Joint Appendix — Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc.

Supreme Court brief1985

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. uns)

In the Supreme Court of the Anited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

DONALD J. DEVINE, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, PETITIONER

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND,

INC., ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON Rex E. Lee

99 Hudson Street Solicitor General

10th Floor Department of Justice

New York, New York 10013 Washington, D.C. 20530

(212) 219-1900 (202) € 38-2217

Counsel for Respondents Counsei for P. titioner

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED

AUGUST 28, 1984

CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 29, 1984

wot

filed March 30, 1983 ....... 2.666. cccceeceeeeees

TE, TEED occcccccccccccccccccesscesoscesces

OPM News Release, February 10, 1983...

DOT Memorandum For The President,

from Drew Lewis, December 16, 1982 ..

Letter to Benjamin T. Toyama (President,

Hawaii Federal Employees Metal

Trades Council), from United States

Senators Matsunaga and Inouye and

Representatives Akaka and Heftel, Sep-

Letter to Donald J. Devine, OPM, from C.

Wayne Hawkins, VA, January 17, 1983.

Letter to Donald J. Devine, OPM, from

June 9, 1981 el te al seiadaile

Attachments (cont.)

C. Letter to Donald J. Devine (OPM),

from Eugene J. Brennan,

Chairperson, National Service

E. OPM News Release, July 2, 1982 .....

F. Letters from William W. Winpisinger,

International President, Interna-

G. Letter from Walter G. Davis, Director,

Department of Community Services,

American Federation of Labor and

Congress of Industrial Organiza-

tions, August 23, 1982, and State-

ment by the AFL-CIO Executive

Couneil, August 4, 1982............

Governors, United Way of America,

September 8, 1982, and Letter to the

President of the United States, from

Chairman, Board of Governors,

United Way of America, September

I. NAACP Legal Defense Fund Letter,

to President Reagan, January 11,

1983, and Air Force letter, to

Ill

Attachments (cont.)

K. OPM Memorandum to Craig L. Fuller,

from Donald J. Dev.ne, Director,

February 2, 1983, with draft Execu-

I et hal. donde epee oc ce

Statement Of The National Coalition For

Health And Welfare, undated.....:....

Affidavit of Jack Greenberg, sworn to March

Ge, Meiadénanteecenccccnesawceeesesccce

Attachments

Affidavit of Jack Greenberg in Support of

Motion For Summary Judgment, sworn

to November 25, 1980 .............+++-

Order of the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, filed March 15, 1940........

Consent to filing of the Certificate of In-

corporation of the NAACP Legal De-

fense And Educational Fund, Inc., Octo-

Be TE, BD cc ccccccccccccccsccccccess

Certificate of Incorporation of NAACP Le-

gal Defense And Educational Fund,

Inc., October 11, 1939 .............+-.

Affidavit of Arthur B. Spingarn, sworn to

November 2, 1989 ............--+-e05-

Certificate Of Amendment Of Certificate

Of Incorporation Of NAACP Legal De-

fense And Educational Fund, Inc., Janu-

ary 31, 1972 .......ccceeceeseccceeeees

Approval of the Certificate of Amendment

of the Certificate of Incorporation of

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund, Inc., by the Supreme Court of the

State of New York, March 2, 1972 .....

Order of the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, filed June 20, 1974 .........

Order of the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, filed March 24, 1977........

102

111

113

117

124

125

126

130

134

Attachments (cont.)

Order of the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, filed March 24, 1976........

Order of the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, filed June 8, 1977 ..........

Exhibit “B”: Internal Revenue Docu-

RD cdc bi Sedsdbbeccaked sdbatachccec

Exhibit “C”: Docket Report of the NAACP

Legal Defense And Educational Fund,

Inc., March 1980 [excerpts]............

1978-79 Annual Report-NAACP Legal De-

FONG FE dc adlhs Cahedéakeacadbestdoces

SOU Sosscutechcddundnctadspdecéseviece

Sy, SUED Sos iccec cb sawkd ii cenceeibeu hose

Affidavit of Robert L. Becker, sworn to March

____., 1983 with attached Exhibit M.........

Attachment

Affidavit of M.D. Taracido In Support Of

Motion For Summary Judgment, sworn

to November 25, 1980 .................

Affidavit of Valerie V. Ambler, sworn to March

ey a ae

Affidavit of Robert T. Coulter, sworn to March

Sh FAD obnkdd dh ccatccititiddbdeds sts

Affidavit of William L. Robinson, swern to

SE ae epee tee

Sy SD Sin Suits dbwtnledd cédemd dbaWededccese

GOED cvccccdducuvsocsdddcdcdvoveccesvecccs

SG BE dhe dbeddvac dbennckes lakh wccec

Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment, filed

SE GS, BOG vc ci cocdabvc ctbocetsdbeds Beesede

144

146

147

Plaintiffs’ Statement Of Material Facts As To Which

Plaintiff Contends There Is No Material Issue,

Ghat BMasahh GB, BGED ove ccccccccscccesccccceness

Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, filed April 12, 1983

Attachments

A. Affidavit of P. Kent Bailey, sworn to April

8, 1983, with attachments ..............

B. Letter from Clarence Thomas, Chairman,

Federal Coordinating Committee for the

Combined Federal Campaign of the Na-

tional Capital Area, to Donald Devine,

Director, OPM, dated December 16, 1982,

enclosing resolution of the Executive

Committee; letters; Analysis of 1983

Combined Federal Campaign of the Na-

tional Capital Area.............0eeeeees

C. Statement of Donald J. Devine, Director,

OPM, before the Subcommittee on Man-

power and Housing of the House Commit-

tee on Government Operations, March 24,

1983, with attached newspaper editorials

D. Affidavit of Joseph A. Morris, sworn to

April 12, 19GB .......cccccccccccecscees

Supplemental Affidavit of Emanuel Owens, sworn to

April 15, 1983, with Exhibits N throughS. .....

District Court Order, filed May 6, 1983............

Defendant’s Statement of Genuine Issues, filed May

DD, BED nc docccvdcccctccccceccctescesescesooss

Attachment

A. Supplemental Affidavit of P. Kent Bailey,

sworn to May 18, 1983, with attach-

Affidavit of Sharon Miles, sworn to May 25, 1983 ..

267

274

275

297

346

394

395

Affidavit of Anne F. Sweazey, sworn to May 26,

DEED 0 hh ivsisiledetlctsecth eo dédcscdststiiovests

Attachment

NRDC Application For Combined Federal

Campaign 1983-1984, with attachments .....

Defendant’s Answer, filed June 24, 1983...........

Supplemental Affidavit of Emanuel A. Owens, filed

June 28, 1983, with attachment .................

OPM Memorandum For 1982 CFC Participants,

FER se ntnccseess cnneks todeestechacans<«

OPM CFC Memorandum No. 82-11, August 20,

GD cvakiéwondad codi cha aiccseheeetcabseeseece se

Supplemental Affidavit of P. Kent Bailey, sworn to

June 30, 1983, with attachments ................

Order of the Supreme Court granting certiorari....

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DOCKET NO. 83-0928

JOYCE HENS GREEN, J.

TITLE: NAACP LEGAL DEF. & ED. FUND, ETL V

DEVINE

CAUSE: 5 USC 702; REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION

#1PLA

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL

FUND, INC.

#2PLA

PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUC.

FUND, INC.

#3 PLA

FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN LEGAL AND

EDUC. FUND, INC.

#4PLA

INDIAN LAW RESOURCE CENTER

#5 PLA

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

UNDER LAW

#6 PLA

SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.

#7PLA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.

#8 DFT

DONALD J. DEVINE HON.

DIRECTOR, U.S. 0.P.M

DATE

1983

Mar 30

Mar 31

Apr 6

Apr 8

PROCEEDINGS

NR.

1 COMPLAINT, appearance; Exhibits;

affidavits.

2 MOTION of pltffs. for preliminary injunc-

tion; memorandum.

3 MOTION of pltffs. for summary judgment;

statement of facts; P&A’s. :

SUMMONS (3) issued.

4 ORDER directing that within 7 days, counsel

for pltfs. shall report to the Court whether

this case, in their view, is related to CA

80-1888 NAACP Legal Defense Fund vs.

Campbell, CA 80-2070 Puerto Rico Legal

Defense and Education Fund vs. Camp-

bell, CA 81-2999 NAACP Legal Defense

Fund vs. Devine, or any other action that

has been before this or any other US Dist.

Court, within the meaning of Rule 3-4 of

the Rules of the USDC for D.C.

(N) GREEN, JOYCE J.

5 AFFIDAVIT of Service upon Donald J.

Devine on March 30, 1983 and upon the

U.S. Atty. on March 31, 1983.

6 REPORT by Pitffs. to the Court on relation-

ship of this matter to other cases before

this Court; attachment.

7 MOTION by defts. to strike pltffs’ motion for

summary judgment and memo of P&A’s in

support thereof.

May 16

&8 CONSENT MOTION by def ‘or enlarge-

ment of time and Memo of P&A’s to re-

spond to plitf’s. motion for preliminary

injunction.

9 MOTION by deft. to dismiss; P&A’s; Attach-

ments A through D.

10 ORDER filed 4-13-83 granting motion of deft

for extension cf time to file opposition to

pitfs’ motion for a preliminary injunction

on or before 4-12-83. (signed 4-12-83 (N)

GREEN, JOYCE, J.

11 RESPONSE by Pitffs. to deft’s. motion to

strike.

12 AFFIDAVIT of Service by certified mail

upon Atty. Gen. on 3-30-83; Attachment.

13 ORDER filed 4-22-83 deeming that pltfs’ mo-

tion for summary judgment be filed as of

4-19-83, and that the time in which deft.

has to respond thereto shail commence

running on that date. JOYCE GREEN, J.

14 MEMORANDUM by Pitffs. in opposition to

deft’s. motion to dismiss; Affidavit of

Emanuel Owens; Exhibits N through S.

15 MOTION by deft. for enlargement of time to

respond to motion for summary judgment;

P&A’s.

16 ORDER filed 5-6-83 denying motion of deft

to dismiss; denying motion of pltfs for a

preliminary injunction; and granting mo-

tion of deft for enlargement of time within

ten (10) days to respond to pitfs’ motion

for summary judgment. (N) (signed 5-5-83)

JOYCE "CE HENS GREEN, J.

17 MOTION by defts. for enlargement of time

to respond to pitffs’ motion for summary

judgment; P&A’s.

May 19

May 18

May 20

18 ORDER filed 5-18-83 granting motion of

deft. for enlargement of time to and in-

cluding 5-18-83 to respond to pltfs’ motion

for summary judgment. (N) (signed

5-17-83) JOYCE GREEN, J.

19 MOTION by deft. for enlargement of time to

respond to pitffs’ motion for summary

judgment; P&A’s.

20 STATEMENT by Pitffs. of points and au-

thorities in opposition to deft’s. motion for

further enlargement of time to file re-

sponse to pitff’s. motion for summary

judgment.

21 MOTION by deft. to exceed page limitation:

EXHIBIT (Memo of P&A’s in opposition

to S/J)

22 ORDER filed May 23, 1983, granting motion

of deft. to exceed page limitation. (N)

JOYCE GREEN,

23 ORDER filed May 20, 1983, granting motion

of deft. for enlargement of time to on or

before 5-19-83 to respond to pltf’s motion

for summary judgment. (N) JOYCE

GREEN, J.

24 MEMORANDUM by defts. of points and au-

thorities in opposition to pltff’s. motion for

summary judgment; Statement of genuine

issues; Attachment A.

25 ORDER filed May 25, 1983 granting nunc

pro tune, the motion of deft. for enlarge-

ment of time to file opposition to pltf’s.

motion for summary judgment and said op-

position shall be accepted by the Clerk of

the Court. (signed: 5-24-83) (N) JOYCE

GREEN, J.

26 ERRATA by deft. to deft’s. memo of P&A’s

in opposition to plitffs’ motion for summary

judgment; Attachment.

May 27 27 REPLY by Pitffs. in further support of

Jun 10

Jun 23

Jun 24

Jun 28

Jun 30

Jul 6

Jul 18

pitffs’ motion for summary judgment; Ta-

ble of Contents; Table of Authorities; Affi-

davit of William L. Robinson; Affidavit of

Sharon Miles and Affidavit of Anne F.

Sweazey w/Attachments.

28 ORDER filed June 9, 1983 setting for oral ar-

gument on motion of plitf. for summary

judgment on 6-23-83 at 10:00 A.M., each

side will be allowed 45 minutes for argu-

ment. (signed: 6-8-83) (N) JOYCE

GREEN, J.

STATUS CALL; parties to simultaneously

file and hand deliver supplemental briefs

as regulations received 6/23/83, by no later

than 4:00 p.m. on 6/28/83, with any re-

sponses by no later than 4:00 p.m. on

6/30/83; resetting on motion of

pitf. for summary judgment for 7/6/83 at

1:30 p.m. (45 minutes per side) (Rep. D.

) JOYCE GREEN, J.

29 NOTICE of filing by deft.; attachment.

30 ANSWER by deft. to complaint.

CALENDARED CD/N

31 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by

Pitffs. in support of their motion for sum-

mary judgment; Table of Contents; Appen-

dix A & B.

32 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by

deft. in opposition to pltffs’ motion for

summary judgment; Exhibit A & B.

33 REPLY by Pitffs. to deft’s. supplemental

memorandum; Appendix A & B.

34 REPLY by Deft. to plitffs’ supplemental

memorandum; Exhibit A & B.

MOTION by pitfs. for summary judgment

and taken under advisement. (Rep:

Doug ) JOYCE GREEN, J.

35 MEMORANDUM OPINION filed July 15,

1983. (N) JOYCE GREEN, J.

Jul 18 36 ORDER filed July 15, 1983, granting in part

and denying in part, motion of pitfs. for

summary judgment, as explained in the

Memorandum Opinion; permanently en-

joining deft. from excluding pltfs. from

participation in the Combined Federal

Campaign with respect to the solicitation

of “Designated contributions”; dismissing

without prejudice to the extent that pltfs’

complaint concerns their right to receive

“undesignated contributions” and denying

request of pitfs. for preliminary injunction.

(N) JOYCE GREEN, J.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 83-0928

JOYCE HENS GREEN, J.

NAACP LeGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, SUITE 2030,

New York, N.Y. 10019

(212) 586-8397;

PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND

EDUCATION FUND, INC.

95 MADISON AVENUE,

New York, N.Y. 10157

(212) 532-8479

FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN LEGAL AND

EDUCATION FUND, INC.

1426 H Street, N.W., SuITe 800,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

(202) 638-9579;

INDIAN LAW RESOURCE CENTER,

601 E Street, S.E., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008

(202) 547-2800,

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FoR CIviL RIGHTS UNDER Law,

733 15TH STREET, N.W., Surre 520,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

(202) 628-6700,

SrerrRa CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.,

122 E. 42np STREET, New York, N.Y. 10168

(212) 949-0049,

PLAINTIFFS,

Hon. DonaALD J. Devine, DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

1900 E Street, N.W.,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415,

DEFENDANT.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive re-

lief seeking to enforce the rights of the plaintiffs, corpora-

tions organized under the laws of New York or the District

of Columbia and authorized to do business in the District of

Columbia, under the First and Fifth Amendments to the

Constitution of the United States.

il.

JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction is conferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

$§ 1331, 1343, and 1361 and 5 U.S.C. § 702, the Adminis-

trative Procedure Act. This is an action seeking declaratory

relief (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202), and preliminary and

permanent injunctions to enforce rights under the First and

Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

States, to wit, the right of free speech, equal protection of

the laws, and due process of law.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 exclusive

of interests and costs, since the case involves the right of

plaintiffs to participate in the Combined Federal Campaign

and to, thereby, receive a fair share of the receipts of the

Campaign which are in excess of $100,000,000 per year.

