign but in the role
of employer. Although courts have routinely held that citizens do not relinquish all of their First
Amendment rights when accepting public employment, they have consistently recognized that
these rights must be balanced against the competing governmental interest in the efficiency of the
ser\"lce.
2681d. at 8-9.
106
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
The Treasury Department has a sound legal basis, as well as the moral obligation, to take
the steps recommended in this Report. Indeed, each of the senior public officials who addressed
the early allegations concerning the Roundups made clear that such racist and biased conduct
was incompatible with service as a federal law enforcement officer. The President unequivocally
condemned such conduct at the time the Roundups were first publicized: "I want to say that if
anybody who works in Federal law enforcement thinks that kind of behavior [referring to the
allegations of racist and other misconduct at the Roundups] is acceptable, they ought to think
about working someplace else. "269
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin seconded that sentiment in announcing the
commencement of the Department's fact-finding investigation and policy review:
An enduring legacy of American racism is the belief--justified in many instances-among African Americans and other minorities that justice at times is enforced
against them in a discriminatory fashion. For these reasons, law enforcement
officials--in perception and reality--must demonstrate on and off the job that they
are as free from bias as their jobs require them to be. And it is the responsibility
of their supervisors, right up to the Office of the Secretary, to be vigilant--so
justice is administered with integrity, fairness and freedom from bias. We
condemn as totally abhorrent the participation of law enforcement officials in the
'Good 0' Boys Roundup,' because it included abjectly racist and anti-Semitic
behavior totally inappropriate for law enforcement officers, and because no one
who participated in it had the good sense or decency to do anything about it. That
is unacceptable and we will make sure it does not happen again .... [T]he men and
women of the Treasury Department's enforcement Bureaus ... do dangerous and
difficult work. ... [That work] absolutely requires our support for them to be
effective. And that support in turn depends on law enforcement officials
conducting themselves with scrupulous fairness, without any hint of racism or
bias. 270
In addition, Under Secretary Noble forcefully reiterated the Treasury Department's policy
against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bias in law enforcement in his remarks
to the Senate Judiciary Committee during its July 1995 hearing on the Roundups:
269Statement of President Clinton at July 20, 1995 Press Conference, as reported by Fox
Butterfield, Clinton Assails Officers' Racist Event; Gathering Is Defended by the Organizer as
Get-Acquainted Party, NEW YORK TIMES, July 20, 1995, at A16.
27°Rubin Statement, supra note 3, 1-2.
107
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
As Secretary Rubin has stated time and again, and well before this incident came
to light, there is no place at Treasury for discrimination or racism of any kind.
This principle has been, and will continue to be, our guide at Treasury
Enforcement as we address issues of race, including those raised by this ugly
gathering. To take any other attitude would call into question the moral and legal
authority upon which law enforcement rests .... [R]acist sentiment anywhere
within law enforcement is a threat to right minded, legitimate law enforcement
everywhere. If left unchecked, the racism, anti-Semitism or sexism of even a few
officers would cast doubt on the essential functions performed and missions
carried out by the entire law enforcement community. [O]ne person in attendance
at an expressly discriminatory and racist event is one too many .... A racist law
enforcement officer cannot effectively enforce the laws of our society while
ensuring the essential civil rights of its citizens. Such a person therefore should
have no place in law enforcement. 271
Under Secretary Noble also testified that the basis for this policy was universally
understood within the federal law enforcement community:
I would say that no F ederallaw enforcement officer can say that he or she would
be unaware of the cost to their testimony and their credibility if it were known that
in their private lives or in some organization they espoused or articulated or held
racist, anti-Semitic, or sexist views.272
Shortly after the allegations concerning the Roundups surfaced, ATF Director John
Magaw issued his own statement declaring a policy of "zero-tolerance" for such conduct by law
enforcement officers assigned to his Bureau:
Since coming to ATF as Director in October 1993, I have continually stated that
we have zero tolerance to any kind of discrimination or harassment. If any of this
misconduct exists in A TF, I want it searched out and destroyed. I am appalled
that an event such as the one reported in today's Washington Times would happen
in any facet of our society--particularly involving law enforcement officers ....
Everyone at ATF knows of my intolerance for discrimination and harassment. If
271Noble Statement, supra note 10, at 2-3, 8-9. Under Secretary Noble also affirmed his
personal commitment to making clear that "there is no place within the Department of the
Treasury for law enforcement officers who engage in racist, antisemitic, or sexist behavior." Id.
at 9.
7.'21/95 Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 101.
108
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
an inquiry finds that anyone is involved in these practices, I will do everything in
my power to mete out the strongest possible discipline. 273
These views are not limited to representatives of the executive branch of government.
The chair, the ranking minority member--indeed, all ofthe members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee on both sides of the aisle who addressed the issue--agreed that bias was antithetical to
the mission of law enforcement that those who engage in it should be punished, and that a clear
message must be sent that such conduct will not be tolerated. Thus, referring to the statements of
Under Secretary Noble, Director Magaw, and other witnesses who testified at Senate Judiciary
Committee hearings on the Roundups that bias within law enforcement was unacceptable,274
Senator Orrin Hatch, chair of the Committee, stated, "I personally am pleased with your
statements. I think you have sent a message throughout this country that you are not going to
tolerate this crap, and I think it is about time."275 Each of the members of the Senate Judiciary
273Statement of ATF Director John Magaw, ATF News Release, July 11, 1995.
274See, e.g., Statement of Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, 7/21195 Senate Tr.,
supra note 24, at 30 (" We must assure that the public continues to have confidence in law
enforcement's ability to treat all citizens fairly and equitably. Even if just a few Federal law
enforcement officials engage in racist activities of the kind that has been alleged here, they
tarnish the reputation of all of us. This is unacceptable."); Statement of FBI Director Louis B.
Freeh, id. at 38, 41, 120-121 ("In my view, it is not a close question. Anyone who attended this
event with knowledge of any racist overtones, or who returned to that event with that knowledge,
has no place in law enforcement and should not be in law enforcement. We will not tolerate
participation and support of any FBI personnel in any activity that is racist or otherwise illegal or
improper. ... We have too much to lose by tolerating this kind of behavior, even if it is one FBI
agent participating for one day with knowledge of the activities. So we are committed to rooting
this out."); Statement of DEA Director Constantine, id. at 50,53 ("What happens is that if
people believe that law enforcement officials use race or sex or any other type of criteria to use
that tremendous power to take somebody's life or to detain somebody, you have lost your
credibility, and once you lose your credibility, you have lost your effectiveness .... I think it is
absolutely apparent that something went radically wrong down there, and that will be in the
memory of the American people forever, regardless of which individual is responsible or which
individual ran it or which individual knew it was happening. It is indelibly printed in the minds
of people in America right now that somewhere in the law enforcement system there are people
who are racially motivated in their principles .... The end result very likely will be the death of
agents or police officers if the system does not believe in them and they do not have
credibility. ").
275
7/21195 Senate Tr., supra note 24, at 55.
109
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Committee who made statements at the hearings on the Roundups echoed similar sentiments
regarding the fundamental incompatibility of racism and other forms of bias with the
responsibilities of federal law enforcement:
Senator Hatch: " Americans .. " must be able to rely on the impartiality of those who
enforce the law .... Matters of life and death and the protection of our liberties are
entrusted to law enforcement officials. If someone authorized to wield a gun in the name
of the law can knowingly organize, participate, and find comfort in gatherings such as ...
[the Roundups], in my opinion, that person does not deserve the public trust, and I don't
know anybody else who would differ with that. Faced with a threatening situation or the
perception of a threat, can we be confident that such an agent would not react based at
least in part on prejudice if the situation involved an African American and perhaps other
minority people? This is not a matter of concern to African Americans only. Prejudice is
not so readily limited, and I would not want someone exhibiting such poor judgment and
such prejudice enforcing the law with respect to me either. Those who participate in such
an event, knowing of its racist nature, should not carry a badge, plain and simple. It does
not take very much judgment or wisdom to understand that such a gathering is no place
for a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. One purpose of this hearing, of
course, is to send just that message, and I hope that every law enforcement agency in the
country, including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, will adopt it ....
We expect the highest caliber people in law enforcement. [W]e expect them to be people
who are fair and decent and non-discriminatory, who really abide by what those badges
mean. So that when they exercise their authority and their power ... people will accept
it and understand that this is being done fairly and with [sic] discrimination."276
Senator Biden: "The allegations [concerning racist and sexist conduct at the Roundups],
if true, reveal a behavior that falls far, far short of any standard of conduct and
professionalism that not only do we demand, but that we should expect .... But unless
you all are able to communicate that, in fact, to the American public, you all have a
problem. We have a problem; the Government has a problem; law enforcement has a
problem .... This besmirches the reputation, if it turns out to be true, of everybody who
276 7/21/95 Senate Ir., supra note 24, at 1-4, 161-62. Senator Hatch also made clear that
he wanted to know more about whether the MSPB system was thwarting appropriate law
enforcement disciplinary actions, because "[ w]e have got to get people who act like this out of
agencIes. 'lv' e have got to have confidence in our law enforcement people."
110
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
has a badge, and I think you owe it to them to make sure you understand, by whatever
means you can, legal and societal, you make these folks pay."277
Senator Heflin: "The underlying aspect of this ought to be investigated and there ought
to be action that is taken with the idea of eliminating [racial prejudice] that exists in law
enforcement, or certainly minimizing it, ifit exists today."278
Senator Feinstein: "[T]his really concerns me greatly, not only generally the racial
bigotry that took place, but accompanying it, apparently, was excessive use of alcohol,
possible rape of women, and possible use of narcotics .... My thinking is that it may very
well be time that there be a federally drafted and passed code of conduct for behavior,
both public behavior and private behavior, for those who serve in the military and those
who serve in law enforcement in our country because there seems to be event after event
that takes place with behavior that casts a pall over all the good people in law
enforcement nationwide. . .. I just do not believe that we can allow inappropriate, very
often illegal conduct to take place by anybody in the military or law enforcement people
in their private time. They take an oath of office. They are essentially sworn, and with
that oath, I think, come special responsibilities"279
Senator Thurmond: "We deplore racist activity and fmd it even more reprehensible if
practiced by law enforcement. We live in a country where justice is blind and where the
laws are enforced even-handedly. The American people must have confidence that this is
a reality and not a goal. If law enforcement officials have participated in the type of
activities reportedly occurring at these annual gatherings, then they should be disciplined
immediately. Public trust must not be betrayed."280
Senator Thompson: "If people want to pay $90 and travel hundreds of miles to go out
into the woods and act like fools, that is their constitutional right, but they do not have a
right to spend one penny of Government assets in doing so. They do not have a right to
2771d. at 7, 10. Although Senator B iden expressed uncertainty as to whether authorities
would be able to take legal action in cases of off-duty conduct and asked the witnesses to inform
the Committee of their conclusions in that regard, he noted, "But I think we should make it clear
that anybody who attended these things, if they turn out to be as bad as it appeared, at a
minimum, they should be shunned; they should be disgraced out of their badge." Id. at 10.
278Id. at 87-88.
279Id. at 93,97, 102.
280
1d. at 118.
III
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
utilize one second of Government time in doing so, and they don't have a right to do it if
they are Federal law enforcement agents and, by that conduct, make their job and their
fellows' jobs that much more difficult. ... Thousands of criminal defendants across this
country will now have another arrow in their quiver in every conceivable kind of criminal
prosecution now because of what these relatively few people did down there from time to
time .... Think of the relationships between the black and white officers who go out
shoulder to shoulder and risk their lives together, and what it does to that. That is what
we are dealing with. That is why it is so important. . .. I have been concerned about
some ofthe things that I have heard about you can't discipline anybody anymore ....
You must show a nexus between the activity and the fact that it makes it more difficult to
carry out their job. But I cannot think of any closer nexus than this kind of activity, if it
is true.281
Senator Leahy: "You have law enforcement of all branches in this country given a great
deal of power, a great deal of responsibility. But it also means you also give up some of
the kinds of freedoms that you might feel you have otherwise. . .. [W]e all know you
cannot say, well, I do not have my badge and my uniform on now so now I can be a
racist, now I can [be] insensitive, now I can do things that would be a crime for anybody
else to do. In fact, in many ways the argwnent can be made just the opposite, that you
cannot raise hell and you cannot do things others might be able to do, no matter how
reprehensible, just because they may not reach the level of criminality."282
Senator DeWine: "I think what we expect oflaw enforcement is that, at least in 1995,
we do not tolerate this [racism] anymore. We do not tolerate that type attitude, because
there has to be an understanding that type mental attitude, even among a small number of
people in an agency, is just wrong.283
Senator Abraham: "[O]ne of the most disturbing elements of the criminal justice system
right now ... is the extent to which we see trials tum from a determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused into a trial of law enforcement and its performance ....
[I]ncidents such as this, I think, give those on the defense counsel side of the ledger
further reasons to try to put the police on trial or to put the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on trial or whatever. "284
281Id. at 131-33, 137.
28:Id. at 145.
283Id. at 147.
28~Id.
112
at 155.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
The Bias-Motivated Conduct Rule is intended to declare, in a manner consistent with the
force and clarity with which all of those public leaders spoke on this issue, that such conduct will
not be tolerated by the Department of the Treasury. The intention of the rule is to make sure that
there is no doubt on the part of the public and the Treasury Department's law enforcement
officers concerning the Department's commitment to prevent and, failing that, to discipline
instances of racist and other forms of conduct evidencing invidious prejudice. Although the
Department could take disciplinary action under existing rules, a rule expressly addressing biased
conduct serves a communicative and deterrent goal. First, despite the presence of the catch-all
rule and various articulations of the Treasury Department's nondiscrimination policy, it is clear
from the Inspector General's Report that a number of the Department's law enforcement
personnel attended, many on a recurring basis, an event that was, at the least, largely segregated
(whether intentionally or de facto) along racial and gender lines and that involved racist and
sexist conduct in various forms by some of the participants. According to the Inspector
General's Report, at least some of the Treasury law enforcement officers who attended the events
have admitted observing overtly racist incidents and making no response. 285
Moreover, both the promulgation of a rule and the failure to promulgate a rule convey a
message. For example, in response to problems that developed over the years, the organizers of
the Roundups published a set of rules requiring the wearing of wristbands for beer and food
access and prohibiting fighting, fireworks, attendance by persons under eighteen years old, the
presence of press, or the disclosure of embarrassing stories about events that transpired at the
Roundups. However, despite the repeated instances of racist conduct, the organizers never
published a rule prohibiting such conduct. 286 The failure to adopt a rule prohibiting racist and
inappropriate sexual behavior may well have communicated to those who attended the event, and
certainly suggests to those examining it in retrospect, a measure of tolerance for such conduct.
In the same way, the Treasury Department sends a message about what it considers most
important when it determines what forms of conduct should be addressed by formal rules. The
Department and its Bureaus currently have rules concerning, among other topics, drinking and
gambling on public property, soliciting donations or distributing advertisements or other
285It is not the intention of this Report to assign blame to or to exonerate any individual;
that will be the duty of Bureau managers who will have before them all of the available facts and
evidence with respect to a given individual's knowledge and conduct.
286The Inspector General's Report noted some evidence that at one of the Roundups a
card stating "no racism" was placed at the registration table. Other witnesses responded they did
not see such a sign. In either case, it is undisputed that no prohibition of racist conduct was
added to the rules published in the Roundup invitations, even after serious instances of racist
misconduct occurred.
113
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
literature in the work place, and misusing government vehicles. In the wake of an incident such
as the Roundups, the communicative need for a rule expressly addressing off-duty racist and
other bias-motivated conduct by Treasury law enforcement officers is now clear. Moreover, the
constitutional sensitivity of the application of disciplinary action to off-duty expressive activity
calls for as much specific guidance as possible concerning the categories of conduct that would
trigger an investigation and discipline. Although, as described elsewhere in this Report, the
catch-all "efficiency of the service" rule can supply the legal basis for discipline and has been
upheld against vagueness challenges,287 the greater the specificity of the guidance provided
concerning when and how discipline will be applied, the less intrusive the disciplinary process
will be upon other, protected forms of expression and conduct. The Treasury Department
performed an extensive review and analysis of the case law bearing upon the constitutionality of
the Recommendations set forth in this Report and concluded that the actions proposed do not
impermissibly infringe the constitutional rights of the employees affected.
Moreover, the Treasury Department owes a duty to its managers and supervisors who will
be required to make the front-line decisions to provide as much clarity as possible about when
and how discipline is expected to be applied. Obviously, the ability of managers and supervisors
to exercise discretion appropriate to the facts of individual cases must be maintained. However,
the legal and policy issues involved in this Report are both important and complex and involve
delicate balancing of civil rights and civil liberties. These issues have been the focus of a
number of the Department's lawyers and senior policy makers on a full-time basis for
approximately seven months. By recommending this rule the Department fulfills a duty to field-
287Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974)(finding the "such cause as will promote the
efficiency of the service" standards in 5 U.S.c. 7501 not impermissibly vague or over broad in
its regulation of speech of federal employees); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)(finding
Uniform Code of Military Justice rule authorizing court-martial for "conduct unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman" neither unconstitutionally vague or over broad). A number of courts
have rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges to broadly phrased police and fIre
department conduct rules, noting the need for strict discipline and camaraderie. See, e.g.,
Vorbeck v. Schnicker, 660 F .2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 921 (1982)(relying
on Parker and Kelly v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1974)); Davis v. Williams, 617 F. 2d 1100 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 937 (1980); Aiello v. City of Wilmington, 623 F.2d 845 (3rd Cir.
1980); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire, Etc., 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1977); Kannisto v.
City and County o/San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1976); Harper v. Crockett, 868
F.Supp. 1557 (E.D. Ark. 1994); Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Barry, 742 F.Supp. 1182 (D.D.C. 1990);
Hopkins v. A1ayor & Council of City o/Wilmington, 600 F.Supp. 542 (D.De. 1984); Marshall v.
Cit)' ofAtlanta, 614 F.Supp. 581 (N.D.Ga. 1984); Magri v. Giarusso, 379 F.Supp. 353 (E.D.La.
1974).
114
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0> Boys Roundup Policy Review
level supervisors, most of whom have no legal training, to clearly articulate the policy that these
supervisors will be expected to carry out.
Recommendation No.3: Membership or Participation in Hate Groups
Each Treasury Bureau or component that employs law enforcement officers should
publish guidelines for the application of the Bias-Motivated Conduct Rule set forth
in Recommendation No.2 above to membership in hate groups or other behavior
through which a Treasury law enforcement officer might associate himself or herself
with the prejudice-related conduct of others. Such guidelines should contain at least
the following language: .
A Treasury law enforcement officer who knowingly becomes or remains a
member of or participates in a hate group or otherwise knowingly associates
himself or herself with the hate-motivated activities of others, proceeds at the
risk that his or her membership, participation, or association could
reasonably be taken as tacit approval of the prejudice-related aspects of
those groups or activities and could subject the officer to disciplinary
investigation and possible disciplinary action. As used here, "hate group" or
"hate-motivated activities" are defined as an organization, association, event,
or activity, the sole or a primary purpose of which is to advocate or promote
hate, violence, or invidious prejudice against individuals or groups on
account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age,
or disability.
The guidelines should also inform officers and their supervisors of the factors that
will be applied in determining whether disciplinary action will result.
Discussion: When a Treasury law enforcement officer knowingly participates in a hate group the
public will often infer that the officer shares the objectives of the organizations and activities to
which the officer lends his or her name and time. 288 As a result, membership or participation in
racist organizations or activities causes the same damage to the credibility of and public
perception toward the officer and the agency to which he or she belongs as has been discussed
above with respect to the officer's personal participation in prejudice-related conduct. Thus,
courts have recognized that police officers are subject to limitations on their associational rights,
where the nature of the association is antithetical to the law enforcement mission. For example,
288Recent events such as the alleged murders of an African-American couple by two
soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg who were members of a racist skinhead group have highlighted
the dangers of participation in hate groups by members of the military.
115
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
an officer can be disciplined for fraternizing with felons, organized crime figures, or
undocumented aliens (and, under some circumstances, with their family members), even though
there is no direct evidence that the officer has engaged in or agreed to engage in illegal activity
him or herself.2 89 Adverse public reaction to a law enforcement officer's participation in an
organization or event whose hate, violence or prejudice-related goals or methods are antithetical
to the mission of law enforcement is likewise a sufficient basis for investigation. 290
These guidelines, which supplement the Bias-Motivated Conduct Rule set forth in
Recommendation No.2, underscore the need for Treasury law enforcement officers to exercise
good judgment in their choice of the groups and activities in which they become involved,
because such involvements may bear upon the officer's credibility and upon public perception of
the impartiality, professionalism, and integrity of the individual officer and his or her law
enforcement agency, thereby adversely affecting the efficiency of the service.
The guidelines should encourage Treasury law enforcement officers to assess the
appropriateness of their affiliations and activities on an on-going basis with an appreciation of
the effect they will have on the credibility and effectiveness of the officer and on the perception
of the agency were they to become known to the general public. For example, the guidelines
could indicate that if an officer is uncertain about the propriety of attendance at an event that has
multiple purposes but might be publicly perceived as promoting bias, he or she should seek
guidance in advance from a supervisor or ethics officer after making full disclosure of the
possible bases for negative perception. Absent a legitimate purpose, such as intelligence
gathering, an officer who joins a hate group or associates with the hate-driven activities of others
proceeds at the risk that his or her presence may reasonably be taken as tacit approval of the
289See, e.g., Bolton and Turpin v. Department of Justice, 26 M.S.P.R. 658 (1985)
(correctional officers removed for soliciting fmancial aid from an inmate for officers' business
venture); Morones v. Department ofJustice, 35 M.S.P.R. 285 (1987) (supervisory Immigration
and Naturalization Service officer removed for personal relationship with alien facing
deportation proceedings); Baron v. Meloni, 602 F.Supp. 614 (W.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 779 F.2d
336 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058 (1986); Swankv. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247,1252 (7th
Cir.) (suggesting that contrary analysis in Wilson v. Taylor, 733 F.2d 1539 (11 th Cir. 1984).
which had overturned a police officer's termination for dating the daughter of an alleged
mobster, had itself been tacitly overruled by Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609
(1984), which rejected the notion of a constitutional right to social associations), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 853 (1990).
290See. e.g.. McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 940 (lIth Cir. 1985)(upholding dismissal
of an active member of and recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan from position as sheriffs department
dispatcher).
116
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
J
prejudice-related aspects of those groups and activities will subject the officer to discipline. This
rule does not imply that mere membership is sufficient grounds for disciplinary action.
As discussed above with respect to the Bias-Motivated Conduct Rule, the agency retains
the burden of demonstrating nexus between the officer's membership or participation in a group
or activity and the officer's job or the agency's mission. Moreover, in applying the rule,
managers should be mindful of the factual circumstances surrounding an officer's involvement in
a group or event that might affect the reasonableness ofthe conclusion that membership or
participation indicates the officer's support of the discriminatory goals of the organization or
event.
For example, a Treasury law enforcement officer would be hard-pressed to justify
participation in a group or event whose sole or primary purpose of inflaming hatred against
particular classes of citizens is open and notorious. Other groups, however, may have multiple
objectives, some malicious and others benign. Issues may also arise as to whether, for example,
expressions of bias or hatred by a group's leader reflect only the leader's personal opinions, or
views that are shared by the group. Under such circumstances, an officer might be able to
credibly claim to have been unaware of the negative implications of membership or participation
in the group or event or that he or she did not intend, by participating, to convey personal
approval of the prejudice-related connotations surrounding the group or event.
Where an officer is genuinely and reasonably unaware of the adverse connotations
associated with an organization or event, the obvious remedy is training or informal disciplinary
action such as counseling. Where the evidence establishes that the officer did know of the hate
and prejudice-related focus of an organization or activity, but nevertheless participated for
reasons unrelated to those negative purposes, the application of discipline must turn upon
whether the circumstances surrounding the officer's participation would give rise to reasonable
questions concerning the impartiality, professionalism, or integrity of the officer or the Bureau in
their performance ofthe law enforcement mission. Where membership or participation in
groups or events that promote prejudice occurs under such circumstances that the Bureau
concludes that such prejudice may reasonably be imputed to the individual participant, action
may be taken under the rule prohibiting prejudice-related conduct. Officers should be expected
to exercise good judgment about the consequences of their affiliations upon the reputations of
themselves and their agencies. The rule is not intended, however, to apply to situations in which
it would be unreasonable to attribute the group's biased belief or conduct to the individual
member or to draw a conclusion based on an officer's participation in a group that his or her
impartiality, professionalism, or integrity is suspect.
Treasury law enforcement officers hold extremely sensitive positions and their
effectiveness depends upon the cultivation of public confidence in the fairness, impartiality,
117
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
credibility, and good judgment of the officer and the agency--all of which are incompatible with
participation in hate groups and activities. The Supreme Court has recognized that not only an
individual's own actions, but also his or her group affiliations, such as membership il1 a White
Aryan gang, can be used to impeach a witness' testimony when the characteristics and objectives
of the organization are relevant to the facts of the case. 291 Thus, for example, an officer's
involvement in a racist organization may be used to undermine his or her credibility where a
defendant or opposing witness is a member of a racial group held in contempt by that
organization. A prosecutor would therefore be obliged to tum over to the defense information
concerning such memberships once the government became aware of them.
In addition, an officer's membership or participation in racist or other forms of hate
groups and hate-oriented activities would create the same damage to public confidence in the
agency as has been described above with respect to an officer's prejudice-related conduct. That
loss of public trust carries with it the attendant threats of damage to the credibility of other
officers who do not participate in such groups and of an escalation of the measure of force
required to compel those whose distrust of the agency's impartiality and fairness leads them to
resist assertions of authority. There are many positions for which it can be said that the proper
remedy to an employee's advocacy of abhorrent viewpoints is further education in the virtues of
democracy. However, the harms springing from a toleration of racism or bias in law
enforcement are substantially more serious and permanent.
The policy set forth in this Recommendation places the initial responsibility on the
Treasury law enforcement officer to use common sense in choosing groups and events with
which to associate. It is hoped that the issuance of this policy will be sufficient to sensitize most
officers to the need to avoid affiliations that might compromise their own credibility or the
reputation of the Treasury Department. Failing that, officers are warned of the risk that their
associations may result in a finding that they support the hate-related aspects of the group or
event and, if so, of the risk that they may be subject to discipline.
Recommendation No.4: Misuse of Government Resources:
The Treasury Department should consider what additional guidance is necessary
concerning the permissible uses of government resources and, in particular, the
method of obtaining approval and standards for approving the use of government
resources in support of professional development and community service activities.
Discussion: One of the accusations concerning the Roundups that engendered public outrage
was the allegation that not only had racist and sexist activities been conducted at the Roundups,
291 United
118
States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984).
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0) Boys Roundup Policy Review
but that government resources had been used to organize the event. As discussed above,292
governmentwide ethics standards make clear that all government employees are prohibited from
using government time and property for other than authorized purposes. 293 However, there is
very little guidance provided under existing rules applicable to Treasury employees concerning
when the use of government resources is and is not authorized. Likewise, the procedures
governing how an employee is expected to procure authorization and the circumstances pursuant
to which a supervisor is permitted to convey such authorization are not currently spelled out.
Although many questions concerning the appropriate use of government property can be resolved
through the exercise of simple common sense, the issues become more complex when the use in
question is at least partially related to professional or community relations purposes.
For obvious reasons, the Treasury Department has a strong interest in supporting events
to foster networking and positive relationships between federal and state and local law
enforcement officers. Additional guidance concerning the use of government resources in
support of these and other professional and community-related events is warranted. Standards
should be established to guide decisionmaking with respect to the kinds of activities for which a
minimal use of governmental resources would be appropriate. In addition, a procedure should be
established for obtaining prior official approval of such uses. Such a procedure would place the
supervisory chain of command on notice of the event and of the use of government resources to
conduct it, and supervisors could therefore be expected to monitor the event more closely to
ensure that it was conducted in a fashion that reflected favorably upon the government.
No specific rule governing the use of government resources has been proposed in this
Report because such a rule would necessarily affect many interests beyond the mission of this
Policy Review. However, the Department should consider the need for additional guidance to
employees and supervisors on this issue.
292See Chapter 6, supra.
2930GE Ethical Standards, 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.101b)(9)(basic obligations of public service),
2635.704 (government property), 2635.705 (official time); see also 31 U.S.c. § 1349 (mandatory
suspension for no less than thirty days for willful misuse, or authorization of misuse of a
government vehicle); Treasury Conduct Reg., 60 Fed. Reg. 28,535,28,538 (June 1, 1995) (to be
codified at 31 C.F.R. § 0.209) (prohibiting use of Government vehicles for unofficial purposes).
119
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Recommendation No.5: Study of the MSPB System and Treasury Law Enforcement
Officers
The Treasury Department should study the Merit System Protection Board system
and the training, education, and accountability of managers in the discipline of
Treasury law enforcement officers.
Discussion: One of the issues raised at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the
Roundups was whether the MSPB system prevents federal law enforcement agencies from taking
appropriate action to maintain discipline and to remove from federal service federal law
enforcement officers who prove unworthy of their badges. A complete analysis of this issue was
beyond the scope of this Report. However, in the course of gathering information pertinent to
this Report, the Review heard sufficient complaints from managers and human resources
personnel in federal law enforcement agencies to warrant a recommendation for the further study
of this issue. The information the Review was able to collect is reported here in support of that
recommendation.
The gravamen of the complaints heard from managers was that the MSPB, and decisions
in related employee appeals to the Federal Circuit, prevented agencies from exercising
appropriate discretion in the selection and discipline of law enforcement officers. Most of the
evidence for this view was anecdotal. Agencies did not maintain separate records of cases in
which factual allegations against the employee were deemed to be meritorious but discipline
nevertheless was not imposed because the agency feared reversal by the MSPB; instead, all such
cases were treated as though the allegations had been resolved in the employee's favor.
The Review's analysis of MSPB decisions revealed not only that discipline against
federal law enforcement officers is frequently upheld, but that the MSPB holds law enforcement
officers to a higher standard than that demanded of most other federal employees. Indeed, of all
employee appeals to the MSPB generally, nearly half (45 percent) are dismissed, principally for
lack of jurisdiction, and of those that are not dismissed and proceed to final adjudication, nearly
three-quarters are affirmed. 294
~9495
Federal Merit Systems Reporter V-95-5 (March 27, 1995). "Ofthe 7,530 initial
appeals decided, 3,422 (45 percent) were dismissed. Of the dismissals, 77 percent were for lack
of jurisdiction, agency cancellation of the action, or appellant withdrawal ofthe appeal. ... Ofthe
4,108 (55 percent) appeals that were not dismissed, 2,022 (49 percent) were settled, and 2,086
(51 percent) were adjudicated on the merits. With regard to those appeals adjudicated on the
merits, 1.538 (74 percent) were affirmed, 427 (20 percent) were reversed, and 104 (5 percent)
were mitigated." ld.
120
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
To be sure, MSPB decisions are not always consistent, and the level of penalty is
sometimes mitigated even when the imposition of discipline is itself affirmed. Moreover, some
MSPB rulings, as well as Federal Circuit decisions in MSPB appeals, have had a negative impact
on law enforcement personnel practices.295
A more significant problem, however, appears to be that agencies are engaging in selfcensorship in determining whether to pursue discipline, because of a common perception that it
is unlikely that the MSPB will uphold serious discipline in any but the most egregious cases.
Whether or not that perception is accurate, it presents a serious risk that discipline is being underutilized and that when discipline is invoked, agencies are imposing less serious penalties than
might otherwise be called for in order to avoid the appellate jurisdiction of the MSPB.
The seriousness of these concerns warrants further study. The Review therefore
recommends that Treasury Law Enforcement Bureau management evaluate discipline cases
involving the issues addressed by this Review in order to ensure that discipline is being imposed
in a consistent and appropriate fashion and that penalties commensurate with the offense are
being imposed. Because, as discussed in Chapter Eight, the MSPB system also affects the ability
of the Treasury Department and its Law Enforcement Bureaus to investigate candidates for
positions as federal law enforcement officers for conduct evidencing invidious prejudice, as well
as for other suitability factors, this study should also encompass the effects of the MSPB system
on the hiring and screening of federal law enforcement officers. If, as a result of that study, the
Department determines that appropriate screening and discipline cannot be implemented for
Treasury law enforcement officers because of MSPB decisions, that information should be
brought to the attention of Congress for corrective legislation. At the same time, Treasury Law
Enforcement Bureaus should study whether additional training is required for managers and
supervisors with respect to the disciplinary process and the manner in which appropriate
disciplinary action can be taken consistent with the constitutional, statutory, and procedural
rights of Treasury law enforcement officers and other employees.
example of such decisions is the Federal Circuit's holding in Grubka v. Department
of the Treasury, and subsequent MSPB cases applying Grubka, which held that an agency may
not charge an employee both with underlying misconduct and with lying to investigators
concerning the misconduct. Grubka, 858 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988); accord, e.g., Walsh v.
Department o/Veterans Affairs, 62 M.S.P.R. 586, 593-95 (1994). This ruling imposes a special
burden upon law enforcement agencies because of the paramount importance of the integrity of
their officers. For a law enforcement officer, lying in response to an official inquiry is a serious
offense that casts serious doubt upon the officer' s credibility in other matters and is discoverable
in criminal cases in which the officer may be called as a witness. As a result, a false statement
made by an officer during an inquiry may be far more serious than the underlying misconduct.