Il.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiffs

A. The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCA-

TIONAL FUND, INC. (NAACP/LDF) is a body corporate

organized under the laws of the State of New York and

with the approval of the courts of that state. It is a legal aid

society whose purpose is to r-nder legal assistance gratui-

tously to black persons seeking the vindication of their civil

rights and constitutional rights. It is approved by the

United States Internal Revenue Service as a charitable,

tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)\3) of the In-

ternal Revenue Code. Under New York law, it is author-

ized to conduct business in the District of Columbia.

B. The PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND

EDUCATION FUND, INC. (PRLDEF) is a not-for-profit

corporation organized under the laws of the State of New

York to provide free legal assistance to Puerto Rican and

other Hispanics seeking to vindicate their civil and consti-

tutional rights. It is approved by the United States Inter-

nal Revenue Service as a charitable, tax-exempt organiza-

tion under Section 501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Under New York law, it is authorized to sue and be sued

under its corporate name.

Cc. FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN LEGAL

AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. (FEWLEF) is a not-for-

profit corporation organized under the laws of the District

of Columbia to provide free legal assistance to federal em-

ployees seeking vindication of their right to be free of dis-

crimination in employment and to provide education and

training related to federal employment matters. It is ap-

proved by the United States Internal Revenue Service as a

charitable, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c\3)

of the Internal Revenue Code. Under the laws of the Dis-

trict of Columbia, FEWLEF is authorized to sue and be

sued under its own name.

D. INDIAN LAW RESOURCE CENTER (ILRC) is a

not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the

District of Columbia to provide free legal assistance to Na-

tive Americans seeking to vindicate their constitutional and

legal rights. It is approved by the United States Internal

Revenue Service as a charitable, tax-exempt organization

under Section 501(c\3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is

authorized to sue and be sued under its corporate name.

E. THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS UNDER LAW (the Lawyers’ Committee) is a

not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the

District of Columbia to provide free legal assistance to mi-

nority and impoverished citizens to vindicate their civil and

constitutional rights. It is approved by the United States

Internal Revenue Service as a charitable, tax-exempt or-

ganization under Section 501(c\(3) of the Internal Revenue

Code. It is authorized to sue and be sued under its corpo-

rate name.

a. acy aa oe LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,

.. is a not-for-profit corporation or-

ganized under the laws of California to support and enforce

laws protecting the environment, primarily through legal

actions brought on behalf of affected individuals and organi-

zations. It is approved by the United States Internal Reve-

nue Service as a charitable, tax-exempt organization under

Section 501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is au-

thorized to sue and be sued under its corporate name.

G. The NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUN-

CIL, INC. (NRDC) is a not-for-profit corporation orga-

nized under the laws of New York dedicated to the wise

management of natural resources, enhancement of environ-

mental quality, and reduction of health risks from pollution.

It is approved by the United States Internal Revenue Serv-

ice as a charitable, tax-exempt organization under Section

501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under New York

law, it is authorized to sue and be sued under its corporate

name.

BN ee Donald J. Devine is sued in his official ca-

y as Director, Office of Personnel Manageme

inafter OPM) as agency of the United States. ony nena

of the OPM, he is charged with directing the Combined

Federal Campaign (hereinafter CFC), the exclusive means

IV.

FACTS

6. The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) was origi-

nally established as a result of Executive Order No. 10927

in 1961. Executive Order No. 10927 has been superceded

by Executive Order 12353 as amended by Executive Order

12404, a copy of which is attached hereto. Under the Or-

ders and implementing regulation (5 C.F.R. Part 950), all

charitable solicitation of federal military and personnel at

their places of work must be carried out under the auspices

7. Direction and control over the CFC was given first to

the United States Civil Service Commission and then to the

Office of Personnel Management, its successor agency. F'i-

nal authority over which private charitable organizations

would be allowed to participate in the CFC was given first

to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and then

to the Director of OPM, the defendant herein.

8. Under the CFC, funds donated by individual federal

personnel are of two kinds, designated and undesignated.

An individual may designate any organization approved for

inclusion in the CFC to receive a specified contribution

each pay period. The specified amount of money is automat-

ically deducted from the individual’s pay check and trans-

mitted to the designated agency. If the individual does not

designate a particular agency to receive his or her funds,

the funds are put into a pool which is divided between the

agencies accepted into the CFC. Only agencies whose appli-

cations are accepted for inclusion into the CFC can receive

funds. Therefore, an agency that has been denied inclusion

cannot solicit federal personnel at their places of work or

assignment. Moreover, a federal worker, whether civilian

or military, cannot give money to a charitable agency of his

or her choosing through the check-off method if the agency

has not been approved for inclusion in the CFC.

9. As noted above, each of the plaintiffs is a not-for-

profit charitable organization approved by the Internal

Revenue Service as a tax-exempt organization under Sec-

tion 501(cX3) Internal Revenue Code. Each of the plaintiffs

has as a major part of its activities the conduct of litigation

on behalf of minorities or other persons to carry out the

laws and Constitution of the United States. As detailed in

affidavits filed with this complaint the organizations bring

actions in such areas affecting the public interest as equal

employment opportunities, fair housing, voting rights,

health care, education, the environment, the rights of na-

tive Americans, etc. In addition to these activities some of

the plaintiffs have scholarship programs and conduct a vari-

ety of educational and community development activities

related to their purposes.

10. The plaintiffs provide legal services at no cost to indi-

viduals, groups of individuals, and organizations seeking to

vindicate their statutory, civil, and constitutional rights un-

der the laws of the United States. In many instances clients

are indigent or have incomes below the poverty line. More-

over, since most of the cases the plaintiffs handle are class

actions or involve complex issues, the costs of the litigation

are far beyond the means of their clients, even those with

substantial incomes. The activities of organizations such as

the plaintiffs have been held on a number of occasions to be

protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963);

In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978).

11. As a direct result of the legal services plaintiffs pro-

vide, hundreds of thousands of persons receive tangible and

intangible benefits. For example, class members in employ-

ment cases have received tens of millions of dollars in back

pay, increased pension rights and have received incalcul-

able direct future benefits, including increased salaries

over the rest of their working lives. As a result of health

care and prison litigation thousands of persons will have ac-

cess to improved care in new and upgraded hospitals and

other health facilities. Litigation brought in the area of ed-

ucation has brought improved education in the form of inte-

grated and bilingual education and better programs for the

under privileged. In the area of the rights of native Ameri-

cans, improved health care, education, and the establish-

ment of rights to land and housing has been accomplished.

Vv.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

12. In 1980 two of the plaintiffs herein (NAACP/LDF

and PRLDEF) were denied admission to the CFC. This de-

nial was pursuant to the then existing “direct services

rule.” As a result of litigation, this Court held the direct

services rule unconstitutionally vague and prohibited its fu-

ture use. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

Inc., 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981). Following that deci-

sion OPM in 1981 approved for participation in the CFC all

legal defense fund type organizations that applied, includ-

ing a number of the plaintiffs.

13. In 1982 a new executive order was issued, E.O.

12353, as were implementing regulations four2 at 5 C.F.R.

Part 950. The new regulations specifically permitted the in-

clusion of legal defense funds as participants in the Com-

bined Federal Campaign. As a result the remaining plain-

tiffs were admitted to the CFC in 1982.

14. In the summer and fall of 1982 an alleged “contro-

versy” over the inclusion of legal defense funds arose. As a

direct result there was issued on February 10, 1983 Execu-

tive Order 12404. The announced purpose of the executive

order was to permit the future exclusion of legal defense

funds, including a number of the plaintiffs by name, in an

attempt to satisfy the requirements established by the

earlier decision of the court in NAACP Legal Defense and

Educational Fund, Inc. v. Campbell, 504 F. Supp. 1365

(D.D.C. 1981).

15. Although defendant has announced his intentions of

disapproving plaintiffs and other legal defense funds for fu-

ture participation in the CFC new regulations have not as

yet been issued. Based on past experience it is probable

that decisions on the applications of plaintiffs for inclusion

in the 1983 CFC will not be decided upon at the national

OPM level until June. If plaintiffs are denied, by the time

they receive an adjudication of the legality of that denial it

will be too late to apply successfully to the hundreds of local

CFC’s in order to actually participate in the Combined Fed-

eral Campaign for 1983. Because of these circumstances,

and because defendant has made clear his intention of

disapproving the plaintiffs for continued participation in the

Combined Federal Campaign further exhaustion of admin-

istrative remedies will be futile.

Vi.

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

16. The rejection of plaintiffs’ applications to participate

in the Combined Federal Campaign will violate their rights

under the First and Fifth Amendments. First, if the Exec-

utive Order in fact authorizes the rejection of plaintiffs’ ap-

plications for the reasons given, then it violates the First

Amendment on its face. Second, if it does not so authorize,

then it is applied in violation of the First Amendment and is

applied arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the guar-

antees of due process and equal protection embodied in the

Fifth Amendment.

Vil.

IRREPARABLE HARM

17. Plaintiffs will suffer irrevocably the loss of substan-

tial donations from federal civilian and military personnel,

thus hampering them in carrying out their First Amend-

ment protected activities. There is no adequate remedy at

law available to the plaintiffs.

Vill.

RELIEF

18. Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons plaintiffs pray:

1. That the court issue a declaratory judgment that the

denial of plaintiffs’ applications to participate in the Com-

bined Federal Campaign violates their rights under the

First and Fifth Amendments;

2. That the court issue a preliminary and permanent in-

junction enjoining defendant, his agents, employees, and

successors in office, from failing to take all necessary steps

to ensure the inclusion of plaintiffs as participating organi-

zations in the Combined Federal Campaign;

3. That the court enjoin the defendant, his agents, em-

ployees, and successors in office, from excluding plaintiffs

from the CFC in the future on grounds that violate the

First and Fifth Amendments;

4. That plaintiffs receive their costs and attorneys’ fees

in this matter; and

5. That the court grant such other and future relief as

may be just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

JACK GREENBERG

JAMES M. Nasri, III

New York, N.Y. 10019

(212) 586-8397

/s/ Norman J. Chachkin

WILLIAM L. ROBINSON

NORMAN J. CHACHKIN

Lawyers’ Committee for

Civil Rights Under Law

ROBERT T. COULTER

Indian Law Resource Center

601 “E” Street, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20007

(202) 547-2800

WALTER B. SLOCOMBE

Caplin & Drysdale

1001 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 862-5071

Attorneys

/s/ Elaine R. Jones

ELAINE R. JONES

BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN

BRENT SIMMONS

806 15th Street, N.W.

Suite 940

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 638-3278

JACK JOHN OLIVERO

ROBERT L. BECKER

Puerto Rican Legal Defense

and Education Fund, Inc.

95 Madison Avenue

New York, N.Y. 10157

(212) 532-8470

M. CAROLYN Cox

A. STEPHEN HUT

DOUGLAS B. JORDAN

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

1666 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 872-6000

for Plaintiffs

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )

$8.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON, being duly sworn,

deposes and says that he is employed by the plaintiff

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. herein

in the position of First Assistant Counsel; that he has read

the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof and

that the same are true of his own knowledge except as to the

matters therein stated to be alleged on information and be-

lief, and as to those matters he believes them to be true.

/s/ Charles Stephen Ralston

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON

Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 25th day of

March, 1983.

/S/ Ivalina R. Passé _

Notary Public

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 83-

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL

FuNpD, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,

Hon. DoNALD J. DEVINE, DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

DEFENDANT.

AFFIDAVIT OF PHYLLIS McCLURE

STATE OF NEW YORK )

: SS.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

Phyllis McClure, being duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. I am a member of the staff of the NAACP Legal De-

fense and Educational Fund, Inc. In that capacity, I at-

tended a Press Conference at the Office of Personnel Man-

agement on February 10, 1983 from five to six p.m., at

which the new Executive Order on the Combined Federal

ign was announced. The Press Conference was con-

ducted by Joseph A. Morris, the General Counsel of * ie Of-

fice of Personnel Management.

2. Mr. Morris announced that the President had signed

an Executive Order that afternoon at the White House

which set forth new rules for participating in the Combined

Federal Campaign. He stated that the purpose of this Ex-

ecutive Order is to overcome the Court decision that the

prior rules for the Combined Federal Campaign were

vague. This Executive Order is to assure a focus on “direct

services” for the Combined Federal Campaign. It expressly

excludes advocacy groups which influence public policy.

Certain legal defense funds may be excluded, but legal aid

groups will not. The distinction, Mr. Morris said, is that the

legal defense funds discriminate in the cases they take on

the basis of a cause, while legal aid groups provide services

to all who are in financial need. Mr. Morris concluded his

4. Another reporter asked what the figures were

year’s Combined Federal Campaign. Mr. Morrie did ‘not

have the exact numbers but did say that there had been a

slight increase in overall dollars, that the increase had not

kept pace with the inflation, and that participation had de-

tached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and accurate cot of

the materials which I obtained st the press conference”

My Commission expires on: March 30, 1984

UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

1900 E St., NW

Ww D.C. 20415

News Unit, Room 5F10

(202) 632-5491

For Immediate Release

ON CHARITY FOR TRULY NEEDY

health and welfare programs that are aimed directly at the

needs of the , the wfirm, the , and the trul

needy, to Donald J. Devine, of the U.S.

Office of Personne! Management (OPM), who oversees the

CFC

Devine announced the Presidential directive as he re-

Sepa e Goase Cais Sas Ss a ee

leased

today in Washington.

“The CFC will now put its emphasis entirely on support

for those programs that help sustain the safety net for peo-

paign to voluntary, charitable, health and welfare agencies

that provide or support direct health and welfare services

to individuals and families,” he said. |

The President’s order includes a provision for lock!

charities that are unaffiliated with any national organiza-

tions or umbre'la groups which will be permitted to take

part in their respective local CFCs, provided that they

meet the President's health and welfare criteria.

Devine said that such services “must consist of care, re-

search, or education in the fields of human health or social

adjustment and rehabilitation; relief of victims of natural

disasters and other emergencies; or assistance to those who

are impoverished and therefore in need of food, shelter,

clothing, education, and basic human welfare services.

According to Devine, “The President has expressly ex-

cluded from the CFC any organization that seeks to influ-

ence elections or public policy determinations through polit-

ieal activity or advocacy, lobbying, or litigation on behalf of

parties other than itself. This means,” he explained, “that

the advocacy groups, both left and right, that have been

admitted to the CFC in recent years will be excluded from

the campaign. Federal workers remain absolutely free, of

course, to contribute to such organizations if they wish, but

the taxpayers will not be asked to provide the fund-raising

channel.”

Devine further explained that the President's order will

exclude from the CFC legal defense funds that litigate se-

lectively on behalf of particular causes, while it will permit

participation by legal aid programs that furnish legal serv-

ices, without discrimination, to those in financial need.

Devine said, “This Presidential order was motivated by

the deep conviction of this Administration that private sec-

tor contributions to the essential safety net should be en-

couraged and supported, and that it is unfair and unjust to

have the Federal Government using its resources to pro-

mote any political or advocacy group, however well-

intentioned it may be.”

He acknowledged the controversy that has surrounded

the admission of advocacy groups to the CFC in recent

years. “That resulted from court findings that previous

CFC rules were too vague and ambiguous to permit the

CFC to foeus exclusively on direct health and welfare serv-

ices,” Devine explained, adding: “President Reagan has

now brought that vagueness and ambiguity to an end. Both

the Department of Justice and our General Counsel are

satisfied that the new directive is constitutional, and the

President and I have been so advised.”