295 An
121
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 . Boys Roundup Policy Rel'ie'w
122
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Section III
Additional Personnel Policy Issues
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy RevieH'
124
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER EIGHT
HIRING: EXISTING POLICIES AND
RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS
One of the best ways to prevent exhibitions of racism and other forms of bias-motivated
conduct among Treasury law enforcement officers is to investigate carefully for evidence of such
conduct that would render the individual unsuitable for law enforcement work. This chapter
examines the existing hiring criteria and procedures employed by Treasury Law Enforcement
Bureaus in the selection of law enforcement officers and makes several recommendations for
improvement.
Recommendation No.6: Selection Criterion for Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Impartiality, as demonstrated by the absence of statements or conduct evidencing hatred or
prejudice on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age,
or disability, should be a minimum hiring standard for all Treasury law enforcement
officers. 296 Information concerning this standard, together with the standards of conduct
that apply to Treasury law enforcement officers on and off duty, should be provided to all
applicants for Treasury law enforcement positions.
Discussion: In tile field of law enforcement, personal characteristics may be as important, or
even more important, than "paper credentials." The President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (PCIE) has published Quality Standards for Investigations establishing minimum
criteria to be used in recruiting and selecting candidates for positions in federal investigative
agencies. Among these minimum qualifications is one relating to character:
Each investigator must possess and maintain the highest standards of conduct and
loyalty in both official and personal matters.
Every citizen is entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of
government affairs. Investigators must help earn and must honor that trust by
their own integrity and conduct in all official actions. Because of the sensitivity
296F or
ease of reference, statements or conduct evidencing hatred or prejudice on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability will be referred
to alternatively hereafter as "bias-motivated conduct" or "conduct evidencing invidious
prejudice."
125
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good O· Boys Roundup Policy Revie'w
of the investigative functions, a suitability determination should be made as to the
investigator's character, reputation, trustworthiness and overall fitness for such a
position. A determination as to one's suitability will be based on the results of a
background investigation, including personal interviews, vvTitten inquiries and
confirmations, record searches and a review of the applicant's compliance \\ith
programs administered by the agency (e.g., income tax checks for IRS
investigators) .... Such suitability decisions should be made prior to the
appointment of an individual as an investigator. 297
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice
made similar observations concerning the requirements of law enforcement officers
generally:
It has often been stated that policing a community is personal service of the
highest order, requiring sterling qualities in the person who performs it .... Few
professions are so peculiarly charged with individual responsibility. Officers are
compelled to make instantaneous decisions--often without clear cut guidance from
a legislature, the judiciary, or from departmental policy--and mistakes in
judgment could cause irreparable harm to citizens, or even to the community.
Complexities inherent in the policing function dictate that officers possess a high
degree of intelligence, education, tact, sound judgment, physical courage,
emotional stability, impartiality, and honesty.m
297PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON INTEGRITY AND EFFICIE1"CY, QGALITY STANDARDS FOR
I~VESTIGATORS 2-3 (1987).
29 8THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LA W ENFORCEMENT & ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,
TASK FORCE REpORT: THE POLICE 125 (1967) [hereinafter THE POLICE]' See also IACP, Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics:
The public demands that the integrity of police officers be above reproach. Police
officers must, therefore, evoke any conduct that might compromise integrity and thus
undercut the public confidence in a law enforcement agency .... Police officers will
behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to their agencies or themselves. A police
officer's character and conduct while off duty must always be exemplary, thus
maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serves.
The officer' s personal behavior must be beyond reproach.
126
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Revie'rt'
One essential feature of the character and conduct of any federal law enforcement officer
is impartiality both in actuality and in appearance. The PCIE expressed this standard in the
following fashion:
In all matters relating to investigative work, the investigative organization must be
free, both in fact and appearance, from impairments to independence .... and
must maintain an independent attitude.
This standard places upon agencies, investigative organizations and investigators the
responsibility for maintaining independence, so that judgments used in obtaining
evidence, conducting interviews and making recommendations will be viewed as
impartial by knowledgeable third parties. 299
The peIE goes on to observe that "[t]here are circumstances in which investigators may
experience difficulty in achieving impartiality because of their views or personal situations. "300
Two specific personal impairments to independence and impartiality the PCIE standards
require investigators to avoid are:
(1) Pre-conceived opinions of individuals, groups, [or] organizations ... that
could bias the investigation; and
(2) Biases--including those induced by political or social conventions--that result
from employment in, or loyalty to, a particular group or organization .... 301
As the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice put it,
"The most promising way to avert ... police-community [racial] tensions is to recruit and
299PCIE, Quality Standards for Investigators, supra note 297, at 5.
300Id. at 6.
301Id at 6. See also IACP, Law Enforcement Code of Ethics ("A police officer shall
perform all duties impartially, without favor or affection or ill will and without regard to status,
sex, race, religion, political belief or aspiration. All citizens will be treated equally with
courtesy, consideration and dignity. Officers will never allow personal feelings, animosities or
friendships to influence official conduct .... They will conduct themselves in appearance and
deportment in such a manner as to inspire confidence and respect for the position of public trust
they hold.").
127
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
promote those ... with a sound respect for people."302 As a practical matter, the only meaningful
way in which to assess an applicant's impartiality is by investigating and evaluating his or her
statements and conduct.
Given the discretion and power entrusted to those who carry a badge and gun on behalf of
the federal government and in light of the diverse constituency that federal law enforcement is
called upon to serve, impartiality, as demonstrated by absence of conduct evidencing invidious
prejudices, should be deemed a minimum standard for entry into service as a Treasury law
enforcement officer.
The current OPM criteria for the position of Criminal Investigator (GS-1811) include
certain educational and experience requirements, which will be further discussed below, and also
contains a "Personal Qualities" requirement, which provides that appointment is contingent upon
a "satisfactory report of character and background investigation."303 The only qualities currently
described under this standard as the subject of the character and background investigation are
loyalty to the United States government, honesty, and integrity.304 At various other places
scattered throughout the qualifications standard, the following personal characteristics are also
mentioned: (1) emotional and mental stability;305 (2) the ability to deal effectively with
individuals or groups in stressful or confrontational situations, to collect and assemble pertinent
facts for investigations, and to prepare concise written reports;306 (3) poise, tact, and ability in
oral expression;307 and (4) the ability to make rapid, accurate judgments and sound decision
302THE POLICE, supra note 298, at 153.
3030PM Qualifications Standards Handbook/or General Schedule Positions, IV -8-227 (July
1993) [hereinafter OPM Handbook]. OPM publishes qualification standards for each federal
occupational classification based upon submissions from the federal agencies employing
personnel in that classification.
3051d. at IV -8-227 (listed in the medical standard).
3061d. (all included in optional section concerning experience that may be substituted for
education for all Treasury Criminal Investigators other than IRS Special Agents).
3071d. at IV-8-229 (discussed in a section describing the evaluation of personal qualifications
during the interview process).
128
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
making in applying regulations, instructions, and procedures. 308 Other Treasury law enforcement
officer positions have similar personal requirements. For example, one of the skills required of
Secret Service Uniformed Division officers is the "ability and willingness to accept
responsibility and make decisions."309 Among the most expansive definitions of required
personal characteristics is the qualifications standard for Customs Inspectors:
Among [the personal qualities required] are alertness, ability to work effectively
in stress situations, ability in oral expression, tact, capacity for effective public
relations, and good judgment. Candidates must give evidence that they are
capable of representing the United States satisfactorily in contacts with persons
from other countries. A Customs Inspector is often the first person an alien sees
and talks to upon arriving in the United States, and the Inspector's behavior is
important in forming the impression and attitude ofthe person toward the United
States and its law enforcement representatives. 3lo
All of the characteristics mentioned in the various standards are important to success as a
Treasury law enforcement officer. Thus, the Department should seek authority from OPM to
revise the relevant qualification standards.311 Specifically, all the characteristics mentioned in the
various OPM qualification standards applicable to Treasury law enforcement officers should be
pulled together in a single coherent fashion, together with any additional traits which Treasury
Bureaus and components employing federal law enforcement officers agree are necessary to
successful performance of the law enforcement mission. Moreover, these characteristics should
308Jd. at IV -B-227 (part of a description of one of several forms of prior investigative
experience that may substitute for education for Criminal Investigators other than IRS Special
Agents).
309Secret Service, Supplemental Statement Secret Service Uniformed Division Officer p.I
(used in application process).
3100PM Handbook, supra note 303, at TS-I, IV-B-227.
31lOPM informed the Policy Review that there would be no barrier to revising
qualification standards applicable solely to Treasury law enforcement officers if the Department
submitted a justification relating the proposed revision to job performance requirements. For
qualification standards applicable to classifications of personnel employed by other federal
agencies in addition to Treasury, revision of the standard would require coordination with those
agencies. Alternatively, OPM could publish "selective factors" exclusively for Treasury law
enforcement officers within the classification. OPM was receptive to the identification of
impartiality, as demonstrated by the absence of statements or conduct evidencing invidious
prejudices, as a qualification for employment as a Treasury law enforcement officer.
129
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Reviel,~'
be expressly identified as "Personal Qualities" that are uniformly required of all Treasury law
enforcement officers, rather than being sprinkled through the various elements of the existing
qualifications standards, some of which are optional. 312
Current standards do not expressly address the issues of impartiality or respect for
diversity. However, by including criteria in the standards that would require an applicant's
impartiality, as demonstrated by the absence of conduct evidencing invidious prejudices, the
Treasury Department could attempt to identify and eliminate applicants who are not able to
perform law enforcement duties among individuals or groups of other races or religions. For
example, an intolerant officer might be able to deal effectively with individuals or groups of his
or her own background, but not with groups against whom the officer harbors animosity or
invidious prejudice. Moreover, investigating thoroughly any previous bias-motivated conduct
and where appropriate eliminating invidiously prejudiced candidates from the selection pool
serves a communicative function that is not performed by simply stating, for example, that an
applicant must deal well with others: it tells prospective Treasury law enforcement officers from
the point of initial contact that impartiality is an absolute "must" for Treasury employees and that
conduct evidencing invidious prejudices will not be tolerated.
The intention of this Recommendation is not to hold applicants to an impossible standard.
The manner in which the Treasury Department would attempt to identify and evaluate evidence
of a lack of impartiality is described in Recommendations No.7 and No.8 below. Treasury Law
Enforcement Bureau managers and human resources personnel should have the necessary
judgment to distinguish between, on the one hand, conduct demonstrating an applicant's
invidious and intractable prejudice and, on the other hand, a candidate's simple ignorance of the
customs, values, and sensitivities of groups from cultural and social backgrounds different from
that of the applicant. The former trait should be disqualifying for service as a federal law
enforcement officer, while the latter may be susceptible to training if the applicant demonstrates
a \\<illingness to learn and to grow. The Treasury Department's hiring criteria should make
absolutely clear from the outset that those whose acts of racism or other forms of bias-motivated
conduct evidence a lack of impartiality need not apply.
312This Recommendation is not intended to alter any authority individual Bureaus or
components may currently possess to articulate supplemental selective factors relating to
qualifications unique to law enforcement positions within the Bureau or component in question.
Rather, it is to suggest that to the extent existing hiring standards applicable to all Treasury law
enforcement officers attempt to identify personal characteristics required of applicants, this
should be done in as clear and comprehensive a fashion as possible, and the standard should
include. at a minimum. impartiality. as evidenced by the absence of bias-motivated conduct.
130
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Recommendations No.7 and No.8 both relate to the process through which candidates
are investigated for fitness for employment as Treasury law enforcement officers. They are
therefore discussed together.
Recommendation No.7: Background Investigations of Applicants for Positions as
Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Prior to hiring individuals as Treasury law enforcement officers, Treasury Bureaus
and components should endeavor to determine whether the candidate has engaged
in any act or statement evidencing hatred or prejudice against an individual or
group on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age, or disability.
Recommendation No.8: Applicant Hiring Safeguards
The Treasury Department should require that when a candidate who is deemed
otherwise qualified and suitable for a position as a Treasury law enforcement officer
has engaged in an act or statement evidencing hatred or prejudice against an
individual or group on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age, or disability, a determination shall be made by the appropriate
agency as to whether such conduct creates a reasonable basis to question (1)
whether the candidate would perform duties as a Treasury law enforcement officer
with impartiality; or (2) whether the candidate's employment as a Treasury law
enforcement officer would otherwise adversely affect the Treasury Department's
law enforcement mission.
Discussion: All applicants for positions as Treasury law enforcement officers are currently
evaluated for qualification and suitability prior to their employment.313 In addition to objective
qualifications such as education, experience, and medical fitness, a candidate's loyalty, honesty,
and integrity are assessed. 314
The primary vehicle for this assessment is a background investigation, typically
consisting of a detailed questionnaire, a check of arrest records confirmed by submitting
fingerprints and other identifying information to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, and a credit
check; where appropriate, an examination of military records; a confirmation of employment,
3l3Each of the Bureaus performs its own background investigations under authority
delegated by the OPM pursuant to Executive Order 10450 and 5 C.F .R. § 731.103.
3140PM Qualifications Handbook, supra note 303, at IV-B-227.
131
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Reviev.·
educationaL and social references supplied by the candidate; and an additional field background
investigation accomplished principally through the questioning of individuals in a position to
know the applicant's ability and character. The investigators might or might not personally
interview the applicant as part of this process, depending upon the level of security clearance
required by the officer's position and whether derogatory information concerning the applicant
arises in the course of the investigation. Each Bureau performs or contracts for the performance
of its own field background investigation, which varies widely in scope, depending upon the
position.
For example, all applicants for positions in the Secret Service are required to undergo
"single-scope" background investigations. A single-scope investigation is the most
comprehensive background investigation possible and is a fundamental qualification for access
to information that is classified Top Secret or higher. As performed by Secret Service, and
unlike other Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus whose single-scope investigations cover only
the prior ten years of an applicant's life, the Secret Service background investigation has no limit
to its coverage. Due to the differing factors that may apply to each candidate--e.g., number of
places lived, jobs held, etc.--the amount of time it takes to perform an investigation will vary.
F or some applicants, the hiring and screening process may extend over as much as eighteen
months, during which time investigators conduct multiple personal interviews of the applicant
and exhaustive questioning of the applicant's friends, acquaintances, teachers, employers, and
family members concerning their knowledge of the applicant. The Secret Service also uses
polygraph examinations as part of its hiring process for certain positions including all law
enforcement officer positions; the Secret Service is currently the only Treasury Law Enforcement
Bureau to employ polygraphs as part of its pre-employment screening process. 315
Background investigations for other Treasury law enforcement positions may vary in
scope, in part due to the number and nature of positions that must be filled, as extensive checks
can consume much time and money. The IRS Inspection Service performs "full-field"
background investigations (the level immediately below a single-scope investigation), which
review the applicant's previous five years for all IRS federal law enforcement officer positions.
IRS law enforcement officers do not typically hold security clearances unless a particular
assignment creates a special need for one. The background check generally takes between ninety
and one hundred days to perform and includes personal interviews with witnesses who know the
candidate, but not a personal interview with the applicant unless derogatory information is
developed in the course of the investigation. In addition to the full-field background check, IRS
performs a credit check and audits the applicant's tax returrJ for the two years preceding
315ATF \\111 be submitting to OPM (via the Treasury Department) a formal request to
conduct pre-employment polygraph examinations for Special Agent positions. The Department
of the Treasury has endorsed this action.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
employment for all IRS personnel, including Treasury law enforcement officers. The purpose of
this financial screening is not to develop leads concerning the applicant's general character, but
rather to determine whether the applicant is in violation of the tax code or other laws the IRS
enforces and to ensure that the individual is responsibly paying his or her debts and is not in such
a state of financial disarray which might make the employee susceptible to corruption.
A TF conducts single-scope background checks when reviewing its applicants for law
enforcement positions. The single-scope investigation is employed because all ATF agents are
required to obtain a security clearance level of Top Secret. The ATF check covers the ten years
preceding the investigation, or goes back to the applicant's eighteenth birthday, whichever is
shorter. ATF currently requires that each background investigation include statements from two
secondary references developed independently from the applicant's list of references or from the
listed schools, workplaces, or neighborhoods, so that the information uncovered is less dependent
on the leads provided by the applicant.
The standard background investigation required for all law enforcement officer positions
within Customs is the full-field background investigation/ 16 covering the preceding five-year
period for employment references, a period of seven years for police and credit records, and a
neighborhood check going back three years. All Customs background investigations require an
interview of the applicant and a statement from at least one "developed" lead, not included in the
applicant's own list of references. Customs background investigations typically require
approximately thirty-five days to complete, unless derogatory information is developed.
FLETC requires background investigations on all of its employees. For its permanent
GS-1811 (Criminal Investigators) and GS-1 712 (Training Instructors) and supervisory positions,
the investigations range from limited background to single-scope investigations based on the
nature of the position. Clearances are issued as appropriate and updated investigations are
provided as required by regulations. Other than ensuring that the background investigations have
been conducted and the clearances for access have been granted, FLETC is not responsible for
conducting investigations on the 116 employees detailed to it from Treasury Bureaus or other
agencies. Prior to accepting a detailee, FLETC interviews the applicant and reviews his or her
qualifications to determine suitability. When a background investigation is required for a federal
law enforcement officer assigned to FLETC, it is performed by the IRS Inspection Service.
6
Customs law enforcement officers may undergo the more extensive single-scope
background investigation when their specific assignment requires them to hold a Top Secret
security clearance. However, single-scope background investigations are not routinely employed
for pre-employment screening of Customs law enforcement officers.
31
"''''
1.J.J
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good O· Boys Roundup Policy Rel'ie'w
Most law enforcement officers employed by FinCEN are detailed from other agencies;
the four officers employed directly by FinCEN are lateral hires from other federal law
enforcement agencies and typically receive updates of previously obtained clearances at five-year
intervals. FinCEN background investigations are prompted when applicants or detailees seek
positions which are designated high-risk public trust positions or, more commonly, when
security clearances are required due to a particular assignment. Customs performs background
investigations for FinCEN.
To assist the Treasury Department in determining suitability, applicants are required to
fill out one of two standard forms for background investigations, the SF 86 Questionnaire for
National Security Positions or the SF 85P Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions. 3 l 7 Although
former versions of these forms asked the applicant to list all organizations of which he or she had
been a member as an adult, in their current version, these forms do not ask this broad a question
3I7In general, the SF 86 is used to investigate applicants for positions as federal law
enforcement officers in ATF, Customs, and the Secret Service. In general, IRS-CID and IRS
Internal Security complete the SF 8SP, and Customs uses the less-detailed SF 85P for law
enforcement officer positions not requiring a security clearance. Both forms focus principally
upon the applicant's educational background and employment history, military service, criminal
history. use of illegal drugs, and history of psychiatric or other treatment for emotional disorders.
However, the SF 86 devotes more attention to matters relating to foreign contacts.
The Secret Service also uses the SSF 86A Supplemental Investigative Data, which
provides information to the Secret Service going back even further than ten years.
134
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
of candidates for most federal law enforcement positions. 318 Instead, the following question
regarding membership in associations appears on the SF 86:
Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an
organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government
and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization
engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities?319
318The Review considered but ultimately rejected the option of recommending a return to
a security clearance form and background investigation that inquired into all of an applicant's
memberships in organizations. This approach would have had the advantage of removing any
subjectivity from the process by eliminating the applicant's responsibility for assessing whether
an organization or event in which he or she has been involved "advocates or promotes hate,
violence, or bias against individuals or groups on account of race, color, religion, national origin,
sex, sexual orientation, age or disability." It would also have provided a more encompassing base
of information from which to perform a background check, enabling investigators to identify and
interview a wider range of associates who would be familiar with the candidate's character and
conduct. Although there are circumstances in which such a broad inquiry may be required, the
Review nevertheless concluded that a more narrow inquiry would suffice in identifying conduct
indicating that a candidate may not possess the requisite impartiality for the job, especially when
that inquiry is coupled with a field background investigation which, as set forth in
Recommendation No.7, expressly attempts to elicit such evidence if it exists. The broader
approach may be revisited if its necessity is established after the current recommendations have
been implemented.
319The SSF 86A employed by the Secret Service asks a more expansive question:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of any foreign or domestic
organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons which is
totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive or which has adopted, or shows, a
policy advocating or approving the commission of acts offorce or violence to
deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or
which seeks to alter the form of government of the United States by
unconstitutional means? (Emphasis added.)
In addition, the majority of Secret Service employees are required to meet eligibility
requirements for acquiring Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access. Secret Service
background investigations are conducted to meet the standards mandated by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) for meeting eligibility requirements for SCI access. These standards
135
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
I
Applicants are also pennitted to indicate positions held in organizations where they wish this
infonnation to be considered in evaluating their judgment and leadership skills. However, such
infonnation is not mandatory, and there is no question in either of the background fonns
specifically addressing membership in hate groups. Nor do the fonns inquire into any
infonnation that would reflect the applicant's expressed views concerning women and racial,
ethnic, religious, or other minorities or into past incidents of conduct evidencing bias or
prejudice against such groups (unless the incident resulted in an arrest or conviction of a crime or
dismissal from previous employment).
OPM has issued written guidelines concerning the types of questions the Bureaus should
use in the course of background investigations to probe an individual's qualifications and
suitability to occupy a particular position and, where applicable, to hold a security clearance.
The Bureaus may supplement these guidelines with questions of their own, provided the
questions are relevant to the candidate's suitability or qualification for office. None of the
standard OPM questions specifically addresses an applicant's impartiality or bias-motivated
conduct.
The closest any of the Bureaus comes to a deliberate inquiry into memberships in hate
groups or other bias-motivated conduct is a question asked by the Customs Service, whose
background investigations are perfonned by nongovernmental contractors hired specially for that
purpose. During the personal interview of the candidate, the contractors ask the applicant the
following question drawn from a list of written questions provided by the Customs Service:
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of, affiliated with, or associated in
any way, with any association, movements, groups or combinations of persons or
any others which have· adopted a policy of advocating or approving the
commission of acts offorce or violence to deny other persons their rights under
the constitution of the United States, or of seeking to alter the fonn of government
of the United States by unconstitutional means?
This question has been included in the Customs personal interview for over twenty years. A
similar question is asked by Secret Service both in a supplement to the SF 86 and in background
interviews.320 Other Bureaus may ask witnesses whether the applicant supports, or is a member
include investigating into outside activities involving groups advocating the deprivation of the
constitutional rights of others through force and violence, as well as involvement in other kinds
of subversive organizations.
2
°Chapter 736 of the Treasury Personnel Management Manual mandates investigative
factors which serve as minimum requirements for personnel security investigations of applicants
3
136
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
of.an organization that supports, the violent overthrow of the United States government, but do
not typically include in the question support of, or membership in an organization that supports,
the denial of civil rights.
With the exception of the foregoing Customs and Secret Service questions, none of the
Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus routinely asks questions during its interviews of applicants,
their references, or other background witnesses concerning the applicants' statements or past
conduct in this area. Indeed, the Review identified differences of opinion among those
responsible for hiring and background screening in the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus
concerning whether background investigators could legally inquire into such matters, and even as
to whether it would be disqualifying for a position as a Treasury law enforcement officer if, for
example, credible evidence that the applicant was a member of a hate group such as the Ku Klux
Klan should nonetheless surface in the course of an applicant's background investigation. Such
differences reflect a need for clearer guidance and additional training of some of those
responsible for performing hiring activities and background investigations.
In fact, although inquiries into and reports concerning an applicant's organizational
affiliations are generally prohibited by OPM, exceptions to this rule are provided under
circumstances in which such associations are relevant to security concerns or to the candidate's
for (or occupants of) positions designated as Critical-Sensitive (a designation which includes
many Treasury law enforcement officer positions). The investigative scope for Critical-Sensitive
positions is defined as follows:
Efforts will be made during reference and associate interviews and records checks to
determine if a subject or members of the immediate family has or formerly had
membership in, affiliation with, sympathetic association towards, participated in, or
subscribed to or regularly read publications of any foreign or domestic organization,
association, movement, group, or combination of persons which unlawfully advocates or
practices the commission of acts offorce or violence to prevent others from exercising
their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State, or which
seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision
thereof by unlawful means. (Emphasis added.)
The Secret Service's Investigative Manual contains a similar requirement. Despite this
requirement, only the Secret Service and Customs indicated they routinely ask such questions in
the course of their background investigations of applicants for positions as Treasury law
enforcement officers. Moreover, there are many forms of conduct evidencing invidious
prejudice, other than affiliation with groups advocating the use of force or violence to deprive
others of their Constitutional rights.
137
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Polic}' Re\'iew
qualifications or suitability for the position in question. Such inquiries are specifically
authorized by OPM where necessary to determine prerequisite traits for positions of trust, such as
personal responsibility, good character, reliability, and trustworthiness.
Moreover, the OPM guidelines allow for the addition of supplemental "special factors"
questions, tailored to the job-related requirements of particular positions, when such coverage is
requested by the federal agency engaged in screening for such positions. Existing special factors
for investigator positions include a sense ofthe rights of others, and OPM informed the Review
that it would be receptive to a request from the Treasury Department to include an inquiry into
conduct evidencing invidious prejudices as a special factor for Treasury law enforcement
positions.
The Treasury Department has not as yet made such a request, nor do Treasury Law
Enforcement Bureaus routinely pose such questions to applicants or to their background
witnesses. Instead, with the exception of the above-described question used by Customs and
Secret Service, interviews of references and witnesses typically involve more general questions
concerning the witness' knowledge of information that would discredit the applicant or reflect
unfavorably on his or her loyalty or patriotism toward the United States or suitability for a
position of public trust. For example, ATF background investigators typically ask witnesses,
"Tell me anything you think is relevant to the candidate's suitability for a position of trust and
responsibility in the government." Other Bureaus indicated that their investigators routinely ask
witnesses whether they believe the applicant is loyal to the United States or if they know of
anything in the applicant's background that would be cause for embarrassment or blackmail.
Witnesses are also routinely asked whether they know of any history of alcohol or drug abuse on
the part of the candidate.
Exclusive reliance on such general "catch-all" questions can be problematic, because the
Bureau's ability to raise issues concerning the candidate' s personal biases is dependent upon the
personal viewpoint of the witness and willingness to volunteer derogatory information not
expressly queried by the investigator. Many witnesses simply might not think to include matters
concerning a candidate's possible acts of racism or personal bias in framing a relevant response
to a question regarding loyalty, blackmail, or suitability for a position of public trust. Others
may not view such information as derogatory. For example, members of white supremacist
organizations often consider themselves to be "true patriots," and witnesses who are themselves
members of such groups would therefore be unlikely to volunteer the fact of a candidate's
membership as evidence of disloyalty or susceptibility to blackmail. Moreover, experienced
background investigators interviewed by the Review attest to the reluctance of many witnesses to
share derogatory information concerning applicants for fear of being sued or subj ected to other
forms of retaliation or uncomfortable relations if the applicant learns of their statements. For
example. investigators viewed as fairly common the failure of former employers to apprise
investigators of stealing, dishonesty, sexual harassment, or other serious reasons for an
138
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
applicant's discharge, even though the employer is asked directly why the employee left the job.
Thus, it seems reasonably likely that even individuals who view racial and other forms of bias
with disfavor may be reluctant to share such information concerning a candidate's conduct
evidencing such invidious prejudices with an investigator who has not expressly asked about it
directly.
Recommendations No.7 and No.8 attempt to seal these gaps. As past experience has
shown, even with a single-scope investigation, it may not be possible to identify and eliminate all
applicants who may ultimately engage in bias-motivated conduct. However, the Treasury
concluded that the Department could do more to investigate applicants' past instances of biasmotivated conduct. Recommendation No.7 requires the applicable entities within the Treasury
Department to take reasonable steps to determine whether a candidate for a position as a
Treasury law enforcement officer has engaged in any act or statement evidencing racism or other
forms of invidious prejudice. The precise manner in which this is to be accomplished will be left
to the respective hiring authorities to determine. Presumably, these efforts would include some
form of written or oral inquiry of applicants concerning any past conduct or statements, including
membership in hate groups (as defined in Recommendation No.3), that might be perceived by
the public as raising reasonable questions concerning the applicant's impartiality. Questions
could also be posed concerning an applicant's membership in segregated organizations, provided
the investigation also elicited further information concerning the nature of and reasons for the
"segregation." There are a number of reasons why a group may be segregated along racial or,
even more often, gender or religious lines. Some of those reasons may be benign; others might
reflect invidious discrimination. Many professional organizations--for example, the National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives--exist to advance career skills and
interpersonal networking among those who have historically been excluded from or
discriminated against in certain occupations. Typically, such professional groups are not
segregated de jure, but may be segregated de facto because, although their membership or
functions are open to everyone, they are heavily dominated by members of the class they seek to
assist. Where memberships or involvements do not reflect animus or invidious prejudice against
other groups, but merely seek to elevate the personal or professional or social skills and bonds of
the group in question at no expense to others, they should not lead to disqualification from
employment as a federal law enforcement officer.
On the other hand, membership in, for example, a country club, of a size sufficient to be
considered a public accommodation, that discriminates against women, racial minorities, or
members of particular religious persuasions presents a different case. Because such instances of
segregation have no readily apparent benign rationale, such a membership would at least raise
grounds for further inquiry as to whether the applicant personally harbors invidious bias against
such groups or is unconcerned with the unfavorable effects such an affiliation might have upon a
Treasury law enforcement officer's credibility or effectiveness in dealing with the public if the
applicant retains the membership while in service. At the farthest end of the spectrum, knowing
139
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
and active membership in extremist organizations that promote doctrines of racial supremacy or
other fonns of hatred, violence, or bias is fundamentally incompatible with a career in law
enforcement.
Plainly, a system that relied exclusively upon an applicant's self-identification of racism
or other bias-related conduct would be an impotent tool for weeding out unsuitable candidates.
Recommendation No.7 also contemplates that background investigators will make possible biasmotivated conduct on the part of an applicant a subject of inquiry in every investigation.
Questions to be posed to character witnesses could be similar to those currently used to evaluate
the fitness of candidates for judicial office in which references are asked whether they are aware
of any evidence that the candidate holds a bias on the basis of race or other invidious criteria. If
the reference responds affinnatively, he or she is then queried concerning the specific conduct or
statements upon which the opinion is based. Alternatively, questions similar to those currently
used for NASA astronauts or foreign service positions could be used.321 Regardless of how the
question is framed, affinnative answers would require further inquiry into the nature of the
conduct and the surrounding circumstances as well as appropriate efforts to assess the credibility
of the witness' statement.
As Recommendation NO.8 makes clear, where the foregoing inquiries produce
unfavorable infonnation concerning past conduct or statements evidencing racism or other fonns
of invidious prejudice, a further detennination must be made as to whether such conduct or
statements demonstrate a reason to question the candidate's impartiality at the present time or
otherwise render the applicant unqualified or unsuitable to hold a position as a Treasury law
321The questions proposed to be asked of candidates and references maybe somewhat
broader than the categories of behavior that would render an applicant unqualified or unsuitable
for employment as a Treasury law enforcement officer. The purpose of these inquiries is to
allow investigators and managers the opportunity to explore all areas that could potentially
support a conclusion that the candidate displays impennissible bias-related conduct. See Law
Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154 (1971) (though mere
membership in Communist Party would be insufficient basis for exclusion from licensure as an
attorney, it is a legitimate basis for further inquiry). For example, under this Recommendation,
the applicant could be asked about membership in segregated organizations, even though such
membership would not necessarily be grounds for a finding of unsuitability if it did not support a
reasonable question concerning whether the applicant would perfonn law enforcement duties
impartially, professionally, and with integrity.
140
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
J
enforcement officer. 322 This determination should be based on standards similar to those
governing the discipline of Treasury law enforcement officers.
The Review identified a difference of opinion within the Treasury Law Enforcement
Bureaus, Main Treasury, and OPM concerning whether evidence of a prospective Treasury law
enforcement officer's bias-motivated conduct was appropriately considered a qualifications issue
or a suitability issue. The answer to this conflict depends on whether personnel officers or
managers, on the one hand, or security officers, on the other, would be the appropriate authorities
to adjudicate questions of bias-motivated conduct; this issue also affects what standards must be
applied to this adjudication, and what appeal rights the applicant will have in event of an
3220bviously, this determination need be reached only if the Bureau or component has not
otherwise found a candidate to be unqualified or unsuitable and has not selected another
candidate as better qualified for the position.
141
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
unfavorable determination. 323 However, all parties agreed that it was important that matters of
bias-motivated conduct be resolved before an applicant is hired.
As a general matter, personnel specialists who are charged with making qualification
determinations, uniformly viewed the question as one of suitability, appropriately resolved by
security officers. There were two general reasons underpinning this viewpoint. First, they
tended to view qualifications as objective criteria, such as education and experience
requirements, and to lump all subjective traits and requirements--such as loyalty, honesty,
integrity, good character, sound judgment--and, if added to the hiring criteria, impartiality--as
suitability factors. This view prevailed despite the fact that several of these characteristics
appeared in the "Personal Qualities" section ofOPM's Qualification Standard for Treasury
mChoices among candidates based onjob qualifications may be made by any Treasury
employee with hiring authority over the position in question, while the right to make suitability
decisions about candidates on OPM certificates, is reserved to OPM by law. In practice, OPM
has delegated the authority to make suitability determinations to Customs, as well as to IRS in
the case of hires of current IRS employees to fill IRS law enforcement officer positions. See 5
C.F.R. §731.103. Moreover, OPM has proposed rules pursuant to which it would relinquish the
authority over all suitability determinations to the hiring agencies. 61 Fed. Reg. 394-402 (Jan. 6,
1966). However, even when authority to make suitability determinations is delegated, the
agency must employ the same criteria and factors that apply to suitability matters adjudicated by
OPM. See 5 C.F.R. §731.102(b).
If a category of conduct implicates suitability, the suitability determination is not limited
to applicants but must be repeated for current employees at five-year intervals as their clearances
are updated. 5 C.F.R. § 731.302( c). In contrast, once an applicant is found to be qualified and is
hired, the qualification issue is finally satisfied and need not be periodically revisited.
Prior to taking a suitability action, the following procedures must be observed: (1) written
notice of proposed suitability action to the affected individual (with a copy to the involved
agency); (2) opportunity for the affected individual to respond in writing or orally to the notice of
proposed action and to review, upon request, the materials relied upon by OPM; (3) written
notice of the suitability decision; and (4) statement of the right to appeal the decision to the
MSPB and any further appeal right. The removal of an individual found to be unsuitable cannot
be effected sooner than 30 days following the date of the decision. 5 C.F.R. § 731.402.
Finally, disappointed applicants have the rights to appeal to the MSPB from adverse
suitability determinations, but not from qualification decisions. On appeal to the MSPB, OPM
bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of these
factors exists and warrants the finding that the individual is unsuitable.
142
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
enforcement agents; the personnel specialists interpreted this provision of the Qualification
Standard merely as a notice that applicants must satisfy a background check to determine their
suitability. In contrast, they interpreted the OPM regulations on suitability determinations as
making any matter involving conduct on the part of the candidate that could reasonably be
expected to interfere with, or prevent, either (1) the applicant's ability to serve effectively in the
position applied for, or (2) the agency's ability to carry out its duties, a matter of suitability.324
Second, personnel specialists pointed to a procedural difficulty that would ensue if
impartiality or any of the foregoing subjective traits were characterized as job qualifications
rather than suitability factors. All parties agreed that the most likely place for evidence of biasmotivated conduct to surface is during the background investigation, because applicants are
relatively unlikely to disclose such conduct themselves and cursory checks with immediate prior
supervisors performed by hiring managers prior to the background investigation are less likely to
yield information concerning questionable conduct than is a full-field investigation. However,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance concerning implementation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)325 and the Rehabilitation Act of 19~3326 has been
interpreted as prohibiting employers from conducting background investigations until all nonmedical qualifications have been evaluated and the applicant has been given a conditional offer
of employment.327 Once the conditional offer of employment has been made, legal problems
may be presented if the employer reopens issues of nonmedical qualifications based on adverse
324S C.F.R. §§ 731.202(a). An applicant or appointee may also be rejected as unsuitable if
a statute or regulation precludes the lawful employment of the individual in the position sought.
Id.
325 42 U.S.C. §§ 12,101-17,12,201-13 (Supp. V 1994).
326Rehabilitation Act of 1973 §§ SOl, S03, S04, 29 V.S.C.A. §§ 791(g), 793(d), 794(d)
(West Supp. 1994).
EEOC: Enforcement Guidelines on Pre-Employment Inquiries Under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), EEOC Compliance Manual (BNA) No.20S, at N: 2319 (Oct 1995)
[hereinafter ADA GUidelines]. Although employers are allowed to check references prior to
making a conditional offer of employment, background investigations may touch upon issues
such as prior drug addictions or psychological stability which may implicate "disabilities" within
the meaning ofthe ADA regulations and guidance. See id. at N: 2322-23. Even though much of
the background investigation is nonmedical in nature, disability-related questions may not be
posed until a conditional offer of employment has been made. Rather than bifurcating the
background check, which would be extremely inefficient and costly, agencies typically satisfy
themselves as to the applicant's other qualifications and extend a conditional offer of
employment before the background investigation is initiated.
327
143
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
information developed in the course of the background investigation. 328 Therefore, the personnel
specialists prefer to identify character-related concerns as suitability factors, rather than as
qualifications.
For their part, security specialists of all agencies nearly uniformly considered matters
relating to a candidate's impartiality or invidious prejudices as implicating job qualifications, not
suitability determinations. They pointed to the definition of qualifications for federal service as
including "all aspects of one's ability to act consistently with the public trust and in a manner
that promotes the efficiency of the public service."329 The security specialists viewed the broad
definition of suitability criteria in the OPM suitability regulations as having been limited by eight
factors, specified by OPM regulations, to which they are allowed to look in making suitability
determinations. They regard these factors--all of which relate to concrete categories of conduct-as exhaustive,330 and these eight factors identified in the OPM regulation do not include a
candidate's impartiality or bias, even as measured by conduct. Moreover, these suitability
factors are common to all federal employees, and are not specific to particular jobs or
occupational classification. 331 Thus, security specialists believe that they are limited to an
examination of objective criteria and that subjective qualities, even if evidenced by objective
conduct, are relegated to the realm of qualifications. They argue that even though candidates
must be pre-screened for qualifications prior to being referred to security for background checks,
job offers are expressly contingent upon satisfactory completion ofthe background investigation
and may be withdrawn for matters relating to qualifications, just as they may be withdrawn for
unsuitability. Alternatively, they contend that personnel managers should simply do a more
mOne personnel officer also related practical concerns that her office does not typically
receive sufficient information from security to inform an applicant concerning the reasons why
an initial positive assessment of qualifications might be changed. Rather, they receive a simple
affirmative or negative response concerning the candidate's suitability. However,OPM
informed the Review that this was purely a matter of agency practice, and that there is no barrier
to the sharing of the report of a background investigation with the agency personnel office for
purposes of making a qualification decision.
329Hougens v. United States Postal Service, 38 M.S.P.R. 135 (1988).
330In fact, the preamble to the factors states that these are reasons that "may be considered
a basis for finding an individual unsuitable," not that they are the only reasons that may be
considered. 5 C.F .R. § 731.202(b)( emphasis added).
331Although the list of factors can be expanded by OPM regulatory action, OPM
communicated to the Review its reluctance to expand the list to encompass impartiality, as
demonstrated by the absence of bias-motivated conduct.
144
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
thorough job of investigating applicants for impartiality and other qualifications prior to referring
them for background checks.
The Review takes no position as to whether impartiality, as demonstrated by the absence
of bias-motivated conduct demonstrating an applicant's invidious and intractable prejudice,
should be considered ajob qualification or a suitability factor or both. For all the reasons
discussed above with respect to discipline of Treasury law enforcement officers, impartiality as
evidenced by the absence of bias-motivated conduct, is an essential prerequisite to effective
performance in that capacity. A determination that an individual meets this prerequisite must be
made regardless of who makes the decision or how it is characterized.
Personnel and security specialists within the Treasury Department should work
cooperatively with each other and with their counterparts at OPM to establish the most suitable
method by which to make these determinations. If necessary to effectuate the determination of a
law enforcement officer candidate's qualifications or suitability in terms of his or her
impartiality, regulatory or legislative relief should be sought.332 Alternatively, if the study of the
effects of the MSPB system on screening and discipline of Treasury law enforcement officers, set
forth in Recommendation No.5 above, should prove it warranted, the Treasury Department
could seek legislative action removing its law enforcement officers from the competitive service.
332 Among
other options, OPM could be requested to amend the list of suitability factors
or to clarify that the existing list is not exhaustive of the reasons on which an agency may base a
determination that an applicant's conduct may reasonably be expected to interfere with, or
prevent, efficient job performance or accomplishment of the agency's duties and responsibilities.
See 5 C.F.R. § 731.202. Alternatively, the ADA Guidelines currently recognize that
circumstances may exist in which an employer "cannot reasonably obtain and evaluate all nonmedical information at the pre-offer stage." ADA Guidelines, supra note 327, at N:2324. The
ADA Guidelines cite as an example a law enforcement employer for which it is too costly to
perform two polygraph examinations--one pre-offer, solely devoted to non-medical information,
and the second post-offer, asking disability-related questions. Id. Another example is an
employer who cannot reasonably obtain and evaluate non-medical information to be gleaned
from a reference check because the employee has asked that his or her current employer not be
contacted until an offer of employment has been extended. !d. These situations are analogous to
those confronting the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus with respect to information that can
only be gathered through background checks. Thus, the Treasury Department could attempt to
work with EEOC to reach an understanding that considerations of cost and efficiency render it
unreasonable to expect that law enforcement employers will be able to complete their assessment
of all non-medical information until post-offer background investigations have been concluded.
145
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Regardless how the inquiry is characterized, concern for the interests of the individual
applicant requires that the substantive determination include a consideration of whether the
circumstances surrounding any bias-motivated conduct identified in the course of the
investigation create a reasonable question concerning the applicant's current ability to function as
a Treasury law enforcement officer with both the reality and the public perception of impartiality.
If a Bureau concludes that an applicant who is otherwise qualified and suitable has in fact
engaged in conduct that would raise a legitimate doubt concerning the impartiality,
professionalism, or integrity of a Treasury law enforcement officer, the burden would shift to the
applicant to demonstrate mitigating circumstances or remediation sufficient to convince the
hiring authority that there is no reasonable basis for such a doubt to persist. In this regard, the
considerations that govern suitability determination are instructive. These include: (1) The kind
of position for which the person is applying or in which the person is employed, including the
degree of public trust and risk in the position; (2) The nature and seriousness of the conduct;
(3) The circumstances surrounding the conduct; (4) The recency of the conduct; (5) The age of
the person involved at the time of the conduct; (6) Contributing societal conditions; [and]
(7) The absence or presence of rehabilitation or efforts toward rehabilitation. 333
Thus, an applicant might be able to establish that an isolated instance of conduct
evidencing invidious prejudice--for example, the use of a racial epithet--occurred long ago in the
heat of anger and is so aberrant in light of the candidate's usual behavior that it would be
unreasonable to conclude that the conduct is reflective of deeply held prejudice or is likely to
recur if the candidate is hired as a Treasury law enforcement officer. Likewise, an individual
might have publicly renounced the views of a hate group to which he or she previously belonged
and demonstrated the sincerity of that change of heart. Or, at least in cases involving less serious
forms of conduct that might reflect bias, an applicant might be able to establish that he or she
was legitimately unaware of the significance of the conduct and did not mean to convey an
prejudice, or that he or she exercised poor judgment and has since developed an understanding of
the inappropriateness of such conduct. It might be unfair to consider a person permanently
tainted by a single act of conduct that is no longer a reliable indicator of an existing attitude of
bias. It is not unfair or inappropriate, however, to inquire of an applicant who has engaged in
bias-motivated conduct to determine whether he or she nevertheless has the necessary personal
qualifications for service as a Treasury law enforcement officer.
Recommendation No.9: Evaluation of Psychological Screening of Candidates for Positions
as Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
Subject to an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and methods of implementing such a
program, the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus should move toward the
3335 C.F.R. § 731.202(c).
146
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
adoption of a program of psychological testing and screening for emotional stability
and psychological fitness for employment in law enforcement, to be used in
conjunction with the background investigation as part of the initial hiring
procedures for Treasury law enforcement officers. 334
Discussion: Psychological screening of applicants for emotional stability and psychological
suitability has long been a minimum requirement for accreditation of state and local police
forces. 335 The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recently became the first federal law
enforcement agency to adopt a pre-employment psychological screening program for its special
agents, and such programs are also employed by military intelligence services. 336 However,
334It was the strong view of the Citizens Review Panel that the Treasury Department
should adopt a program of pre-employment psychological screening for its law enforcement
officers. The Panel recognizes that the scope of this Review did not allow a complete analysis of
the issue as it relates to Treasury law enforcement bureaus, and that the Department needs to
study this issue further.
335The Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) is a nonprofit
organization established in 1979 by four parent organizations--the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Sheriffs Association, the National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) --to
promote and maintain excellence, efficiency, and professionalism in law enforcement agencies
through administering an international accreditation program. CALEA publishes a series of
standards governing the policies and procedures a law enforcement agency is required to
maintain in order to attain accreditation, and performs on-site assessments of the agency's
implementation of those standards. Currently, 368 state and local law enforcement agencies
throughout the United States, as well as Canada, the Caribbean, and Pacific Islands, have
achieved accreditation. Standard 32.3.8, requiring that "[a]n emotional stability and
psychological fitness examination of each candidate is conducted and assessed by a qualified
professional prior to appointment to probationary status," has been in force for more than twelve
years. Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies, 3rd ed., 1994.
336The DEA has contracted with a consulting firm to perform the psychological screening
of candidates, but has not yet begun the screening process because various details of the program,
such as who will have access to the psychological evaluations and what use may be made of
incriminating answers, are still being worked out. Although the DEA is the first federal law
enforcement agency to adopt pre-employment psychological screening as a standard, as noted
above, such screening is routinely employed by state and local law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, according to Dr. Jane Barsaloux of the DEA, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
147
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Poli(v Revie)1'
though IRS-CID, IRS Internal Security, and Customs all use such testing to screen both new and
more experienced federal law enforcement officers who are under consideration for undercover
assigrunents, none of the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus currently employs psychological
testing or evaluation as part of its screening process for law enforcement applicants. 337
As used in police pre-employment screening programs, psychological evaluation
typically involves the completion of one or more "paper and pencil" profiles, such as the
Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), which is the most commonly used
and well-validated test worldwide for applicant screening and is used not only for the screening
of law enforcement personnel but also for other professions, such as airline pilots or nuclear plant
operators, requiring a high-degree of personal reliability. Other commonly used and wellvalidated psychological screening tests include a sixteen-factor personality test and clinical
assessment published by the Institute for Personality Assessment at the University of Illinois
specifically for law enforcement screening, and the California Personality Inventory, a test aimed
directly at personal skills and traits correlating positively with success in law enforcement. DEA
has adopted four standardized tests--the MMPI-2, the California Personality Inventory, the
Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank; and the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory. The Rotter
Incomplete Sentence Blank makes an overt attempt to determine whether the test-taker harbors
attitudes of racism or other forms of bias by asking the applicant to complete open-ended
sentences, such as "I think blacks are __ ," "I think whites are __," "I think women are
National Security Agency have also used psychological screening for candidates for intelligence
positions. The same consulting firm that provides covert operations screening to IRS CID also
provides pre-employment screening services to Air Force intelligence operations. In addition,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, working in conjunction with OPM, has developed
and implemented a Suitability Assessment Test, which contains some elements of personality
and temperament testing, for its Border Patrol officers.
337To assess the utility of psychological screening, both in general, and as a potential tool
for screening candidates for racism and other forms of bias, the Review interviewed the
following professionals: Dr. Samuel Levinson, Ph.D. the director ofthe consulting firm that
provides psychological testing and support services to IRS-CID in its covert operations testing
program; Dr. Stephen Curran, Ph.D., chair of the police psychology section of the IACP, who
also performs psychological screening for the Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore
police departments; Dr. Scott Allen, Chair of the Police and Public Safety Section of Division 18
(Psychologists in Public Service) of the American Psychological Association; Dr. Jane
Barsalou.x, Ph.D., a psychologist and chief of the Validation and Analysis Unit of the DEA; Kim
Kohlhepp, a policy analyst for the IACP; Phil Lynn ofthe National Policy Center of CALEA;
and Robin Toma ofthe Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, which is engaged in an
ongoing study of methods of screening for racism and bias in law enforcement personnel.
148
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
_ _," and so forth. DEA is also preparing its own Life History Questionnaire, which asks
applicants whether they have ever engaged in certain forms of conduct, such as cruelty to
animals or fistfights, or have had certain conditions, such as dizziness, anxiety, or hangovers, that
may correlate to inability to handle stress or anger or to substance abuse; the questionnaire
requires further explanation of affirmative responses.
These written tests are coupled with a personal interview by a clinical psychologist who
explores with the candidate the significance of responses to the questionnaires and inventories
and makes a recommendation concerning the suitability of the candidate for work in law
enforcement. Typically, the psychologist screens officer candidates for traits such as emotional
stability, psychological pathology, maturity, ability to handle stress, responsibility, and authority
and rates the candidate's propensity for a career in law enforcement on a five-point scale from
"well-recommended" to "not recommended" or "recommended with reservations." Racial
attitudes are often evaluated as part of this process. Both Dr. Levinson and Dr. Curran
emphasized the importance of using clinicians who are specially trained to read mid-curve
profiles for nonpathological--i.e., "normal"--individuals, who although not clinically ill may
possess a number of character traits that are inappropriate for law enforcement.
Dr. Levinson and Dr. Curran advised the Review that the utility of psychological
screening has been documented in follow-up studies that they have performed comparing the
ratings received on the psychological screening with the candidate's performance at police
academies and while on probation. While neither of them claims 100 percent accuracy for any
predictive test, the studies performed by Drs. Curran and Levinson indicate that the
psychological evaluation methods they have employed on behalf of the police agencies are
reliable indicators of potential problems with discipline and adjustment to police work. 338 As a
general matter, Dr. Allen reported that projective tests, such as the MMPI-2, the sixteen-factor
test, the California Personality Inventory, and the Inwold Psychological Inventory (another test
that is specifically designed and validated for law enforcement screening), that are based upon
well-documented studies and elicit objective data concerning personality traits and pathological
conditions, are considered by police psychologists to be reliable methods of screening for career
suitability, including law enforcement pre-employment screening. On the other hand,
"nonprojective tests," such as ink blot tests, that are based upon the test-taker's subjective
An obvious drawback of such studies is that they can only assess the performance of
candidates who were in fact appointed; there is no means of evaluating whether candidates
rejected because of poor scores on the psychological evaluation would have nevertheless
performed well in police work. However, the studies can determine whether candidates who
were positively recommended for police work based on psychological screening or candidates
who were hired despite negative psychological ratings performed well or poorly in training and
on-duty.
338
149
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Po lic). , Revie'U'
responses and the psychologist's subjective interpretation of those responses, are considered less
reliable. Dr. Allen also viewed integrity tests as not useful for pre-employment screening.
These assessments comport with information acquired by Dr. Barsaloux in evaluating
whether DEA should embark upon a psychological screening program. Typically, psychological
screening is employed only after candidates have been contingently selected for hiring based on
aptitude testing, personal interviews, experience, and other factors. The psychological
evaluations of the vast majority of such candidates find them suitable for police work, although
Dr. Allen indicated that psychological evaluations can screen out as much as twenty to thirty
percent of an applicant pool. However, the results of the psychological evaluations are often
confirmed by information developed in background investigations or other sources of
information. In interviewing police departments which employed psychological evaluation
programs, Dr. Barsaloux found that even though the programs only infrequently identified
unsuitable candidates who were not also identified as such by other means, such as background
investigations and polygraph testing, the departments were unwilling to discontinue
psychological screening because of those cases, though small in number, where the screening had
turned up information that proved absolutely critical. Indeed, DEA undertook its consideration
ofthe implementation of psychological screening because of the appreciation the DEA' s director
developed for the program in his former post as head of the New York State Troopers.
Controversy exists within the psychological community concerning the utility of written
tests currently being marketed as testing directly for racism or bias. All of the experts
interviewed by the Review concurred that racism and bias were not personality traits or
psychological conditions per se, but rather attitudes, opinions, or forms of behavior. As a result,
all expressed some degree of skepticism concerning the ability of "paper and pencil" tests to
detect such qualities and the susceptibility of such testing or other forms of direct questioning
concerning racial issues and attitudes to manipulation by the candidate. On the other hand, all
also agreed that racism and bias were frequently associated with qualities such as
authoritarianism, rigidity, defensiveness, insecurity, immaturity, the ability to handle stress and
to employ variations in problem solving, and the absence of tolerance, flexibility, and healthy
self-esteem; these are personality traits that can be and are reliably evaluated through existing
standardized tests and clinical interview techniques. Thus, psychological testing and interviews
can be used to evaluate a propensity toward bias-related conduct. Because these broader-based
and better documented personality inventories are based on questions that have less
conspicuously "right'" or "wrong" answers and also contain imbedded questions designed to
detect patterns of deceptive responses on the part ofthe test-taker, they may afford a more
reliable means of testing for traits associated Vvith racism and bias. Moreover, these are the same
traits that are independently indicative of general unsuitability for law enforcement work.
Howe\'er, as the Christopher Commission Report that followed the police beating of
Rodney King and subsequent riots in Los Angeles documented, not all emotional and adjustment
150
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
problems that result in law enforcement misconduct are preexisting; some are acquired or
developed on the job. 339 Though many of the factors it cited as contributing to the development
of psychological difficulties on the job are unique to life as a patrol officer, most have their
analogues in the stressful life of a law enforcement officer:
An officer's personality may change dramatically after years on the force. Among
the many factors that modify a police officer's behavior is the "culture" of police
officers, which tends to isolate officers and make them feel set apart from the rest
ofthe world. Fear is also a ubiquitous part of life as a patrol officer. Officers
learn they cannot control every situation and that they are, quite literally, risking
their lives every time they stop a car or intervene in a domestic dispute. Officers
also may become frustrated and cynical when they learn that even their arrests of
obviously guilty suspects may not result in a conviction. Facing this fear,
frustration, and stress on a daily basis may alter the behavior of even the most
well adjusted officer. ... Thus, some officers may enter the force seemingly well
suited psychologically for the job, but may suffer from burnout, alcohol related
problems, anxiety, cynicism, or disenchantment, all of which can result in their
having poor control over their impulses and behavior. 340
As a result, that study recommended that officers be retested regularly for psychological and
emotional, as well as physical, problems. 341 Whether such a program of psychological
"checkups" and retesting would be useful and cost-effective in the typically smaller context of
Treasury law enforcement, or whether existing channels of supervision and counseling are
sufficient to identify and assist those officers who develop emotional problems on the job
warrants further study.
One of the chief reservations concerning the use of psychological evaluations is concern
about cost. Dr. Barsaloux estimated the DEA' s cost of psychological screening as approximately
$300 per applicant. Proponents of such evaluations indicate that cost can be managed
effectively, however, by employing such screening toward the end of the selection process when
the number of potential candidates has been winnowed. DEA's plan waits until a person has
been extended a bona fide offer of employment as a special agent, the offer being expressly
contingent on successful completion of a polygraph examination, psychological and medical
339CHRlSTOPHER COMMISSION REpORT
at 109-10.
34°Id. at 114.
34
lId. at 11 0, 116.
151
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Revie'w
screening, and the background check. 342 Proponents of psychological testing also argue that the
cost of psychological testing and evaluation is offset by savings in the cost of training unsuitable
candidates, as well as in decreased exposure to liability for excessive use of force and other
discipline-related complaints. As Dr. Barsaloux put it, "A bad selection decision is costly in
every way: lawsuits, dollars, morale."
Until relatively recently, federal agencies, including law enforcement components, were
prohibited by OPM from adopting personality testing in hiring for any position. 343 This bar has
since been rescinded, and agencies are now free to adopt their own policies on psychological
screerung.
Currently, the primary point in the hiring process for Treasury law enforcement officers
aimed toward establishing a candidate's psychological stability and fitness is the background
investigation. 344 The forms used in the background investigations require the candidate to
disclose professional treatment received for emotional or mental problems; applicants are also
required to execute waivers of professional privilege and confidentiality, allowing investigators
to obtain the candidate's treatment records and to interview therapists. Whatever the other
virtues of this technique may be, it runs the risk of intruding heavily into the privacy of those
who seek assistance in dealing with personal problems or for personal growth. while bypassing
individuals with mental health challenges who do not seek out professional treatment. Moreover,
psychological evaluation of all candidates may prove to be a more reliable means of detecting
personality traits and motivations that are generally undesirable in Treasury law enforcement
officers.
Psychological screening is not intended as a substitute for a thorough background
investigation. CALEA standards require both background screening and psychological fitness
342Deferral of psychological screening until after a conditional offer of employment has
been extended may be required under the ADA, depending upon whether the test attempts to
identify mental disorders or impairments or is designed and used to measure only non-medical
traits such as honesty, tastes, and habits. ADA Guidelines, supra note 327, at N:2323.
343See Federal Personnel A1anual (rescinded).
344Some Bureaus. in particular the Secret Service, also use applicant interviews, in
conjunction \\ith the preceding applicant documentation, to obtain information concerning traits
such as behavioral flexibility, stress tolerance, resilience, independence, listening and
communication skills, job motivation and career ambition, range of interests. and initiative.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
J
testing. 345 According to Dr. Allen, the two techniques provide qualitatively different types of
information; background investigations yield the subjective opinions of associates with varying
degrees of personal knowledge of the candidate's past behavior, whereas appropriately
administered psychological evaluations offer an objective inventory of the candidate's
personality traits and mental or emotional pathologies, if any. In addition, even well-informed,
unbiased, and cooperative background witnesses may be poorly suited to predict a candidate's
suitability for law enforcement; for example, a witness may give an individual favorable
recommendations based on his or her superlative performance in a current or former occupation;
yet, such references may be poor indicators of the candidate's suitability for law enforcement
work when transitioning from a different field of employment. Moreover, the investigators who
conduct background checks are typically Criminal Investigators, skilled and trained in accurately
gathering and reporting factual data concerning an individual's past conduct; they are unlikely,
however, to be clinical psychologists, trained in the identification of subtle indicia of pathologies
or in interpreting personality indicators.
Thus, the psychological evaluation and the background check should be viewed as
complementary, not mutually exclusive. Although procedures vary from one department to
another, Dr. Levinson indicated that the psychologist will often have the results ofthe
background investigation available at the time of the clinical interview and will use that
information to assess the candor of the applicant and to guide areas of inquiry. Conversely,
agencies which use the psychological inventory earlier in the hiring process may use its results in
performing the background investigation and to identify certain issues flagged during the
psychological evaluation.
The value that can be provided by psychological screening--both in terms of general
screening of candidates for suitability and as a means of weeding out racist and otherwise biased
candidates--should be studied in greater detail. The Office of Enforcement, in conjunction with
the Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus, should coordinate a study of the various forms of
psychological testing and evaluation that could be implemented and their associated costs and
benefits. After completing their evaluations within a reasonable period oftime, the Treasury
Enforcement Bureaus should report to the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for
Enforcement and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, their findings and conclusions. This
study should thoroughly evaluate the costs, benefits, methods and legal ramifications of
345CALEA Standard 32.2.1 requires a background investigation of each candidate prior to
appointment to probationary status, including, at least, verification of qualifying credentials, a
criminal record check, and verification of at least three personal references. The Commentary to
this standard also strongly recommends that the investigation routinely involve a home visit with
the candidate and his or her family and in-person interviews with neighbors. CALEA Standard
32.2.2 also requires special training of background investigators.
153
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Polic}' Review
implementing a testing program. In addition, in conducting this study Treasury should contact
the Department of Justice and the DEA to learn from the their experience in implementing a
similar program.
Educational and Experiential Requirements for Treasury Law Enforcement Officers
At the suggestion of members of the Citizens Review Panel, the Review considered
whether a minimum educational requirement of a four-year college degree for all Treasury law
enforcement officers should be established as one method of attempting to avoid future racist,
sexist, and other misconduct such as that alleged to have occurred at the Roundups.
The Review is aware of the substantial body of literature advocating such a standard as an
entry-level requirement for police officers. As long ago as 1967, the President's Commission on
Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice recommended: "The ultimate aim of all
police departments should be that all personnel with general enforcement powers have
baccalaureate degrees."346 Since that time, there have been many studies endorsing such a
requirement. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in rejecting a Title VII action against the
education requirement of the Dallas Police Department, cited the findings of these studies
approvingly. 347
Although a college diploma is obviously not a certification that the recipient is free from
racism and other forms of bias, two of the benefits studies repeatedly associate with a degree
requirement for law enforcement officers are that college education:
•
Developed a greater empathy for minorities and their discriminatory experiences
through coursework and interaction in the academic environment; and
Engendered understanding and tolerance for persons with different lifestyles and
ideologies, which could translate into more effective communication and community
relationships in the practice of policing. 348
•
A recent Police Education Research Forum (PERF) Discussion Paper cites other salutary effects
that a college education provides for a law enforcement officer's performance of his or her
duties. These include:
346 PRESIDE~T'S CO:'l\!ISSIO~ O~ LA W E~FORCE:\fE:';T A~D THE AD;vn:"JISTRATIO~ OF JUSTICE,
THE CHALLE?\GE OF CRHvlE P.-: A FREE SOCIETY 109 (1967).
WDm'is v. Dallas. 777 F.2d 205, 218-223 (5th Cir. 1985).
4S
3 David
L. Carter & Allen D. Sapp, Police Education and /viinority Recruitment: The Impact
ofa College Requirement (A PERF Discussion Paper) 2 (1991).
15-+
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developed a broader base for decision making;
Inculcated responsibility in the individual through course requirements and achievements;
[PJermitted the individual to learn more about the history of the country and the
democratic process, and to appreciate constitutional rights, and the democratic form of
government;
Engendered the ability to handle difficult or ambiguous situations with greater creativity
or innovation;
Helped officers to communicate and respond to the crime and service needs of the public
in a competent manner, with civility and humanity;
Helped officers to develop better overall community relations skills, including
engendering the respect and confidence of the community;
Engendered more "professional" demeanor and performance;
Enabled officers to cope better with stress and to be more likely to seek assistance with
personal or stress-related problems, and thereby to be more stable and more reliable
employees;
Enabled officers to adapt their styles of communication and behavior to a wider range of
social conditions and classes;
Tended to make officers less authoritarian and less cynical with respect to the milieu of
policing;
Enabled officers to accept and adapt to organizational change more readily.349
An even more recent report confirmed the benefit of college education on law
enforcement officers' job performance. "Research has found a positive relationship between
higher education and fewer citizen complaints, fewer disciplinary actions against officers, and
fewer allegations of excessive force."350 The report concluded that educated officers "are more
professional and more dedicated to policing as a career rather than as ajob."351
Under current rules and qualification standards, a four-year college degree is not required
for any position as a Treasury law enforcement officer. Instead, every entry-level Treasury law
enforcement position other than the Secret Service Uniformed Division requires four years of
349Id at 4-5.
350 Alan T. Vodicka, Educational Requirements for Police Recruits: Higher Education
Benefits Officers, Agency, 42 LAW AND ORDER 92 (March 1994).
351Id.
155
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Reviev.·
undergraduate study leading to a bachelor's degree or three years qualifying experience. 352
Some combination of partial education and partial experience may also qualify an applicant for a
Treasury law enforcement position. For the Uniformed Division, the only education requirement
is a high school diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED); there is no experience
requirement or substitute for the diploma or GED.
For all practical purposes, Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus hire almost exclusively
college graduates for positions as Criminal Investigators. Indeed, given the current market,
vacancies for Criminal Investigator positions are usually filled with applicants who are both
degreed and experienced. The Bureaus attribute their ability to limit their hiring selections for
these positions to college graduates, despite the absence of a standard requiring a college degree,
to the high desirability of careers in Treasury law enforcement and the resulting highly
competitive pool of applicants for Criminal Investigator vacancies.
Because of this trend in recent hiring, more than 83 percent of Treasury Criminal
Investigators and almost two-thirds of Treasury law enforcement officers currently hold at least a
bachelor's degree. Almost 95 percent of ATF Special Agents have at least a bachelor's degree,
while over 82 percent ofIRS Special Agents and Inspectors have a bachelor's degree or higher.
More than 67 percent of Customs Special Agents currently possess at least a bachelor's degree;
however, because of the large number of Customs Inspectors, less than half of whom hold a
college degree, the percentage of Customs law enforcement officers holding college degrees or
better is slightly less than half.3 53 The overwhelming majority of Secret Service Special Agents
hold college degrees or better (roughly 98 percent), but, again, because fewer than 27 percent of
Secret Service Uniformed Division Officers hold college diplomas, the percentage for Secret
Service law enforcement officers overall is roughly 62 percent. Thus, Treasury law enforcement
officers are already a credentialed and well-educated professional group.
A federal statute currently provides that for positions in the federal competitive service,
OPM and other federal agencies:
52
In the case of an IRS CID position, the applicant must have fifteen semester hours in
accounting and nine hours in finance, economics, business law, tax law, money and banking, or a
field closely related thereto. The nature of the experience required varies with the position.
3
53
For Customs Inspectors, 42.9% hold college degrees or higher. The figures for other
Customs law enforcement officers holding at least college degrees are as follows: Customs Patrol
Officers (9.7%): Canine Enforcement and Marine Enforcement Officers (1l.5%); Pilots (60.5%).
3
156
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
may not prescribe a minimum educational requirement for the competitive service
except when the Office [of Personnel Management] decides that the duties of a
scientific, technical, or professional position cannot be performed by an individual
who does not have a prescribed minimum education. The Office shall make the
reasons for its decision under this section a part of its public record. 354
Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus report that OPM has rejected their previous efforts to obtain
a ruling authorizing a college-degree requirement even for Criminal Investigators. 355 However,
another Treasury report addressing a number of personnel issues relating to Criminal
Investigators is currently advancing the option of obtaining OPM authorization for such a
requirement. Given current Bureau hiring practices and the pendency of another report
addressing this issue, there is no immediate need for this Report to articulate a recommendation
for a college-degree requirement for Treasury Criminal Investigators. 356
Recommendation No. 10: Promoting Workforce Diversity
The Treasury Department and all Treasury Bureaus or components that
employ Treasury law enforcement officers should continue to promote racial
and gender diversity and a prejudice-free work environment at all levels of
the Treasury law enforcement workforce.