Devine also acknowledged the fierce opposition of Fed-

eral employee organizations and labor unions to the recent

past inclusion of advocacy groups in the CFC. “Sentiment

favoring a wholesale boycott of the CFC was strong this

last year,” he said, “but the forbearance of Federal workers

was heartening. Most workers still contributed to the cam-

paign, but earmarked their donations for specific charities,

thereby avoiding the possibility that their gifts would go to

unwanted recipients.” Devine added, “We asked the Fed-

eral workers to stay with the campaign and to give us one

year to clean it up. They kept their part of the bargain, and

now President Reagan has fulfilled our promise. ;

Devine noted that the new Executive Order also contains

the following directives: International organizations that

provide health and welfare services overseas will be

permitted to participate in the CFC, even though, for obvi-

ous reasons, they may not provide any direct services in lo-

cal American communities where Federal workers reside.

Devine said that OS oe a ee

regulations implementing the new Ex ve ,

that organizational ~ a4 for the Fall, 1983, CFC will

shortly begin.

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

Washington D.C. 20590

December 16, 1982

I understand you are giving favorable consideration to a

revision in the Executive Order authorizing the Combined

Federal Campaign. The revision will establish the CFC as a

campaign to support voluntary agencies providing direct

health and welfare services, and will exclude organizations

involved primarily in promoting and advocating for special

tributions from last year—all related to the inclusion of or-

doubt create a substantial negative reaction from the

groups excluded, that reaction should be short term. I be-

lieve strongly that in the long term the survival of the CFC

pose is serving the basic needs of all people, is absolutely

dependent upon the suggested Executive Order revision.

I recommended the Executive Order be revised to pro-

tect the future of the CFC as a major positive force in

voluntarism.

‘sv Drew Lewis

UNITED STATES SENATE

ae, ve made a successful

AUW/CFC campaign .

As you know, the Aloha United Way is only one of the

tribute undesignated funds only to those agencies that have

Combined Federal Campaign and examining the need to re-

;

a tienes — sS —

Dante. K. Inouye SPaRK MATSUNAGA

US. Seneter U.S. Senator

= SN

Dante. K. AKAKA

Member of Congress Member of Congress

Saturday, January 13, 1983—The Washington Post

GROUPS FIGHT EJECTION

FROM CHARITY DRIVE

By Karlyr Barker

Washington Post Staff Writer

A broad range of health, minority, women’s and environ-

mental groups, protesting what they say i» .n attempt to

kick them out of the federal government’s annual charity

drive, have asked President Reagan to reject a United Way

proposal to limit eligibility in the Combined Federal

Campaign.

Most of the groups were admitted to the CFC under the

terms of an executive order issued last year by the presi-

dent. They said they have heard the White House is consid-

ering issuing a new order that would result in about three

dozen “non-traditional” charity organizations being kicked

out of the campaign, at an estimated loss to them of more

than $4.5 million.

“Federal employees like having a broader range of

charities to support,” the groups said in a letter to Reagan

signed by 18 organizations, among them the Native Ameri-

ean Rights Fund, the Committee for Responsive Philan-

thropy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and

legal defense funds for Federally Employed Women and the

Sierra Club. They urged him to reject the United Way pro-

posal as directly contradicting Reagan’s efforts to increase

private giving.

Last September, United Way of America asked the

White House to restrict participation in the CFC to “chari-

table agencies providing direct, human-care services in the

fields of health and welfare, including health research.”

United Way argued that inclusion of less traditional service

groups had hurt charity contributions.

The example cited in the letter to Reagan was the Na-

tional Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, whose ad-

mittance to the CFC last year, United Way said, had

sparked a boycott of the campaign by some unions.

CFC raised $87 million in employee contributions in 1981,

$12 million of it in the Washington area. But a controversy

in recent years over the number and types of organizations

that should be allowed to participate has kept the campaign

in legal and political upheaval.

Some groups, usually those long established in the drive,

have argued that opening the campaign to many, new or-

ganizations confuses givers and spreads contributions too

thin. But groups who have gone to court to gain admittance

say expanding the CFC has increased overall donations by

providing a wider choice of charities.

“... When employees have more choice of charities to

support, they give more,” the charity groups said in their

letter, to be sent to Reagan today. They said that, accord-

ing to the Office of Personnel Management, charitable giv-

ing in federal offices is up more than 7 percent this year,

the first time since 1977 that the increase in giving out-

paced inflation.

Rocky Mountain News, Wed., Dec. 29, 1982, Denver, Colo.

REAGAN EYES ACTIVIST FUND CUT

By John Bennett

Scripps-Howard Staff

WASHINGTON —President Reagan is considering an

executive order to halt a growing number of activist organi-

zations from using federal employee payroll deductions to

finance their causes.

Officials of the Combined Federal Campaign warn that

unless Reagan restricts the groups, their 20-year-old fund-

raising efforts in behalf of such organizations as the Red

Cross and Salvation Army could be seriously impaired.

Bill Schaeffler, director of the 294-organization charity

campaign in the Washington, D.C., area, said federal

worker opposition to 34 new activist groups was chiefly re-

sponsible for 9,000 fewer workers contributing to tradi-

tional health and welfare causes this year.

A federal court here ruled two years ago that the Na-

tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Legal Defense Fund and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense

Fund may share funds from the Combined Federal Cam-

paign, unless they were specifically excluded by presiden-

tial order.

Officials with the Office of Personnel Management report

50 new checkoff applications for 1983. “If the trend contin-

ues, the campaign will be unmanageable,” said Joseph

Morris, general counsel for OPM.

The traditional organizations joined the combined cam-

paign after President Kennedy authorized it in 1961. About

260 groups would remain if Reagan restricts membership.

Some of the new groups include the National Right to

Work Educational Foundation, the Sierra Club, Planned

Parenthood, National Organization for Women Legal De-

fense Fund, the Children’s Defense Fund and the Conserv-

ative Legal Defense Education Fund.

One pending application is from the National Association

for the Advancement of White People, which wants to fi-

nance white supremacy propaganda through federal em-

ployee contributions.

“If the NAACP Legal Defense Fund can do it, why can’t

we?,” asked David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and

president of the three-year-old, 5,000-member Louisiana-

based organization.

Wednesday, August 4, 1982—The Washington Post

AN UNCHARITABLE BATTLE FOR

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL WORKERS

By Karlyn Barker

Washington Post Staff Writer

The AFL-CIO is furious that the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Fund got in. The National Right to Life peo-

ple, who just got in themselves, want Planned Parenthood

out, and Planned Parenthood, still in although it almost got

kicked out, has gone to court because it is no longer as in as

it used to be. i

Being in, in this case, means being included in the gov-

ernment’s $87 million Combined Federal Campaign, an an-

nual charity drive that has sparked some rather uncharita-

ble battles for the contributions of federal workers.

In the past several years a number of advocacy groups

have successfully sued to be included in the campaign,

arguing that their work is just as worthy as more tradi-

tional charities. The latest battle has a more ideological

edge to it, and the long controversy over who should be in

and who should be out has never been more heated.

Donald J. Devine, director of the Office of Personnel

Management and a Reagan appointee with impeccable con-

servative credentials, last month certified the National

Right to Work Legal Defense Fund, a probusiness, anti-

union group, the antiabortion National Right to Life Edu-

cational Fund and 109 other organizations for participation

in this year’s campaign. Including Planned Parenthood

among those groups, he overruled a Devine-appointed eligi-

bility committee, which had recommended the organiza-

tion’s exclusion.

Devine daid all the groups met the criterion for participa-

tion in the Campaign, to which federal workers may contrib-

ute through payroll deductions.

But Devine’s decision has brought howls of protest from

prolabor and antiabortion camps.

AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland called Devine’s ad-

mission of the Right to Work group, which opposes compul-

sory union membership, “an insult to President John F.

Kennedy,” who set up the charity campaign in 1961. The la-

bor leader said federal workers were being asked to con-

tribute to an organization whose goals are contrary to their

own interests.

And at a meeting this week of 36 unions who represent

federal workers, Kirkland said organized labor would fight

to have the Right to Work group’s eligibility rescinded and

would urge federal employes, some of whom are said to be-

lieve the group promotes the creation of jobs, not to con-

tribute to the organization.

OPM spokesman Pat Korten said yesterday that while no

prolabor group is included on the government's charity list,

there is nothing to preclude a labor organization from quali-

fying for the campaign under current guidelines. An AF L-

CIO spokesman said in New York that prolabor forces

didn’t want to have to qualify as a charity in order to prove

that antilabor forces are not a charity.

Also unhappy is the National Right to Life Committee,

which, though newly admitted to the Federal charity circle,

wants Planned Parenthood excluded. The group has com-

plained Planned Parenthood is “the largest promoter and

provider of abortion in the country” and as such “has no

place” in the government’s charity drive.

Devine, an ardent abortion foe, said he was “reluctantly”

allowing Planned Parenthood to continue in the campaign

because he felt it met OPM’s eligibility requirements. But

the National Right to Life group has challenged that as-

assertions, has its own problems with Devine and this week

took the OPM director to court to try to o his

reclassification of the family planning group. OPM has

shifted the group, which raised about $800,000 in last year’s

charity drive, from the International Services Agencies

campaign category to the National Service Agencies cate-

gory, a move Planned Parenthood says will cost it about

Rocky Mountain News, Wed., Dec. 29, 1982, Denver, Colo.

REAGAN EYES ACTIVIST FUND CUT

By John Bennett

Scripps-Howard Staff

La wep ss Pyne Reagan me = mpm. an

zations aeapatn federal employee payroll deductions to

Litt

bry

betes

ity

lal

Tei

nance white supremacy propaganda through federal em-

ployee contributions.

“If the NAACP Legal Defense Fund can do it, why can’t

we?,” asked David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and

president of the three-year-old, 5,000-member Louisiana-

based organization.

Wednesday, August 4, 1982—The Washington Post

AN UNCHARITABLE BATTLE FOR

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL WORKERS

By Karlyn Barker

Washington Post Staff Writer

The AFL-CIO is furious that the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Fund got in. The National Right to Life peo-

ple, who just got in themselves, want Planned Parenthood

out, and Planned Parenthood, still in although it almost got

kicked out, has gone to court because it is no longer as in as

it used to be.

Being in, in this case, means being included in the gov-

ernment’s $87 million Combined Federal Campaign, an an-

nual charity drive that has sparked some rather uncharita-

ble battles for the contributions of federal workers.

In the past several years a number of advocacy groups

have successfully sued to be included in the campaign,

arguing that their work is just as worthy as more tradi-

tional charities. The latest battle has a more ideological

edge to it, and the long controversy over who should be in

and who should be out has never been more heated.

Donald J. Devine, director of the Office of Personnel

Management and a Reagan appointee with impeccable con-

servative credentials, last month certified the National

Right to Work Legal Defense Fund, a probusiness, anti-

union group, the antiabortion National Right to Life Edu-

cational Fund and 109 other organizations for participation

in this year’s campaign. Including Planned Parenthocd

among those groups, he overruled a Devine-appointed eligi-

bility committee, which had recommended the organiza-

tion’s exclusion.

Devine said all the groups met the criterion for participa-

tion in the campaign, to which federal workers may contrib-

ute through payroll deductions.

But Devine’s decision has brought howls of protest from

prolabor and antiabortion camps.

AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland called Devine’: ad-

mission of the Right to Work group, which opposes compul-

sory union membership, “an insult to President John F.

Kennedy,” who set up the charity campaign in 1961. The la-

bor leader said federal workers were being asked to con-

tribute to an organization whose goals are contrary to their

own interests.

And at a meeting this week of 36 unions who represent

federal workers, Kirkland said organized labor would fight

to have the Right to Work group’s eligibility rescinded and

would urge federal employes, some of whom are said to be-

lieve the group promotes the creation of jobs, not to con-

tribute to the organization.

OPM spokesman Pat Korten said yesterday that while no

prolabor group is included on the government’s charity list,

there is nothing to preclude a labor organization from quali-

fying for the campaign under current guidelines. An AF L-

CIO spokesman said in New York that prolabor forces

didn’t want to have to qualify as a charity in order to prove

that antilabor forces are not a charity.

Also unhappy is the National Right to Life Committee,

which, though newly admitted to the Federal charity circle,

wants Planned Parenthood excluded. The group has com-

plained Planned Parenthood is “the largest promoter and

provider of abortion in the country” and as such “has no

place” in the government’s charity drive.

Devine, an ardent abortion foe, said he was “reluctantly”

allowing Planned Parenthood to continue in the campaign

because he felt it met OPM’s eligibility requirements. But

the National Right to Life group has challenged that as-

sessment and called on OPM to investigate what it says are

Planned Parenthood’s numerous violations of government

solicitation restrictions.

Planned Parenthood, which has denied the Right to Life

assertions, has its own problems with Devine and this week

took the OPM director to court to try to overturn his

reclassification of the family planning group. OPM has

shifted the group, which raised about $800,000 in last year’s

charity drive, from the International Services Agencies

campaign category to the National Service Agencies cate-

gory, a move Planned Parenthood says will cost it about

$200,000 in charity contributions.

In a letter to attorneys for Planned Parenthood, Devine

said the organization’s activities are “significantly domestic

in scope” and that only 10.6 percent of its revenues are

spent on international services. He said Planned tent

hood will still be entitled to all the contributions specifically

it by federal donors.

may ctor choy Awe: spokesman said yesterday that his

organization is composed of 190 separate affiliates around

the country.

September 13, 1982—Federal Times

NALC DELEGATES BACK SOMBROTTO,

WILL BOYCOTT CFC

Vincent L. Sombrotto was reclected president of the Na-

tional Association of Letters Carriers by acclamation of del-

egates to the Union’s convention in San Francisco.

Eight other resident national officers and ten national

business agents also were re-elected without opposi-

tion—the first time so many were unopposed since the one-

man, one-vote rule took effect in 1964, a spokesman said.

These officers, and nine other officials to be elected by

mail ballot, will serve four-year terms approved by the con-

vention to replace the existing two-year terms.

The convention also approved non-contributory retire-

ment programs for all national officers.

Per capita dues paid to the national office were raised

from $68 to $72 a year.

Delegates voted to boycott the Combined Federal Cam-

paign this fall because of the inclusion of the National Right

to Work Legal Defense Foundation as a participating char-

ity. The boycott will be lifted in local CFC areas which

have rejected the Right to Work group as a participant, a

spokesman said.

Sombrotto urged letter carriers to make contributions di-

rectly to charities by personal check rather than through

the CFC payroll deduction plan.

A convention vote to boycott the United Way was later

rescinded by the union’s executive council after a United

Way official assured Sombrotto that the charity umbrella

group was not associated with the Right to Work

organization.

Mail ballots will be distributed September 22 for con-

tested positions in the union, including the slot of health in-

surance director, now held by R. J. Buntz. Three trustees

and five national business agents also will be elected by

mail referendum.

Re-elected without opposition to resident national officer

positions were Tony R. Huerta, executive vice president;

Francis J. Conners, vice president; Richard P. O’Connell,

secretary-treasurer; lalline Overby, assistant secretary-

treasurer; Joseph H. Johnson Jr., director of city delivery;

Mark Roth, director of retired members; William M. Dunn

Jr., director of life insurance; and Anthony B. Morell, as-

sistant director of life insurance.

Re-elected as national business agents were David M.

Bybee, Jim Edgemon, Lawrence Hutchins, Ben Johnson,

Robert Massaroni, Gene McNulty, John W. O'Shea, Jack

R. Sebolt, Robert Vincenzi and Wayne E. White. ; ;

Chosen as AFL-CIO delegates were Anita Guzik, Sid

Klein, Mike O’Connor, J.C. Taylor and Ronald Tyeskey.

‘eo

Honolulu Star-Bulletin—8/21/82

GOVERNMENT CHARITY DRIVE

DRAWS BLAST

By Lea Catterall

Star-Bulletin Writer

The federal government was criticized yesterday by a

group of federal employee unions for including anti-union

organizations as beneficiaries of its annual charity drive.