Discussion: Treasury is already committed to an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policy
for all its employees. The use of this EEO policy in evaluation and promotion is discussed in
Chapter Ten. Relevant here is the fact that this EEO policy has improved the racial minority and
female representation in the Treasury's Law Enforcement Bureaus as evidenced by the statistics
set out in Chapter One. This has been accomplished without diminishing the talent and
professionalism of the law enforcement ranks. It is essential that Treasury and its Law
Enforcement Bureaus continue their commitment to promoting racial and gender diversity and a
bias-free work environment at all levels of Treasury law enforcement. If past progress is not to
be eroded, more junior law enforcement officers must also see that opportunities for professional
354 5 U.S.c. § 3308.
355The FBI has been able to implement a college-degree requirement without OPM
approval, because its Special Agents are excepted from the competitive service.
356With regard to non-Criminal Investigators, the Department is awaiting the opportunity
to consider the results of the implementation of the personnel issues report relating to Criminal
Investigators before taking further action.
157
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Revie.1'
advancement are open to them without regard to race, sex or other extraneous factors,357
Moreover, the presence of a diverse workforce also helps to constrain displays of bias on the part
of fellow officers. 358
Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus should, therefore. periodically reevaluate their
recruiting plans and policies to ensure that the Department is doing all it can to develop the 1",01
of minority and women candidates who are well-qualified to work as Treasury law enforcement
officers, This can be done through "effective recruiting and innovative personnel
programming. "359
The presence of racially, sexually, and culturally diverse co-workers will underscore the
value of good judgment and mutual respect. Therefore, EEO policies that secure the continued
strong presence of a diverse workforce are an important tool in the project of ending any vestige
of bias in federal law enforcement.
357NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADYAl\:CHIENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, BEYOND THE
RODNEY KING STORY 92-93 (1995) [hereinafter, BEYOj\;D KJ:-JG]: THE POLICE, supra note 298, at
153-54.
358BEYOl':D KI"l\G, supra note 357, at 84-86: JEROME H. SKOL~ICK & JAMES 1. FYFE, ABOVE
THE LAW: POLICE A)\D THE EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE 137-8 (1993)[hereinafter ABOVE THE
LA w]: THE POLICE. supra note 298, at 153-54.
359Carter & Sapp. supra note 348, at 21 (emphasis in original).
158
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER NINE
TRAINING: EXISTING POLICIES AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
The Department of the Treasury strives to provide the highest quality training to its
personnel and through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to other federal,
state, local, and intemationallaw enforcement agencies. This chapter presents a preliminary
analysis of the training provided to Treasury law enforcement employees designed to prevent
bias and misconduct, canvasses the present training efforts of Treasury and its Law Enforcement
Bureaus, and provides one Recommendation regarding future evaluation of training and one
Recommendation regarding the accessibility of ethics standards and rules of conduct for
employees.
Present Training Policies
FLETC trains all Treasury law enforcement officers. ATF, Secret Service, IRS, and
Customs Special Agents, as well as Customs Pilots and Marine Enforcement Officers receive
FLETC's nine-week Criminal Investigator basic course. Secret Service Uniformed Division
Officers attend FLETC's eight-week police basic training course. Customs Inspectors attend an
eleven-week course designed and taught cooperatively by FLETC and Customs personnel. As
part of the Criminal Investigator course, FLETC offers a single two-hour block of instruction
combining sexual harassment prevention and diversity training, and a two-hour course on ethical
conduct. The police training course, which is attended by Secret Service Uniformed Division,
offers five hours on ethics. New Customs Inspectors receive two hours of diversity and sexual
harassment prevention training, and attend a three-hour course called "Values."
Each of the Bureaus offers training to its law enforcement personnel in addition to the
basic training at FLETC. Besides this supplemental training, which covers ethics, diversity, and
sexual harassment issues, the Bureaus also offer training for some or all of their non-law
enforcement personnel. The specifics of this training are detailed below.
Diversity Training
Diversity training is designed to sensitize and enable employees to understand various
races, ethnic groups, religious groups, and cultural groups. With this understanding of cultural
differences, agents are better prepared to interact with the public, with co-workers, and with
people they supervise.
159
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Departmental Offices. The Departmental Offices (Treasury's headquarters) have a number of
ongoing activities designed to educate their employees and increase their level of awareness. For
example, Departmental Offices sponsor educational programs for all of their employees for
Black History Month, Hispanic-American Month, Asian-Pacific Islander Month, National
Women's History Month, and Take Your Children to Work Day. These activities are well
attended by individuals from all backgrounds and provide insight and information into the
diverse cultural groups that make up Department Offices. 36o
Diversity training is also included in other management training provided by the
Departmental Offices. Mandatory AIDS awareness training was held for all Departmental
Offices employees, and information on the topic is readily available to all employees.
Executives and managers were invited to attend a diversity seminar, "Diversity in the
Workforce," sponsored by the Treasury Executive Institute (TEl). TEl offered this training to
managers at headquarters, to all Senior Executives in the Washington metropolitan area, and to
GS-15 managers.
FLETC In addition to providing training to employees of other bureaus, FLETC also provides
substantial diversity training to its own employees. The FLETC Behavioral Science Division
conducts three hours of mandatory training in sexual harassment and cultural diversity, providing
an annual refresher class for the sexual harassment component as well. FLETC plans to add
cultural diversity training to its annual refresher course. Other related initiatives undertaken by
FLETC include month-long celebrations in February and September, respectively, to honor the
contributions of African Americans and Hispanic Americans; the observance of Cultural Unity
Day to honor the cultural differences and contributions of all FLETC employees; and active
recruitment of candidates at meetings of professional minority associations. FLETC has
undertaken other initiatives in furtherance of the goal of sexual harassment prevention and
education, including the installation of a sexual harassment hotline in the Office of the Director
to allow anonymous reporting of allegations of sexual harassment.
ATF. In January 1995, the executive staff and senior managers at ATF Headquarters attended a
diversity awareness workshop. Diversity awareness training has been incorporated into a
mandatory course for all new first-line supervisors and a diversity awareness briefing was given
for ATF Headquarters' employees in December 1995. The briefing was videotaped and copies
and facilitation guides were forwarded to all field offices for their use. Many ATF law
enforcement courses taught at the National Academy include segments on the rules of conduct,
ethical standards, or diversity.
36°Treasury also sponsors a Departmental Advisory Committee for Individuals with
Disabilities composed of Bureau representatives which sponsors informational meetings and
events designed to encourage full participation in the work force for employees with disabilities.
160
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
ATF has also established a Diversity/Peer Group program which is composed of
volunteers from specific groups: African Americans, Hispanics, Asian AmericanlPacific
Islanders, Native Americans, Women, White Males, Persons with Disabilities, and
Gays/Lesbians. The volunteers solicit information from their peers and identify issues and
concerns that affect the work place. These issues are then addressed and resolved by ATF's
executive staff. One of their recommendations was that all ATF employees should receive
diversity awareness training, which is being implemented. 361
Customs. Customs supervisors, managers, and Special Agents receive training specific to
diversity issues. Since 1993, Customs has sent managers from many of its offices to the National
Louis University where, as part of the curriculum, a three-hour course is offered on cultural
diversity. Some Customs supervisory employees have attended elective courses on cultural
diversity given at FLETC. Additionally, all Customs supervisors receive four hours of
mandatory training at FLETC regarding managing diverse work forces. In 1995, supervisory
inspectors attended a course presented by a consulting firm on cultural diversity that focused on
valuing differences, managing diversity, and increasing cross-cultural communication skills.
Commencing in February 1996, Customs initiated a new refresher course for Special
Agents which includes an hour of instruction on cultural diversity. Special Agents who recruit
for Customs receive an eight-hour session on cultural diversity. Furthermore, Customs
established other initiatives in pursuit of the goal of sensitizing its employees to the issue of
cultural diversity in the work place. 362
Most recently, Customs has created a diversity training course for Inspectors who work at
borders that focuses on working effectively with a diverse public. In the first module, "Overview
361In addition, ATF celebrates its diversity through recognition programs for Black History
Month, National Women's History Month, and a cultural diversity fair. ATF also funds
participation by its employees in events and conferences held by the National Organization for
Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the Hispanic Agent Conference, the Women in
Federal Law Enforcement (WIFLE), and the AsianlPacific Islanders Peace Officers Conference.
ATF is committed to continued career training in diversity by sponsoring programs, sending
supervisors to external courses, and developing additional training, such as the award winning
AIDS Awareness course it developed in 1994.
362For example, Customs designated November 1995 as Diversity Awareness Month; and its
Employee Assistance Program, a counseling and referral service, offers training and other
services in this area. Also, Customs regional offices periodically conduct diversity training
exercises for their employees.
161
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
of Workplace and Marketplace," the course book states, "For the U.S. Customs Service in
particular, a diverse workforce expands your organization's ability to serve the increasingly
diverse traveling public."363 In addition, the topic "Key Points for Communicating Across
Cultures" in the same course book focuses on the role of differences in style:
Because your role as U.S. Customs Supervisors/Inspectors requires you to interact
with a very diverse workforce -- as well as a very diverse traveling public -- it is
crucial that you are aware of, and understand, the key points for communicating
across cultures: When conflict occurs while communicating, be aware that it may
be the result of differences in style or process rather than by the actual content
being discussed. 364
The course also offers opportunities to practice conflict resolutions that arise from cultural
differences in the public and with other employees.
IRS The IRS engages in systematic and nationwide diversity training. Highlights of this
training include executive seminars designed to educate and inform the executive cadre on the
most recent thinking concerning managing a diverse work force. In each field office, the IRS has
identified and trained a diversity consultant, usually a line manager, who is available to managers
of that office for advice and guidance on diversity issues in the work place. Only a few field
offices, however, provide diversity training to all employees and managers. Such training
focuses on helping employees and managers understand the implications of a diverse work force
and diversity in the taxpaying public on work place and business operations. Field offices
provide such training based on their local circumstances and issues. IRS-CID provides one hour
of diversity training in three separate training courses at FLETC: Special Agent Basic Training,
On the Job Instructor Training, and Management Training. Internal Security provides diversity
training as a part of two training courses at FLETC: Basic Inspector School and Background
Investigators School. IRS-CID has also developed an eight-hour course entitled Recognizing,
Accepting and Valuing Everyone (RAVE), which is available for presentation in all districts.
Secret Service. Diversity training is provided to all Secret Service employees in various courses
offered at different times. During their first week in training, all new employees receive
instruction on awareness of discrimination and diversity issues as part of their introductory
training course at the Secret Service's James 1. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC). This course
(new employee orientation) is a two-day course in understanding cultural, gender, racial, ethnic,
363U.S. Customs Service, Office ofField Operations, Diversity Training Program Participant
Course Book. 1-:'
36
162
4
1d. at 2-7.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
job series, religious, and societal differences. This course stresses agency integrity and
accountability, personal responsibility on the job, and team building. All employees receive
additional in-service training on a regular basis throughout their careers.
Managers must attend a course entitled, "Diversity on the Team," which covers various
diversity concepts from a variety of perspectives, the encouragement of individuality and
personal responsibility for feelings, biases, and prejUdices. All supervisors and employees are
required to attend a three-day diversity-focussed conference. The conference discusses
challenges of working within an increasingly diverse work force and society, and negative
impacts upon the Service if those challenges are not met. It also encompasses interpersonal
awareness instruction and a briefing regarding the Service's Ombudsman Program. Moreover,
the Secret Service offers voluntary courses in office professionalism, managing anger and
conflict, and conflict resolution. Each of these courses addresses diversity issues, including
professional resolution of diversity-based conflict.
All law enforcement personnel are required to attend an AIDS Awareness training class.
The Service also has a regional recruiter program that provides advice and assistance to recruiters
in their efforts to recruit a diverse work force. Secret Service reports it has also established a
diversity/peer group program which is composed of volunteers from specific groups: African
Americans, Hispanics, Asian AmericanlPacific Islanders, Native Americans, and women. The
volunteers solicit infonnation from their peers and identify issues and concerns that affect the
work place. These groups meet quarterly to discuss issues with the Director and staff.
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training
Devartmental Offices. Departmental Offices have offered sexual harassment prevention training
to both non-supervisory and supervisory personnel. In 1992, twelve sessions were offered and
approximately 350 employees attended, including all employees under the supervision of the
Assistant Secretary for Management. In 1995, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Departmental
Finance and Management mandated sexual harassment prevention training for all of his
employees, and this training was attended by more than 100 Finance and Management
employees. The Department's Advisory Panel on Sexual Harassment Prevention and EEO is
chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Management and, as a result of the recommendations of
that panel, the Secretary has issued a policy statement against sexual harassment to all Treasury
employees and established a hotline for reporting allegations of sexual harassment. In addition, a
brochure defining sexual harassment and explaining employees' rights and responsibilities was
distributed to all Treasury employees. The brochure is included in the orientation materials for
all incoming Departmental Offices employees, and is available in the personnel office to
employees or managers for distribution to their staff. In addition, several videos and other
training resources have been made available for managers.
163
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Revieli.'
FLETC FLETC offers an array of sexual harassment training both to its own employees and to
its law enforcement students from the Treasury Enforcement Bureaus and other federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies. The basic one- and two-hour courses on sexual harassment
have been described above in connection with the training received by employees of the various
Treasury Enforcement Bureaus. In addition, FLETC has developed an expanded eight-hour
block of instruction, consisting of four hours each on sexual harassment and cultural diversity.
This course is designed to be exportable to other enforcement agencies. FLETC also offers
various "train-the-trainer" programs for its client Bureaus and regularly reviews them to assess
their effectiveness.
As part of its mandatory training for all employees on government wide standards of
conduct, FLETC emphasizes, among other things, sexual harassment prevention training.
Employees receive mandatory annual refresher training on this topic. Moreover, the Behavioral
Science Division of FLETC conducts a formal orientation session for all new FLETC employees
which includes the requirements for and performance expectations of new employees in the area
of preventing sexual harassment. 365
ATF. Since 1992, all ATF employees, including Special Agents, have received sexual
harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Additionally, in 1995, ATF offered its
employees a refresher course on preventing sexual harassment and a course on sexual harassment
investigative techniques. Further, ATF continues to implement the nineteen recommendations
outlined in its "Blue Ribbon Panel" report from 1992 to make systemic changes within ATF to
prevent sexual harassment.
Customs. Customs law enforcement personnel receive mandatory sexual harassment prevention
training at FLETC. Since October 1993, all new Customs Inspectors have participated in a twohour segment at FLETC on EEO principles and diversity issues with an emphasis on sexual
harassment prevention. In addition, new Customs Inspectors receive one additional hour of
instruction in sexual harassment prevention at FLETC. In 1993, approximately ninety trainers
received a three-day train-the-trainer course at FLETC. From 1993 through 1994, these trainers
provided sexual harassment prevention training to an estimated 12,000 Customs employees.
3650ther FLETC initiatives related to this issue include the following: FLETC is presently
producing a training video entitled "Women in Law Enforcement," which depicts the expanding
role of women in law enforcement; FLETC has a standing EEO committee that aggressively
addresses all EEO matters and makes recommendations for improvement; FLETC's Federal
\\'omen's Program. which regularly holds luncheons designed to enhance women's careers, has
established a mentoring program for women in training.
164
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 Boys Roundup Policy Review
J
Customs field offices provide additional, periodic training focused on sexual harassment
prevention to their employees. 366
IRS. Up until now, sexual harassment prevention training has been provided at IRS headquarters
and individual field offices on a discretionary basis. However, IRS currently has a servicewide
training plan in development which will provide uniform mandatory sexual harassment
prevention training to all employees and supervisors by September 30, 1996. Additionally, one
hour of sexual harassment training is provided by IRS-CID in the Special Agent Basic Training
course.
Secret Service. The Secret Service provides sexual harassment prevention training to its
employees. The Office of Training develops, administers, and coordinates all of the Service's
training programs for all Service employees. In addition to the FLETC course mentioned above,
new Special Agents in the Secret Service receive an additional one-hour course at JJRTC on this
subject. During their first week on the job, new Special Agents receive instruction on sexual
harassment prevention from the Office of Training. Thereafter, employees receive systematic,
regular instruction in this area as well as other areas; some training is voluntary, and some is
mandatory. The Secret Service has prepared and distributed a brochure to all employees
regarding sexual harassment. Additionally, the Director periodically issues memoranda
reminding employees of their obligations to conduct themselves in a professional manner, free
from discriminatory behavior.
Other Available Training Resources
In addition there are resources at the Treasury Department that may be used for additional
training. For example, the Career Resource Center at ATF has various diversity videotapes,
books, and other materials; pamphlets on diversity are also available and have been distributed to
all employees. The IRS has a self-study course catalog which it distributes to its employees
366Customs engages in other efforts designed to prevent and/or punish occurrences of sexual
harassment. Such other efforts include: establishing, in 1992, a sexual harassment task force that
evaluates allegations and determines appropriate responses on an agencywide basis; training
Special Agents investigating allegations of sexual harassment; issuing, in 1993, various
directives to supervisors, managers, and employees on such topics as the definition of sexual
harassment, reporting alleged misbehavior to the sexual harassment task force, preventing its
occurrence in the work place; and establishing a hotline for reporting these allegations.
Since 1993, the sexual harassment task force has logged over 191 allegations of sexual
harassment. Three employees lost their jobs, fifteen received suspensions, three received
reassignments, twenty received reprimands, thirty-four receive cautions/counseling, three
resigned/retired, and one received a downgrade.
165
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
annually. Departmental Offices offers books and videos covering diversity and nondiscrimination issues.
Ethical Standards and Rules of Conduct Training
Departmental Offices. Departmental Offices and each of the Bureaus train or instruct all
employees with respect to the ethical standards and conduct rules and requirements. All
Departmental Offices employees were given copies of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for
Executive Branch Employees in early 1993. All new employees also receive a copy of the rules
of conduct. Departmental Offices redistributed copies of the Standards and the new
supplemental ethics standards and rules of conduct to all of their employees in January 1996. In
addition, over 500 Departmental Offices employees, including all senior officials, annually
receive one hour of mandatory ethics training.
FLETe FLETC offers several courses on ethics and conduct to law enforcement trainees from
Treasury Bureaus and other agencies. These include a three-hour course on values, a two-hour
basic training course on the standards of conduct for law enforcement officers, and a presentation
on ethical behavior for federal officers that can be offered in segments of either five or six hours.
The basic two-hour segment on ethics includes instruction on federal and Treasury conduct and
ethics rules, and also on the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics promulgated by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, which sets forth the stringent standards of on- and off-duty
conduct demanded of law enforcement officers.
FLETC provides mandatory training to all of its employees on governmentwide conduct
requirements. In addition, FLETC requires that employees take mandatory annual refresher
courses in this area. Reinforcing this training is a FLETC video, "FLETC Integrity in the
Workplace," and an accompanying brochure. Finally, the orientation session for new employees
conducted by FLETC's Legal Counsel covers ethics requirements.
ATF. ATF provides ethics training annually to all of its employees, who must be certified as
having attended the course. Additionally, new supervisors are trained in personnel practices,
rules of ethics and conduct, and on how to identify integrity issues.
Customs. Customs uses several approaches to inform its employees about ethics and standards
of conduct. In 1987, Customs issued a policy that outlined its standards of ethical conduct and
employee responsibilities. The policy covers such matters as conduct prejudicial to the federal
government, defining immoral conduct, and disgraceful conduct. This policy also explains the
prohibitions on the misuse of government property. Customs has also issued directives on illegal
drug use and possession and consumption of alcohol. Since 1991, as part of an Integrity
Program. Customs employees have received instruction at FLETC on such matters as conflicts of
166
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
interest, gifts, and the Hatch Act. 367 Additionally, at Customs, Internal Affairs provides two
hours of instruction in bribery awareness and four hours of instruction in integrity awareness to
law enforcement employees.
IRS. Approximately six years ago, IRS developed a strategic initiative on ethics for its
employees. Every IRS employee, as part of that initiative, was required to attend a one-day
seminar on ethics and was given a copy of Ethics: Principles and Practices Resources Guide.
This Resources Guide is a permanent, expandable portfolio designed to hold all existing conduct
and ethics rules governing federal employees; the table of penalties prescribed for violations of
the rules; general educational materials on ethics and values; and IRS newsletters addressing
ethical issues. Managers and human resources personnel are responsible for providing similar
training to new employees. In addition, a one-hour ethics training refresher course is provided
annually to those IRS employees designated to receive such training under applicable OGE
regulations.
Secret Service. The Secret Service distributes to new employees all applicable ethical standards
and conduct regulations and requires the employee to certify that he or she has read these rules.
In each subsequent year, employees must certify that they have read and understood the rules. In
addition, new supervisors and those persons interested in applying for supervisory positions are
instructed on the misuse of government vehicles, alcohol consumption, and professional and
nondiscriminatory conduct in the work place. Each Secret Service Deputy Director has issued a
memorandum to all employees reminding them of the policy on misuse of government vehicles.
Additionally, the Secret Service engages in a federally mandated "Drug Deterrence Program."
All Secret Service SES personnel and all employees of the Secret Service who are Confidential
Financial Disclosure Filers, Contracting Officers, or Procurement Officials, receive special
training in ethics which is mandated by the Office of Government Ethics. All new employees are
provided with ethics training during their initial training at Secret Service's Training Center, and
current special agents are provided with ethics training during field in-service training.
Recommended Modifications
Given the scope limitations of the Policy Review, the Review has determined that a
future study of training in diversity is required. Visits to FLETC and other Bureau training sites
would be desirable, and extensive student interviews and surveys need to be conducted in order
to fully assess the training that is currently being provided. In addition, based on our preliminary
[mdings, the Review recommends to further study Treasury law enforcement diversity and ethics
training. This Recommendation refers to the training that law enforcement officers receive at
367In less than seven months, over 17,000 Customs employees received Integrity Program
lessons from approximately 320 instructors who had received two days oftrain-the-trainer
instruction at FLETC.
167
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
FLETC and at the Bureaus. The second Recommendation is intended to make the ethics
standards and rules of conduct more accessible to employees.
Recommendation No. 11: Training in Diversity and Ethics
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and all Treasury Bureaus
employing Treasury law enforcement officers should evaluate the
effectiveness of existing training in diversity and ethics issues on an ongoing
basis, to determine whether increased or modified training is necessary, and,
if so, how such training should best be integrated into their regular
curriculum and training programs.
Discussion: FLETC currently offers new federal law enforcement officers two hours of sexual
harassment training and no diversity training. 368 In contrast, the Christopher Commission found
the Los Angeles Police Academy's eight hours on cultural awareness "insufficient."369 The
FLETC course on ethics and values is only five hours for the basic police training and only two
hours for the Criminal Investigators, and these focus largely on issues such as accepting gifts and
failing to pay debts. A list of sample questions and answers in the student workbook, for
example, revealed that all the questions focus on monetary conflicts-of-interest or the
consequences of violating the rules. These issues are important to the curriculum; however,
greater focus could be paid to non-monetary ethical issues as well, such as the behavior alleged
to have taken place at the Roundups. A law enforcement officer who appears to act improperly
because he or she is motivated by racial hatred is as harmful to the efficiency of Treasury law
enforcement as one who appears to take bribes.
368FLETC's basic police training course is 369.5 hours. FLETC's Criminal Investigator
program is 367 hours, and the Customs Service Criminal Inspector Program is 440 hours.
Christopher Commission Report at 122. The Christopher Commission pointed to the San
Francisco Police Department, which requires forty hours of cultural awareness training. By way
of additional comparison, the S1. Louis County Police Department requires 40 hours of cultural
av·/areness training (out of a total of 600 hours of training); the Missouri State Highway Patrol
devote 30 of the 1,000 hours of basic training to cultural awareness; the Miami Police
Department dedicates 50 out of 820 hours of basic training to cultural awareness, sensitivity, and
community relations: and the Houston Police Department is revising and expanding its training
curriculum because it has assessed the 16 hours of work it includes on cultural awareness during
its cadet training as insufficient even when followed by field training. BEYOND KING, supra note
357. at 97-98.
369
168
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
A future study of FLETC training should detennine whether the "Sexual Harassment"
and the "Ethical Behavior" courses should be expanded. The Treasury Law Enforcement
Bureaus, too, should evaluate the effectiveness of their follow-on training in diversity awareness
and ethics as they relate to the issues raised by this Report. Although the training provided by
the Bureaus varies widely, as a general matter, much of the ongoing diversity awareness training
is nonmandatory and is aimed at work place equal employment opportunity issues, such as
hiring, promotion, and handling of EEO complaints, rather than at officers on- and off-duty
attitudes toward and interactions with segments of the public. Moreover, annual ethics training
often focuses on conflict-of-interest issues, such as acceptance of gifts and outside employment
or business activities, and on Hatch Act restrictions on political activities, rather than on off-duty
standards of conduct and the reasons for those standards.
The Review's preliminary findings suggest that integrating diversity and ethics issues
into the entire FLETC curriculum may be an effective way to increase the effectiveness of its
training. 370 Often students learn lessons taught indirectly as well as those taught directly:
students may learn writing skills in any course regardless of subject matter if they are presented
with examples of good writing. Therefore, sensitizing Treasury law enforcement officers to the
diverse populace of the United States may be included as an objective for many of the courses
that FLETC offers. These courses could also have an ethics component. Real life questions of
ethics are rarely freestanding--rather, they are integral to all the decisions a law enforcement
officer makes each day. The future study should investigate how FLETC's training could be
designed to communicate this reality.
Based on the Review's preliminary findings, the Review recommends continuing quality
control of diversity and ethics training. FLETC has expertise in detennining the best plan for
assessing effectiveness; for example, FLETC has successfully integrated training on use of force
into its curriculum, and therefore can take the lead in developing a plan to integrate diversity
training. The Review suggests testing students not only at the end of the stand-alone ethics and
diversity classes, but also prior to graduation, on diversity and ethics issues.
Recommendation No. 12: Accessibility of Ethics Standards and Rules of Conduct
Treasury Law Enforcement Bureau-level rules should be streamlined and
assembled in one place, together with governmentwide and Treasury ethical
standards and rules of conduct, for easy reference by employees in a manner
37°Changes to FLETC's common training programs are detennined during curricula
conferences as prescribed by policy and procedures established under an interagency board of
directors. In addition to Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus, FLETC serves sixty-seven other
agencies. FLETC must work with all participating agencies to implement changes to training.
169
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
similar to that currently employed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Examples of application of the rules should be included where feasible.
Discussion: Law enforcement officers are charged with knowing every rule of conduct and
ethical standard. The Policy Review found it a cumbersome and frustrating task to track down
all applicable rules and standards. The Bureaus and Departmental Offices, therefore, should
provide their employees easy and clear reference to these rules. The presentation of the
information, through language and graphics, should be clear and easy to update inexpensively as
rules and standards change. The future study should consider how to distribute these manuals to
employees. Furthermore, the future study should consider issuing them to the public. Treasury's
customers, the public, will then know the rules and standards for Treasury law enforcement
officers and be assured that Treasury law enforcement officers are aware of the same.
170
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER TEN
EVALUATION AND PROMOTION: EXISTING POLICIES
AND RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS
Policies aimed at improving the hiring and training of Treasury law enforcement
personnel will succeed only if Treasury also evaluates and promotes its officers based on their
continuing dedication to diversity, equal opportunity, and the absence of invidious prejudice.
Every Treasury Law Enforcement Bureau believes in the tenets of equal opportunity and
diversity awareness, but not all have evaluation criteria in place to ensure formal recognition of
this commitment. This chapter describes the existing evaluation criteria that address the value of
freedom from prejudice in law enforcement employees. Generally, these criteria break down into
two categories: "equal employment opportunity" (EEO) effectiveness in managers; and
professionalism in non-manager law enforcement employees. The chapter concludes with a
recommendation regarding the evaluation of Treasury managers and supervisors.
Present Evaluation Policies
The Treasury Department, like all federal agencies, has in place an Office of Personnel
Management-approved "Performance Appraisal System."377 This system requires that each
employee be rated yearly by a supervisor. The supervisor--in consultation with the employee, if
feasible--must establish "elements," which are the components of the employee's job
responsibilities, and "standards," which are statements ofthe supervisor's expectations regarding
those responsibilities. At least one element must be labeled a "critical element." Unacceptable
performance in any critical element results in reassignment, reduction-in-grade, or dismissal-regardless of the employee's performance on all other components of the position. The
supervisor also can establish "non-critical elements." In either case, the supervisor evaluates the
employee's performance with respect to the elements, and may assign a summary rating. The
number and categories of ratings may vary by bureau from as few as two ("Pass"/ "Fail"), to as
many as five (e.g., "Outstanding;" "Exceeds Fully Successful;" "Fully Successful;" "Minimally
Successful;" or "Unacceptable"). The Department of the Treasury recently revised its
performance appraisal system to allow for pass/fail appraisal programs.
Treasury policy mandates that certain elements be included in all Performance Appraisal
Systems. Among these is an EEO element which provides that: "All executives must be
377This system is detailed in a Department of the Treasury publication entitled Treasury
Personnel Policy Manual Chapter 430, (February 16, 1996).
171
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
appraised on their EEO effectiveness (to the extent their positions involve such
responsibilities.)"378 The tenn "executives" limits this element to managers and supervisors, at
the Senior Executive Service (SES) level. Treasury grants its Law Enforcement Bureaus
discretion to deem this element critical or non-critical.
The focus of the EEO element is on evaluating supervisory perfonnance towards
subordinates, rather than maintaining general standards of professionalism. Other perfonnance
elements developed by the Bureaus address the latter question. The following section examines,
on a Bureau-by-Bureau basis, existing perfonnance evaluation elements which advance EEO in
effectiveness in managers, and professionalism in non-manager law enforcement personnel.
Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Management. For the past five years, ATF has deemed the EEO element "critical" for its
executives and supervisors, including supervisory special agents. The language used in the EEO
critical element for SES positions is applicable to a broader range of activity than simply
fostering prejudice-free promotion policies, however. The element, entitled "Equal Employment
Opportunity Efforts," includes the following criteria:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Provide leadership and policy direction that will advance equality in all personnel
actions.
Ensure selection, development, and assignment of employees is consistent
with EEO principles and is in a manner that maximizes the use of their
skills in achieving Bureau goals.
Maintain an effective discrimination complaint processing system that
reviews the fonnal complaints to ensure timely attempts at resolution,
identifies internal organizational problems before they give rise to
complaints, and ensures that employees cooperate in EEO investigations
and provide necessary infonnation. Take corrective action when problems
are identified in any phase of complaints processing.
Demonstrate commitment to EEO principles and programs by developing
all subordinates and providing opportunities for advancement through job
restructuring and maximum utilization of skills and knowledge.
Continue the design of a new Bureau-wide career development plan and
perfonnance appraisal system, in consultation with an outside expert.
Complete the following action item related to the EEO Special Blue Ribbon Panel
Report: finalize and distribute the ATF Order entitled, "Adverse Action and
Discipline," which includes a Table of Penalties.
378Department o/the Treasury Personnel.Management Manual, Chapter 430, Subchapter
II -4. February 19, 1987.
172
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
G.
Guide, mentor, and support the Diversity Group which represents the
concerns of women at ATF.
Division Chiefs at the middle management level are subject to the following performance
element on EEO effectiveness: "Measures supervisors' knowledge of, and adherence to, Bureau
EEO policies, including responsibilities concerning prevention of sexual harassment; degree to
which support of EEO principles is demonstrated; and progress in meeting affirmative action and
FEORP 379 goals." The performance standards for this element are the following behaviors:
Value Diversity
show and foster respect and appreciation for each person whatever that person's
background, race, age, gender, disability, values, lifestyle, perspectives, or interests
accurately assess your own attitudes, assumptions and feelings about people who are
different than you;
seek to understand the worldwide view of others;
see differences in people as opportunities for learning about and approaching things
differently.
Special Agent. The Performance Appraisal System governing non-supervisory Special Agents
does not include a critical element expressly addressing non-biased professionalism. It does
include a "Professional Attributes" critical element, however, which covers conduct consistent
with professionalism. For example, an employee will receive a rating of "Unacceptable" if she
or he "[d]isplay[s] an unprofessional or negative attitude toward assignments, co-workers,
supervisors, professional contacts, or the public."
Notwithstanding the existence of the Professional Attributes element, it would be
desirable to include a performance evaluation element and corresponding performance standards
which explicitly promote professionalism as regards race, ethnic, religious, and cultural issues.
Since Special Agents' investigative work continuously brings them in contact with people of
diverse backgrounds, reviews of that work should include a measure of their respect for, and
sensitivity to, this diversity.
United States Customs Service
Management. Customs also has made the EEO element "critical" for all managers and
supervisors. Citing the Treasury Personnel Manual regarding appraisal of SES employees, a
379FEORP stands for Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program.