Ben Toyama, president of the AFL-CIO Metal Trades

Council, said the council may ask federal employees to boy-

cott the Combined Federal Campaign because of its inclu-

sion of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Founda-

tion, the Pacific Legal Foundation and other “right-wing”

groups.

Inclusion of such groups, especially the Right to Work

organization, has prompted national outrage from labor

unions. The Right to Work group has fought laws requiring

union membership of employees in a business where the

majority of workers want the union.

In testimony this week before the Federal Executive

Board, which coordinates inter-agency federal programs

here, Toyama called the charity campaign “a fraud and an

evil money-making machine for organizations other than

humanitarian charities.”

EXECUTIVE board director Gerry Silva said no money

raised in the campaign will go to the Right to Work founda-

tion or any other “national service agency” that is not des-

ignated by the employee in his contribution form.

However, Toyama said the trades council, which includes

13 unions representing federal employees here, will not

participate in a campaign “that raises funds for organiza-

tions that are not compatible with the principle and philoso-

phy of the labor movement.”

The Right to Work organization and other adversary

groups were included in such federal charity campaigns this

year by President Reagan.

Of nearly $1.9 million raised in last year’s Combined Fed-

eral Campaign, $1.5 million went to Aloha United Way,

about $325,000 went to national health and international

service agencies and $42,783 was designated for national

service agencies. .

Silva said he expects a lesser amount to go to national

service agencies this year because of a change in rules of

distribution. National service agencies last year received a

share of the money that was collected without designation,

but they will receive no undesignated money this year, he

said.

Bremerton Sun—Tuesday, Oct. 19, 1982

Politicized CFC

contributions lag

By Debby Norman

Sun Staff Writer

Donations to this year’s Combined Federal Campaign,

which is being boycotted by local unions, are running far

behind the 1981 drive, according to Bremerton Metal

Trades Council President, Larry Ferlaak.

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard’s house organ, the Salute,

reported Friday that donations totaled $41,760.48, or 14.2

percent of this year’s shipyard goal.

The goal is $295,000.

But Ferlaak said that at the same point in last year’s

campaign, the PSNS part of the drive had reached 59 per-

cent of its goal.

Bruce Andrae, shipyard public affairs officer, acknowl-

edged that this year’s CFC donations have been projected

to fall behind last year’s.

“But last year was a record year, Andrae said.

In last year’s record-breaking CFC campaign, PSNS em-

ployees donated $344,299, exceeding the goal of $280,000.

Joseph E. Kieta, chairman of the Local Federal Coordi-

nating Committee of the Kitsap-North Mason CFC, has at-

tributed the lag to the union boycott of CFC.

“...Our CFC campaign could be a total failure for the

first time in 19 campaigns,” Kieta wrote in a letter to

Donald J. Devine, head of the federal Office of Personnel

Management.

Devine, a Reagan appointee, initiated the controversial

policy changes which politicized the CFC drive and

prompted the union boycott. Kieta’s Oct. 15 letter was the

second in three days written to protest the recent exten-

sion of politically oriented groups from the national to the

local CFC.

“Approximately 70 percent of all eligible to participate in

our local campaign are unit members of those unions boy-

cotting our campaign,” Kieta wrote.

“After two weeks into this CFC, Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard, the largest contributor into the Kitsap-North

Mason CFC, is only 15 percent of its goal (compared to) 59

percent after two weeks into the previous campaign.”

CFC began Oct. 4 and will end Nov. 12.

The charity drive hadn’t even begun when the county’s

major labor groups representing federal employees an-

nounced that they would boycott the drive. The unions

acted in protest of Devine’s inclusion of political groups in

CFC for the first time in the drive’s history.

Union leaders were especially irked at the inclusion of

the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund

among the recipients of CFC money under the “National

Service Agencies” category.

But OPM now is forcing the CFC to add political groups

to the local CFC roster, too, according to Ferlaak.

OPM has ordered two such groups, the Sierra Club Legal

Defense Foundation, Inc. and the conservative Pacific Le-

gal Foundation, added to the local CFC list, Ferlaak said.

OPM overturned a decision by the local Federal Coordi-

nating Committee not to allow the groups, Ferlaak said.

Traditionally, the coordinating committee has determined

which groups will be placed on the local CFC roster, in line

with federal regulations. Ferlaak said OPM now is usurping

that role.

Kieta is appealing both decisions. In letters to Devine

dated Oct. 13 and Oct. 15, he noted that neither group has

a local office, which is one of the criteria for a group to be

placed on the CFC roster.

“Seattle, Wash., was listed as the local contact, but

Seattle is not part of the Kitsap-North Mason local commu-

nity,” Kieta’s letter noted.

In addition, he said, the campaign’s literature already

has been printed and it would be difficult to add the two or-

ganizations’ names to 30,000 CFC brochures.

Meanwhile, an alternative charity effort supported by

the unions appears to be moving slowly.

Ferlaak said this morning he has had about 50 “allot-

ment” forms for the United Way campaign returned to his

office. But union officials supporting the United Way drive

haven’t really started pushing it yet, he added.

The allotment effort was started as a way for union sup-

porters to bypass th. CFC and give directly to the United

Way by filling out “allotment” or payroll deduction forms.

The United Way receives most of the local CFC money,

but United Way officials have voiced fears that this year’s

United Way drive might be hurt by the CFC boycott.

oui, NOlprivermn / Oo

...

heedand

—

— «

—

_—«

—

i a

—

Cf)

Deedee

VII ZD¥d / £861 Si ANWNNVT ‘AVOSINL sun? noshingsvg; 32

6£

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Director

January 17, 1983

Honorable Donald J. Devine

Director

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Washington, DC 20415

As Medical Center Director and Chairman of the Dallas-

Fort Worth Federal Executive Board I wish to apprise you

of my concern relating to the upcoming Combined Federal

Campaign (CFC).

First, »e were successful in last year’s campaign because

we devoted additional time and efforts to this important

purpose. We spent additional time trying to explain to our

employees the change taking place regarding the admission

of nonhealth and welfare organizations. We were successful

in getting them to support the CFC by asking them to des-

ignate the organization which they supported. Even though

we met our goal dollar-wise the actual nuraber of employees

contributing decreased. I fee! we cannot sustain this level

of support for the 1983 campaign for the following reasons:

1. We cannot devote the additional time of our staff to

further sell the CFC without detracting from our Agency

mission.

z. Employees have made it clear they will not participate

at all in the CFC if nonhealth and welfare organizations are

admitted.

3. The AFGE local was convinced to support the CFC

last year with the understanding that something would be

done before the 1983 campaign. There was strong talk of

boycotting the CFC last year by union members. It is my

opinion that this will happen in 1983 if nonhealth and wel-

fare organizations are admitted.

4. Empioyees do not trust the system of “designation”

because of all of the confusion raised on the meaning of this

term. Employees have expressed a desire to designate

their gift but want the money to go to a local organization

and not the national organization for distribution. I fee! em-

ployees need this option if we expect them to continue sup-

ing the CFC.

Por feat compelled to urge you to respect the wish of a

employees and agencies and take a firm stand to —_—

the CFC to the traditional health and welfare —— _'

If you elect to continue admitting the nontradl -

agencies you will lose the support of ey eee —

ees, employee 0 izations and the Federal gg

Boards, which have traditionally supported the CFC.

Please give this your personal attention and support.

/s/ C. Wayne Hawkins _

C. WAYNE HAWKINS

Medical Center Director

DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA

COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

Office of the Director

14 January 1983

Dr. Donald J. Devine, Director

Office of Personnel Management

1900 E. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20415

Dear Dr. Devine:

The 1983 Denver Metropolitan Area Combined Federal .

Campaign was a success. However, many complaints were

received from management officials, union officials and

members, and other Federal employees concerning the in-

clusion of nontraditional, activist health and welfare

organizations.

The success of this year’s campaign can be attributed to

the outstanding efforts and commitment of agency mana-

gers, loaned executives, and other CFC staff. In addition,

we were able to obtain the support of the American Feder-

ation of Government Employees, the American Postal

Workers Union, and several smaller unions. Two unions did

boycott this year’s campaign with visible negative effects

which these unions hoped to obtain. AFGE’s support this

year came with the promise to boycott the 1984 campaign if

regulations continue to provide for inclusion of activist, po-

litical organizations such as the National Right to Work Le-

gal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.

Early responses to a sample survey conducted among

Federal employees in our area show approximately 80 per-

cent of the respondents preferring that CFC be restricted

to traditional health and we'fare organizations which pro-

vide for basic human needs. In narrative comments, many

employees stated that although they supported this year’s

campaign, they would not support future campaigns if polit-

ically oriented, activist organizations continued to be in-

cluded. Final results of this survey will be included in our

after action report which will be forwarded at a later date.

I am confident that future CFC’s will not succeed unless

revisions to the existing regulations include exclusion of or-

ganizations involved in —— — interests or

litical or quasi-political nature.

par patted pat regulations governing the CFC are

under review for possible revisions. I strongly mae

you to assure these revisions include changes to the eligibi -

ity criteria for participation by health and welfare aware

tions which restrict participation to only those charita 4

organizations providing traditional basic human needs. 7

such changes are not made, the future of the Combine

Federal Campaign will be in jeopardy. .

As Chairman for the 1984 campaign, I have a vested in-

terest in future programs.

Sincerely,

/si Theodore D. Wood eer ees

THEODORE D. WooD

Chairman

1984 Denver Metropolitan Area

Combined Federal Campaign

WESTERN UNION MAILGRAM

MAILGRAM SERVICE CENTER

MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645

Senet J. Devine, 1/11/83

irector Office of Personnel Management

900 E St. Northwest paene

Washington, DC 20405

The labor community in the Seattle King Cou

does not and will not support the adenoma mer aot

and welfare agencies and organizations in the Combined

Federal Campaign (CFC). Boycotts will again flourish in

upcoming CFC and United Way campaigns if advocacy and

other politically oriented organizations are included at the

further expense of local health and welfare agencies and or-

ganizations. We urge you to modi

oe or y odify the regulations

CHARLES D. Davis

President National Treasurers Employ-

ees Union Chapter 30

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM

January 11, 1983, 12:04 p.m.

Donald J. Devine,

Director,

Office of Personnel Management

900 E St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20415

Mr. Craig Fuller

Special Assistant to the President

White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

Director Office of Personnel Management

900 E St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20415

As a member of both organized labor and Heart of

America United Way’s Board, I strongly urge reconsidera-

tion of OPM’s regulations for CFC agency. Those whose

is legal defense rather than health or welfare have

no place in CFC, and can damage both CFC and United

Way fundraising efforts.

ee: Lane Kirkland

President,

National AFL-CIO

815 16th Street, Northwest

Washington, D.C. 20006

Bill Aramony,

President,

United Way of America

United Way Plaza

Alexandria, VA 22314

Lillian McKittrick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 83-

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,

Hon. DONALD J. DEVINE, DIRECTOR

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

DEFENDANT.

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON

STATE OF NEW YORK )

: SS.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON, bei

deposes and says: Per 3

1. I am presently employed by the NAACP Legal

fense and Educational Fund. ang in the — of fe

Assistant Counsel. One of my duties is preparing and over-

seeing the submission of applications for participation b

the Fund in the Combined Federal Campaign. :

2. In 1980 when the Fund first applied to participate in

the final decision on our national application was not

reached until June, although an action was filed in court in

less than three weeks after denial a preliminary injunction

was not granted and the net result was that the Fund re-

ceived fuk moneys from the 1980 Combined Federal Cam-

paign use it was held inning i

oe of that Ba penta

. In 1981 following this Court’s order w i

to the Combined Federal Campaign after os ened Gomi

by the Eligibility Committee. In June again of that year

proval by the Office of Personnel Management as a orn

agency was only the first step in the application process.

An organization is not actually in any Combined Federal

Campaign as a result of such approval but must file sepa-

rate application to 560 local combined federal campaigns.

Those locals then decide whether an organization meets the

local eligibility requirements. In 1981 we prepared and filed

applications within two weeks after the approval of the

Fund’s at the national level. Nevertheless many local CFCs

denied our applications on the ground that they were too

late under their local rules. A number of others denied ap-

plications on a variety of grounds because of the proximity

to the beginning of the Combined Federal Campaign. We

were unable to effectively challenge their denials. Thus, we

were admitted to less than half of the local combined

campaigns.

4. Because OPM had announced that they were going to

substantially revise the existing regulations we did not

seek to challenge our denial to local CFCs through litiga-

tion in 1981. Following a long period in which a proposed

executive order was substantially modified the Office of

Personnel Management finally issued new regulations in

May, 1982. We had earlier filed an application under the old

regulations at the nationwide level and had sent out appli-

cations to all 560 local CFCs in the spring of 1982. With the

issuance of the new regulations we had to file a new na-

tional application and, after approval in late July, 1982, we

filed a whole new set of revised application in all 560 local

CFCs. This was done by mid-August, 1982. Again, we were

denied by a substantial number of local CFCs and appealed

a number of those denials to OPM. We were successful on

some appeals, but were denied in others. Again it was too

late in the year to secure judicial relief from these denials

so that we could be included in all local combined federal

campaigns by the time they began and ended in the early

Fall. An action has been filed challenging the regulations

leading to denials of participation by local campaigns and

that action is presently pending before the Hon. Joyce

Hens Green, C.A. No. 81-2999.

5. In early January, 1983 we filed with OPM our applica-

tion for inclusion in the 19838 Combined Federal Campaign.

Under the existing regulations since we have already been

approved as a national service agency we were si

quired to provide updated ehounatten rab bm Al

rent budget, expenses, changes in our Board of Directors

et cetera. We have every expectation that under the new

existing regulations we would »e approved as a matter of

course and be permitted to participate in the 1983 Cam-

paign. To avoid the time problems from prior years we

have also filed, under the present regulations applications

to all local combined federal campaigns. The process of

preparing and sending out 560 separate applications was

completed by the end of February, 1983. We expect to be

admitted as a matter of course into close to half of the local

ae “— wey the existing regulations. 1%

6. Based on three years of experience wi . -

plication procedure, I would tae that if rv wthen tod

are issued, they would not be able to be in full effect until

May, 1983, at the earliest. In the past the application and

approval procedure has taken close to a month, and there-

fore we would not receive word of a final action on applica-

tion under any new regulations until June. Even if we

promptly start an action in court the chances are great that

we would run into the same time problems as before, since

not only would we have to be approved by OPM at the na-

tional level but 560 local combined federal campaigns would

then have to act on our applications. Many of the local

CFCs personally have told us that they have experienced

great problems if applications are received late because

they are unable to give them their full attention and the

are faced with the problem of having fund-raising ae

chures and other materials printed in time for the begin-

ning of the CFC. Indeed, a number of local CFCs ney an

pressed gratitude towards us for having filed applications

early in the process since that is of great aid and assistance

to them. Therefore, the early resolution of the issue of

whether plaintiffs will be approved at the national level will

not disrupt the CFC but will be of benefit to it in being abl

to mo Mare ye on a timely and organized basis Peson

- Because of my involvement in the

Fund 8 efforts to gain admission to the be od ane

Campaign since late 1979 and early 1980 I have been kept

informed as to developments with regard to the executive

order and regulations governing the same. I have obtained

the information that follows either through personal knowl-

edge, conversations with government officials, or through

the documents attached hereto as Exhibits B through I.

8. Following the ruling of this Court in January, 1981 the

new head of the Office of Personnel Management, Dr.

Donald J. Devine announced that because of shortness of

time all legal defense fund type organizations would be ad-

mitted pending the eventual promulgation of new regula-

tions. See Exhibit B attached hereto, a true and accurate

copy of OPM CFC Memorandum No. 81-2. In the summer

of 1981 myself and other representatives of organizations

that had been placed in the National Service Agencies

group met with Dr. Devine to express our views as to any

contemplated new regulations. Subsequently in October,

1981, we submitted to him a statement of our joint views. |

was the principal author of the statement, which was

signed by the National Service Agencies (NSA) group, or-

ganization representing 14 organizations. See Exhibit C at-

tached hereto, which is a true and accurate copy of the

NSA statement presented to the Office of Personnel Man-

agement. The position the NSA took was that the Com-

bined Federal Campaign should be open to the widest pos-

sible range of organizations so that federal empluyees could

chose the ones they themselves felt worthy of their

support.

9. In December, 1981, it was learned that the Office of

Personnel Management had submitted to the Office of Man-

agement and Budget a proposed new executive order which

weuid seek to overcome one of the perceived difficulties

discussed by this Court in its January, 1981 decision; ?.e.,

the direct services rule was not authorized by the existing

executive order. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and accu-

rate copy of the Memorandum from OPM to OMB. The new

executive order would exclude legal defense funds and

other litigating organizations, the NSA as a whole and

many of its constituent organizations, including both of the

named plaintiffs herein, made their opposition to the pro-

posal known to officials at the White House.

10. Eventually, on March 23, 1982, a new executive or-

der was issued, E.O. 12353, which made no substantive

changes in the eligibility requirements to gain admission to

the CFC. On July 6, 1982 OPM issued new regulations (5

C.F.R. Part 950) which completely superseded the Manual

for Fund Raising in the Federal Service. The new regula-

tions specifically included legal defense fund type organiza-

tions. A press release was issued by the Office of Personnel

Management with the new regulations in which it was

pointed out that the federal employees would now have a

wide choice of charitable agencies from which to pick. At-

tached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of

the OPM press release.

11. Both plaintiffs continued to be approved under the

new regulations, and a number of other legal defense fund-

type organizations were admitted. One of the organizations

so admitted was the National Right to Work Legal Defense

Foundation whose function is to support litigation challeng-

ing compulsory unionism. As a consequence a number of

unions took the position that the CFC and the United Way

should be boycotted entirely. See Exhibit F attached

hereto, a true and accurate copy of a letter issued by the

International Association of Mechanical and Aerospace

Workers.

12. However, the AFL-CIO itself did not call for a boy-

cott, but rather urged that federal employees designate the

specific organizations they wished to support so that none

of their money would inadvertently go to the National

Right to Work Legal Foundation. Attached hereto as Ex-

hibit G is a true and accurate copy of the statement by the

AFL-CIO.

13. Shortly thereafter the executive committee of the

Board of Governors of the United Way of America passed a

resolution urging that the Combined Federal Campaign be

limited to the provision of “direct health and welfare serv-

ices”. The resolution specifically pointed to the alleged con-

troversy arising from the inclusion of certain organizations.

The resolution was brought to the attention of the White

House. Attached hereto is Exhibit H which is a truc and ac-

curate copy of the United Way resolution and a letter ad-

dressed to the White House.

14. Plaintiffs and other organizations again made their

views known to the White House and urged that excluding

organizations based on the nature of their programs would

violate the Constitution and would be contrary to the prin-

ciple that federal employees should be able themselves to

decide between a wide range of organizations. Attached

hereto is Exhibit I, a true and accurate copy of the letter

sent by the Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense

and Educational Fund to the President of the United States

expressing the views of the Fund with regard to the Com-

bined Federal Campaign. In the letter to the White House

the Legal Defense Fund pointed out that, contrary to some

statements, it had not been its experience that donations

had gone down. Indeed, the Fund attached to the letter a

memorandum sent out by the Milwaukee Wisconsin CFC

noting that not only had the 1982 CFC exceeded the prior

year’s record receipts but had exceeded its goal by more

than $60,000. In general, the pledges to the NAACP Legal

Defense Fund have been greater in 1982 than in the prior

year.

15. As a NSA group member the Legal Defense Fund

has just recently received a report from the capital area

Combined Federal Campaign dated March 2, 1983. The cap-

ital area CFC encompasses the Washington, D.C. area and

is by far the largest single contributor to the overall CFC.

This report shows that of over $13 million in total pledges,

more than $1 million had been pledged by federal employ-

ees, as of March 2, to NSA group members. Of this $1 mil-

lion, 32% has been pledged to legal defense fund type

organizations, including the plaintiffs and similar organiza-

tions. Thus, as of that date federal employees in the Wash-

ington, D.C. area had contributed more than $350,000 to le-

gal defense fund organizations despite their alleged

“controversial” character. Since in the past the capital area

Combined Federal Campaign has represented approxi-

mately 12% of all CFC receipts nationwide it can be esti-

mated that legal defense fund overall can expect to receive

about $2 million in donations from federal employees and

military personnel. Indeed, the National Right to Work Le-

gal Foundation itself has received to date $30,000 in desig-

nated pledges from the capital area CFC, despite the con-

troversy over its inclusion. Thus, it is clear that many

thousands of federal employees wish to contribute to organ-

izations such as plaintiffs through the CFC payroll deduc-

tion system. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and ac-

curate copy of the March 2, i983 report from the capital

area CFC just received by plaintiffs.

16. On December 13, 1982 I attended a meeting in New

York City sponsored by Philanthropy Weekly. Dr. Donald

J. Devine, Director of OPM appeared and spoke concerning

the Combined Federal Campaign. At that meeting he

stated that initial projections indicatea that receipts for the

CFC were up 7% over receipts in 1981.

17. On March 18, 1983, we obtained a copy of a memo-

randum dated February 2, 1983, from defendant Donald J.

Devine to the Assistant to the President for Cabinet Af-

fairs. The memorandum, a true and accurate copy of which

is attached hereto as Exhibit K, explains the reasons and

bases for the new executive order.

/sS/ Charles S. Ralston —=ss——__y

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 23rd day of

March, 1983.

/s/ Gloria A. Jones

GLORIA A. JONES

Notary Public

EXHIBIT B, RALSTON AFF.; C.A. NO. 33-

UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415

June 9, 1981

CFC MEMORANDUM NO. 81-2

MEMORANDUM FOR DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY

FUND-RAISING PROGRAM COORDINATORs AND

CHAIRMEN, FIELD COORDINATING GROUPS

SUBJECT: 1981-1982 Fund-Raising Bulletin for the Com-

bined Federal Campaign

I. THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

The Combined Federal Campaign has been the subject of

a great deal of recent attention and controversy. In spite of

these difficulties, the traditional generosity of Federal em-

ployees, and the dedicated work of volunteers in agencies

at all levels has resulted in an outstanding response to the

many worthwhile needs that are represented in these cam-

paigns. I urge that Federal employees continue this much

needed support.

In a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for Wash-

ington, D.C., National Legal Defense & Education Fund,

Inc., v. Alan Campbell, the Court exhorted action by the

Office of Personnel Management. The Court said, “It be-

hooves the government officiais responsible for the [C*C]

program to re-examine the basic premise on which the pro-

gram was established so that more acc2ptable standards

can be developed which will assure continuation of the

government’s significant and useful support for worthy

charitable solicitation.” I am determined that the Office of

Personnel Management turn its attention io this important

task. In the past, the program has been inadequately ad-

ministered and too loosely regulated by OPM.

Although past congressional hearings, Court decisions,

and discussions by affected public and private officials pre-

pare one to understand that there are problems with the

administration and regulation of the program, the more

deeply one goes into the matter, the more apparent is the

need for clearer direction and more precise standards. In

this year’s submissions for eligibility to the CFC, the Com-

mittee on Private Voluntary Agency Eligibility (called the

Eligibility Committee) has found over 30 examples where

eligibility criteria have not been clearly met. The Eligibility

Committee report to the Director recommends: “that, if the

deficiencies noted above are not corrected in applications

submitted for the full 1982 campaign, the Director deny re-

newal of fund-raising privileges. All applications must be

treated in a fair and consistent manner.”

The present criteria for eligibility are set forth in the

“Manual on Fund-Raising Within the Federal Service for

Voluntary Health and Welfare Agencies.” The Manual has

an ambiguous status as a regulatory guideline. It would

have firmer legal grounding if it were based on a Federal

Personnel Manual issuance, a Federal Register issuance,

Executive Order, or a statute.

The campaign was established pursuant to Executive Or-

der 10927, issued on March 18, 1961. That Order delegated

authority to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission

(now Director, Office of Personnel Management) to:

make arrangements for such national voluntary health

and welfare agencies and such other national voluntary

agencies as may be appropriate to solicit funds from

Federal employees and members of the Armed Forces

at their place of employment or duty statior..

Because of the discretion given to the Director of the Of-

fice of Personnel Management by the Executive Order, ad-

ditional regulatory authority was recognized. This resulted

in the publication of the Manual. The appropriateness of

regulation was accepted in NAACP Legal Defense and Ed-

ucation Fund, Inc. et al., vy. Alan Campbell, although the

Court did not rule on whether it would have been more ap-

propriate through FPM or Federal Register issuance.

Il. GOVERNMENT INTEREST IN REGULATING THE

CFC

NAACP-LDEF, et al, v. Campbell finds a “legitimate

government interest” (page 8, line 4) to conduct the CFC.

Yet, the Court also finds that there are First Amendment

protections which related to the conduct of the CFC. It

does this on the basis that “by providing organizations the

opportunity to participate in the CFC, the government has,

in effect, provided a billboard or a channel of communica-

tion” (page 4, line 14). But the Court is absolutely clear

that it recognizes “the CFC itself serves the legitimate gov-

ernment interest in regulating interference with employees

during the work day, and insuring that organizations with

access to employees at the workplace are responsible in the

use of monies collected” (page 8, line 4).

Although some have argued that the First Amendment

protection is absolute, and therefore that all applicants

must be admitted to the campaign, it is clear that the Court

in NAACP-LDEF et al v. Campbell recognizes limits on

First Amendment rights. The Court, first, recognizes that

the Combined Federal Campaign itself is a limit on the

First Amendment right to direct access to government em-

ployees by individual charitable agencies. The Court very

precisely gives criteria which would allow “the legitimate

government interest” to be applied. It mentions “fraud,

crime and undue annoyance” (page 8, line 4). For budget-

based criteria, it holds that there must be a “screening of

the budget.” And percentage base restrictions cannot be

“unformulated” (page 6, line 19). Again, to exclude organi-

zations, evidence must be presented which is “appropriate”

(page 7, line 22). And the Court says such criteria cannot

be established “cavalierly” (page 7, line 27).

Therefore, it is clear that the Court in NAACP-LDEF et

al v. Campbell recognizes a legitimate government interest

to regulate in this area. This interest likewise is recognized

in other strong First Amendment protection cases, such as

Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment (44 US

620, 87 L Ed2d 73-100 S C t 826).

Ill. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE NEED FOR

PRECISION

The Court, in NAACP-LDEF et al. v. Campbell, how-

ever notes, “it is clear the government must meet First

Amendment strictures in its regulations concerning access

to this channel of communications.” The Court, further,

sets the criterion by which First Amendment rights can

only be limited: “when the government restricts First

Amendment activities, the restriction must at the outset be

set forth with precision” (page 8, line 12).

The court, therefore, recognizes both a legitimate gov-

ernment interest in this area and the necessity that this be

balanced against First Amendment rights. Constitution-

ally, all such limitations must be set forth with precision.

IV. DECISIONS FOR THE 1981-1982 CAMPAIGN

The one clear fact about the CFC is that its standards

lack precision. Therefore, I do not find that the government

interest, as represented in the current standards of the

Manual, is drawn at present with enough precision to meet

First Amendment protections.

One alternative is to discontinue the campaign. Yet, in a

period of fiscal constraint in government, the survival of

sources of private charity to compensate for what govern-

ment cannot spend is an important consideration. The CFC

is a major source of income for American charities. The

charities it supports, for the most part, provide services

which are essential for America’s and the world’s needy.

This decision, however, should be evaluated again next

year.

The ideal solution this year, assuming that the campaign

should continue, is to revise the regulations to make them

more in accord with the precision required by the First

Amendment. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that it

is too late to do so for this year’s CFC. Such regulations

would have an ex post facto unfairness and, for practical

reasons, it is probably too late in the planning process to

make the wholesale revisions which are necessary.

The only remaining alternative is to continue the CFC

but to apply the Manual regulations liberally, to make ac-

cess relatively easy. The government interest is protected

by exercising some restrictions, while First Amendment

considerations become paramount in the light of the vague

standards. This is the course we have chosen for this

campaign.

V. APPLICATIONS NOT APPROVED

Using the very liberal interpretation referred to above,

only ten applications are not recommended to the CFC. All

of these are rejected only for severe departures from the

regulations. The following are not included because applica-

tions were not even completed: Interfaith Hunger Appeal,

Japanese American Citizens League, and National Associa-

tion to Aid Fat Americans. The Asthma and Allergy Foun-

dation is not recommended because it does not require any

financial reports at all of its subordinate units. The

Meharry Medical College is not recommended because of in-

consistencies found in its financial reporting to OPM; simi-

lar difficulties were encountered with the National Concilio

and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The National

Council on Aging and the National Association for the Deaf

are turned down for their extreme lack of public support:

the former raises only one percent of its revenue from the

public directly and the latter only two percent. The Center

for Science in the Public Interest is turned down because it

prepares no annual report to the public.

VI. BORDERLINE CASES

Seven applications were denied by the Eligibility Com-

mittee on grounds that the submitting agencies were not

health and welfare groups, but rather political or advocacy

groups. There was also the difficulty which arose in last

year’s CFC decision regarding whether they provide direct

services, as required by the Manual. This is the matter di-

rectly touched on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educa-

tion Fund, Inc., et al v. Campbell case.

I find some merit in the argument that these are not

agencies which fall under Executive Order 10927. There is

also logic to the direct vs. indirect services distinction. The

difficulty is that the Manual does not define either of these

criteria with the specificity required by the Court. It is

clear the Court has not excluded these as criteria, but has

excluded these criteria as presently defined. The Court

held: “what the Court has determined here—and all it has

determined—is that the ‘direct services’ requirement, as

presently employed, does not have the precision necessary

to comport with constitutional requirements” (page 8, line

12).

Nonetheless, since nothing has been done since the Court

case to define these criteria more precisely, I cone'ude that

these agencies must be allowed to participate in the present

campaign. These questions, however, are among those that

will be reviewed for the next campaign.

The second difficult decision involves Planned

Parenthood-World Population (PP/WP). Serious procedural

questions have been raised regarding the eligibility of this

agency. (1) A question is raised whether the 12 percent of

funds raised directly from the public is sufficient to repre-

sent the Manual Section 5.21 requirement for participation

in the CFC based upon broad support from the general

public. This low percentage raised from direct contributions

does seem too low to demonstrate this support. Yet, I do

not find the standards precise enough on this matter. (2)

Questions were raised before the Eligibility Committee re-

garding whether this agency meets the Section 5.21 provi-

sion that “such services must be consistent with policies of

the United States Government.” Not all of the facts are

clear here, but it is relevant to note that in a letter of April

13, 1981, Planned Parenthood-World Population stipulated

that it does not purchase, nor permit its grantees to pur-

chase, Depo-Provera as claimed in testimony before the El-

igibility Committee. PP/WP also has stipulated that no

funds “currently being used . .. provide abortion services in

our international program.” (3) Questions were also raised

whether the agency meets the Section 5.24 criterion that

“it has earned good will and acceptability throughout the

United States.” Evidence was presented showing material

derogatory to one religious group. It should be noted, how-

ever, that the material was distributed by the Planned Par-

enthood Association in Chicago and not Planned Parent-

hood-World Population, the group under consideration

here. (4) The Eligibility Committee declared that the ac-

counting standards used by PP/WP are only “substantially”

in accord with the standards in the Manual. This agency,

however is not unique in failing fully to meet these stand-

ards. (5) Therefore, I find that Planned Parenthood-World

Population should not be excluded from the campaign, since

the Manual standards lack First Amendment precision,

and/or that the facts presented are in doubt.