173
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good O' Boys Roundup Policy Review
May 10, 1989 Customs Directive states: "All executives must be appraised on their EEO
effectiveness to the extent their positions involve such responsibilities." This language is
amended somewhat in the performance elements for general schedule managers. Under the
"Mandatory Elements" section for those employees it states: "[S]upervisory personnel are
responsible for managing other employees work. Accordingly, performance plans for
supervisors covered by this system shall include the following core elements to the extent the
supervisor is held responsible and accountable for the following areas: EEO effectiveness."38o
Special Agent. Customs Special Agents do not have critical element expressly addressing nonbiased professionalism. They have one, non-critical element, "Liaison," which addresses
working "effectively and harmoniously with others, promoting cooperation and interactions."
The nature of Customs Special Agents' work is such that they interact with citizens of
every racial, ethnic, religious and cultural persuasion. In evaluating the Agents' performance, it
would be advantageous to have in place elements and standards which expressly call for
sensitivity to differences along racial, ethnic, religious and cultural lines.
Customs Inspector. Customs Inspectors too maintain a high level of public exposure which
requires an awareness of cultural differences in the attitudes and behaviors of a diverse public.
The Inspector position has a critical performance element for "Professionalism" that evaluates
interpersonal interactions. The element provides that the Inspectors be "courteous, tactful, and
business-like when dealing with the public and co-workers. Maintains poise in confrontational
situations." There is no explicit review of unbiased behavior, however. An element specifically
speaking to this subject would be desirable.
Canine Enforcement Officer. There are two critical elements in Canine Officers' performance
evaluation which might address prejudice-related behavior: "Professionalism" and "Courtesy."
The "Professionalism" element contains the following language: "Immediately reports all
management integrity related incidents and takes appropriate action when placed in a
compromising position. Actions reflect an in-depth knowledge of the Code of Conduct." The
"Courtesy" element addresses similar behavior: "Maintains a harmonious relationship with the
traveling and importing public, co-workers and supervisor. Conducts business in a professional
manner as evidenced by few, if any, justified complaints of discourtesy or incidents of providing
erroneous information to the public."
Canine Officers use personal observation of individuals to evaluate and detect potential
violators. Increased awareness of cultural differences between persons would enhance their
380 Additional actions at Customs to promote awareness include the recent approval of a
long-term series of studies ofEEO compliance throughout the Service. The Office of
Investigations is the first office to be studied and currently is undergoing review.
174
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
ability to evaluate a diverse traveling pUblic. For this reason, incorporating a performance
evaluation element and corresponding standards precisely tailored to understanding cultural
differences would be a positive development.
Marine Enforcement Officer. Customs Marine Enforcement Officers operate ocean-going
vessels to enforce compliance with Customs laws and related federal laws. Presently, Marine
Officers are not subject to a critical performance element addressing professionalism in matters
of diversity. The one relevant, non-critical performance element is designated "Courtesy." A
Marine Officer will be rated "Fully Successful" under this element if he or she achieves the
following:
Deals with the public projecting consideration and respectful politeness, while conducting
Service business. Meets and confers with contemporaries in Customs, other Federal,
State and local police agencies fostering a spirit of goodwill and cooperation.
The Marine Officer will be only "Marginally Successful" ifhe or she "[d]isplays minimal
socially acceptable standard of politeness and consideration when dealing with co-workers and/or
members of the public, on more than two occasions."
Internal Revenue Service
Management. At IRS, the imperative of meeting EEO objectives has been incorporated into
three specific critical elements, representing specific goals: "Increase Voluntary Compliance,"
"Maximize Customer Satisfaction and Reduce Burden," and "Achieve Quality-Driven
Productivity Through Systems Improvement and Employee Development." Executives,
Managers, and Management Officials are evaluated under these elements by the following
performance standards:
Increase Voluntary Compliance
Foster personal and employee development to better match the skills, abilities, ideas,
and experiences of our diverse workforce to appropriate market segments ....
Administer the tax laws with empowered employees who protect taxpayers' rights
and treat them ethically with honesty, integrity, fairness, and respect.
Maximize Customer Satisfaction and Reduce Burden
Use the skills and abilities of a diverse workforce and technology to
redesign/maintain business processes that reduce expenditures of time, money,
and resources for taxpayers and internal customers.
175
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Achieve Quality-Driven Productivity Through Systems Improvement and
Employee Development
Coach and develop employees to achieve parity at all grade levels which is
reflective of the Civilian Labor Force by eliminating barriers in recruiting, hiring,
training, and promoting minorities, women, and persons with disabilities ....
Support a healthy, safe work environment, free from harassment and
discrimination, in which the privacy of employees is respected.
Promote a workplace where ethical behavior is paramount and everyone is treated
with honesty, dignity, and respect.
Criminal Investigators and Internal Security Inspectors. Employees of both the Criminal
Investigation Division and Inspection Service are subject to the same critical elements. One of
these, pertaining to interpersonal relationships, requires that "dealings with other IRS officials
and employees, representatives of other agencies, and the public are conducted in a mature,
courteous, and tactful manner." A critical element explicitly addressing non-biased
professionalism would be desirable.
IRS Inspector and Criminal Investigator positions both entail a significant amount of
interaction with a diverse public. Inspectors' and Investigators' conduct with respect to issues of
diversity thus should be an element by which their performance is measured.
United States Secret Service
Management. The Secret Service's SES Appraisal System follows the Treasury personnel
requirement to appraise managers and supervisors on their EEO effectiveness. The Secret
Service Administrative Manual, section PER-6, Performance Appraisal System for Non-SES
Employees states the following in its "Standards for Implementing Equal Employment
Opportunity Programs:"
All supervisors at the GM-14 or GM-15 levels and in Uniformed Division,
sergeants and above, must have a critical element in the performance plan to
evaluate equal employment opportunity (EEO) responsibilities and meet
affinnative action goals ....
For GM-13 supervisors, an EEO element similar to the one identified for GM
14115 supervisors may be appropriate; however, the element should be written so
that it reflects these duties and responsibilities at the GM -13 level. Other GS or
Uniformed Division supervisory personnel should have an appropriate EEO
element outlining their responsibilities.
176
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Note: Inspectors assigned to the Office ofInspection are not classified as
supervisors. The element is not, therefore, mandatory for these positions.
Uniformed Division Officers. Uniformed Division Officers are subject to a critical element,
designated "Interpersonal Relations," which evaluates their performance regarding nondiscrimination and sensitivity towards diversity. The standard corresponding to this element
reads "maintains standards in the following interpersonal areas: Teamwork, Interaction with
others, and EEO." An officer must meet the following guidelines to be rated "Fully Successful"
in connection with this element:
--Supports affirmative action principles by maintaining effective and harmonious
working relationships with co-workers ....
--Relates, responds, and provides aid to people from various social, cultural, and
economic backgrounds.
To be rated "Outstanding" the officer must, in addition to satisfying the "Fully Successful"
standards, meet the following criteria, among others:
Tactfully and professionally responds and renders assistance to people from
various social, economic, and cultural backgrounds ....
Assists peers in dealing with work force diversity. Seeks opportunities to
contribute to the Service's EEO programs ....
SpeCial Agents. There are no explicit EEO or professionalism-related performance elements for
Secret Service Special Agents. One critical element, "Conducting Investigations," may be an
appropriate place to include a measurement of the agent's sensitivity in dealing with people from
diverse backgrounds. This element includes procedures for conducting interviews and
interrogations.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETe)
Management FLETC's SES Appraisal System expressly addresses EEO effectiveness. Setting
forth "Equal Opportunity Enforcement Performance Objectives," the System calls on all SES
personnel:
a. to aggressively guard against any discrimination in the FLETC hiring,
promotion, and general workplace activities based on race, color, religion, sex or
national ancestry, reporting any infractions and proposed corrective actions to the
Director's Office as soon as practical to do so, and
177
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
b. with the assistance of the FLETC Personnel Service Division, to continually
monitor the numbers of minority employees in all position levels in ADM and
aggressively recruit qualified minority applicants to increase the representation
where the percentages do not meet the standards established for the available
workforce; special efforts and progress will be reported routinely to the Director's
Office.
Mid-level managers and other supervisory personnel are also subject to EEO-based
performance criteria. The evaluation system governing Training Division Chiefs includes a
critical element designated "Division and Human Resources Management." This element states:
"The employee directs a management system, including a performance appraisal system, for
meeting divisional and occupational goals. The employee . . . appraises and manages staff
performance through appropriate rewards and corrective action .... " Among the standards by
which an employee is judged to have met this element are that he or she "consistently. . .
applies EEO and affirmative action principles to employee recruitment and management."
The Performance Appraisal System for the position of Assistant to the Director includes
an "Equal Opportunity Efforts" element. To achieve a "Fully Successful" rating under this
element, and employee must:
Fully and visibly support[ ] equal opportunity efforts; take[ ] appropriate
corrective action when confronted with a reported situation of sexual harassment,
cultural insensitivity, or racial bias, assist[ ] in recruitment activities designed to
attract minority personnel.
Managers and Supervisors in the Office of Administration are subject to an element
entitled "Human Resources Management and Equal Opportunity." A "Fully Successful" rating
under this element requires, in part, that the employee "Is committed to EEO by annually
reviewing the organizational structure and taking timely action to ensure compliance with
affirmative action principles."
Training Branch Chief Senior Instructor, and Lead Instructor. FLETC Training Branch Chiefs,
Senior Instructors, and Lead Instructors are not subject to a critical element addressing nonbiased professionalism. They are evaluated against critical elements which indirectly touch upon
the issue, however. For instance, Training Branch Chiefs are reviewed under an element entitled
"Initiative, Industry, Resourcefulness, and Professional Qualities." Meeting this element
necessitates that the employee "[c]omplies with all FLETC directives, regulations, and division
policies which define performance requirements." Similarly, Senior Instructors and Lead
Instructors are subject to a critical element designated "Professional Qualities," which mandates
that employees adhere to the aforementioned directives, regulations and policies.
178
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
FLETC policy, as articulated in Director's bulletins and directives, the FLETC Ethics
Manual, handbooks and various other sources, clearly supports the maintenance of prejudice-free
standards of conduct among its personne1. 381 Accordingly, these standards are incorporated by
reference in the aforementioned critical element. Still, it would be desirable to include an
element which speaks directly to non-biased professionalism so as to better ensure that this issue
receives the attention it is due.
Recommended Modifications
Commitment to a law enforcement force free of prejudiced conduct evidencing hatred is
an important goal of the Treasury Department and each of its Bureaus. Treasury's Law
Enforcement Bureaus should adopt evaluation procedures that further this goal. To this end, a
new critical element should be mandated by Treasury to apply to executives, managers and
supervIsors.
Recommendation No. 13: Evaluation of Managers and Supervisors
All Treasury Bureaus and components employing Treasury law enforcement
officers should evaluate all managers and supervisors on their success in
implementing the organizing principle of this Report as well as on the specific
Recommendations of this Report for which they are responsible. Evaluations
should afisess the individual's success in promoting both the appearance and reality
of integrity, professionalism and impartiality in their subordinates.
Discussion: This Recommendation is designed to ensure that executives, managers and
supervisors not only hire a diverse work force, but consider commitment to diversity in the
individuals they hire. Managers and supervisors should be required to take action when they
learn that their subordinates are involved in conduct that effects the efficiency of the service.
381The Director ofFLETC has issued a number of bulletins to all employees delineating
FLETC policy regarding diversity sensitivity in the work place. For example, an April 18, 1991
bulletin entitled "Professional Conduct," addressed the importance of maintaining respect for
racial, sexual, cultural, religious and other differences. A September 1, 1995 bulletin discussed
sexual harassment prevention. Directives al.so have been issued which set forth regulations
governing employee conduct in connection with diversity issues.
All FLETC employees receive copies of and are given annual certification training in Treasury's
Standards of Ethical Conduct and the principles set forth therein. Employees also receive a copy
of and mandated training regarding a manual entitled Ethics for the FLETe Employee. Both
documents set forth standards of non-biased professionalism.
179
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
This Recommendation calls on managers to be vigilant in fostering the goals of professionalism,
integrity, and impartiality. At the same time, it affords Treasury's Law Enforcement Bureaus the
discretion necessary to tailor implementation to their particular mission and labor force.
Moreover, as Bureaus review their appraisal systems they should consider the goals of this
Policy Review. Bureaus should look for creative ways to incorporate the goals of tolerance,
equal opportunity and diversity into the evaluation process for law enforcement officers at all
levels.
Under the federal employee performance appraisal system, only work performance
factors may be considered in evaluations. 382 With respect to managers and supervisors, part of
job performance involves taking reasonable steps to encourage employees' compliance with
applicable conduct rules on and off duty and taking appropriate disciplinary action if misconduct
nevertheless occurs. The foregoing discussion of existing performance evaluations for field-level
Treasury law enforcement officers includes job-specific recommendations for modifications of
existing performance factors for each position. Off-duty misconduct by field-level officers
would be addressed through the disciplinary Recommendations discussed in Chapter Seven.
38'-)-
180
1
USC
. . ' § 4'"'0
-'_.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Section IV
Conclusion
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy RevieH'
182
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
CHAPTER ELEVEN
IMPLEMENTATION
This Policy Review was initiated following allegations of widespread racist conduct by
law enforcement officers at the Good 0' Boys Roundup. The allegations led members of
Congress and the public to question the conduct of the nation's law enforcement officers.
Secretary Rubin made clear the Department's commitment to upholding the high standards of
ethical conduct and professionalism expected of Treasury's law enforcement officers both on
and off duty.
The Review made thirteen Recommendations to enhance and maintain the high
standards of conduct already in place for Treasury law enforcement officers. To achieve their
purpose, the Recommendations require continuous stewardship by the Treasury Department
and its Law Enforcement Bureaus. To that end, the Review makes two additional
Recommendations which specifically address the implementation of the preceding
Recommendations. These Recommendations represent a starting point for communicating the
substance of this Report: that Treasury Law Enforcement Bureaus will not tolerate conduct
that evidences invidious prejudice or hatred by its law enforcement officers.
Recommendation No. 14: Responsibility for Implementation of Policy Recommendations
The Department of the Treasury, through the Office of the Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Enforcement, acting in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service
Commissioner, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management, the General
Counsel, and the heads of all other Treasury Bureaus or components that employ
Treasury law enforcement officers, should implement the Recommendations set
forth in this Report. Each Treasury Bureau or component charged with
responsibility for the implementation or consideration of any Recommendation
should be required to adopt a written plan for implementing, monitoring, and
evaluating the implementation of the Recommendations. Such Bureau-level
implementation plans should contain, but not be limited to, a program of periodic
review by senior Bureau managers of the handling and disposition of all disciplinary
charges against Treasury law enforcement officers, and in particular, of charges
involving violations of the rules set forth in this Report.
Discussion: The Under Secretary for Enforcement is Treasury's chieflaw enforcement officer
and has line authority over most Treasury law enforcement officers. The Under Secretary for
Enforcement is also responsible for providing policy guidance to the Department on law
183
Depar{ment of the Treasury Report of {he Good 0' Boys Roundup Polic}' Review
enforcement issues. Therefore, the Office of Enforcement should ensure that the goals of this
Policy Revie\',: are met. It must coordinate with the IRS Commissioner and heads of other
Bureaus or components that employ law enforcement officers, on all issues concerning
personnel who report to them. The Office of Enforcement will consult regularly with the
General Counsel's office and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management on these
issues as well. The Office of Enforcement should coordinate the results, formulate further
policy recommendations if necessary, and report to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Recommendation No. 15: Implementing Recommendations with Respect to Members of
Collective Bargaining Units
The Recommendations in this Report are relevant for all Treasury law
enforcement officers. In determining to apply these recommendations with
respect to bargaining unit employees, the Bureaus should be reminded that
their statutory bargaining obligations must be satisfied.
Discussion: The Review recognizes the important role played by collective bargaining when
formulating new rules and policies for bargaining unit members. The Review therefore suggests
that its Recommendations be implemented immediately for non-bargaining unit employees. As
for affected bargaining unit employees, Bureaus must satisfy all statutory bargaining obligations
concerning these Recommendations.
CONCLUSION
The Recommendations of this Report are over-arching objectives, leaving to Treasury's
Office of Enforcement and Law Enforcement Bureaus, which are best situated to know the
particular missions, needs, and resources of their own entities, the responsibility for
determining the best means of achieving the intended results. Regular reporting will help to
focus the process of creating a methodology and timetable for bringing these goals to fruition,
and will also provide a system of accountability and regular communication concerning the
crucial issues of bias and ethics in law enforcement.
After implementing the Recommendations, the Bureaus and components that employ
Treasury law enforcement officers must follow up periodically to ensure that these values
endure. The Bureaus and components must accurately assess the extent of their compliance
with the goals of professionalism, integrity, impartiality, and respect for diversity both on and
off duty. This may be achieved through surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings, or other
means.
There are many ways in which managers and supervisors can communicate to the
Treasury lav,: enforcement community the importance that the Department places upon the
184
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
impartiality, professionalism, and integrity of Treasury law enforcement officers. The
attitudes that managers and supervisors exhibit toward these Recommendations will ultimately
determine the effectiveness of this Review. Training should be delivered in a way that
communicates to students the importance that the Department places on freedom from
prejudice and the highest standards of ethics on the part of Treasury law enforcement officers.
If, on the other hand, a trainer directly or indirectly conveys the attitude that the training is not
worthwhile, the results will inevitably be ineffective. The same is true of discipline. Rules
can be promulgated in Washington, but they will fail to deter misbehavior if field managers
are lax in enforcing them. In contrast, when managers and supervisors take an unyielding
stand against bias and other misconduct, their attitudes will take root among their
subordinates. As the statements quoted at the beginning of this Report demonstrate, the
President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Under Secretary for
Enforcement are deeply committed to the values of ethical conduct, professionalism, and
respect for diversity both on and off duty. Managers and supervisors must embrace and
communicate these values with the same level of commitment, so that they pervade the culture
of the Treasury Department and, most importantly, of Treasury's law enforcement officers.
Bureaus should seriously consider implementing a program to monitor the handling and
disposition of all disciplinary charges against Treasury law enforcement officers for
misconduct that evidences invidious prejudice. This program would ensure that discipline is
being meted out in an equal fashion, and further, that Treasury continues to have "zerotolerance" for invidious prejudice. Bureaus which are employing new programs for
disciplinary review, such as ATF's Professional Review Board, may attempt to include this
monitoring duty as part of the program. Careful monitoring of disciplinary trends is especially
important for the Treasury Department to ascertain whether the MSPB system permits the new
rule prohibiting prejudice-related conduct to achieve its intended effect.
As the Recommendations are implemented, their effectiveness will be monitored and
evaluated regularly. Through this ongoing process, Treasury law enforcement management
and personnel will have the opportunity to comment on the methods of implementation. It is
expected that as the respective Bureaus bring their leadership and experience to bear on the
issues of professionalism, integrity, and impartiality in law enforcement, additional
recommendations for action will evolve. The periodic reporting process will ensure that time
is set aside at regular intervals for Treasury Law Enforcement and the Law Enforcement
Bureau Heads to focus on these important issues and will provide a framework through which
managers can learn from the ideas and experiences of their colleagues in other Bureaus and
components.
185
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
186
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Appendix A
Individual Comments
of the Members
of the
Citizens Review Panel
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Revie.t'
188
W~'!;,~~~~T'
Schoololuw
40 Washington Square South
New York. NY 10012.01099
Telephone: (212) 998-6233
Pu:
(212) 995-4030
Nonnan Dorsal
StOkes Professor of Law
March 29, 1996
·,rhe Honorable Robert Rubin
secretary of the Treasury
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Mr. Secretary:
. . On J'ul y. 20, 1995, you named six members to an independent
Rev~ew Panel for the Treasur.y Department's investigation
and policy review of the Good 0' Boy Roundup. In early August the
other members of the Panel selected me to be the chairman of the
Panel. The Panel worked assiduously to comply with your charge to
evaluate the Inspector Gener.al' s fact-finding investigation and
report as well as the policy r.eport of the Under Secretary for
Enforcement. The Panel met five ttm~g and had several conference
telephone calls to discuss issues ~el.ating to both aspects of its
task.
Unfortunately, one member of the Panel, Rex Lee, former
Solicitor General of the UnIted States and president of Brigham
Young University, became i l l over the summer and wag unable to
attend any of the Panel's meetings.
However, the Treasury st~ff
and I briefed Mr. Lee periodically during the fall and received his
views on pending isues. Rex Lee died on March 11, 1996, prior to
the completion of the Panel's wor.k. This was a great loss.
C~t~zens
Pursuant to your charge to the Panel, this letter provides my
comments on the final report of the Inspector General ("the IG") on
the investigation of the Good 0' Boy Roundup ("the IG Report") and
on the final report of the Unde~ Secretary on policy matters (lithe
Policy Report"). In preparing the letter 1 have consulted closely
with the other Panel members.
Each member concurs in the letter
~nd, pursuant to the terms under whi.ch the Panel was established,
the members are writing you individually.
I.
The IG Report
Initially, I want to commend the Inspector General and hcr
staff for the enormous amount of work that they devoted to this
investigat ion, which we were informed was the largest in the
history of the Treasury Department. The extensive effort required
to gather the filcts on numerous events that occurred over many
2
yeurs is reflected in the Report.
I
also appr.eciate the
graciousness with which the 1G and her staff received many comments
from members of the Review Panel during severa 1 meetings and
particularly her ucknowledgemcnt towacd the end of the pr.ocess that
the Panel's suggestions had been helpful to her and her colleagues.
Despite the ~ubstantial energies devoted to the IG report, I
must record reservutions about it.
The IG Report does not make findings of fact or draw
conclusions concerning possible individual culpability. Nor .i.s it
possible, despite the volumLnous data contained in the Report and
its many exhibits, for a reader. to make an independent judgment on
this matter. This is partly because of the Report's format, but it
is <.llso because of how the result~ of the investigative factfinding are analyzed.
Specifically, while the IG Report states
that the "investigation di.d not reveal that any Federal agents
performed (acts of racism1 11 (p. 20), there is no comparable finding
on whether any individuals should be faulted for seeing and not
reporting racist acts, for possible mi.suse of government r.esources,
or for other possible acts of wrongdoing. For example, the Report
refers to the events of witnessing r.acist acts and using government
resources inappropriately, but there is no determination that the
individuals involved should be considered for further discipline.
This omission, it seems to me, may be uttributable in part to
the fact that the Report does not contain a nuanced evaluation of
the evidence so as to permit reliable assessment of the Report's
probative value on the key issue of whether any Treasury law
enforcement officers behaved i.mproperly.
The rG's transmittal
latter to the Secretary says that the investigation corroborated
information provided by witnesses through the statements of other
witnesses and through documentary evidence,
that follow-up
interviews were performed to clarify conflicting ~tatements, and
that the Report notes uncorroborated statements. But the Report
does not explain exactly how corroboration was sought or how
credibility was evaluated in individual cases.
My most important concern in this respect is t.he IG's
treatment of the obligation of man~gement employees who attended
one or more Roundups to take action regarding racist conduct that
they may have witnessed. The Report states (p. 51):
Of the 118 managers who had knowledge of the Roundup prior to
July 11, 1995, 12 had first-hand knowledge of the event, since
they had actually attended one or more Roundups. Half of the
managers who attended went once; most also went before 1990.
These 12 managers stated that they did not witness any racial
events (Exhibit 48). Further, they stated that they did not
witness any other inappropriate or illegal actions at any of
the Roundups they attended.
3
We know from Exhibit 48 that fout" managers attended Roundups
after 1988, the period of most reported racist behavior, and two of
these managers apparently attended Roundups more than once in those
years. Apart from the managers who attended, there are indications
in the Report that other managers received information about the
Roundups and did not pursue an investigation. The Report does not
disclose whether or how the investigation sought to determine
whether any of the managers' exculpatory statements could be
confirmed. There are several ways in which this inquiry mi.ght have
been pursued.
For example, the IG could have interviewed other
persons at the Roundups who might have seen a manager at one or
more of th~ racist events detailed in the Report. Another possible
avenue could have been retired Tr.easury law enforcement officers
who attended one or more Roundups. The Report does not attempt to
quantify the number of retirees who attended the Roundups.
Twenty
five who did attend were i.nterviewed (Exh. 47), but: others
apparently were not.
In the absence of such inquiries, the
managers' unsupported statements stand without possibi.lity of
contradiction.
The Panel was advised that there is a question about the
extent of the duty of law enforcement officers to report
misbehavior (including racLst behavior.) engaged in by other law
enforcement officers while off-duty.
This information is
apparently contradicted by the Policy Report, which in chapter 6
cites the Treasury Conduct Rules, which create a duty on the part
of employees to report misconduct and for supervisors to take
appropriate action. The problem may arise from the fact that, as
stated in chapter 7 of the Policy Report, the Treasury "does not
currently have a rule" that articulates its expectations "wit.h
respect to conduct whether OIl- or off -duty evidencing invidious
prejudices". The Policy Report seeks to remedy this.
Whatever may be the appropriate rule for other law enforcement
officers, law enforcement manager.s seem to me to have a special
responsibility and accountability·. The Report suggests as much in
its executive summary, where it is stated that the IG's
investigative purpose was to ~ddress three concerns, the third of
which is "to ascertain .if Treasury managers were aware of the
Roundup and what that awareness w~s and what actions, if any, they
had taken in light of their awareness" (p. 3). See also page 10 of
the Report and other references, including the statement at page 51
quoted above.
-This creates another problem. The total extent of Treasury participation at Roundups
may hdve been underestimated bp.cause some o( the retirees may have been in active
service when they attended. The IG could not compel the testimony of such individuals,
but there is no indication in the Report whethp.r it was determined whether the retirees who
were not interviewed would have been willing to speak to the IG, who told us that retirees
were often good sources.
4
Perhaps because of the lack of information concerning whether
anyone who attended a Roundup contradicted or confirmed the
statements of managers that they did not witness a racial event,
there is no finding in the Report regarding the possible
culpability of any manager (or any other Treasury employee).
Instead, as the IG informed the Citizens Review Panel, f.iles on
each Treasury employee, including the Memoranda of Interviews
(MOls), will be sent to the various Treasury Bureaus for review and
possible disciplinary action.
The IG explained that it was not the custom of her office to
recommend spec Lfic penaltie.s.
However, there is no need to
recommend penalties for the Report. to reach factual conclusions
regarding possible culpability. And although it would plainly be
improper to discipline any employee without providing a Eull and
fair procedure to ascertain culpability, it would seem appropriate
for the lG to recommend that punishment be considered Eor
pilrticular individuals or categories of individuals . - without
mentioning their names -- b~sed on evidence adduced and weighed by
the IG.
The absence of. any such fLnding as to the possible culpability
of any Treasury employee, especially at the managerial level, has
the unfortunate consequence that the experience and judgment of the
tG have not been brought to bear in evaluating possible evidence of
wrongdoing and that all Treasury law enforcement officers who
attended a Roundup remain in anxious limbo while their Bureau
chiefs determine whether to proceed against them.
In addition,
the impression is conveyed, no doubt inadvertently, that despi.te
the findings in the Report that many acts of racism occurred, and
that 125 Treasury law enforcement officers attended one or more
Roundups, no Treasury employee committed wrongdoing of any kind.
This may be true, but a finding one way or the other as to possible
culpability of Treasury employees, especially the managers, would
have been helpful in clarifying the matter.
Turning to another issue, the members of the Citizens Review
Pan~l were not afforded an ~dequate opportunity to review the MOIs
to ascertain whether they supported the Report and whether the
investig~tion was conducted properly.
We were advised a few days
before the Panel's last meeting on the IG's investigation that all
of the hundreds of MOls would be "available" to the Panel at; the
meeting, but there clearly was insufficient time at il meeting with
a packed agenda to perform an appropriate review.
The Panel had
requested the MOIs more than a month before the meeting.
The IG Report is not wholly udequate in its treatment of the
question of whether the Roundup was functionally a whites only
event. The founder and organizer of the Roundups, Gene Rightmyer,
is quoted as saying that " 1\.1 though black people did not commonly
~ttend the Roundup,
(he] and others made efforts to invite black
police officers so that the Roundup would not be viewed as a whites
5
only event" (pp. 19-20). And it is true, uS the Report notes, that:
u few non-white officers attended some Roundups. The Report also
detuils a num~er.of "acts of racism ll at the Roundups. But it does
not make Q ~lnd1ng that these rQcist events, sometimes with no
repo~~ed act 70n by the Roundup organizers against them, c~eated a
host11e enV1ronment that might reasonably have led AfricanAmericans to feel that they were not welcome and that at least
from their standpoint, the Roundups were indeed a II i tes only
event. II
wh
The IG is referring questions of culpabili.ty to the Bureaus,
in accordance with the procedur:e and criteria set out in Part A of
the executive summary to the Policy Report.
Because it is
desirable that decisions be made and announced promptly, I
recommend that you as~ ~he Dureaus to act and make a publ ie
announcement by a SpeCl.f1ed date on what, if any, disciplinary
action they are taking concerning Tr-easury employees.
II.
The Polley Report
While it has been necessary to read the Policy Report under
time constraints,'" I am pleased to write that the Report is
thorough and professional,
and
that
it contains sensible
conclusions and recommendations on difficult and controverted
issues.
The Treasury staff at several meetings reviewed with the Panel
drafts of the main recommendations, and on March 2S they reviewed
with us a draft of the entire Report.
Panel members at times
expressed strong views, often questioning staff positions.
The
stuff responded in a knowledgeable and responsive manner that led,
in my opinion, to an improved final product.
This constructive
approach is particularly evident in Chapter 7 I which recommends
modifications of existing disciplinary policies, including those
relating to II Prejudice Related Conduct II by law enforcement
officers, while simultaneously tryi.ng to protect the officers'
First nmendment right to fre~dom of association and assuring those
··The Panel received drafts of the more them 250 page Report for the first time on
Friday, Saturday and Sunday, March 22·24, and we were expected to, and did, provide
comments on it to Treasury staff at a meeting starting at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 25. We
did not receive the final proposed report until late Wednesday, March 27 (on Thursday for
one member) and we had to submit our letters to you by Friday afternoon, March 29, to
meet the prin~er's deadline. Although the staff surely faced a formidable task in preparing
the Policy Report, and while the pressure on the Panel was somewhat mitigated by its
familiarity with the policy recommendations, which it had studied over several mont~s, the
Panel should have had more time to road and reflect on the full drafts before havrng to
react.
6
charged with wrongdoing a fair administrative process
for
determining culpability. The sophi::;t tcated legal discuss.i.on should
be of great value to the Department as it proceeds in th.i.s
sensitive area.
There are two specific matters in Chapter 7 on which I wish to
comment.
The first concerns the absence of any discussion of the
con::;t itutional issues that will inevitably be triggered by the
analysis and recommendations contained in Chapter 7.
The
constitutional analysis was presented to the panel in the form of
internal legal memoranda, which we w@.re informed would be presented
to the Bureaus that will implement any policy changes. But because
the constitutional issues are complex and extremely important, I
think it would have been de::;irable for constitutional analysis to
have been included in the Report.
The second matter concerns Recommendation No.5, which
proposes that the Treasury study the role of the Merit System
Protection Board (MSPB).
I have two cautions.
First, the Report
correct.ly notes that while thex'e is currently insufficient data
about possible problems with the MSPR system, there is apparently
a "common perception" among managers that the MSPB will uphold
serious discipline in only the "most egregious cases." Apart from
questions about the persuasiveness of such lIanecdotal tl evidence,
the Report notez that the MSPB review process recently resulted in
reversal or mitigation of disci.pline in 531 cases out of a total of
7,530 appeals decided.
This is hardly an exceptioIlal ratio,
although to each employee who prevailed it may have been a caree~
saving event. My second caution is that , if the study documents a
need for change, there should be, as the Report suggests, an
emphasis on the training of managers and supervisors and on the
manner in which appropri.ate disciplinary action can be taken
"consistent with the
constitution<ll, statutory, and procedural
rights of Treasury law enforcement officers and other employees."
My comment.s on these two matter.s are not intended to detract
from the praise that the Policy Report merits.
It is a work of
high quality.
It was a privilege to serve as chairman of the Citizens Review
Panel, and I hope that thi::; letter is helpful to you Clnd the
Treasury Department.
fincerelYI
~(l~4<"_-'
Norman Dorsen
Chairman, Citizens Review Panel
Office of the Chancellor
The Honorable Robert Rubin
Secretary
The United States Department of Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Secretary Rubin:
It was an honor and an educational experience to serve as a member of the
Citizens Review Panel to assist the Department in its investigation and pol1cy
review of the Good 0' Boys Roundup.
The Citizens Review Panel met several times and extensively reviewed the
report of the Inspeotor General and the Policy Recommendations. Mr. Nonnan
Dorsen, who served as Chair of the Citizen Review Panel, has submitted to you a
letter and response to the Inspector General's report and to the Policy
Recommendations.
I have reviewed Mr. Dorsen's report and fully concm with his letter, including
the concerns expressed about the Inspector General's report and the Policy
Recommendations. I also concur with his concluding comment about the high
quality of the work of staff and of the Policy Report.
Sincerely,
.IT.,C/mmf
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAl. UNlvERSITY • PO. ~ox 1.9817 • DURHAM. Nt; 27707 • (919) 560-6.32.lS
NOIITH CAROUNA CJ::NTRAI.l JNIV£RSlfV IS A CON$1'ITUEN"r INSTITUTION OF nit:;
UNIVERSITY ()I' NOkTli c.-.ROLTNA
HELENE
L.