The agencies covered by this Section, consequently, are

given admission to this CFC campaign, as well as all other

agencies which have submitted applications, other than

those listdd in Section V. above. The recognized campaigns

and agencies are listed on the covering memorandum.

Vil. SUMMARY

The general public naturally is concerned about the lack

of precision in the standards of the current Manual, and the

resulting looseness of eligibility criteria in the 1981-82

Combined Federal Campaign. As a partial protection of the

“government interest,” some very broad restrictions are

applied in Section V. Yet, the general rule for the 1981-82

CFC, is that most agencies will be admitted to the CFC

and that all admitted agencies will be eligible for desig-

nated funds.

For the 1982-83 campaign, the public may be assured .

that adequate standards will be promulgated, in appropri-

ate regulatory format, and that the resulting eligibility cri-

teria will be precise enough to respect both First Amend-

ment rights and the “legitimate government interest.”

/si Donald J. Devine —s_—s«y

DONALD J. DEVINE

Director

DATE: JUNE 9, 1981

EXHIBIT C, RALSTON AFF.; C.A. NO. 83-

USO WORLD HEADQUARTERS

1146 19th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 862-0700

October 2, 1981

Hon. Donald J. Devine, Director

Office of Personnel Management

Washington, D.C. 20415

Dear Mr. Devine:

As chairperson of the National Service Agencies | am

pleased to have this opportunity to submit NSA’s recom-

mendations for the proposed modifications of the Manual,

pursuant to the conversation between you and your staff

and a Committee of NSA Agencies on July 7, 1981. This let-

ter will sumi..arize the position of the NSA group. Enclosed

is a detailed memorandum giving the background for our

proposals and supporting arguments and information.

Our proposals are based on a number of principles:

First, any standards for the inclusion of organizations in

the Combined Federal Campaign must comport with consti-

tutional requirements. Thus, they must be clear and spe-

cific and give guidance to officials at whatever level who

are making decisions with regard to a particular

organization. iss

Second, they must be drafted in light of the overriding

requirement of the First Amendment that an organization

not be judged on the basis of the content of its appeal or the

nature of its program.

Third, the standards must relate to the legitimate gov-

ernmental interest in regulating the time, place, and man-

ner of charitable appeals and to legitimate administrative

concerns.

Fourth, the regulations must be politically neutral so

that federal employees are free to exercise their own judg-

ment as to what organizations deserve their support

uncontrolled by any screening of programs that govern-

ment officials may or may not believe are worthy.

Fifth, in accord with the Administration’s principles gov-

erning all regulations, the Manual must be as straightfor-

ward and simple as possible in order to save the time and

energy of all concerned, both staff of charitable organiza-

tions and the personnel administering the Combined Fed-

eral Campaign.

As a result of our experience with the campaign, particu-

larly as it relates to applications to local CFC’s, we believe

the existing Manual meets virtually none of these above re-

quirements. It is overly complex and overly regulatory. Its

standards are vague and confused, thus resulting in arbi-

trary and diverse decisions at the local level. Its criteria fa-

vor some types of charitable organizations over others on

grounds unrelated to any legitimate government interest.

In general it results in the wholly unnecessary expenditure

of a great deal of time, effort, and money that could better

be directed towards effective fund raising.

We propose that the entire Manual be rewritten along

the following lines. There should be two general categories

of organizations, locally based and oriented agencies, and

national/international agencies. Local (or state-wide)

agenices will still be required to apply to local Federal

Coordinating Groups and meet constitutionally appropriate

criteria for inclusion in a particular locality. Thus, we have

no quarrel with the general proposition that, for example,

an organization that serves the San Francisco area only

should not be on the list of agencies in the Chicago area, or

vice versa.

The second category are those organizations whose pro-

grams are not oriented towards a particular locality, but

rather are national in scope or have as their purpose pro-

viding charitable services abroad. With regard to such

agencies it seems to us totally irrational to condition their

inclusion in a local CFC on whether their services are

carried out in particular localities. The nature of their pro-

grams is to benefit either American society as a whole or to

direct the largesse of that society to poorer countries.

Therefore, they should be able to appeal to all employees

and military personnel of the federal government regard-

less of where they may reside or work.

The definition of international agencies is straightfor-

ward and should provide no particular problem. We suggest

in the accompanying memorandum a definition of national

agencies which would include within its scope both the na-

tional health agencies and the national service agencies.

Basically, the term would include any agency whose pur-

pose is to benefit a class of persons regardless of locality, or

whose purpose is to attack a particular problem or issue

that affects persons nation-wide or in a large area of the

country. Both the “direct services” and the “substantial

services” requirements are eliminated. They are too vague

and undefinable, and they focus on the nature of an organi-

zation’s program. The manual would require that any

national/international agency which applies to OPM and

meets these carefully drawn criteria will be admitted to the

Combined Federal Campaign and will be listed in the bro-

chures distributed by all local CFC’s (unless the agency is

already a participating agency in the local United Way). In

this way agencies will be spared the burden of applying at

both the national and local levels, and the local CFC’s will

be spared the burden of attempting to apply undefined cri-

teria to many different agencies.

With regard to undesignated funds, we urge first that

_ the category be eliminated and that all contributions be by

designation. Failing that, it must be mandated that all

groups will share in undesignated funds based on the per-

centage of designations they receive by locality. There are

a number of possible forms this could take; for example, a

federal employee could have the options of designating a

particular agency, of designating local agencies or

national/international agencies, or of not designating at all.

We also urge that contribution leaflets and pledge cards

be standardized so that all federal employees receive the

same basic information. Finally, we recommend that OPM

adopt the recommendations of the General Accounting Of-

fice relating to the establishment of central receipt points

for funds, requiring a “hands-off” policy by participating

agencies, and regarding audits of funds.

In summary, our proposal would have the advantage of

maintaining local autonomy where it is relevant, i.e., with

regard to the admission of local agencies, while ensuring

uniformity and standardized decisions with regard to those

agencies whose programs are not locally oriented. We

would appreciate the opportunity of discussing our propos-

als with you and your staff as well as being informed of any

proposals of other organizations or groups so that we may

comment on them.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this

matter.

Cordially,

/s/ Eugene J. Brennan

EUGENE J. BRENNAN

Chairperson

National Service Agencies

Enclosure

CC: Mr. Joseph 8S. Patti

Assistant to the Director

MEMORANDUM

October 1, 1981

TO: Hon. Donald Devine, Director

Office of Personnel Management

FROM: National Service Agencies

RE: Revisions in the Manual for F undraising in the

Federal Service.

Decisions of the Supreme Court have long made it abun-

dantly clear that charitable solicitation is protected by the

First Amendment. It is therefore subject only to reason-

able regulations related to legitimate governmental inter-

ests such as the time, place, and manner of solicitation and

prevention of fraud or unwarranted invasions of privacy.

See, Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for A Better Envi-

ronment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980). *

Regulations may not be related to the content of an or-

ganization’s appeal or the nature of its program. Thus, in

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environ-

ment, supra, the specific requirement involved, i.e., a 25%

limit on fund raising and administrative expenses, was

struck down because it discriminated against certain types

of charitable organizations as opposed to the more tradi-

tional kind. Further, limitations or regulations of charitable

activities must, in common with all other limitations on

First Amendment activities, be based on clearly defined

criteria and rules to prevent the arbitrary exclusion of

some groups and the favoring of others. Heffron v. Int’l

*In its most recent decision dealing with charitable solicitation the

Supreme Court upheld time, place and manner regulations that were

applied evenhandedly to all organizations, while making it clear that

differences in treatment based on the nature of the organization or the

content of its apeal were not permitted by the First Amendment.

Keffron v. Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consc., U.S. , 69 L.Ed.2d

298, 306-07 (1981).

Soc. for Krishna Consc., U.S. , 69 L.Ed.2d 298,

307 (1981). *

In two recent decisions these principles have been ap-

plied to the Combined Federal Campaign, and portions of

the Manual have been. held invalid as violative of the First

Amendment. National Black United Fund v. Campbell,

494 F. Supp. 748 (D.D.C. 1980); NAACP Legal Defense

and Educational Fund, et al. v. Campbell, 504 F. Supp.

1365 (D.D.C. 1981).* In NAACP Legal Defense and Edu-

cational Fund v. Campbell, Judge Gesell strongly urged

that those responsible for the Combined Federal Campaign

set about revising its provisions to bring it into full compli-

ance with First Amendment requirements, so that legal

challenges would not result in its destruction.

There is no question but that the Combined Federal

Campaign is a worthy enterprise which should be continued

with full vigor, and the NSA group members fully support

its continuation. However, they are also united in their con-

cern that it be structured in a way consistent with the Con-

stitution and that it give federal employees the opportunity

to select freely for themselves those types of charitable ef-

forts that they believe worthy of support. Paternalism has

no place in the Combined Federal Campaign. Federal em-

*Heffron is worth quoting at some length since it highlights pre-

cisely what is wrong with the present Manual:

A major criterion for a valid time, place, and manner restriction

is that the restriction “may not be based upon either the content

or subject matter of the speech”.... (The rule) qualifies in this

respect, since ... the Rule applies evenhandedly to all who wish

to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds.

* * *

Nor does [the] Rule ... suffer from the more covert forms of

discrimination that may result when arbitrary discretion is

vested in some governmental authority. The method of allocating

space is a straightforward first-come, first-served system. The

Rule is not open to the kind of arbitrary application that this

Court has condemned as inherently inconsistent with a valid

time, place, and manner regulation because such discretion has

the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular

point of view.

69 L.Ed. at 307.

*The United States has acquiesed in both decisions by declining to ap-

peal either, and therefore is fully bound by them.

ployees are fully capable of making an informed choice be-

tween different types of charitable appeals and do not need

government officials, however well meaning, to decide in

the first instance which are “good” or “worthy” charities.

The basic problem with the rules and regulations gov-

erning the CFC as embodied in the present Manual is that

they are based on the false assumption that there are some

charities that are better than others, and that the govern-

ment is qualified to decida which they are. The Manual is

strongly biased in favor of what might be termed “tradi-

tional” charities which, while worthy in their aims and ac-

tivities, do not have the only answer to the best way to as-

sist those in need. Thus, the Manual suffers from precisely

the same underlying defect as did the ordinance struck

down in Village of Schaumburg. Its revision is essential,

and any revisions must result in scrupulously avoiding any

rules or restrictions which would favor or disfavor any

charity based on preconceived motions as to what is a

“good” charity.

As noted above, the courts have addressed themselves to

particular parts of the Manual and have found them

deficient. In the NBUF case the court struck down a

number of provisions which inhibited new organizations

with new orientations from coming into the CFC. In the

NAACPLDF-PRLDEF case the court held that one of

the crucial provisions in the manual, the so-called “direct

services rule,” was fatally flawed because of its vagueness

and capacity for arbitrary application. As a result of these

decisions a number of organizations were admitted for the

first time into the CFC and placed in the National Service

Agencies group. They were, however, also required to ap-

ply to each of more than 550 local CFC’s.

Their admission at the local level was judged on whether

they provided “substantial services” in the local commu-

nity, a criterion as equally undefined as was the “direct

services” rule, and one subject to abuse and arbitrary appli-

cation. The experiences of NSA group members are both il-

lustrative and instructive. A number of agencies applied to

all of the local CFC’s with extremely mixed results. In a

significant number, agencies were rejected on the ground

of local deadlines which have been arbitrarily set in total

disregard of explicit guidance from OPM. A number of local

CFC’s requested further information relating to what

agencies did in their localities, sometimes telephonically,

sometimes by letter. Some of their concerns were met by

the guidance in OPM’s CFC Memo No. 5. In particular,

with a few exceptions, agencies ceased getting requests

that there be a local phone number or contact person.

A number of local CFC’s took the wholly reasonable view

that once an NSA agency was admitted by OPM, it was au-

tomatically admitted in their locality. A number of others,

when informed of an agency’s program, either on a national

basis or with regard to the particular regior., were

satisfied.

A substantial number of locals, however, rejected organi-

zations either out of hand without seeking further informa-

tion, or after they had responded to their questions. Most

rejections were on the ground that there was no evidence

that agencies did anything at the local level, completely

ignoring demonstrations that, for example, lawsuits had

benefited all federal employees nationwide, and therefore

necessarily benefited persons in their community. Others

based their rejections on rules that either had been super-

seded by OPM’s recent memos, were no longer part of the

manual, or that were of their own invention. Some of the

reasons were: (1) some other unnamed organization already

provided similar services; (2) the application was not signed

in the original; (3) local media had never heard of the

agency; (4) the local United Way had never heard of it; (5)

the agency was not registered with the state as authorized

to conduct charitable solicitations (sometimes it was, some-

times it wasn’t); (6),the agency was required to fill out a

lengthy form (most refused to do so); (7) ete. Attached to

this memo are representative letters both accepting and re-

jecting two of the NSA agencies. It is obvious from a read-

ing of them that decisions are being made based on rules

that are (1) non-existent; (2) arbitrary; (3) illegal; and (4)

generally unconstitutional. *

*The most outrageous turndown was from Charleston, South Carolina,

which telephonically informed the NAACP Legal Defense Fund that it

was decided to reject all NSA groups because their being on the list

last year had resulted in donations going down.

The basic problem with the system as set up now lies in

the requirement that nationally oriented organizations ap-

ply to individual Combined Federal Campaigns. This re-

quirement is totally irrational and related to no legitimate

government interest that is even remotely discernible.

Clearly, a local CFC may rationally limit involvement of

charitable organizations that are oriented towards another

locality. Thus, we have no quarrel whatsoever with, for ex-

ample, the Chicago CFC not admitting an agency whose

services or programs are restricted to the San Francisco

Bay area. This restriction makes no sense, however, with

regard to national organizations, and indeed does not apply

now to international service agencies.

We propose, therefore that there be two main categuries

of organizations. The first would consist of local groups

(which probably should be defined to include groups that

are state-wide). The second category would be

national/international agencies, that is, those agencies

which are not oriented to » particular locality but rather

have programs dealing with a variety of issues that are

larger in scope, both geographically and in terms of subject

matter.

International agencies would include those organizations

which conduct programs designed to benefit the needy in

other countries, such as CARE, the Pearl S. Buck Founda-

tion, et cetera. National agencies would include a variety of

organizations whose purpose is to address a particular

problem or issue that affects persons regardless of their lo-

cality, or whose purpose is to benefit a class of persons. Ex-

amples would be the American Cancer Society, whose pur-

pose is to eradicate cancer whomever it might effect; civil

rights organizations, whose purpose is to achieve equality

and justice for particular segments of the society regardless

of locality; resource agencies, such as the American Foun-

dation for the Blind, whose purpose is to provide back-up

assistance to local agencies dealing with the blind; agencies

such as United Service Organizetions, the United Seamen’s

Service, and the American Red Cross, whose purpose is to

provide assistance and benefits to various groups.

The criteria for deciding the admissibility of agencies in

the international/nationail category should be straightfor-

ward and clear, since their purpose is not to judge the na-

ture of the program, but rather to determine whether an

agency will be required to apply to \local CFC’s. Thus, the

criteria will be oriented towards a procedural rather than a

substantive question. Suggested criteria (which need not be

exclusive) would be; is the organization’s program directed

towards persons in other countries; are the organizations’

programs carried out outside the United States; do the pro-

grams have an orientation that extends beyond the limits of

a single state; is the purpose of the organization to benefit a

class of persons, e.g., Blacks, Hispanics, women, et cetera,

regardless of the particular geographical locality of the in-

dividuals involved; is the organization’s program designed

to address a health or economic problem affecting the

population generally, such as cancer, blindness, heart dis-

ease, or unemployment. If these criteria are met, and if the

organization is IRS approved, then the agency will be ap-

proved by OPM as an international/national agency and wi!!

appear in the campaign brochures of all CFC’s, whether na-

tional or overseas.

The proposed revisions have a number of advantages.

First, they are simple since they establish criteria readily

administered at one level. It will no longer be necessary for

national organization to apply to OPM and then to more

than 550 local agencies, and local agencies will no longer

have the burden of judging (or rejudging) whether a na-

tional organization should be admitted under vague crite-

ria. Second, the manual would be constitutional since it

would not involve the judging of an organization on the ba-

sis of the nature of its program, except with regard to a

procedural matter related to the time, place and manner of

solicitation. Third, the system is fair since it allows all

bona fide charitable agencies equal access to federal em-

ployees, and allows federal employees to chose freely

among a variety of different types of agencies. This CFC

would relieve agencies of unnecessary and time consuming

applications, would relieve local CFC’s of an unwarranted

burden, and would relieve OPM of the necessity of de-

fending an endless series of indefensible lawsuits.

Finally, the NSA agencies strongly urge that the cate-

gory of undesignated funds be eliminated in its entirety. As

presently constituted the system unfairly disadvantages or-

ganizations based on no rational or legitimate governmental

interest. Again, federal employees are perfectly capable of

deciding the manner in which they wish their dollars to be

allocated. If the principle of undesignated funds is retained,

the persent discretion for dividing them should be removed

from local CFC’s because it permits unwarranted and arbi-

trary decisions. The Manual should provide that an em-

ployee may designate any single agency, may designate any

category of agencies, e.g., local, national, international,

etc., or may simply give money to the CFC generally. The

division of undesignated moneys would be based solely on

the basis of that year’s proportion of designated funds a

group has received at the local level.

EXHIBIT D, RALSTON AFF.; C.A. No. 83-

UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415

October 22, 1981

TO: The Honorable David A. Stockman

Director

Office of Management and Budget

FROM: Donald J. Devine

Director

SUBJECT: Proposed New Executive Order for the

Combined Federal Campaign

Attached is a proposed Executive Order, Directing the

Director of the United States Office of Personnel Manage-

ment to Provide for the Conduct of Fund Raising Activities

Within the Federal Establishment In Support of Voluntary

Health and Welfare Organizations (Attachment A). I am

requesting that this proposed Executive Order be approved

from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. Be-

cause time for approval is short before we have to begin

ions for the 1982-83 Combined Federal Campaign,

I have transmitted the proposed Executive Order and the

attached material directly to the Attorney General for his

consideration as to form and legality.

BACKGROUND

It has been long-standing policy of the Federal Govern-

ment to cooperate with and assist voluntary health and wel-

fare agencies in soliciting funds for worthy causes from

Federal personnel.

At one time, the increasing number of fund drives began

to create an intolerable administrative burden for Federal

officials. They were beseiged by dozens of agencies seeking

endorsements and the privilege of soliciting employees on

the job. In addition, employees were confused by the multi-

plicity of appeals—as many as 10 to 20 a year in some

departments.

After extensive study of the situation, a uniform pro-

gram (now known as the Combined Federal Campaign) was

established in 1956 to limit the number of campaigns and to

insure true voluntary giving by Federal personnel. The

program was originally monitored by the President’s Com-

mittee on Fund Raising Within the Federal Service. The

Committee was later abolished and its functions assigned to

the Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission (now Direc-

tor, Office of Personnel Management), by Executive Order

10927 of March 13, 1961. (Attachment B)

From its inception the Combined Federal Campaign was

intended to be, and has been, limited by regulation to

health and welfare organizations that also meet certain

other prescribed eligibility criteria. The health and welfare

limitation has clearly served the public interest; however,

developing constitutional doctrine, as formulated by the

Courts, makes the limitation highly vulnerable to legal

challenge in that Executive Order 10927 does not explicitly

direct such limitation. The only applicable direction the Ex-

ecutive Order contains is that:

“* * *The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission

(now, Director, Office of Personnel Management) shall

make arrangements for such national voluntary health

- welfare agencies and such other national volun-

ee ncies as may be appropriate to solicit funds

ederal employees and members of the armed

ad at their places of employmen or duty sta-

tions* * *” (emphasis supplied).

If the “health and welfare” limitation now imposed by

regulation were to be struck down by the Courts as

impermissibly restrictive of the language of Executive Or-

der 10927, it could create an intolerable administrative bur-

den on local Federal officials and severely affect the viabil-

ity of the voluntary agencies participating in the Combined

Federal Campaign that undertake to meet common human

needs of the community in the areas of health and welfare.

The demands upon such agencies already far exceed the re-

sources available and will be even greater as Federal funds

for some health and welfare programs are reduced or possi-

bly eliminated in some program areas.

A further problem is created by the omission of any pre-

scribed eligibility criteria in Executive Order 10927 other

than as stated above. Some groups that have not been able

to meet the eligibility standards set forth by the Office of

the Director, Office of Personnel Management, in its regu-

lations (Manual on Fund Raising Within the Federal Serv-

ice for Voluntary Health and Welfare Agencies), have at-

tacked those standards in the Courts.

In NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund v.

Campbell, Civ. Action No. 80-1888 (D.D.C., filed January,

1981), the U.S. District Court refused to enforce the crite-

rion that a charitable organization must provide “direct

services” to people in order to qualify (rather than under-

taking litigative advocacy) because the providing of “direct

service” is not required by Executive Order 10927 and, as

presently employed, lacks the necessary precision to guide

the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in

deciding what organizations should be approved for partici-

pation in the Combined Federal Campaign. (See Attach-

ment C; CFC Memorandum 81-2.)

It should also be observed that in the NAACP case, the

Court recognized that the imprecision of the existing eligi-

bility criteria threatened the entire Federal employee con-

tribution program. The Court noted that:

“It behooves the government officials responsible for

the program to re-examine the basic premises on

which the program was established so that more ac-

ceptable standards can be developed which will assure

continuation of the government’s significant and useful

support for worthy charitable solicitation.”

Unless the deficiencies in Executive Order 10927 are cor-

rected, the inevitable result will be mandatory admission to

the Combined Federal Campaign of a multitude of organi-

zations whose programs, whatever their benefit in other

ways, are considered less critical to the national interest

than those directed at common human needs in the areas of

health and welfare. Furnishing Federal administrative ef-

fort and indirect support to ovtain contributions for pro-

grams of lower priority would clearly conflict with the

thrust of the President’s budget decisions to accord priority

of Federal support to vital health and welfare programs.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED EXECUTIVE ORDER

The purpose of the proposed Executive Order is to re-

state the legitimate government interest in establishing the

Combined Federal Campaign; to prescribe necessary eligi-

bility standards for participation in the Federal Campaign

that are consistent with the legitimate government inter-

est; and to set forth such standards with the precision nec-

essary to meet constitutional requirements when the gov-

ernment restricts First Amendment activities. The

proposed Executive Order would also revoke and replace

Executive Order 10927 of March 18, 1961.

A summary of the salient features of the proposed Exec-

utive Order is as follows:

Section 1 sets forth the legitimate government interest in

establishing the fund-raising program (Combined Federal

Campaign) and for limiting participation therein to eligible

voluntary health and welfare organizations. No similar pro-

vision is contained in Executive Order 10927.

Section 2 defines a number of terms used in the Execu-

tive Order. In Section 3 the term “eligible voluntary health

and welfare organization” is defined. This Section specifies

with necessary precision the standards that must be met by

an organization to be approved for participation in the

Combined Federal Campaign. No similar provision is con-

tained in Executive Order 10927.

Section 4 charges the Director of the Office of Personnel

Management to make arrangements for “eligible voluntary

health and welfare organizatons” to solicit funds from Fed-

eral employees and members of the uniformed services at

their places of employment or duty stations. A similar pro-

vision is contained in Executive Order 10927; however, the

qualifying word “eligible” does not appear in the latter

Section 5 provides that federated organizations that meet

the eligibility criteria specified in the Order may partici-

pate in the Federal fund-raising program. No similar provi-

sion is contained in Executive Order 10927; however, such

participation is appropriate, has been permitted since the

inception of the Combined Federal Campaign, and should

be recognized in the Executive Order.

Section 6 authorizes the Director of the Office of Person-

nel Management, in making the arrangements required by

the Order, to consult with interested persons and organiza-

tions and with the executive departments and agencies con-

cerned. It requires that such arrangements permit true vol-

untary giving and provide for confidentiality of such gifts;

requires designation of the period in which charitable solici-

tations may be conducted; and permits not more than one

solicitation annually, except in the case of emergency, dis-

aster appeals, or special local circumstances for which spe-

cific provision may be made by the Director of the Office of

Personnel Management. A similar provision is contained in

Executive Order 10927; however, the latter Order permits

not more than three solicitations annually, apart from

emergency or disaster appeals.

Section 7 requires that the form(s) used for solicitation of

funds clearly identify the eligible agencies and provide a di-

rect means to allocate funds to such agencies. It further re-

quires that contributors be given prominent notice on such

form(s) that a decision by a contributor not to allocate funds

to specified agencies shall be deemed a decision to have

such funds allocated by the principal combined fund organi-

zation. Section 7 further provides that the principal com-

bined fund organization will manage, administer, and allo-

cate undesignated funds for each local Combined Federal

Campaign, subject to the direction and control of the Direc-

tor of the Office of Personnel Management. Criteria to de-

termine the principal combined fund organization are re-

quired to be specified by the Director of the Office of

Personnel Management. No similar provisions are con-

tained in Executive Order 10927.

Section 8 provides explicitly for participation in the Fed-

eral fundraising program of eligible international service

agencies. No similar provision is contained in Executive Or-

der 10927; however, such participation is appropriate, has

been permitted since the inception of the Combined Fed-

eral Campaign, and should be recognized in the Executive

Order.

Section 9 provides that the Order shall not apply to solici-

tations conducted by organizations composed of civilian em-

ployees or members of the uniformed services among their

own members for organizational support or for benefit or

welfare funds for their members. A similar provision is con-

tained in Executive Order 10927.

Section 10 directs the Director of the Office of Personnel

Management to prescribe such rules and regulations as may

be necessary to implement the Executive Order. No similar

provision is contained in Executive Order 10927; however,

such authority is considered present by necessary

implication.

Section 11 revokes Executive Order 10927 of March 18,

1961.

In further amplification of the purpose and intent of the

proposed Executive Order, it should be noted that of the el-

igibility criteria set out in Section 3 of the proposed Order,

most are substantially the same as those presently required

in existing regulations of the Office of Personnel Manage-

ment implementing Executive Order 10927.

Of the “new” eligibility criteria, one would provide for

the first time a long-needed, precise definition of “health

and welfare services” (Section 3(a)). Also provided for the

first time is an objective standard for determining whether

an agency provides “direct and substantial” services to in-

dividuals (Section 3(c)).

The other new eligibility criteria are that the agency be

one that is “nonpolitical,” as defined in the Order (Section

3(g)).

The requirement in Section 7(b) of the proposed Order—

that at each local Combined Federal Campaign (there are

some 545 such locations) a “principal combined fund organi-

zation” be designated to perform the functions specified

would simplify the present unduly complex (but long-

standing) arrangements for conduct of local campaigns,

would substantially reduce the time required of the local

Federal officials in effecting campaign arrangements, and

would facilitate a more effective campaign within the poli-

cies and procedures to be prescribed in implementing

regulations.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

There are no increased budgetary requirements associ-

ated with the proposed Executive Order. Some indirect

economies may reasonably be anticipated in terms of

reducing the time required of the local Federal officials to

arrange for, and supervise, the conduct of local Combined

Federal Campaigns in their respective areas.

TIMING

Applications for eligibility for the 1982-83 Campaigns

originally were due December 1, 1981. We have delayed

this to a last-date deadline of February 1, 1981.

CONCLUSION

As President Reagan said in his recent memorandum on

the Combined Federal Campaign, “Through voluntary giv-

ing, we prove that individuals can do on their own without

having to go through government channels” (Attachment

D). This is particularly true at a time when the imperative

of revitalizing the private sector of the economy necessi-

tates some retrenchment in Federal expenditures. These

cutbacks in social assistance programs can be partially,

even if modestly, offset by the efforts of private, voluntary

health and welfare organizations aided by the support de-

rived through the Combined Federal Campaign. The pro-

posed Executive Order is urgently required if the Com-

bined Federal Campaign is to continue to fulfill its intended

purpose.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED

STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGE-

MENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF

FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE FED-

ERAL ESTABLISHMENT IN SUPPORT OF VOL-

UNTARY HEALTH AND WELFARE

ORGANIZATIONS

By the authority vested in me as President of the United

States, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1.(a) I have determined that it is in the national

interest for the Federal Government to support and facili-

tate fund-raising from Federal employees and members of

the uniformed services on behalf of voluntary organizations

that undertake programs to meet common human needs of

the community in the areas of health and welfare.

(b) In order that such fund-raising not unduly interfere

with the efficient operation of government; in order to

avoid confusion to employees in, and inconvenience in the

administration of, such fund-raising arising from the ab-

sence of limits defining those voluntary organizations eligi-

ble to participate; and in order to insure that the recipient

organizations of the funds so raised are responsible in their

uses of those monies; authority is hereby vested in the Di-

rector of the United States Office of Personnel Manage-

ment to encourage, arrange for, conduct, and supervise

such fund-raising, to be known as the Combined Federal

Campaign.

Section 2. The following definitions shall apply to terms

used in this Executive Order:

(a) “Director” shall mean the Director of the United

States Office of Personnel Management, or his delegate.

(b) “Employee” shall mean any person employed by the

Government of the United States or any branch, unit, or in-

strumentality thereof, including persons in the civil service

and in the uniformed services.

raising program established and administered by the Direc-

tor pursuant to this Executive Order, and any subsidiary

units of such program.

(d) “Community” shall mean a community that is defined

either by generally-recognized geographic bounds or by its

relationship to an isolated government installation.

(e) “Direct Contributions” shall mean gifts, in cash or in

donated material, given by individuals and/or other non-

governmental sources directly to the spending health and

welfare organizations.

(f) “Indirect Contributions” shall mean gifts, in cash or

in donated material, given to the spending health and wel-

fare organization by another health and welfare organiza-

tion that satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 3(b) of

this Executive Order.

Section 3. As used in this Order, the term “eligible volun-

tary health and welfare organizations” shall mean an

organization:

(a) that actively conducts health or welfare programs

and provides services to individuals directed at one or more

of the following common human needs within a community:

service, research, and education in the health field; family

and child care services; protective services for children and

adults; services for children and adults in foster care; serv-

ices related to management and maintenance of the home;

day care services for adults; transportation services; infor-

mation, referral, and counseling services; the preparation

and delivery of meals; adoption services; emergency shelter

care and relief services; safety services; neighborhood and

community organization services; recreation services; social

adjustment and rehabilitation services; health support serv-

ices; or a combination of services enumerated in this Order

designed to meet the special needs of specific groups, such

as children and youth, the aged, the ill and infirm, and the

physically handicapped;

(b) that is voluntary and broadly supported by the pub-

lic, meaning that it is organized as a nut-for-profit corpora-

tion or association under the laws of the United States, a

state, a territory, or the District of Columbia; it is classi-

fied as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and it has received in

the year immediately preceding any year in which it seeks

to participate in the Combined Federal Campaign at least

one-half (50 percent) of its revenues from non-govern-

mental sources, or at least one-fifth (20 percent) of its reve-

nues from direct and/or indirect contributions;

viduals residing in the geographic area in which personnel

are solicited, which shall be evidenced by the expenditure

for such services of at least one-third (33% percent) of the

funds received by the recipient organization from its solici-

tation of Federal personnel in that geographic area;

(d) that is directed by an active board of directors, a ma-

jority of whose members serve without compensation; that

adopts and employs the Standards of Accounting and

Financial Reporting for Voluntary Health and Welfare Or-

ganizations; that prepares and makes available to the gen-

eral public an annual financial report prepared in accord-

ance with the Standards of Accounting and Financial

Reporting for Voluntary Health and Welfare Organiza-

tions and certified by an independent certified public ac-

countant; that provides for an annual external audit by an

independent certified public accountant;

(e) that can demonstrate to the Director, if its fund-

raising and administrative expense is in excess of 25 per-

cent of total support and revenue, that its actual expense

for those purposes is reasonable under all the circum-

stances in its case;

(f) that ensures that its publicity and promotional activi-

ties are based upon its actual program and operations, are

truthful and nondeceptive, and include all material facts;

(g) that is non-political, meaning that it does not seek to

influence the outcomes of elections or the determination of

public policy by contributing to or endorsing any candidate

for public office or any side of any question put to a referen-

dum, by lobbying any legislative body, or by litigating pub-

lic policy in any court on behalf of any person other than it-

self, or by contributing to any other organization which

carries on any of the activities proscribed in this subsection;

(h) that files with the Director such special reports as

the Director, in his discretion, may require in implementing

this Order.