KAPLAN
919 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022
F"AX: (212) 735-2000
OIRECT OIAL
(212) 735-2340
March 29, 1996
The Honorable Robert Rubin
Secretary of the Treasury
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On July 20, 1995, you appointed me as one of
six members to a Citizens Review Panel for the Treasury
Department's investigation and policy review of the "Good
0' Boy Roundup". Your charge to the Panel was to evaluate the fact-finding investigation and report of the
Office of the Inspector General (the "OIG") as well as
the report of the Under Secretary for Enforcement on the
applicability of current laws, policies, rules and regulations to the facts discovered by the OIG.
I have read with great care Chairman Dorsen's
letter to you which comments on the final reports of the
Inspector General and the Under Secretary and I fully
endorse his statements and recommendations. I recognize
and commend the OIG and the Under Secretary, and their
respective staffs, for the commitment and dedication which
they devoted to this large and complex investigation.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for the opportunity to
have served on the Citizens Review Panel. It has been an
honor and privilege to have participated in the work of
the Panel under the outstanding leadership of Professor
Norman Dorsen as its Chairman. I hope that our efforts
are helpful to you and to the Treasury Department.
Sincerely,
)/,.~ L./~
Helene L_ Kaplan
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF !v1AYORS
1620 EYE SI'Rff'f. NORTHWEST
WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20006
TELEPHONE (202) 293·7330
FAX (202) 293·2.352
TOO (202) m-9445
IraIdaIIo
ItClbCAN IlCI
MIIJIQt 0I5c11!k
ibM"
IIOWD K 00t.Ur
POLICE POUCY BOARD
w.,.xolo-.
March 29, 1996
'-PI .. =-::
J!Ul'~
w.,...01~
YJC'IOlAmi
~ 01."".".
-=~~~
}OI5l!1K P. IIIIZY, ]W..
w.,orol~SC
~
HIICTOI WlS ACZV1!DO
~0Is.n,...
The Honorable Robert Rubin
Secretary
The United States Department of Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20220
0tAII.&5 !lOX
..... 0I1c1d1bd
D!I!tIII! COII.\1lIMI
MiIyQr 01'-11 LoR Cry
Dear Mr. Secretary:
WGlAtlOa
-,ar 01 Part WaM
:w.mJAN&S
IQpgrdN~~
IIID )OH,tJCrCS
*?at 01 LIDcoia
~~
~U1I
(MY!> Y. SMI'tJ(
MIrCr oIl'1c:wd. 0.
CUC$P~
M8p<xd~
~~
........,
.....
PAlIl HI!UBI' 0Iait
,."." 01 loft W.,...,
~AIIOD
,..,.~
JXlUID ADIHCTOH
...,....nt=r-trrl'
MllJUoI~SC
~~
~~0IUIIc
~~
~~o..
)lJlLA'rWJY JOtIIS
.ItIyar dl.ls Vqpt
~~I'ImcIIa)
~~,
•.uu:x~
"""III~
Undersecretary Noble and Inspector General Lau were faced with
Herculean tasks to be completed within a relatively short time frame. They and
their staffs performed outstandingly in completing their work on schedule. The
Policy Report is professional and comprehensive. The implementation of its
recommendations will significantly reduce the risk of a repetition of
embarrassing behavior by Treasury law enforcement personnel in the future as
well as strengthen management and leadership through strict but reasonable
accountability from first line supervision to top administration.
fully concur with the statements and
reconnnendations of Chariman Dorsen.
After careful review I
IIU IiItlUDIS
*Par Of NIIDC
aam.+.!.~
ac.,ord"",,-k8d>
~~
~~
)L ~ SolVl'oGl
~oINa
SXAIIOK
WU!S
*'IOfd
. . . IfUON
~_
(lJllf~
..... oIB1111noR
tALl. SOCI.If
~ct"'"
~~MD
WI1lJIoIOTOIC 'WID
~Clo..u
w..rcraIV
Lee Michaelson, Marc Greenwald and their staff were most
cooperative and productive.
T\
MAJmI 0IA't'IZ
aQpot Of·...llfaqile
IOtI!IT COIU
~111000
Your appointment of me as a member of the Citizens Review Panel for
the Treasury Department's investigation and policy review of the Good 0' Boy
Roundup provided an opportunity that I deeply appreciate. Under the splendid
and energetic leadership of our distinguished Chairperson, Professor Norman
Dorsen, the Panel in my opinion was unusually effective in exerting a positive
influence.
$d=
1Imee~
I wish also to join in the excellent analysis and conclusions of Chief
Fred Thomas concerning law enforcement agents of the Treasury Department
who stated they had witnessed racist incidents at Roundups yet attended them
again. Beyond their willingness to condone racism and poor judgment in
attending future gatherings they demonstrated a lack of loyalty to their
The HoDOrablc Robert Rubin
March 29. 1996
Page 2
agencies if they failed to alert supervision/management to a very serious problem.
Law enforcement personnel must be held 10 a higher standard. It is maintained by
higher standards of management and supervision than are required in non law enforcement
functions. Only strict accountability is acceptable in law enforcement.
In 1967 the President's Crime Commission called for a four year college degree for
all police officers with law enforcement authority. They make decisions as important as
those of any professional. They exercise broad discretion. 'Ireaswy law enforcement
agents should meet the same standard. Their salaries and benefits are more conducive
than those of most local police departments for recruiting college graduates.
It has been a rewarding experience to work with the dedicated and very capable
personnel of your Department. Thank you for the opportunity.
Sincerely,
6?at;;;{~~
Patrick V.
Director
M~hy
f
t!
Fred Thomas
P.O. Box 1684
Bowie, Maryland 20716
March 28, 1996
The Honorable Robert Rubin
Secretary of the Treasury
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washingto~ D.C. 20220
Dear~.
Secretary:
On July 20, 1995, when you appointed six members to a Citizen Review Panel, the
members were charged with the duty of assisting the Department of Treasury ·with
its inquiry about the allegations that employees of the Department had participated
in an annual "Good 0' Boy ROWldup." The inquiry was separated into two parts.
The Office of the Inspector General (OlG) was responsible for the fact-finding
portion of the inquiry; and the Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement
(Under Secretary) was responsible for determining the applicability of current laws,
policies, rules and regulations to the facts discovered by the OIG. The Under
Secretary was also charged with recommending changes to ClDTent laws and
policies, rules or regulations, if deemed appropriate.
I am pleased and honored to have been named as a Panel member. The Panel
started its work in early August under the able leadership of Professor Norman
Dorsen as its chair. The Panel was given the charge to evaluate the Inspector
General's "fact-finding investigation and subsequent report." The scope of that
report was to address three concerns: (1) "to ascertain what transpired at the
Roundups, including any allegations of racism, sexual misconduct, misuse of
government property, or other inappropriate conduct; (2) to determine the extent of
participation by Department of the Treasury personnel: and (3) to ascertain if
management was aware of the Roundups, what that awareness was, and what
actiuw>, if cwy, were tekcn in light of the awarenoss." The PBl181 Wag also asked to
review and evaluate the "Policy Reporf' which was to be prepared by the Under
Secretary.
The Honorable Robert Rubin
Secretary of the Treasury
Page two
Before I begin my assessment of the inquiry, I want to acknowledge and commend
the tireless and committed efforts of the OIG, the Under Secretary and their
respective staffs. The scope, complexity and public sensitivity to the inquiry made
the investigation difficult.
As a Panel member, I fully endorse the findings and recommendations contained in
Chainnan Dorsen's report to you. Additionally, I offer the following view of the
reports prepared by the 01G and the Under SecretaIy.
Office of Inspector General R~ort;
The OIG conducted an exhaustive investigation of the stated allegations. The OlO's
report clearly docmnented that acts of racism did occur at several of the Roundups;
however, the "investigation did not reveal any evidence that Federal agents
participated in any of these acts." What has also been documented is that there
were at least 12 Treasury employees who stated they witnessed racist incidents and
attended one or more subsequent ROlmdups after witnessing the racist incidents.
Those employees, who continued to attend the Roundups with prior knowledge that
acts of racism were being committed annually, demonstrated that they condoned
andlor supported such acts. It is a generally accepted principle that law enforcement
officers are held to a higher standard of conduct than are other public employees.
The public trust and confidence in fair and impartial law enforcement, and the
integrity and professionalism of federal law enforcement officers, are important to
the federal law enforcement mission.
The primary exception I take with the DIG's report is that it does not provide
findings and conclusions that clearly document which of the 12 employees who
attended the Roundups violated established Department of Treasury rules or policies
and which ones did not. The OIG explained to the Panel that the traditional role of
the Department of Treasury's 010 is only to conduct a fact-finding investigation,
not to address the culpability of the participants.
The Honorable Robert Rubin
Secretary of the Treasury
Page three
While I accept the OIG's explanation, this inquiry was unique in its scope and more
complex than any other the Department of Treasury may have undertaken in the
recent past. The OIG did point out that the OIG's "Memoranda of interview would
be forwarded to the affected Bureaus of the Department of Treasury for whatever
action they deem appropriate." If this is the course of action which must be
followed, then I respectfully recommend that the affected bureaus be given clear
and definitive instructions on how and when to report their findings and conclusions
to the Secretary of Treasury.
Policy Report:
I concur with all the findings and reconunendations of the Under Secretary and the
Policy Review Team in its policy report. With respect to Recommendation No.9,
Psychological Screening, I strongly recommend that the Department of Treasury
implement a policy that mandates psychological testing and screening for emotional
stability and psychological fitness as a pre-employment conditions of any law
enforcement officer empowered to make arrests and a cany a fireann. The
International Association of Chief of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers, and the Police
Executive Forum have long recognized this as a critical hiring standard through the
Commission of the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Citizen Review
Panel. I offer my comments in the spirit of support and encouragement.
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
202
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
AppendixB
Text of Sample Rules and Regulations
of Other
Law Enforcement Agencies
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
204
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
APPENDIXB
SAMPLE DISCIPLINARY RULES AND POLICIES PERTAINING
TO OFF-DUTY MISCONDUCT AND BIAS
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Prince George's County, MD, Police Department
Prince George's County General Order Manual
1/103 Unbecoming Conduct. As the most visible representative of government, employees must
display unblemished professional conduct. To that end, employees are duty bound to avoid
excessive, unwarranted, or unjustified behavior that would reflect poorly on themselves, the
Department, or the County government, regardless of duty status. Employees will refrain from
using harsh, violent, profane or derogatory language which would demean the dignity of any
person. The use of such language or other unbecoming conduct which relates to race, color,
national origin, gender or religion of any person(s) shall not be tolerated.
The use of abusive, demeaning, and/or derogatory language or other unbecoming conduct
relating to the race, color, national origin, gender, or religion of any person was recently
reclassified as a Category IV offense, punishable by termination.
New York City Police Department
Patrol Guide
Prohibited Conduct.
1. Using discourteous or disrespectful remarks regarding another person's ethnicity, race,
religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
2. Knowingly associate with any person or organization:
a. Advocating hatred or oppression of, or prejudice toward any racial or religious group ....
4. Engaging in conduct prejudicial to good order, efficiency or discipline of the Department.
The N.Y.P.D.'s rules apply to both on-duty and off-duty conduct unless they expressly
state that they are limited to conduct on-duty or in uniform. (For example, Rule 7 prohibits
joining any political club within the precinct, Rule 8 prohibits being a candidate for the School
Board, Rule 10 prohibits patronizing unlicensed establishments, such as after-hours clubs, and
Rule 11 prohibits accepting other positions of public trust unless retired; all of these rules
obviously apply to off-duty conduct even though they do not expressly so state. In contrast, Rule
9 prohibits having an interest in or association with illegal gambling operations, smoke shops or
205
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
after hours clubs, "except in the performance of duty," and Rule 12 prohibits smoking while in
uniform.
Los Angeles Police Department
Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department
210.10 Lcnv Enforcement Code of Ethics. As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is
to serve mankind ... and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men [sic] to liberty, equality
and justice. I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all .... Honest in thought and
deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land
and the regulations of my department .... I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings,
prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions .... I will enforce the law
courteously and appropriately, without fear or favor, malice or ill will ....
210.13 Respect for Others. The cosmopolitan nature of the City is reflected in the diversity of
Department employees. In such a diverse environment, biases or prejudices relating to factors
such as race, ethnicity, sex, age, economic status, position in the community, or employee status
with the Department must not be allowed to influence decision making or conduct involving
other employees. While employees are entitled to their personal beliefs, they must not allow
individual feelings or prejudices to enter into professional contacts. Employees must treat one
another with respect and be constantly mindful that other people are individuals with emotions
and needs as significant as their own.
Houston Police Department
Rules Manual of the Houston Police Department
2.3 Conduct and Behavior. Officers whether on-duty or off-duty shall follow the ordinary and
reasonable rules of good conduct and behavior and shall not commit any act in an official or
private capacity tending to bring reproach, discredit, or embarrassment to their profession or the
department....
2.5 Responsibility to Respect the Rights of Others. Officers shall respect the rights of
individuals, and shall not engage in discrimination, oppression or favoritism. Officers shall
maintain a strictly impartial attitude toward complainants and violators.
206
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
United States Army
Army Command Policy
4-12. Extremist organizations.
The activities of extremist organizations are inconsistent with the responsibilities of military
service. Active participation by soldiers is prohibited.
a. Military personnel, duty bound to uphold the Constitution, must reject participation in
organizations which-(1) Espouse supremacist causes.
(2) Attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender,
religion, or national origin.
(3) Advocate the use of force or violence, or otherwise engage in efforts to
deprive individuals of their civil rights.
b. Passive activities, such as mere membership, receiving literature in the mail, or
presence at an event, although strongly discouraged as incompatible with military service,
are not prohibited by Army policy. Positive actions to limit soldier participation are
listed in d below.
Paragraph (d) consists ofa list of nine non-inclusive actions, some with multiple subparts, which
"Commanders should take when soldiers in their units are identified as members of extremist
groups and/or when they engage in extremist group activities." The list ranges from educating
soldiers concerning the Army's policy of fair and equitable treatment to imposing off-limits
orders, ordering soldiers not to attend certain events, revoking security clearances, considering
the membership in evaluations and promotion decisions, barring reenlistment, and initiating
involuntary administrative separations or courts martial.
DeparhnentofJustice
All Department of Justice components, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Marshal Service,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, and all United States Attorney's Offices, are subject to the following
standards.
Standards ofEmployees Conduct and Responsibility
7. Policy. In Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 45.735, and Federal
Personnel Manual Chapter 735.
a. Conduct themselves in a manner that creates and maintains respect for the
Department of Justice and the U.S. Government. In all their activities, personal and
207
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
official, they should always be mindful of the high standards of behavior expected to
them.
b. A void any action which might result in, or create the appearance of, affecting
adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines
Part I 67-7.6 Objectives Of Investigation.
(1) To determine whether applicant is or is not qualified for Bureau employment and
whether his/her employment would constitute security risk.
(2) F oHowing specific points of inquiry are basic and fundamental and must be kept in mind
throughout course of investigation. All contacts and interviews should be directed at developing
these objectives:
(f)Bias or prejudice - the existence of bias or prejudice against any class of citizens or any
religious, racial or ethnic group, is of interest and concern to the FBI. Investigators
should conduct appropriate investigation to obtain comments to resolve any issue and/or
allegation of bias or prejudice that is received concerning an applicant.
Manual ofAdministrative Operations and Procedures
~ 1-2 Personal Conduct.
(1) Employees ... must not, at any time, engage in criminal, dishonest, immoral or disgraceful
conduct or other conduct prejudicial to the Government.
~ 1-21.2 Standards of Conduct.. ...
(2) According to [E.O. 12764, Departmental Order 350-65, and rules and regulations of the FBI],
investigations will be conducted in connection with violations of the standards and will include
an interview of the employee involved .... The inquiry may encompass any conduct which is
reasonably related to work performance. Thus, a disciplinary inquiry is not restricted to activities
within the critical elements and performance standards of the employee's position and may also
include on- or off-duty conduct when such conduct affects an employee's ability to perform his
or her job or adversely affects the Bureau's ability to secure needed cooperation from members
of the public .... Failure by an employee to follow all regulations will result in appropriate
disciplinary action, including possible dismissal.
Air-Tel Directive; August 16, 1995, from Director Freeh to Employees regarding Standards of
Personal and Professional Conduct.
One of my unwavering goals for the FBI is that the conduct and personal integrity of our
employees be consistently recognized and praised as conforming to the highest professional
208
Department ofthe Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
standards. The public has a special interest in ensuring that those in whom it entrusts the power
to enforce the law are beyond reproach. Our positions, therefore, carry a duty to serve as
examples of excellence of character in both our personal and professional lives. One of the
cornerstones of such excellence is seeing and treating others, particularly those who are different
than ourselves, as we would like to be seen and treated.
Most of you are undoubtedly aware of the recent press reports concerning the annual event
known as the "Good 01' Boys Roundup." The event was attended by members of the Federal,
state and local law enforcement community, and reportedly involved blatantly racist behavior on
the part of some of the participants.
In light of these reports, I want to remind all FBI employees of their obligation not to engage in
criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct. All employees are expected to
conduct themselves at all times in a manner that creates and maintains respect for the FBI and the
U.S. Government. In all their activities, personal and official, Bureau employees should always
be mindful of the high standards of behavior expected of them. I expect strict adherence to these
standards.
The success of our mission depends on the respect and cooperation of the public. Bigotry on part
of the Bureau employees, whether it occurs on or off duty, casts doubt on our ability to enforce
the law fairly, even-handedly and without bias. Even the appearance that the FBI lacks
objectivity in enforcing the law will undermine the public's respect and confidence in our
organization. This in tum results in the loss of public cooperation in our efforts to conduct
investigations and enforce the law. Bigotry can also undermine the offending employee's
credibility and call into question his or her ability to perform assigned duties in a fair and
unbiased manner. Bigotry on the part of FBI employees also hurts the Bureau morale by
undermining the mutual respect and cooperation among our employees which is essential to our
efficiency.
I will not tolerate employee behavior that detracts from the reputation and effectiveness of the
FBI. Conduct or speech which wrongfully promotes or condones invidious prejudice or
discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, national origin, disability, or sexual
orientation is subject to discipline. Most importantly, such behavior will be disciplined if there is
likelihood that it could adversely affect the Bureau's ability to perform its mission, the
employee's ability to carry out his or her duties, or the Bureau's esprit de corps.
Each of us should take this opportunity to renew and heighten our sensitivity to these concerns. I
urge all of you to recommit yourselves to the high standards of personal and professional conduct
which makes the FBI the best and most highly respected organization in the Nation and the
world.
209
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Drug Enforcement Administration
Standards of Conduct
2735. J6 Emvloyee Conduct.
N. UnprQfessional Conduct. Every DEA employee is responsible for behaving in a professional
manner appropriate to the setting, and in a civil and courteous manner toward other DEA
employees and toward the general pUblic.
Standard Schedule of Disciplinary Qffenses.
18. Disrespectful conduct, use of insulting, abusive or obscene language to or about others.
(penalty of official reprimand to removal for first offense.)
27. Criminal, dishonest, infamous, or notoriously disgraceful conduct--on or off duty. (penalty
of official reprimand to removal for first offense.)
41. Conduct prejudicial to the government. (penalty of official reprimand to removal for frrst
offense.)
Bureau of Prisons
Standards ofEmployee Conduct & Responsibility
7. Policy: ... In general, the Federal Bureau of Prisons expects its employees to conduct
themselves in such a manner that their activities, both on and off duty, will not discredit either
themselves or the agency.
As stated in the above regulations, employees shall:
a. Conduct themselves in a manner that creates and maintains respect for the Department
of Justice and the U.S. Government. In all their activities, personal and official, they
should always be mindful of the high standards of behavior expected of them.
b. Avoid any action which might result in, or create the appearance of, affecting
adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government.
d. Failure by employees to follow these regulations or this policy will result in
appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including removal.
8. Personal conduct: ... b. ·Employees shall not allow themselves to show partiality toward or
become emotionally, physically, sexually, or financially involved with inmates, former inmates,
or the families and friends of inmates and former inmates.
210
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
(2) No employee shall show favoritism or give preferential treatment to one
inmate, or group of inmates, over another.
(4) Use of obscene or verbally abusive language by employees when
communicating with inmates or others will not be tolerated. Employees will
conduct themselves in a manner which will not be demeaning to inmates, former
inmates, their families or friends, or others.
(5) An employee who becomes involved in a set of circumstances as described
above (or any situation that might give the appearance of improper involvement
with inmates or former inmates or the families and friends of inmates and former
inmates) must report the contact in writing to the CEO. This includes, but is not
limited to, telephone calls or written communications outside the normal scope of
employment. The employee will then be instructed as to the appropriate course of
action.
u.s. Marshals Service
Policy Notice; April 27, 1995
United States Marshals Service Policy Regarding RaciallY/Sexually Q(fensive Language.
Racial slurs, ethnic jokes, obscene, abusive or insulting comments (hereinafter racially/sexually
offensive language) are unprofessional, inappropriate, and will not be tolerated within the USMS
work environment. This Policy Notice provides guidance concerning the use of racially/sexually
offensive language.
The use of racially/sexually offensive language disrupts the operations of the workplace and
undermines the integrity of the employment relationship. As USMS employees working for a
law enforcement agency with a history of civil rights enforcement, we must set a positive
example within the law enforcement community. Thus, I expect all employees of the USMS to
refrain from and to maintain a work environment free of racially/sexually offensive language.
The key to developing and maintaining a conducive work environment is to treat each individual
with mutual respect, fundamental fairness, and decency.
Policy Notice; April 27, 1995
United States Marshals Service Policy Regarding RaciallY/Sexuallv O(fensive Language.
Each manager and supervisor is individually responsible for setting a good example, ensuring the
workplace is free of racially/sexually offensive language, and for developing a fair and decent
work environment where every employee is encouraged to participate fully in every aspect of the
Service. A manager or supervisor can help prevent sexual harassment by demanding and
demonstrating professional behavior at work, refraining from using racially/sexually offensive
211
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
language and letting subordinates know when their language is inappropriate. In addition, where
a manager or supervisor has identified a situation involving racially/sexually offensive language,
he/she is responsible for taking immediate corrective action.
Any employee who engages in the use of racially/sexually offensive language is subject to severe
discipline up to and including removal. Thereafter, if an employee engages in a continuing
pattern of racially/sexually offensive language he/she will be subject to removal from the Federal
Service.
Management is responsible for reporting the use of racially/sexually offensive language to the
Employee and Labor Relations Branch, the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office, or the
Office of Inspections.
Any manager who condones or fails to correct such racially/sexually offensive language and/or
fails to report a continuing pattern of this language shall also be subject to discipline.
In accordance with the USMS Code of Conduct, I expect all USMS employees to demonstrate
the highest standards of personal and moral conduct expected of law enforcement officers and
government employees, and to be courteous and respectful to all other USMS personnel and to
the general pUblic.
Code of Professional Responsibilities
Responsibilities. Each employee whose conduct on and off duty reflects upon the Federal
government is required to adhere to this code. This code of professional responsibilities also
pertains to intermittent employees, guards, and deputized court security officers employed or
contracted by the Marshals Service.
24. Discrimination. Not illegally discriminate against or sexually harass an employee or
applicant for employment or engage in any prohibited personnel practices.
26. Personal Activities. Refrain from any activity which would adversely affect the reputation
of the Department of Justice.
27. Personal and Business Associations. Avoid personal and business associations with persons
known to be convicted felons or persons known to be connected with criminal felons or persons
known to be connected with criminal activities. This does not apply to immediate family
members.
28. Conduct. Avoid any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful
conduct; use of intoxicants to excess; or drug addiction.
212
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
29. Hig.h Standards. Demonstrate the highest standards of personal and moral conduct expected
of law enforcement officers and other government employees.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Conduct and Responsibilities ofEmployees
§O. 735-201 Proscribed actions. An employee shall avoid any action, whether or not specifically
prohibited by this subpart, which might result in or create the appearance of. ..
(d) Losing independence or impartiality ....
(f) Adversely affecting the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government
(i) Knowingly participating in, or attending while on official business, any segregated
meetings, or meetings held in segregated facilities, from which persons are excluded
because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap.
Department of Health and Human Services
Standards of Conduct
Atzpendix A -- List ofSome Offenses for which Disciplinary Action MID' Be Taken.
Following is a list of some offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken under this Part...
Neither the list of offenses nor the statutory citations are all-inclusive ....
4. Disruptive behavior such as:
b. Discourtesy, disreputable conduct, or use of insulting, abusive or obscene
language to or about other individuals while on the job.
5. Sexual harassment of employees or members of the public.
213
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Revie"w
214
Department a/the Treasury Report a/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Appendix C
Bibliography
Department o/the Treasury Report o/the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
216
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
APPENDIXC
BmLIOGRAPHY
Anti-Defamation League of B 'nai B'rith. Hate Groups in America. A Record of Bigotry and
Violence. New York: Anti-Defamation League ofB'nai B'rith, 1988.
Barker, Thomas, and David L. Carter. Police Deviance, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson
Publishing Co., 1994.
Bent, Alan E., and Ralph A. Rossum. Police, Criminal Justice, and the Community. New
York: Harper & Row, 1976.
Betsalel, Kenneth Aaron. Police Leadership and The Reconciliation of Police-Minority
Relations. American Journal ofPolice, IX(2): 63-75, 1990.
Broida, Peter. A Guide to Merit Systems Protection Board Law & Practice. Arlington, Va:
Dewey Publications, Inc., 1994.
Brown, Lee P., and Hubert Locke. The Police and the Community. In Progress In
PoliCing: Essays on Change, edited by Richard A. Staufenberger. Cambridge, Mass:
Ballinger Publishing Co., 1980: 85-102.
Brown, Michael K. Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988.
Cashmore, Ellis, and Eugene McLaughlin. Out of Order? In Policing Black People, edited
by Ellis Cashmore and Eugene McLaughlin. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Committee on Un-American Activities. The Present Day Ku Klux Klan Movement.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
Delattre, Edwin J. Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing. Washington, D.C.: The
AEI Press, 1994.
Elliston, Frederick A. [1983]. Police, Privacy, and the Double-Standard. In Moral Issues in
Police Work, edited by Frederick A. Elliston and Michael Feldberg. Totowa, New
Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1985:277-288.
217
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0 ' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Florida Advisory Committee to The United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Police-Community Relations in Miami. Washington D.C., November 1989.
Florida Advisory Committee to The United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Police-Community Relations in Tampa--An Update. Washington D.C.,
September 1991.
Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Police Protection of
the African American Community in Chicago. Washington D.C.: C.S. Government
Printing Office, September 1993.
Kappeler, Victor E., Sluder, Richard D., and Geoffrey P. Alpert. Forces of Deviance:
Understanding the Dark Side of Policing. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 1994.
Lumb, Richard C. Standards of Professionalization: Do The American Police
Measure up? In Police Studies 17(3): 1-19, Fall 1994.
Mahan, Richard. Personnel Selection in Police Agencies: Educational Requirements for Entry
Level. Law and Order 39(1): 282-286, January 1991:
Manno, Michael. Off-Duty Behavior by Police: Arbitrators Determine if On-the-Job
Discipline is Appropriate. Journal ofPolice Science and Administration 14(2):
102-111,1986.
Murphy, Patrick V. and Thomas Plate. Commissioner: A View from the Top ofAmerican
Law Enforcement. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and The Criminal Justice
Institute at Harvard Law School. Beyond The Rodney King Story, An Investigation of
Police Conduct in Minority Communities. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1995.
New Jersey Advisory Committee to The United States Commission on Civil Rights. The
Use and Abuse of Police Powers: Law Enforcement Practices and the Minority
Community in New Jersey, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
July 1994.
Owens, Hilton, Sr. Three of the First. Pittsburgh, Penn: Dorrance Publishing Co., 1994.
Police Executive Research Forum. Police Education and Minority Recruitment: The Impact
of a College Requirement. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.
218
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The
Challenge of Crime In A Free Society, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1967.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force
Report: The Police, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Quality Standards for Investigations,
Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Labor.
Skolnick, Jerome H., and James 1. Pyfe. Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of
Force. New York: The Free Press, 1993.
Sunderland, George B. The Community A Partner in Crime Prevention. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 57(10): 6-12, October 1988.
Torres, Donald A. The Federal Enforcement Hiring Process in the United States. The Police
Journal, LVII(3):243-251, 1985.
United States Commission on Civil Rights. A Time to Listen. .. A Time to Act: Voices From
The Ghettos of The Nation's Cities, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 1967.
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Mexican Americans and The Administration of
Justice In the Southwest, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Mexican Americans and The Administration of
Justice In the Southwest, Summary of a Report of the Us. Commission on Civil Rights.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
United States Department of Justice. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, edited by
Kathleen Maguire, Ann 1. Pastore, and Timothy J. Flanagan. Albany, New York:
The Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, 1992.
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Police Practices and the Preservation of Civil
Rights, Washington D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, July 1980.
Vodicka, Alan T. Educational Requirements for Police Recruits: Higher Education
Benefits Officers, Agency. Law and Order, 42(3): 91-94, March 1994.
219
Department of the Treasury Report of the Good 0' Boys Roundup Policy Review
Wadman, Robert c., and Stephen M. Ziman. Courtesy and Police Authority. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin 62(2): 23-26, February 1993.
West Virginia Advisory Committee to The United States Commission on Civil Rights. PoliceCommunity Relations in Southern West Virginia. March 1993.
Wintersmith, Robert F. Police and the Black Community. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books,
1974.
Wisconsin Advisory Committee to The United States Commission on Civil Rights. Police
Protection of the African American Community to Milwaukee. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Officer, November 1994.
Worden, Robert E. A Badge and A Baccalaureate: Policies, Hypothesis, and Further Evidence.
Justice Quarterly 7(3): 565-592, September 1990.
220
UBLle DEBT NEWS
Department of the Treasury • Bureau of the Public Debt • Washington, DC 20239
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 2, 1996
CONTACT: Office of Financing
202-219-3350
RESULTS OF TREASURY'S AUCTION OF 15-DAY BILLS
Tenders for $14,008 million of 15-day bills to be issued
April 3, 1996 and to mature April 18, 1996 were
accepted today (CUSIP: 912794Y32).
RANGE OF ACCEPTED
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
Low
High
Average
Discount
Rate
5.27%
5.31%
5.29%
Investment
Rate
5.37%
5.39%
5.37%
Price
99.780
99.779
99.780
Tenders at the high discount rate were allotted 69%.
The investment rate is the equivalent coupon-issue yield.
TENDERS RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED (in thousands)
TOTALS
Type
Competitive
Noncompetitive
Subtotal, Public
Federal Reserve
Foreign Official
Institutions
TOTALS
5.28 -- 99.780
RR-984
Received
$41,567,200
Accepted
$14,008,000
$41,567,200
$14,008,000
o
o
$41,567,200
$14,008,000
o
o
o
o
$41,567,200
$14,008,000
5.30 -- 99.779
UBLIC DEBT NEWS
Department of the Treasury • Bureau of the Public Debt • Washington, DC 20239
l"Ol{ IMM.,I:!;LJIA'l',I:!; l{,I:!;L,I:!;AS,I:!;
CONTACT: Office of Financing
202-219-3350
April 2, 1996
RESULTS OF TREASURY'S AUCTION OF 22-DAY BILLS
Tenders for $11,062 million of 22-day bills to be issued
April 3, 1996 and to mature April 25, 1996 were
accepted today (CUSIP: 912794Y40).
RANGE OF ACCEPTED
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
Low
High
Average
Discount
Rate
5.23%
5.25%
5.25%
Investment
Rate
5.33%
5.34%
5.34%
Price
99.680
99.679
99.679
Tenders at the high discount rate were allotted 97%.
The investment rate is the equivalent coupon-issue yield.
TENDERS RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED (in thousands)
TOTALS
Type
Competitive
Noncompetitive
Subtotal, Public
Federal Reserve
Foreign Official
Institutions
TOTALS
5.24 -- 99.680
RR-985
Received
$39,871,500
Accepted
$11,062,155
$39,871,500
$11,062,155
o
o
$39,871,500
$11,062,155
o
o
o
o
$39,871,500
$11,062,155
UBLIC DEBT NEWS
Department of the Treasury • Bureau of the Public Debt • Washington, DC 20239
CONTACT: Office of Financing
202-219-3350
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 2, 1996
RESULTS OF TREASURY'S AUCTION OF 52-WEEK BILLS
Tenders for $18,937 million of 52-week bills to be issued
April 4, 1996 and to mature April 3, 1997 were
accepted today (CUSIP: 9127942N3).
RANGE OF ACCEPTED
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
Low
High
Average
Discount
Rate
5.15%
5.17%
5.17%
Investment
Rate
5.43%
5.46%
5.46%
Price
94.793
94.773
94.773
Tenders at the high discount rate were allotted 46%.
The investment rate is the equivalent coupon-issue yield.
TENDERS RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED (in thousands)
TOTALS
Received
$56,035,579
Accepted
$18,937,179
$48,856,750
1, 142,429
$49,999,179
$11,758,350
1,142,429
$12,900,779
4,750,000
4,750,000
1,286,400
$56,035,579
1.286,400
$18,937,179
Type
Competitive
Noncompetitive
Subtotal, Public
Federal Reserve
Foreign Official
Institutions
TOTALS
5.16 -- 94.783
RR-986
DEPARTMENT
OF
TREASURY
THE
TREASURY
NEWS
~/78~9~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
..............................
OmCE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS • 1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.• WASHINGTON, D.C .• 20220. (202) 622-2960
FOR RELEASE AT 2:30 P.M_
April 2, 1996
CONTACT:
Office of Financing
202/219-3350
TREASURY'S WEEKLY BILL OFFERING
The Treasury will auction two series of Treasury bills
totaling approximately $27,000 million, to be issued April 11,
1996. This offering will result in a paydown for the Treasury of
about $325 million, as the maturing weekly bills are outstanding
in the amount of $27,324 million.
Federal Reserve Banks hold $6,607 million of the maturing
bills for their own accounts, which may be refunded within the
offering amount at the weighted average discount rate of accepted
competitive tenders.
Federal Reserve Banks hold $3,612 million as agents for
foreign and international monetary authorities, which may be
refunded within the offering amount at the weighted average
discount rate of accepted competitive tenders. Additional
amounts may be issued for such accounts if the aggregate amount
of new bids exceeds the aggregate amount of maturing bills.
Tenders for the bills will be received at Federal
Reserve Banks and Branches and at the Bureau of the Public
Debt, Washington, D. C. This offering of Treasury securities
is governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Uniform
Offering Circular (31 CFR Part 356) for the sale and issue by the
Treasury to the public of marketable Treasury bills, notes, and
bonds.
Details about each of the new securities are given in the
attached offering highlights.
000
Attachment
RR-987
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax line at (202) 622-2040
HIGHLIGHTS OF TREASURY OFFERINGS OF WEEKLY BILLS
TO BE ISSUED APRIL 11, 1996
April 2, 1996
Offering Amount .
$13,500 million
$13,500 million
Description of Offering:
Term and type of security
CUSIP number
Auction date
Issue date
Maturity date
Original issue date
Currently outstanding
Minimum bid amount
Multiples .
91-day bill
912794 2Z 6
April 8, 1996
April 11, 1996
July 11, 1996
January 11, 1996
$14,100 million
$10,000
$ 1,000
182-day bill
912794 3K 8
April 8, 1996
April 11, 1996
October 10, 1996
April 11, 1996
$10,000
$ 1,000
The following rules apply to all securities mentioned above:
Submission of Bids:
Noncompetitive bids
Competitive bids
Accepted in full up to $1,000,000 at the average
discount rate of accepted competitive bids
(1) Must be expressed as a discount rate with
two decimals, e.g., 7.10%.
(2) Net long position for each bidder must be
reported when the sum of the total bid
amount, at all discount rates, and the net
long position is $2 billion or greater.
(3) Net long position must be determined as of
one half-hour prior to the closing time for
receipt of competitive tenders.
Maximum Recognized Bid
at a Single Yield
35% of public offering
Maximum Award .
35% of public offering
Receipt of Tenders:
Noncompetitive tenders
Competitive tenders
Payment Terms .
Prior to 12:00 noon Eastern Daylight Saving time
on auction day
Prior to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Saving time
on auction day
Full payment with tender or by charge to a funds
account at a Federal Reserve Bank on issue date
DEPARTMENT
OF
lREASURY ~
'<'
THE
TREASURY
NEWS
OFFICE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS -1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. - WASHINGTON, D.C. - 20220 - (202) 622-2960
For Immediate Release
April 3, 1996
Contact: Calvin Mitchell
(202) 622-2920
UNITED STATES AND LUXEMBOURG SIGN NEW
INCOME TAX CONVENTION
The Treasury Department announced that a new income tax Convention with
Luxembourg was signed today in Luxembourg City. Diplomatic notes were exchanged
at the time of the signing giving effect to a Memorandum of Understanding interpreting
a number of provisions of the new Convention. The new Convention will replace the
existing Convention between the United States and Luxembourg, which was signed in
1962 and has been in effect, unamended, since then. The new Convention will enter into
force after the countries have exchanged instruments of ratification.
The new Convention generally follows the pattern of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Model Convention and of recent U.S.
treaties with other developed countries. The withholding rates on investment income in
the proposed Convention are generally the same as those in the present U.S.Luxembourg treaty. All U.S.-source and most Luxembourg-source direct investment
dividends are subject to taxation at source at a rate of 5 percent. However,
Luxembourg-source dividends will be exempt from source taxation if derived by a 10percent shareholder from a company engaged in the active conduct of a trade or
business in Luxembourg.
The Convention provides anti-abuse rules for certain classes of investment
income, including dividends paid by non-taxable conduit entities, such as U.S. RICs and
REITs. The proposed Convention preserves the U.S. right to impose its branch tax on
U.S. branches of Luxembourg corporations, which is not preserved under the present
treaty. In other respects, the taxation of business income and various forms of personal
services income under the proposed Convention substantially follows the pattern of
recent U.S. treaties and the OECD Model.
RR-988
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax line at (202) 622-2040
-2-
Like other recently concluded U.S. treaties, the new Convention contains detailed
rules, known as the "Limitation on Benefits" Article, intended to prevent third-country
residents from benefitting inappropriately from the Convention. The Limitation on
Benefits article lists a series of attributes, ~, the ownership and base erosion test, the
publicly-traded test, and the active trade or business and substantiality test, that entitle
residents of the Contracting States to obtain some or all of the benefits of the
Convention. The new Convention contains a variation on certain derivative benefits
provisions contained in recent treaties between the United States and member States of
the European Union (EU). Subject to certain conditions, companies resident in one of
the Contracting States may be entitled to benefits if certain specified owners of the
companies reside in the EU or in a NAFTA country. The Article also contains a provision allowing the competent authorities certain discretionary powers to grant benefits
and to develop agreed applications and to exchange information necessary for carrying
out the provisions of the Article. The present Convention does not contain a
comprehensive limitation on benefits provision.
The new Convention contains standard mutual agreement rules. These rules
provide for cooperation between the competent authorities to resolve disputes that may
arise under the Convention and cases of double taxation not provided for in the
Convention.
The new Convention contains rules for the exchange of information that make
clear that each Contracting State will provide to the other State the broadest possible
measure of assistance with respect to matters covered by the Convention. The
Memorandum of Understanding clarifies that certain infurmation of financial institutions
may be obtained and provided to certain U.S. authorities only in accordance with the
terms of the proposed treaty between the U.S. and Luxembourg on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. For exchange of information purposes, the Convention
applies to taxes of every kind imposed by a Contracting State.
The new Convention will be sent to the Senate for its advice and consent to
ratification when the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty is signed by the two governments.
The new Convention will enter into force on the day of the exchange of instruments of
ratification. The Convention will have effect with respect to taxes withheld at source for
payments made or credited on or after the first day of January following entry into force.
In respect of taxes on other income and on capital it will take effect with respect to
taxable years beginning on or after the first day of January following entry into force.
Where the present Convention affords a more favorable result for a taxpayer than the
new Convention, the taxpayer may elect to continue to apply the provisions of the
present Convention, in its entirety, for one additional year.
-3Copies of the new Convention, along with the notes and Memorandum of
Understanding, are available from the Office of Public Mfairs, Room 2315, U.S.
Treasury Department, Washington, D.C. 20220.
-30-
1.(/3/'1("
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG AND THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE
PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO
TAXES ON INCOME AND CAPITAL
The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the
Government of the united States of America, desiring to
conclude a convention for the avoidance of double taxation
and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes
on income and capital have agreed as follows:
-1-
ARTICLE 1
GENERAL SCOPE
1.
This Convention shall apply only to persons who are
residents of one or both of the Contracting States, except
as otherwise provided in the Convention.
2.
The Convention shall not restrict in any manner any
benefit now or hereafter accorded:
a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or
b) by any other agreement between the Contracting
states.
3.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Convention
except paragraph 4 of this Article, the united states may
tax its residents (as determined under Article 4
(Residence», and by reason of citizenship may tax its
citizens, as if the Convention had not corne into effect.
For this purpose, the term "citizen" shall include a former
citizen whose loss of citizenship had as one of its
principal purposes the avoidance of tax, but only for a
period of 10 years following such loss.
4.
The provisions of paragraph 3 shall not affect:
a) the benefits conferred by the United states
under paragraph 2 of Article 9 (Associated
Enterprises), under subparagraph l(b) of Article 19
(Pensions, Social Security, and Annuities), and under
Articles 25 (Relief From Double Taxation), 26
(Non-Discrimination), and 27 (Mutual Agreement
-2-
Procedure); and
b) the benefits conferred by the united states
under Articles 20 (Government service), 21 (Students,
Trainees, Teachers, and Researchers), and 29
(Diplomatic Agents and Consular Officers), upon
individuals who are neither citizens of, nor have been
admitted for permanent residence in, the United states.
5.
a)
Notwithstanding any other agreement to which
the Contracting states may be parties, a dispute
concerning whether a measure is within the scope of
this Convention shall be considered only by the
competent authorities of the Contracting States, as
defined in subparagraph lee) of Article 3 (General
Definitions) of this Convention, and the procedures
under this Convention exclusively shall apply to the
dispute.
b)
Unless the competent authorities determine
that a taxation measure is not within the scope of this
Convention, the nondiscrimination obligations of this
Convention shall apply with respect to that measure,
except for such national treatment or most-favorednation obligations as may apply to trade in goods under
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
No
national treatment or most-favored-nation obligation
under any other agreement shall apply with respect to
that measure.
-3c)
For the purposes of this paragraph, a
"measure" is a law, regulation, rule, procedure,
decision, administrative action, or any other form of
measure.
ARTICLE 2
TAXES COVERED
1.
The existing taxes to which this Convention shall
apply are:
a)
in the united States:
(i) the Federal income taxes imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code (but excluding social
security taxes), and
(ii) the Federal excise taxes imposed on
insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers.
The
Convention shall, however, not apply to the excise
taxes imposed on premiums paid to foreign insurers
for reinsurance.
The Convention shall apply to
the excise taxes imposed on premiums paid to
foreign insurers for insurance other than
reinsurance only to the extent that the risks
covered by such premiums are not reinsured with a
person not entitled to exemption from such taxes
under an income tax convention that applies to
such taxes;
b) in Luxembourg:
-4-
(i) the income tax on individuals, including
the surcharge thereon for the benefit of the
employment fund (l'impot sur Ie revenu des
personnes physiques, y compris la contribution au
fonds pour l'emploi);
(ii) the corporation tax, including the
surcharge thereon for the benefit of the
employment fund (l'impot sur Ie revenu des
collectivites, y compris la contribution au fonds
pour l'emploi);
(iii) the
ta~
on fees of directors of
companies (l'impot special sur les tantiemes);
(iv) the capital tax (l'impot sur la
fortune); and
(v) the communal trade tax (l'impot
commercial communal).
2.
The Convention shall also apply to any identical or
substantially similar taxes that are imposed after the date
of signature of the Convention in addition to, or in place
of, the existing taxes.
The competent authorities of the
Contracting States shall notify each other of any
significant changes that have been made in their respective
taxation laws and of any official published material
concerning the application of the Convention, including
explanations, regulations, rulings, or jUdicial decisions.
-5-
ARTICLE 3
GENERAL DEFINITIONS
1.
For the purposes of this convention, unless the
context otherwise requires:
a) the term "person" includes an individual, an
estate, a trust, a partnership, a company, and any
other body of persons;
b) the term "company" means any body corporate or
any entity that is treated as a body 'corporate for tax
purposes;
c) the terms "enterprise of a Contracting State"
and "enterprise of the other Contracting State" mean
respectively an enterprise carried on by a resident of
a Contracting State and an enterprise carried on by a
resident of the other Contracting state;
d) the term "international traffic" means any
transport by a ship or aircraft, except when such
transport is operated solely between places in a
Contracting State:
e) the term "competent authority" means:
(i) in the United States:
the Secretary of
the Treasury or his delegate: and
(ii) in Luxembourg:
the Minister of Finance
or his authorized representative;
f) the term "United States ll means the United
States of America, but does not include Puerto Rico,
-6-
the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any other united states
possession or territory;
g) the term "Luxembourg" means the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg;
h) the term "national," in relation to a
Contracting State, means:
(i) any individual possessing the nationality
or citizenship of that Contracting state; and
(ii) any legal person, partnership or
association deriving its status as such from the
laws in force in that Contracting state;
i) the term "beneficial owner" means in the case
of a company that is treated as a partnership, or that
is otherwise not subject to tax as a body corporate,
under the laws of the other Contracting state, the
persons that are subject to tax on the income of the
company under the laws of the other Contracting state.
2.
As regards the application of the Convention by a
Contracting State any term not defined therein shall, unless
the context otherwise requires or the competent authorities
agree to a common meaning pursuant to the provisions of
Article 27 (Mutual Agreement Procedure), have the meaning
that it has under the law of that State concerning the taxes
to which the Convention applies.
-7-
ARTICLE 4
RESIDENCE
1.
For the purposes of this convention, the term
"resident of a Contracting State" means any person who,
under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by
reason of his domicile, residence, citizenship, place of
management, place of incorporation, or any other criterion
of a similar nature, provided, however, that
a) this term does not include any person who is
liable to tax in that State in respect only of income
from sources in that State or capital situated therein;
b) in the case of income derived by a partnership,
estate, or trust, this term applies only to the extent
that the income derived by such partnership, estate, or
trust is subject to tax in that State as the income of
a resident, either in its hands or in the hands of its
partners, beneficiaries or grantor;
c) an individual who is a u.S. citizen or an alien
admitted to the United States for permanent residence
(a "green card" holder) and who is not a resident of
Luxembourg under this paragraph is to be treated as a
resident of the United States for purposes of this
paragraph, only if the individual has a substantial
presence, permanent home or habitual abode in the
United States;
d) the Government of a Contracting State or a
-8-
political subdivision or local authority thereof or any
agency or instrumentality of any such government,
subdivision or authority is, for purposes of this
paragraph, to be treated as a resident of that
Contracting state; and
e) a person that under the laws of a Contracting
state is a resident of that State and that is wholly or
partially exempt from tax in that state by virtue of
the fact that it is organized and operated exclusively
either:
(i) for a religious, charitable, educational,
scientific, or other public purpose; or
(ii) to provide pensions or other benefits to
employees pursuant to a plan
is to be treated for purposes of this paragraph as a
resident of that Contracting state.
2.
Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1,
an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then
his status shall be determined as follows:
a) he shall be deemed to be a resident of the
State in which he has a permanent home available to
him; if he has a permanent home available to him in
both States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the
State with which his personal and economic relations
are closer (center of vital interests);
b) if the state in which he has his center of
-9vital interests cannot be determined, or if he does not
have a permanent home available to him in either state,
he shall be deemed to be a resident of the state in
which he has an habitual abode;
c) if he has an habitual abode in both states or
in neither of them, he shall be deemed to be a resident
of the state of which he is a national; or
d)
if he is a national of both states or of
neither of them, the competent authorities of the
contracting states shall settle the question by mutual
agreement.
3.
Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1 a
person other than an individual is a resident of both
contracting states, the competent authorities shall endeavor
to settle the question by mutual agreement, having regard to
the person's place of effective management, the place where
it is incorporated or constituted, and any other relevant
factors.
In the absence of such agreement, such person
shall not be considered to be a resident of either
Contracting State for purposes of enjoying benefits under
this Convention.
ARTICLE 5
PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT
1.
For the purposes of this Convention, the term
"permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business
-10-
through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or
partly carried on.
2.
The term "permanent establishment" includes
especially
a) a place of management;
b) a branch;
c) an office;
d) a factory;
e) a workshop; and
f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry, or any
other place of extraction of natural resources.
3.
A building site or construction or installation
project, or an installation or drilling rig or ship used for
the exploration of natural resources, constitutes a
permanent establishment only if it lasts more than twelve
months.
4.
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this
Article, the term "permanent establishment" shall be deemed
not to include:
a) the use of facilities solely for the purpose of
storage, display, or delivery of goods or merchandise
belonging to the enterprise;
b) the maintenance of a stock of goods or
merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the
purpose of storage, display, or delivery;
c) the maintenance of a stock of goods or
-11merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the
purpose of processing by another enterprise;
d) the maintenance of a fixed place of business
solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or
merchandise, or of collecting information, for the
enterprise;
e) the maintenance of a fixed place of business
solely for the purpose of carrying on, for the
enterprise, any other activity of a preparatory or
auxiliary character: and
f) the maintenance of a fixed place of business
solely for any combination of the activities mentioned
in subparagraphs a) to e).
5.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and
2, where a person, other than an agent of an independent
status to which paragraph 6 applies, is acting on behalf of
an enterprise and has and habitually exercises in a
Contracting state an authority to conclude contracts in the
name of the enterprise, that enterprise shall be deemed to
have a permanent establishment in that state in respect of
any activities which that person undertakes for the
enterprise, unless the activities of such person are limited
to those mentioned in paragraph 4 which, if exercised
through a fixed place of business, would not make this fixed
place of business a permanent establishment under the
provisions of that paragraph.
-12-
6.
An enterprise shall not be deemed to have a
permanent establishment in a contracting state merely
because it carries on business in that state through a
broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an
independent status, provided that such persons are acting in
the ordinary course of their business as independent agents.
7.
The fact that a company that is a resident of a
contracting state controls or is controlled by a company
that is a resident of the other contracting state, or that
carries on business in that other state (whether through a
permanent establishment or otherwise), shall not of itself
constitute either company a permanent establishment of the
other.
ARTICLE 6
INCOME FROM REAL PROPERTY (IMMOVABLE PROPERTY)
1.
Income derived by a resident of a Contracting state
from real property (immovable property), including income
from agriculture or forestry, situated in the other
Contracting state may be taxed in that other state.
2.
The term "real property (immovable property)" shall
have the meaning that it has under the laws of the
Contracting state in which the property in question is
situated.
3.
The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply to income
derived from the direct use, letting, or use in any other
-13form of real property.
4.
The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 shall also
apply to the income from real property of an enterprise and
to income from real property used for the performance of
independent personal services.
5.
A resident of a Contracting state who is liable to
tax in the other Contracting state on income from real
property situated in the other Contracting state may elect
to compute the tax on such income on a net basis as if such
income were attributable to a permanent establishment in
such other state.
ARTICLE 7
BUSINESS PROFITS
1.
The business profits of an enterprise of a
Contracting state shall be taxable only in that State unless
the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting
State through a permanent establishment situated therein.
If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the
business profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other
State but only so much of them as are attributable to that
permanent establishment.
2.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, where an
enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the
other Contracting State through a permanent establishment
situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be
-14attributed to that permanent establishment the business
profits that it might be expected to make if it were a
distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or
similar activities under the same or similar conditions and
dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it
is a permanent establishment.
3.
In determining the business profits of a permanent
establishment, there shall be allowed as deductions expenses
that are incurred for the purposes of the 'permanent
establishment, including a reasonable allocation of
executive and general administrative expenses, research and
development expenses, interest, and other expenses incurred
for the purposes of the enterprise as a whole (or the part
thereof which includes the permanent establishment), whether
incurred in the State in which the permanent establishment
is situated or elsewhere.
4.
No business profits shall be attributed to a
permanent establishment by reason of the mere purchase by
that permanent establishment of goods or merchandise for the
enterprise.
5.
For the purposes of this Convention, the business
profits to be attributed to the permanent establishment
shall include only the profits derived from the assets or
activities of the permanent establishment and shall be
determined by the same method of accounting year by year
unless there is good and sufficient reason to the contrary.
-156.
Where business profits include items of income that
are dealt with separately in other Articles of the
convention, then the provisions of those Articles shall not
be affected by the provisions of this Article.
7.
In applying paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7
(Business Profits), paragraph 4 of Article 10 (Dividends),
paragraph 3 of Article 12 (Interest), paragraph 3 of Article
13 (Royalties), paragraph 3 of Article 14 (Gains), Article
15 (Independent Personal Services) and paragraph 2 of
Article 22 (Other Income), any income or gain attributable
to a permanent establishment or fixed base during its
existence is taxable in the Contracting state where such
permanent establishment or fixed base is situat-ed even if
the payments are deferred until such permanent establishment
or fixed base has ceased to exist.
ARTICLE 8
SHIPPING AND AIR TRANSPORT
1.
Profits of an enterprise of a Contracting state
from the operation of ships or aircraft in international
traffic shall be taxable only in that State.
2.
For purposes of this Article, profits from the
operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic
include profits derived from the rental of ships or aircraft
on a full basis.
They also include profits from the rental
of ships or aircraft on a bareboat (time or voyage) basis if
-16-
such ships or aircraft are operated in international traffic
by the lessee, or if the rental income is incidental to
profits from the operation of ships or aircraft in
international traffic.
Profits derived by an enterprise
from the inland transport of property or passengers within
either Contracting state, shall be treated as profits from
the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic
if such transport is undertaken as part of international
traffic by the enterprise.
3.
Profits of an enterprise of a Contracting state
from the use, maintenance, or rental of containers
(including trailers, barges, and related equipment for the
transport of containers) used in international traffic shall
be taxable only in that State.
4.
The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 shall also
apply to profits from participation in a pool, a joint
business, or an international operating agency.
ARTICLE 9
ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES
1.
Where:
a) an enterprise of a Contracting State
participates directly or indirectly in the management,
control or capital of an enterprise of the other
Contracting State; or
b) the same persons participate directly or
-17indirectly in the management, control, or capital of an
enterprise of a Contracting state and an enterprise of
the other contracting State,
and in either case conditions are made or imposed between
the two enterprises in their commercial or financial
relations that differ from those that would be made between
independent enterprises, then, any profits that, but for
those conditions, would have accrued to one of the
enterprises, but by reason of those conditions have not so
accrued, may be included in the profits of that enterprise
and taxed accordingly.
2.
Where a Contracting State includes in the profits
of an enterprise of that State, and taxes accordingly,
profits on which an enterprise of the other Contracting
state has been charged to tax in that other State, and the
other Contracting State agrees that the profits so included
are profits that would have accrued to the enterprise of the
first-mentioned state if the conditions made between the two
enterprises had been those that would have been made between
independent enterprises, then that other state shall make an
appropriate adjustment to the amount of the tax charged
therein on those profits.
In determining such adjustment,
due regard shall be paid to the other provisions of this
Convention and the competent authorities of the Contracting
states shall if necessary consult each other.
-18ARTICLE 10
DIVIDENDS
1.
Dividends paid by a company that is a resident of a
Contracting State to a resident of the other contracting
State may be taxed in that other State.
2.
a)
However, such dividends may also be taxed in
the Contracting State of which the company paying the
dividends is a resident and according to the laws of
that State, but if the beneficial owner of the
dividends is a resident of the other Contracting State,
except as otherwise provided in paragraph 6, the tax so
charged shall not exceed:
(i) 5 percent of the gross amount of the
dividends if the beneficial owner is a company
that owns directly at least 10 percent of the
voting stock of the company paying the dividends;
or
(ii) 15 percent of the gross amount of the
dividends in all other cases.
b)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph
a) (i), dividends paid by a company that is a resident
of Luxembourg shall not be taxable in Luxembourg if the
beneficial owner of the dividends is a company that is
a resident of the United States and that has had,
during an uninterrupted period of two years preceding
the date of payment of the dividends, a direct
-19shareholding of at least 25 percent of the voting stock
of the company paying the dividends.
This provision
only applies to dividends attributable to that part of
the shareholding that has been owned without
interruption by the beneficial owner during such twoyear period.
Furthermore, the provisions of this
subparagraph shall only apply if the Luxembourg company
that distributed the dividend is engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business in Luxembourg (other
than the business of making or managing investments,
unless such business is conducted by a banking or
insurance company).
c)
This paragraph 2 shall not affect the taxation
of the company in respect of the profits out of which
the dividends are paid.
3.
a)
The term "dividends" means income from shares,
"jouissance" shares, or "jouissance" rights, mining
shares, founders' shares, or other rights, not being
debt-claims participating in profits, as well as income
treated as a distribution by the taxation laws of the
state of which the company making the distribution is a
resident;' and income from arrangements, including debt
obligations, that carry the right to participate in, or
are determined with reference to, profits of the issuer
or one of its associated enterprises, to the extent
that such income is characterized as a dividend under
-20-
the laws of the Contracting state in which the income
arises.
b)
The provisions of this Article shall apply
where a beneficial owner of dividends holds depository
receipts evidencing ownership of the shares in respect
of which the dividends are paid, in lieu of the shares
themselves.
4.
The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not
apply if the beneficial owner of the dividends, being a
resident of a Contracting state, carries on business in the
other Contracting state of which the company paying the
dividends is a resident through a permanent establishment
situated therein, or performs in that other state
independent personal services from a fixed base situated
therein, and the dividends are attributable to such
permanent establishment or fixed base.
In such case the
provisions of Article 7 (Business Profits) or Article 15
(Independent Personal Services), as the case may be, shall
apply.
5.
Where a company that is a resident of one of the
states derives profits or income from the other state, that
other State may not impose any tax on the dividends paid by
the company, except insofar as such dividends are paid to a
resident of that other State or insofar as the holding in
respect of which the dividends are paid forms part of the
business property of a permanent establishment or pertains
-21-
to a fixed base situated in that other state, nor, except as
provided in Article 11 (Branch Tax), subject the company's
undistributed profits to a tax, even if the dividends paid
or the undistributed profits consist wholly or partly of
profits or income arising in such other state.
6.
Subparagraph a) (i) of paragraph 2 shall not apply
in the case of dividends paid by a united states person that
is a Regulated Investment Company or a Real Estate
Investment Trust (REIT).
In the case of a united states
person that is a REIT, subparagraph a) (ii) of paragraph 2
also shall not apply, unless the dividend is beneficially
owned by an individual holding a less than 10 percent
interest
~n
the REIT.
ARTICLE 11
BRANCH TAX
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Convention,
a company that is a resident of Luxembourg may be subject in
the united States to a tax in addition to the tax on
profits.
Such additional tax, however, may not exceed 5
percent of the "dividend equivalent amount" of the business
profits of the company that are either attributable to a
permanent establishment in the united states or are subject
to tax on a net basis in the united states under Article 6
(Income from Real property (Immovable Property»
paragraph 1 of Article 14 (Gains).
or
-22ARTICLE 12
INTEREST
1.
Interest arising in a contracting State and paid to
a resident of the other Contracting State shall be taxable
only in that other State if such resident is the beneficial
owner of the interest.
2.
The term "interest" as used in this Convention
means income from debt claims of every kind, whether or not
secured by mortgage, and whether or not carrying a right to
participate ln the debtor's profits, unless described in
paragraph 3 of Article 10 (Dividends), and in particular,
income from government securities and income from bonds or
debentures, including premiums or prizes attaching to such
securities, bonds, or debentures, and all other income that
is treated as income from money lent by the taxation law of
the contracting State in which the income arises.
Penalty
charges for late payment shall not be regarded as interest
for the purposes of this Convention.
3.
The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply if
the beneficial owner of the interest, being a resident of a
Contracting State, carries on business in the other
contracting state in which the interest arises through a
permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in
that other State independent personal services from a fixed
base situated therein, and the interest is attributable to
such permanent establishment or fixed base.
In such case
-23-
the provisions of Article 7 (Business Profits) or Article 15
(Independent Personal Services), as the case may be, shall
apply.
4.
Interest shall be deemed to arise in a contracting
state when:
a) the payer is a resident of that state; or
b) the payer, whether a resident of a Contracting
state or not, has in that Contracting state a permanent
establishment or a fixed base in connection with which
the indebtedness on which the interest paid was
incurred and such interest is borne by such permanent
establishment or fixed base.
5.
Where, by reason of a special relationship between
the payer and the beneficial owner or between both of them
and some other person, the amount of the interest, having
regard to the debt claim for which it is paid, exceeds the
amount that would have been agreed upon by the payer and the
beneficial owner in the absence of such relationship, the
provisions of this Article shall apply only to the
last-mentioned amount.
In such case the excess part of the
payments shall remain taxable according to the taxation law
of each State, due regard being had to the other provisions
of this Convention.
6.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1:
a)
interest arising in a Contracting state that
is determined with reference to the profits of the
-24-
issuer or of one of its associated enterprises, and
paid to a resident of the other Contracting State, may
be taxed in that other State:
b)
however, such interest may also be taxed in
the Contracting State in which it arises, and according
to the laws of that state, but if the beneficial owner
is a resident of the other contracting state, the gross
amount of the interest may be taxed at a rate not
exceeding the rate prescribed in subparagraph 2(a) (ii)
of Article 10 (Dividends).
c)
Interest that is an excess inclusion with
respect to a residual interest in a real estate
mortgage investment conduit may be taxed by each state
in accordance with its domestic law.
ARTICLE 13
ROYALTIES
1.
Royalties arising in a contracting state and paid
to a resident of the other Contracting state shall be
taxable only in that other state if such resident is the
beneficial owner of the royalties.
2.
The term "royalties" as used in this Convention
means:
a) payments of any kind received as consideration
for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of
literary, artistic, or scientific work (including
-25cinematographic films, and audio and video tapes and
disks and other means of reproduction), any patent,
trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or
process, or other like right or property, for
information concerning industrial, commercial, or
scientific experience;
b) gain derived from the alienation of any
property described in subparagraph a), provided that
such gain is contingent on the productivity, use, or
disposition of the property.
3.
The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply if
the beneficial owner of the royalties, being a resident of a
Contracting state, carries on business in the other
Contracting state in which the royalties arise through a
permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in
that other state independent personal services from a fixed
base situated therein, and the royalties are attributable to
such permanent establishment or fixed base.
In such case
the provisions of Article 7 (Business profits) or Article 15
(Independent Personal Services), as the case may be, shall
apply.
4.
Royalties shall be deemed to arise in a contracting
State when they are in consideration of the use of, or the
right to use, property, information or experience in that
State.
5.
Where, by reason of a special relationship between
-26-
the payer and the beneficial owner or between both of them
and some other person, the amount of the royalties, having
regard to the use, right, or information for which they are
paid, exceeds the amount which would have been agreed upon
by the payer and the beneficial owner in the absence of such
relationship, the provisions of this Article shall apply
only to the last-mentioned amount.
In such case the excess
part of the payments shall remain taxable according to the
laws of each Contracting State, due regard being had to the
other provisions of the Convention.
ARTICLE 14
GAINS
1.
Gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State
that are attributable to the alienation of real property
situated in the other Contracting state may be taxed in that
other state.
2.
For the purposes of this Article the term "real
property situated in the other Contracting State" shall
include:
a) real property referred to In Article 6 (Income
from Real Property);
b) a United States real property interest, as
defined in the Internal Revenue Code on the date of
signature of this Convention, and as amended from time
-27to time without changing the general principles in this
paragraph; and
c) shares or comparable corporate rights in a
company that is a resident of Luxembourg, the assets of
which company consist for the greater part of real
property situated in Luxembourg.
3.
Gains from the alienation of personal property
(movable property) that are attributable to a permanent
establishment that an enterprise of a Contracting state has
in the other Contracting State, or that are attributable to
a fixed base that is available to a resident of a
contracting State in the other Contracting state for the
purpose of performing independent personal services, and
gains from the alienation of such a permanent establishment
(alone or with the whole enterprise) or such a fixed base,
may be taxed in that other State.
4.
Gains derived by an enterprise of a Contracting
state from the alienation of ships, aircraft, or containers
operated or used in international traffic or personal
property (movable property) pertaining to the operation or
use of such ships aircraft or containers shall be taxable
only in that State.
5.
Gains from the alienation of any property other
than property referred to in paragraphs 1 through 4 shall be
taxable only in the contracting state of which the alienator
is a resident.
-28-
ARTICLE 15
INDEPENDENT PERSONAL SERVICES
1.
Income derived by an individual who is a resident
of a Contracting State from personal services in an
independent capacity shall be taxable only in that State
unless the individual has a fixed base regularly available
to him in the other Contracting State for the purpose of
performing his activities.
If he has such a fixed base, the
lncome may be taxed in the other State, but only so much of
it as is attributable to that fixed base.
2. The term "personal services in an independent
capacity" includes especially independent scientific,
literary, artistic, educational, or teaching activities as
well as the independent activities of physicians, lawyers,
engineers, architects, dentists, and accountants.
3.
In determining the income described in paragraph 1
that is taxable in the other Contracting State, the
principles of paragraph 3 of Article 7 (Business Profits)
shall apply.
ARTICLE 16
DEPENDENT PERSONAL SERVICES
1.
Subject to the provisions of Articles 17
(Directors' Fees), 19 (Pensions, Social Security, and
Annuities) and 20 (Government Service), salaries, wages, and
other similar remuneration derived by a resident of a
-29contracting state in respect of an employment shall be
taxable only in that State, unless the employment is
exercised in the other Contracting state.
If the employment
is so exercised, such remuneration as is derived therefrom
may be taxed in that other state.
2.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1,
remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting state in
respect of an employment exercised in the other Contracting
state shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned state if:
a) the recipient is present in the other state for
a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183
days in any twelve-month period commencing or ending in
the taxable year concerned;
b) the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of,
an employer who is not a resident of the other state;
and
c) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent
establishment or a fixed base that the employer has in
the other State.
3.
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this
Article, remuneration in respect of an employment exercised
continuously or predominantly aboard a ship or aircraft
operated in international traffic by an enterprise of a
Contracting state may be taxed in that state.
If that state
fails to tax the income derived from such employment, such
-30-
income shall be taxable in the state of which the employee
is a resident.
ARTICLE 17
DIRECTORS' FEES
Directors' fees and other similar payments derived by a
resident of a Contracting State for services rendered in the
other Contracting State in his capacity as a member of the
board of directors of a company that is a -resident of the
other Contracting State may be taxed in that other
contracting state.
ARTICLE 18
ARTISTES AND SPORTSMEN
1.
Notwithstanding Articles 15 (Independent Personal
Services) and 16 (Dependent Personal Services), income
derived by a resident of a Contracting state as an
entertainer, such as a theater, motion picture, radio, or
television artiste, or a musician, or as a sportsman, from
his personal activities as such exercised in the other
contracting State may be taxed in that other State, except
where the amount of the gross receipts derived by such
entertainer or sportsman, including expenses reimbursed to
him or borne on his behalf, from such activities does not
exceed ten thousand United States dollars ($10,000), or its
-31-
equivalent in Luxembourg francs, for the taxable year
concerned.
2.
Where income in respect of activities exercised by
an entertainer or a sportsman in his capacity as such
accrues not to the entertainer or sportsman himself but to
another person, that income of that other person,
notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 7 (Business
profits) and 15 (Independent Personal Services), may be
taxed in the Contracting state in which the activities of
the entertainer or sportsman are exercised, unless it is
established that neither the entertainer or sportsman nor
persons related thereto (whether or not residents of that
state) participate directly or indirectly in the receipts or
profits of that other person in any manner, including the
receipt of deferred remuneration, bonuses, fees, dividends,
partnership distributions, or other distributions.
ARTICLE 19
PENSIONS. SOCIAL SECURITY. AND ANNUITIES
1.
Subject to the provisions of Article 20 (Government
Service) :
a) pensions and other similar remuneration derived
and beneficially owned by a resident of a Contracting
State in consideration of past employment shall be
taxable only in that state: and
b) notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph
-32-
a), payments made by a Contracting state, or a
statutory body thereof, under provisions of the social
security or similar legislation of a Contracting State
to a resident of the other Contracting state or to a
citizen of the united States shall be taxable only in
the first mentioned state.
2.
Annuities derived and beneficially owned by a
resident of a Contracting state shall be taxable only in
that State.
The term "annuities" as used in this paragraph
means a stated sum paid periodically at stated times during
a specified number of years under an obligation to make the
payments in return for adequate and full consideration
(other than services rendered).
ARTICLE 20
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
1.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 15
(Independent Personal Services), 16 (Dependent Personal
Services), and 18 (Artistes and Sportsmen):
a)
remuneration, other than a pension, paid by a
Contracting State or a political subdivision or a local
authority thereof to an individual in respect of
services rendered to that State or subdivision or
authority shall, subject to the provisions of
subparagraph b), be taxable only in that State;
b)
such remuneration, however, shall be taxable
-33only in the other Contracting State if the services are
rendered in that State and the individual is a resident
of that State who:
(i) is a national of that State: or
(ii) did not become a resident of that State
solely for the purpose of rendering the services.
2.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 19
(Pensions, Social Security, and Annuities):
a) any pension paid by a contracting state or a
political subdivision or a local authority thereof to
an individual in respect of services rendered to that
state or subdivision or authority shall, subject to the
provisions of subparagraph b), be taxable only in that
State;
b) such pension, however, shall be taxable only in
the other Contracting State if the individual is a
resident and a national of that State.
3. The provisions of Articles 16 (Dependent Personal
Services), 17 (Directors' Fees), and 19 (Pensions, Social
Security, and Annuities) shall apply to remuneration and
pensions in respect of services rendered in connection with
a business carried on by a Contracting state or a political
sUbdivision or a local authority thereof.
-34-
ARTICLE 21
STUDENTS, TRAINEES, TEACHERS, AND RESEARCHERS
1.
Payments received by a student, apprentice, or
business trainee who is, or was immediately before visiting
a Contracting State, a resident of the other Contracting
State, and who is present in the first-mentioned State for
the purpose of full-time education at a recognized
educational institution, or for full-time training, shall
not be taxed in that State, provided that ·such payments are
for the purpose of his maintenance, education, or training.
The exemption from tax provided by this Article shall apply
to an apprentice or business trainee only for a period of
time not exceeding two years from the date he first arrives
in the first-mentioned Contracting State for the purpose of
his training.
If the visit exceeds two years, the first-
mentioned State may tax the individual under its national
law for the entire period of the visit, unless in a
particular case the competent authorities of the States
agree otherwise.
2.
A resident of one of the Contracting States who, at
the invitation of a university, college, school, or other
recognized educational institutions situated in the other
contracting State, is temporarily present in the other State
solely for the purpose of teaching, or engaging in research,
or both, at that educational institution shall, for a period
not exceeding two years from the date he first arrives in
-35the other State, be exempt from tax by the other State on
his remuneration for such teaching or research.
If the
visit exceeds two years, the other State may tax the
individual under its national law for the entire period of
the visit, unless in a particular case the competent
authorities of the states agree otherwise.
3.
No exemption shall be granted under paragraph 2
with respect to any remuneration for research carried on for
the benefit of any person other than the educational
institution that extended the invitation referred to in
paragraph 2.
ARTICLE 22
OTHER INCOME
1.
Items of income beneficially owned by a resident of
a Contracting State, wherever arising, not dealt with in the
foregoing Articles of this Convention shall be taxable only
in that state.
2.
The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to
income, other than income from real property as defined in
paragraph 2 of Article 6 (Income from Real Property
(Immovable Property»), if the beneficial owner of the
income, being a resident of a contracting state, carries on
business in the other contracting state through a permanent
establishment situated therein, or performs in that other
State independent personal services from a fixed base
-36-
situated therein, and the income is attributable to such
permanent establishment or fixed base.
In such case the
provisions of Article 7 (Business Profits) or Article 15
(Independent Personal Services), as the case may be, shall
apply.
ARTICLE 23
CAPITAL
1. Capital represented by real property (immovable
property) referred to in Article 6 (Income from Real
Property), owned by a resident of a Contracting state and
situated in the other Contracting state, may be taxed in
that other state.
2.
capital represented by movable property forming
part of the business property of a permanent establishment
which an enterprise of a Contracting State has in the other
Contracting State or by movable property pertaining to a
fixed base available to a resident of a Contracting State in
the other Contracting state for the purpose of performing
independent personal services, may be taxed in that other
state.
3.
Capital of an enterprise of a Contracting state
operating in international traffic as referred to in Article
8 (Shipping and Air Transport) represented by ships,
aircraft or containers and movable property pertaining to
-37the operation of such ships, aircraft or containers , shall
be taxable only in that state.
4.
All other elements of capital of a resident of a
Contracting state shall be taxable only in that state.
ARTICLE 24
LIMITATION ON BENEFITS
1.
A resident of a Contracting state shall be entitled
to all the benefits of this Convention only if it is a
"qualified resident" as defined in this Article.
A person
that is not a qualified resident may be entitled to benefits
of this Convention with respect to certain items of income
under paragraphs 3, 4 and 6.
2.
A resident of a Contracting state is a qualified
resident for a taxable year only if:
a) that person is an individual;
b) that person is a Contracting state, a political
subdivision or a local authority thereof or any agency
or instrumentality of any such government, subdivision
or authority:
c) that person is a company, if:
(i) at least 50 percent of the principal
class of shares in the company is ultimately owned
by persons that are qualified residents or u.s.
citizens pursuant to this paragraph; and
(ii) amounts paid or accrued by the company
-38-
during its taxable year
A) to persons that are neither qualified
residents nor
u.s.
citizens, and
B) that are deductible for income tax
purposes in the company's state of residence
(but not including arm's length payments in
the ordinary course of business for services
or purchases or rentals of tangible property
including immovable property),
do not exceed 50 percent of the gross income of the
company for that year;
d) that person is a company whose principal class
of shares is substantially and regularly traded on one
or more recognized stock exchanges; the shares in a
class of shares are considered to be substantially and
regularly traded on one or more recognized stock
exchanges in a taxable year if the aggregate number of
shares of that class traded in such stock exchange or
exchanges during the previous taxable year is at least
6 percent of the average number of shares outstanding
in that class during that taxable year;
e) that person is a company that is controlled,
directly or indirectly, by publicly-traded corporations
described in subparagraph d), provided its payments to
persons who are not qualified residents satisfy the
requirements of subparagraph c) (ii); or
-39f) that person is a not-for-profit organization
that, by virtue of that status, is generally exempt
from income taxation in its Contracting state of
residence, provided that more than half of the beneficiaries, members or participants, if any, in such
organization are qualified residents.
3.
a)
A resident of a Contracting state that is not a
qualified resident shall be entitled to the benefits of this
Convention with respect to an item of income derived from
the other state, if such resident is directly (or indirectly
through an associated enterprise) engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business in the first-mentioned state
(other than the business of making or managing investments,
unless such business is conducted by a banking or insurance
company), and:
(i) the item of income is derived in
connection with the trade or business in the
first-mentioned state, and such trade or business
is substantial in relation to the resident's
proportionate interest in the activity in the
other State that generated the income; or
(ii)
the item of income derived from the
other state is incidental to that trade or
business in the first-mentioned state.
b)
The item of income is derived in connection
with a trade or business if:
-40-
(i)
such item of income accrues in the
ordinary course of such trade or business and the
beneficial owner owns, directly or indirectly,
less than 5 percent of the shares (or other
comparable rights) in the payer of the item of
income; or
(ii)
the activity in the other State that
generated the item of income is a line of business
that forms a part of or is complementary to the
trade or business conducted in the first-mentioned
State by the income recipient.
c)
Whether a trade or business is substantial for
purposes of this paragraph will be determined based on
all the facts and circumstances.
In any case, however,
a trade or business will be considered to be
SUbstantial if, for the preceding taxable year, each of
the following three ratios for factors that are related
to the trade or business within the first-mentioned
state equals at least 7.5 percent and the average
equals at least 10 percent:
(i) the asset value;
(ii) gross income; and
(iii) payroll expense
in relation to the proportionate share of the
asset value, the gross income and the payroll
expense, respectively, that are related to the
-41activity that generated the income in the other
state.
If any separate factor does not meet the
7.5 percent test in the first preceding taxable
year, the average of the ratios for that factor
for the three preceding taxable years may be
substituted.
If the resident owns, directly or
indirectly, less than 100 percent of an activity
conducted in either state, only the resident's
proportionate interest in such activity will be
taken into account for purposes of the test
described in this subparagraph c) .
d)
The item of income derived from the other
state is incidental to a trade or business conducted in
the first-mentioned state if the income is not
described in subparagraph b) and the production of such
item of income facilitates the conduct of the trade or
business in the first-mentioned state (for example, the
investment of working capital of such trade or
business).
4.
Except as provided in subparagraph c), a company
that is a resident of a Contracting state shall also be
entitled to all the benefits of this Convention if:
a)
95 percent of the company's shares is
ultimately owned by seven or fewer residents of a state
that is a party to NAFTA or that is a member state of
the European Union and with which the other state has a
-42-
comprehensive income tax convention; and
b)
amounts paid or accrued by the company during
its taxable year
(i) to persons that are not residents of a
state that is a party to NAFTA, residents of a
member state of the European Union, or U.s.
citizens, and
(ii) that are deductible for income tax
purposes in the company's state ·of residence (but
not including arm's length payments in the
ordinary course of business for services or
purchases or rentals of tangible property) ,
do not exceed 50 percent of the gross income of the
company for that year.
c)
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this
paragraph 4, a resident described in this paragraph
will be entitled to the benefits of Articles 10
(Dividends), 11 (Branch Tax), 12 (Interest), and 13
(Royalties) with respect to an item of income described
in one of such articles only if the comprehensive
income tax convention referred to in subparagraph a)
between one of the States and a third state provides a
rate of tax equal to or less than the rate provided
under this Convention with respect to the item of
income derived from the other State.
d)
(i)
The term "resident of a member State of
-43-
the European Union" means a person that would be
entitled to the benefits of a comprehensive income
tax convention in force between any member state
of the European Union and the Contracting state
from which the benefits of this Convention are
claimed, provided that if such convention does not
contain a comprehensive Limitation on Benefits
article (including provisions similar to those of
subparagraphs 2(c) and 2(d) and-paragraph 3), the
person would be entitled to the benefits of this
Convention under the principles of paragraphs 2 or
3 if such person were a resident of one of the
Contracting states under Article 4 (Resident) of
this Convention.
(ii) The term "resident of a state that is a
party to NAFTA" means a person that would be
entitled to the benefits of a comprehensive income
tax convention in force between any member state
of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the
Contracting state from which the benefits of this
Convention are claimed, provided that if such
convention does not contain a comprehensive
Limitation on Benefits article (including
provisions similar to those of subparagraphs 2(c)
and 2(d) and paragraph 3), the person would be
entitled to the benefits of this Convention under
-44-
the principles of paragraphs 2 or 3 if such person
were a resident of one of the Contracting states
under Article 4 (Resident) of this convention.
(iii) When applying the principles of
paragraph 3, an item of income derived from one of
the Contracting states with respect to which
treaty benefits are claimed must be derived ln
connection with an active trade or business
conducted by the resident of the third state in
that state.
5.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this
Convention, where:
a) an enterprise of a Contracting state derives
income from the other Contracting state,
b) that income is attributable to a permanent
establishment which that enterprise has in a third
jurisdiction, and
c) the enterprise is exempt from tax in the firstmentioned State on the profits attributable to the
permanent establishment,
the tax benefits that otherwise would apply under the
Convention will not apply to any item of income on which the
combined tax in the first-mentioned state and in the third
jurisdiction is less than 50 percent of the tax that would
be imposed in the first-mentioned state if the income were
earned in that State by the enterprise and were not
-45-
attributable to the permanent establishment.
Any dividends,
interest or royalties to which the provisions of this
paragraph apply shall be subject to tax in the other state
at a rate not exceeding 15 percent of the gross amount
thereof.
Any other income to which the provisions of this
paragraph apply shall be subject to tax under the provisions
of the domestic law of the other Contracting state.
The
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if the income
derived from the other Contracting state is in connection
with or incidental to the active conduct of a trade or
business carried on by the permanent establishment in the
third jurisdiction (other than the business of making or
managing investments unless these activities are banking or
insurance activities carried on by a bank or insurance
company).
6.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this
Article, the benefits of this Convention shall not apply to
the disproportionate part of the income (i.e., that part of
the income exceeding the income that would have been
received absent the terms or arrangements mentioned in
subparagraph a) of this paragraph) derived from a
Contracting state by a company that is resident of the other
Contracting state if that company, or a company that
controls that company, has outstanding a class of shares:
a) the terms of Which, or which is subject to other
arrangements that, entitle its holders to a portion of the
-46-
income of the company derived from the first-mentioned state
that is larger than the portion such holders would receive
absent such terms or arrangements; and
b) 50 percent or more of the vote and value of which is
owned by persons who are not qualified residents of either a
Contracting State or of a state that is a party to NAFTA or
that is a member State of the European Union.
7.
A resident of a contracting state that is not
entitled to the benefits of the Convention under the
preceding paragraphs of this Article shall, nevertheless, be
granted the benefits of the Convention if the competent
authority of the other Contracting state so determines.
8.
The following provisions apply for purposes of this
Article:
a) The term "a recognized stock exchange" means:
(i) Any stock exchange registered with the
u.s. securities and Exchange Commission as a
national securities exchange for purposes of the
u.s. Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(ii) the Luxembourg stock exchange;
(iii) the NASDAQ System owned by the National
Association of Securities Dealers; and
(iv) any other stock exchange agreed upon by
the competent authorities.
With respect to closely-held companies, the term "recognized
stock exchange" shall not include the stock exchanges
-47-
mentioned under subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), and if so
indicated in mutual agreement between the competent
authorities, under subparagraph (iv).
b) The term "closely-held company" means a company
of which 50 percent or more of the principal class
of shares is owned by persons, other than
qualified residents, residents of a member state
of the European Union, or residents of a State
that is a party to NAFTA, each af whom
beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, alone
or together with related persons, more than 5
percent of such shares for more than 30 days
during a taxable year.
9.
The competent authorities of the Contracting states
shall consult together with a view to developing a commonly
agreed application of the provisions of this Article,
including the publication of regulations or other public
guidance.
The competent authorities shall, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 28 (Exchange of Information),
exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out
the provisions of this Article.
10.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this
Article, Luxembourg holding companies, within the meaning of
the Act (loi) of July 31, 1929 and the Decree (arrete grandducal) of December 17, 1938, or any subsequent revision
thereof, or such other companies that enjoy a similar
-48-
special fiscal treatment by virtue of the laws of
Luxembourg, are not residents.
ARTICLE 25
RELIEF FROM DOUBLE TAXATION
1.
In accordance with the provisions and subject to
the limitations of the law of the United states (as it may
be amended from time to time without changing the general
principle hereof), the United States shall allow to a
resident or citizen of the United states as a credit against
the united states income tax:
a) the income tax paid to Luxembourg by or on
behalf of such citizen or resident: and
b) in the case of a United states company owning
at least 10 percent of the voting power of a company
which is a resident of Luxembourg and from which the
United states company receives dividends, the income
tax paid to Luxembourg by or on behalf of the
distributing company with respect to the profits out of
which the dividends are paid.
For the purposes of this paragraph, the taxes referred to in
subparagraph l(b) and paragraph 2 of Article 2 (Taxes
Covered), other than the capital tax and that portion of the
communal trade tax computed on a basis other than profits,
shall be considered income taxes.
2.
In Luxembourg double taxation shall be eliminated
-49-
as follows:
a) where a resident of Luxembourg derives income
or owns capital which, in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the
united states, Luxembourg shall, subject to the
provisions of subparagraphs b) and c), exempt such
income or capital from tax, but may, in order to
calculate the amount of tax on the remaining income or
capital of the resident, apply the
sa~e
rates of tax as
if the income or capital had not been exempted;
b) where a resident of Luxembourg derives income
which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10
(Dividends) and subparagraph 6(b) of Article 12
(Interest) may be taxed in the united states,
Luxembourg shall allow as a deduction from the tax on
the income of that resident an amount equal to the tax
paid in the United States.
Such deduction shall not,
however, exceed that part of the tax, as computed
before the deduction is given, which is attributable to
such items of income derived from the United states;
and
c) where a company that is a resident of
Luxembourg derives dividends from united States
sources, Luxembourg shall exempt such dividends from
tax, provided that the company that is a resident of
Luxembourg has held directly since the beginning of its
-50-
accounting year at least 10 percent of the capital of
the company paying the dividends, and if this company
is subject in the United states to an income tax
corresponding to the Luxembourg corporation tax. The
above-mentioned shares in the united states company
are, under the same conditions, exempt from the
Luxembourg capital tax.
3.
Where a United States citizen is a resident of
Luxembourg:
a)
with respect to items of income not exempt
from Luxembourg tax under paragraph 2 and that under
the provisions of this Convention are exempt from
united States tax or that are subject to a reduced rate
of United States tax when derived by a resident of
Luxembourg who is not a United states citizen,
Luxembourg shall allow as a credit against Luxembourg
tax, only the tax paid, if any, that the United states
may impose under the provisions of this Convention,
other than taxes that may be imposed solely by reason
of citizenship under the saving clause of paragraph 3
of Article 1 (General Scope);
b)
for purposes of computing United states tax on
those items of income referred to in subparagraph a),
the United states shall allow as a credit against
United States tax the income tax paid to Luxembourg
determined after reduction by the credit referred to in
-51-
subparagraph a); the credit so allowed shall not reduce
the portion of the United states tax that is creditable
against Luxembourg tax in accordance with subparagraph
a); and
c)
for the exclusive purpose of relieving double
taxation in the United states under subparagraph b),
items of income referred to in subparagraph a) shall be
deemed to arise in Luxembourg to the extent necessary
to avoid double taxation of such income under subparagraph b).
4.
Except as provided'in subparagraph c) of paragraph
3, for the purposes of allowing relief from double taxation
pursuant to this Article, and subject to such source rules
in the domestic laws of the Contracting states as apply for
purposes of limiting the foreign tax credit, income derived
by a resident of a Contracting state that may be taxed in
the other Contracting state in accordance with this
Convention (other than solely by reason of citizenship in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 1 (General Scope)}
shall be deemed to arise in that other State.
ARTICLE 26
NON-DISCRIMINATION
1.
Nationals of a Contracting state shall not be
subjected in the other Contracting state to any taxation or
any requirement connected therewith which is other or more
-52-
burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to
which nationals of that other State in the same
circumstances are or may be subjected.
This provision shall
also apply to persons who are not residents of one or both
of the contracting states.
However, for the purposes of
United states tax, a United states national who is not a
resident of the United states and a Luxembourg national who
is not a resident of the United states are not in the same
circumstances.
2.
The taxation on a permanent establishment that an
enterprise of a Contracting state has in the other
Contracting state, or of remuneration of an individual
resident of a Contracting State attributable to a fixed base
in the other Contracting state regularly available to that
resident, shall not be less favorably levied in that other
state than the taxation levied on enterprises or residents
of that other state carrying on the same activities.
The
ryrovisions of this paragraph shall not be construed as
obliging a Contracting state to grant to residents of the
other contracting State any personal allowances, reliefs,
and reductions for taxation purposes on account of civil
status or family responsibilities which it grants to its own
residents.
3.
Except where the provisions of paragraph 1 of
Article 9 (AsSociated Enterprises), paragraph 5 of Article
12 (Interest), or paragraph 5 of Article 13 (Royalties)
-53-
apply, interest, royalties, and other disbursements paid by
a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other
contracting state shall, for the purposes of determining the
taxable profits of the first-mentioned resident, be
deductible under the same conditions as if they had been
paid to a resident of the first-mentioned state.
Similarly,
any debts of an enterprise of a Contracting State to a
resident of the other Contracting State shall, for the
purpose of determining the taxable capital of such
enterprise, be deductible under the same conditions as if
they had been contracted to a resident of the firstmentioned state.
4.
Enterprises of a Contracting state, the capital of
which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by one or more residents of the other
Contracting State, shall not be subjected in the
first-mentioned State to any taxation or any requirement
connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than
the taxation and connected requirements to which other
similar enterprises of the first-mentioned state are or may
be SUbjected.
5.
Nothing in this Article shall be construed as
preventing the United states from imposing a tax as
described in Article 11 (Branch Tax).
6.
The provisions of this Article shall,
notwithstanding the provisions of-Article 2 (Taxes Covered),
-54apply to taxes of every kind and description imposed by a
Contracting State or a political subdivision or local
authority thereof.
ARTICLE 27
MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURE
1.
Where a person considers that the actions of one or
both of the Contracting states result or will result for him
in taxation not in accordance with the provisions of this
Convention, he may, irrespective of the remedies provided by
the domestic law of those States, present his case to the
competent authority of the Contracting state of which he is
a resident or national.
2.
The competent authority shall endeavor, if the
objection appears to it to be justified and if it is not
itself able to arrive at a satisfactory solution, to resolve
the case by mutual agreement with the competent authorities
of the other Contracting State, with a view to the avoidance
of taxation which is not 1n accordance with the Convention.
Any agreement reached shall be implemented notwithstanding
any time limits in the domestic law of the Contracting
states.
3.
The competent authorities of the Contracting states
shall endeavor to resolve by mutual agreement any
difficulties or doubts arising as to the interpretation or
application of the Convention.
In particular, the competent
-55-
authorities of the Contracting states may agree:
a) to the same attribution of income, deductions,
credits, or allowances of an enterprise of a Contracting
state to its permanent establishment situated in the other
Contracting state;
b) to the same allocation of income, deductions,
credits, or allowances between persons;
c) to the same characterization of particular
items of income;
d) to a common determination of the state in which
an item of income arises; and
e) to a common meaning of a term.
They may also consult together for the elimination of double
taxation in cases not provided for in the Convention.
4.
The competent authorities of the Contracting states
may communicate with each other directly for the purpose of
reaching an agreement in the sense of the preceding
paragraphs.
5.
The competent authorities of the contracting states
shall consult together with a view to developing a commonly
agreed application of the provisions of this Convention,
including the provisions of Article 24 (Limitation on
Benefits).
The competent authorities of the Contracting
states may each prescribe regulations to carry out the
purposes of this Convention.
-56-
ARTICLE 28
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
1.
The competent authorities of the Contracting states
shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying
out the provisions of this Convention or of the domestic
laws of the Contracting states concerning taxes covered by
this Convention insofar as the taxation thereunder is not
contrary to this Convention.
The exchange of information is
not restricted by Article 1 (General Scope).
Any
information received by the competent authority of a
Contracting state from the competent authority of the other
Contracting state shall be treated as secret in the same
manner as information obtained under the domestic law of
that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or
authorities (including courts and administrative bodies)
involved in the assessment, collection, or administration
of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the
determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes covered
by the Convention.
Such persons or authorities shall use
the information only for such purposes.
They may disclose
the information in public court proceedings or in judicial
decisions.
2.
In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 1 be
construed so as to impose on a contracting state the
obligation:
a) to carry out administrative measures at
-57-
variance with the laws and administrative practice of
that state or of the other Contracting state;
b) to supply information which is not obtainable
under the laws or in the normal course of the
administration of that state or of the other
contracting State;
c) to supply information which would disclose any
trade, business, industrial, commercial, or
professional secret or trade process; or information
the disclosure of which would be contrary to public
policy (ordre public).
3.
Where information is requested by a Contracting
State through competent authorities, the competent authority
of the other Contracting state shall obtain the information
to which the request relates in the same manner and to the
same extent as if the tax of the first-mentioned state were
the tax of that other state and were being imposed by that
other state.
If specifically requested by the competent
authority of a Contracting state, the competent authority of
the other Contracting State shall provide information under
this Article in the form of depositions of witnesses and
authenticated copies of unedited original documents
(including books, papers, statements, records, accounts, and
writing) to the same extent that the competent authority of
the other Contacting state can obtain such depositions and
-58-
documents for an investigation or proceeding under its laws
and administrative practice.
4.
The Contracting states undertake to lend each other
support and assistance in the collection of taxes to the
extent necessary to ensure that relief granted by the
present Convention from taxation imposed by a Contracting
state does not inure to the benefit of persons not entitled
thereto.
With respect to a specific request for collection
assistance:
a)
the requesting state must produce a copy of a
document certified by its competent authority
specifying that the sums referred to it for the
collection of which it is requesting the intervention
of the other State, are finally due and enforceable;
b) a document produced in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph shall be rendered
enforceable in accordance with the laws of the
requested State;
c)
the requested state shall effect recovery in
accordance with the rules governing the recovery of
similar tax debts of its own; however, tax debts to be
recovered shall not be regarded as privileged debts in
the requested State; and
d)
appeals concerning the existence or amount of
the debt shall lie only to the competent tribunal of
the requesting State.
-59-
The provisions of this paragraph shall not impose upon
either contracting state the obligation to carry out
administrative measures that would be contrary to its
sovereignty, security, public policy or its essential
interests.
ARTICLE 29
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS AND CONSULAR OFFICERS
Nothing in this Convention shall affect the fiscal
privileges of diplomatic agents or consular officers under
the general rules of international law or under the
provisions of special agreements.
ARTICLE 30
ENTRY INTO FORCE
1.
This Convention shall be subject to ratification.
The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon
as possible.
2.
The Convention shall enter into force on the day of
the exchange of instruments of ratification.
Its provisions
allocating taxation rights shall have effect, in respect of
taxes withheld at source, for amounts paid or credited on or
after the first day of January next following, and in
respect of taxes on other income and on capital, for fiscal
periods beginning on or after the first day of January next
-60-
following, the date on which the Convention enters into
force.
3.
Where any greater relief from tax would have been
afforded to a person entitled to the benefits of the
Convention between the United states of America and the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg with respect to taxes on income
and property, signed in Washington on December 18, 1962
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1962 Convention"), under
that Convention than under this Convention, the 1962
Convention shall, at the election of such person, continue
to have effect in its entirety for the first assessment
period or taxable year following the date on which this
Convention would otherwise have effect under the provisions
of paragraph 2.
4.
The 1962 Convention shall cease to have effect in
respect of income and capital to which this Convention
applies in accordance with paragraphs 2 or 3 of this
Article.
The 1962 Convention shall terminate on the last
date on which it has effect in accordance with the foregoing
provisions of this Article.
ARTICLE 31
TERMINATION
This Convention shall remain in force until terminated
by a Contracting state.
Either Contracting state may
terminate the Convention, through diplomatic channels, by
-61giving notice of termination at least six months before the
end of any calendar year after the year of entry into force.
In such event, the Convention shall cease to have effect in
respect of tax withheld at the source, for amounts paid or
credited on or after, and in respect of other taxes, to
fiscal periods beginning on or after, the first day of
January next following the expiration of the six month
period.
IN WITNESS THEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized
thereto, have signed the present convention.
DONE at
in duplicate, in the French and English
languages, the two texts having equal authenticity, this
day of 1996.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG:
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Excellency,
I have the honor to refer to the Convention between the
Government of the United states of America and the
Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the
Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal
Evasion with respect to taxes on Income and Capital (the
"Convention") and to propose on behalf of the Government of
the United States the following:
In the course of the negotiations leading to the
conclusion of the Convention, the negotiators developed and
agreed upon a common understanding and interpretation of the
following provisions. These understandings and
interpretations are intended to give guidance both to the
taxpayers and the authorities of our two countries in
interpreting various provisions contained in the Convention.
I.
With reference to Article 11 (Branch Tax):
The term "dividend equivalent amount" shall have the
meaning it has under the law of the United States, as it may
be amended from time to time without changing the general
principle thereof.
II.
With reference to Article 19 (Pensions, social
Security. and Annuities)
It is understood that the term "other similar
legislation" as used in Article 19 (Pensions, social
Security, and Annuities) is intended to refer to United
States tier 1 Railroad Retirement benefits.
III.
with reference to Article 24 (Limitation on Benefits)
A. It is understood that the term "any other securities
exchange" includes the principal stock exchanges of
Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, Hamburg, London, Madrid,
Milan, Paris, Sydney, Tokyo and Toronto.
B. It is understood that the term "such other companies
which enjoy a similar special fiscal treatment by virtue of
the laws of Luxembourg" includes investment companies within
the meaning of the Act dated March 30, 1988.
C. For purposes of determining u~der subparagraph 4(c)
if a comprehensive income tax Conventlon between one of the
Contracting States and a third State provides with respect
to dividends a rate of tax that is equal to or less than the
- 2 -
rate of tax provided under the Convention, it is understood
that the following two tax rates must be compared:
a) the rate of tax to which each of the persons
described in subparagraph 4 a) would be entitled if
they directly held their proportionate share of the
shares that gave rise to the dividends; and
b) the rate of tax to which the same persons, if they
would be residents of the Contracting state of which
the recipient is a resident, would be entitled if they
directly held their proportionate share of the shares
that gave rise to the dividends.
D. With respect to subparagraphs 2(c) and 2(d) and
paragraph 4, it is understood that a Contracting state may
consider a person not to be a qualified resident, unless
such person demonstrates that a percentage of its shares
(including shares not issued in registered form) necessary
to satisfy the ownership threshold specified in
subparagraphs 2(C) and 2(d) or paragraph 4 is beneficially
owned by qualified residents, or, where relevant, residents
of a member state of the European Union or a state that is a
party to NAFTA.
IV.
with reference to Article 28 (Exchange of Information)
Paragraph 1 of Article 28 requires that each
Contracting State provide to the other the broadest possible
measure of assistance with respect to matters covered by the
Convention. The Contracting States expect that the
authorities in each State, including judicial authorities to
the extent that they become involved in executing a request,
will use their best efforts to provide the assistance
requested.
Also, under paragraph 3, upon request the competent
authority of a Contacting State will obtain and provide
information, other than information of financial
institutions, for any matter relating to the assessment,
collection, or administration of, the enforcement or
prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals
in relation to, the taxes covered by the Convention, but
only in the same manner and to the same extent as if the
competent authority of the requested State were obtaining
the information for an investigation or a public court
proceeding under its laws and practices. Thus, upon request
the competent authority of the requested state shall obtain
and provide authenticated copies of third-party books and
records located in the requested State for any tax
investigation or proceeding in the requesting State, so long
as the laws and practices of the requested state would allow
-
3 -
its tax authorities to obtain such information for an
investigation or a public court proceeding under its laws.
Finally, it is understood that certain information of
financial institutions may be obtained and provided to
certain u.s. authorities only in accordance with the terms
of the Treaty between the united States of America and the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on Mutual Legal Assistance in
criminal Matters. The scope of this obligation is set forth
in that agreement.
Further, if the laws and practices in Luxembourg change in a
way that permits the Luxembourg competent authority to
obtain such information for purposes of enforcing and
administering its tax laws or the tax laws of member states
of the European Union, it is understood that such
information will be obtained and provided to the u.s.
competent authQrity to the same extent that it is obtained
and provided for the enforcement and administration of such
tax laws.
If the foregoing understandings and interpretations of
the various provisions meet with the approval of the
Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, this Note and
your Note in reply thereto will constitute a common and
binding understanding by our Governments of the Convention.
Accept, Your Excellency, the expression of my highest
considerations.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT LIBRARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@FedFRASER