Section 4. In establishing the Combined Federal Cam-

paign, the Director shall make arrangements for eligible

voluntary health and welfare organizations to solicit funds

from Federal employees and members of the uniformed

services of the United States at their places of employment

or duty stations. A Combined Federal Campaign at the

place of business serves the government interest of effec-

tive operation of government installations by limiting the

number and manner of solicitations of government

employees.

Section 5. Federated, non-sectarian, non-political chari-

table organizations within a community whose participating

members are heaith and welfare agencies that meet the eli-

gibility criteria specified in Section 3 of this Executive Or-

der and that normally solicit funds as such federation from

the general public shall be eligible under this Order to so-

licit funds from Federal personne! on behalf of their

participating agencies, subject to such rules and regulations

as the Director may prescribe.

Section 6. In making the arrangements required by sec-

tion 1 of this Order, the Director is authorized to consult

with appropriate interested persons and organizations and

with the executive departments and agencies concerned.

Such arrangements shall:

(a) Permit true voluntary giving and reserve to the indi-

vidual contributor the option of disclosing his gift or keep-

ing it confidential;

(b) Designate the times in which such charitable solicita-

tions may be conducted;

except in the case of emergency, disaster appeals, or spe-

cial local circumstances for which specific provision may be

made by the Director.

Section 7. (a) The form(s) used for solicitation of funds

shall clearly specify the eligible agencies and provide a di-

rect means to allocate funds to such agencies. Potential con-

tributors shall be given prominent notice on such form(s)

that a decision by a contributor not to allocate funds to

specified agencies shall be deemed a decision to have such

funds allocated by the principal combined fund

organizations.

(b) A principal combined fund organization shall manage,

administer, and allocate undesignated funds for each local

Combined Federal Campaign, subject to the direction and

control of the Director. The Director shall specify criteria

to determine the principal combined fund organization in

each combined fund drive area.

Section 8. International agencies that provide health or

welfare services overseas, which otherwise meet the eligi-

bility criteria specified in this Executive Order except for

Section 3(c), and whose programs and services are consist-

ent with the policies of the United States Government,

shall be eligible under this Order to solicit funds from Fed-

eral personnel, subject to such rules and regulations as the

Director may prescribe.

Section 9. This Executive Order shall not apply to solici-

tations conducted by organizations composed of civilian em-

ployees or members of the uniformed services among their

own members for organizational support or for benefit or

welfare fands for their members. Such solicitations shall be

conducted under policies and procedures approved by the

head of the department or agency concerned.

Section 10. The Director shall prescribe such rules and

regulations as may be necessary to implement this Order.

Section 11. Executive Order No. 10927 of March 18,

1961, is hereby revoked.

THE WHITE HOUSE 1981

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 2, 1981

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

AND MILITARY PERSONNEL

We each have the opportunity to show our concern for

those in need through the Combined Federal Campaign. It

combines the annual fundraising efforts of the United Way,

the National Health Agencies, the International Service

Agencies, the National Service Agencies, local non-

Through voluntary giving, we prove what individuals can

do on their own without having to go through government

channels. We have the opportunity to provide services and

programs for our neighbors and countrymen without mak-

ing them dependent on government. The CFC also makes it

possible to help those in faraway lands, extending a helping

hand to friends around the world. We can help relieve pain

and problems now and fund research to keep them out of

our future.

In America, we have traditionally accepted the responsi-

bility of voluntary giving for good causes. The values that

cause us to care for our neighbors, our countrymen and

people around the world are the values ti.at make us great.

Federal Employees and military personnel have a proud

record of generosity and concern for others. I am confident

that record will continue this year. While the amount you

give is a personal, voluntary decision, I hope that each of

you will join me in supporting the Combined Federal

Campaign.

RONALD REAGAN

EXHIBIT E, RALSTON AFF.; C.A. NO. 83-

For immediate release Contact:

Friday, July 2, 1982 Patrick Korten

OPM ISSUES FINAL RULES OFFERING

WIDE CHOICE, FULL DESIGNATION.

FOR COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)—Final regulations governing

the Combined Federal Campaign, the government’s charity

drive for private voluntary organizations, today were sub-

mitted for publication in the Federal Register by the U.S.

Office of Personnel Management. OPM Director Donald J.

Devine noted that a number of changes were made, follow-

ing careful consideration of more than 6,500 comments

which were submitted following the publication of proposed

regulations on May 11, 1982. Devine said that the final ver-

sion of the new rules “create the most equitable system for

all parties concerned: Federal employees and members of

the Armed Forces, the charities, the recipients of the

charities’ services, and the general public.”

The OPM Director noted that in addition to considering

the thousands of written comments which were received,

he personally met with representatives from all of the na-

tional voluntary groups in the campaign and 15 charitable

agencies, in some cases more than once. Devine said that

most of those submitting comments (70%) were supportive

of the proposed new regulations, with another 7% sup-

porting them but with specific suggestions for

modifications.

The regulations establish a framework in which Federal

employees will have a wide choice of charitable agencies to

which they may contribute, and will be encouraged to ear-

mark their contributions for specific charities, rather than

make an undesignated gift which is then distributed among

many participating organizations.

Directer Devine called the final rules “fair, precise and

objective,” and said they would “greatly enhance a charity

drive in which Federal employees have shown themselves

to be extraordinarily generous, in contributing millions of

dollars to charities serving the needy throughout the

United States and all over the world.”

Devine said that the new regulations “will result in a

Campaign which offers Federal employees a wide choice of

charities to select, and will encourage them to make their

contributions in a very personal way, by carefully selecting

the individual charities they'd like to benefit.”

With regard to objections raised by some respondents,

Devine noted that most of them centered on four issues:

designation of a local Principal Combined Fund Organiza-

tion (PCFO), distribution of undesignated contributions,

the purported difficulty that some charities serving minori-

ties and women would have in qualifying for participation,

and the end of participation of local unaffiliated charities af-

ter the fall 1982 campaign.

The final CFC regulations reflect OPM’s belief that the

designation of local Principal Combined Fund Organizations

will strengthen the administration, “because of the exper-

tise of these already-existing federated fund-raising organi-

zations.” In addition, Devine said that the arrangement will

reduce what is now a substantial administrative cost to the

government. However, he added that some specific changes

have been made in the rules governing PCFOs, based on

the comments received, and involve strengthening the di-

rection and control over PCFOs by local Federal Coordi-

nating Committees.

Director Devine noted that “the distribution of undesig-

nated contributions has been one of the major sources of

controversy with the CFC since its inception.” Over the

years, various methods and formulas have been used in at-

tempts to insure their equitable distribution. None have

stilled the controversy over the methods or forestalled legal

action to overturn them.”

The new regulations, Devine pointed out, place the re-

sponsibility for deciding where the funds will go with the

employee-contributor. Employees are strongly encouraged

to make a specific designation, and are clearly notified that

“a decision not to do so is a rational choice to have the con-

tributions allocated by the PCFO—an organization made

up of representatives of his or her local community, experi-

enced in evaluating needs and allocating scarce charitable

contributions.”

Another matter concerning undesignated funds is clari-

fied in the final regulations: these funds may be distributed

to international service and other agencies, and are not re-

stricted to organizations that serve localities only. Devine

noted that this was the intention throughout, and that the

clarifying language was inserted in response to concerns

that this be made explicit.

The third general objection to the proposed regulations,

that the eligibility of legal defense, minority and women’s

organizations was in doubt, resulted in changes in the origi-

nal language. “OPM is persuaded that some of the earlier

criteria were overly restrictive and has modified both the

general eligibility requirements and the direct and substan-

tial presence criterion to meet most of the germane objec-

tions,” Devine said.

The OPM Director made clear that the agency would re-

tain the earlier decision that local unaffiliated charities

would be ineligible for participation on their own after the

fall, 1982 campaign. He noted, however, that the final regu-

lations “permit local unaffiliated organizations one year of

grace to participate in the CFC before they must join other

national federated fund-raising organizations to be eligible

for participation in the future. The regulations, in addition,

provide the means for the eventual participation of these lo-

cal nonfederated agencies as part of national federations.”

Devine said that a number of other comments and sug-

gestions were incorporated in the final regulations, includ-

technical problems. He said a decision was also made to

modify the alphabetical listing of organizations in the CFC

literature to allow agencies to be listed according to catego-

ries of service, each identified by its group affiliation, and

implementation at this time,” Devine declared. “They will

ensure a fairer, more rationally conducted campaign this

year, and will give us the benefit of the many improve-

ments in the CFC which are embodied in the new rules.

“I know that these regulations will ensure a more effi-

cient, free, and open charitable fund raising drive which

will help to enhance the President’s drive to restore the

spirit of voluntarism in America,” Devine concluded. “I

look forward to having the best year ever for charitable

giving in the Federal government, and a sign that Federal

employees believe strongly in the principal of individual

voluntary help to those in need.”

EXHIBIT F, RALSTON AFF.; C.A. NO. 83-

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS

AND

AEROSPACE WORKERS

MACHINISTS BUILDING, 1300 CONNECTICUT AVENUE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

(Area Code 202—857-5200)

GL-14 United Way

August 18, 1982

TO ALL GRAND LODGE REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES, GRAND LODGE

AUDITORS, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES,

RAILROAD AND AIRLINE GENERAL CHAIRMEN,

DISTRICT AND LOCAL LODGE ORGANIZERS,

PRESIDENTS AND RECORDING SECRETARIES OF

LOCAL LODGES AND PRESIDENTS AND

SECRETARY-TREASURERS OF DISTRICT LODGES

IN THE UNITED STATES

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

It is with great regret that I am urging all [AM members

to withhold further support and to rescind all existing

check-offs for the United Way Campaign this year.

We are not opposed to the many charitable causes which

our members have always supported with great generosity

and compassion in the past. We have always been known as

a union with a heart. We will continue to support worthy

causes. But as long as Reagan appointees pervert the fun-

damental purposes of the United Way, it no longer de-

serves our support. By making the National Right-to-Work

(for less) Legal Defense and Education Foundation eligible

to share in funds raised by the United Way Campaign in

Se that you will understand exactly why this is such an

insulting slap in the face to every working man and woman

in America, let me tell you what the Legal Defense Foun-

dation is and how it literally seeks to cut your throat.

This is a labor-hating, union-busting conspiracy primarily

backed by big business and subsidized by corporations. It

exists for the sole purpose of financing, managing and

participating in lawsuits seeking to limit or destroy union

security agreements and otherwise weaken unions. It sets

union members against union members. It tries to weaken

and bankrupt unions from within by subsidizing endless

lawsuits, litigation and appeals piled upon appeals. Such a

foundation has no more right to be included in a United

Way Campaign than Jack the Ripper had to be invited to an

afternoon tea party for maiden ladies.

Let me assure you we are not lightly or willingly with-

drawing our support from the United Way. We realize that

in years past a large part of the United Way’s support has

come from union members. To avoid this drastic action we

asked national officials of the United Way to lodge a strong

protest against this foul perversion of a charitable enter-

prise. They have refused to respond. So now let them get

their funds from the labor-haters and the union-baiters. In-

stead of contributing to those who seek to destroy us I sug-

gest that we should give directly to causez that we have

traditionally supported and that have supported us. This

year make your charitable contribution, including your

check-off, to Guiding Eyes, Inc. and/or the City of Hope.

Fraternally yours,

/s/ William W. Winpisinger

WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER

International President

W/bo

ec: Executive Council

Kourpias

Holt

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS

AND AEROSPACE WORKERS

MACHINISTS BUILDING, 1300 CONNECTICUT AVENUE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20035

Office of the Area Code 202

International President 857-5200

GL-14 United Way

August 17, 1982

Mr. Jordan L. Biseardo, Director

Department of Labor Participation

United Way of America

801 North Fairfax Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Dear Mr. Biscardo:

This is to let you know that I am hereby withdrawing my

June 2 letter endorsing the United Way Campaign to all

union members. As long as the fraudulent, labor-hating,

union-busting conspiracy known as the National Right-to-

Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation is included

among those eligible to receive funds from the United Way

Campaign, unions would be insane to urge participation by

union members. I have notified all our IAM lodges of this

decision as well as the reasons for it. I have also asked our

members to rescind any payroll check-offs they may have

made for the United Way.

I regret having to make this decision but regret even

more the failure of National United Way officials to protest

the decision by Reagan appointees to make the Legal De-

fense Foundation eligible to share in funds raised by the

United Way Campaign in federal agencies.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER

International President

W/bo

ec: Executive Council

Holt

Kourpias

EXHIBIT G, RALSTON AFF.; CA. NO. 83-

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND

CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

815 Sixteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 637-5000

August 23, 1982

PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF ALL AFL-CIO

STATE AND LOCAL CENTRAL BODIES

Dear Trade Unionist:

We are advised that some central labor council officers

have been approached on the question of boycotting this

years United Way campaign. This idea was prompted by a

recent action to admit the National Right to Work Legal

Defense Foundation to the list of agencies eligible to re-

ceive charitable contributions from federal employees. The

issue is confined to federal employees.

We have been assured by the national officers of the

United Way that no undesignated funds will go to this

organization.

AFL-CIO policy on this matter was unanimously adopted

on August 4, 1982 by the Executive Council in New York.

We have every expectation that this policy will be

strictly adhered to by all AFL-CIO state and local councils.

All attempts to offer local resolutions at official council

meetings contrary to the national policy should be deemed

out of order.

I have enclosed a copy of the Executive Council state-

ment for your information.

I appreciate your cooperation.

Sincerely and fraternally,

/s/ Walter G. Davis_

WALTER G. DAVIS

Director

Department of Community Services

WGD:jy

Enclosure

ATTACHMENT B tg

STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON

COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

August 4, 1982

New York, New York

The Reagan Administration has granted yet another op-

portunity to the far right wing to enrich itself, this time at

the expense of federal and postal employees and the needy.

The government’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is

a program by which federal and postal employees make

contributions to help the poor, the sick and the oppressed.

On July 23, the CFC National Eligibility Committee voted

6-2—the two federal and postal employee representatives

dissenting—to designate the National Right to Work Legal

Defense Foundation as a “national service agency” that

may participate in the federal fund raising campaign. This

totally perverts the concept of charity.

Reaganomics has bloated the ranks of the unemployed

and of those living in poverty while starving the social sec-

tor. As a result, the resources of agencies that minister to

those who cannot provide for themselves are strained to

the limits. These agencies and those they serve are in des-

perate need of the sustaining funds provided by the CFC.

At the same time, the administration’s actions against fed-

eral and postal employees—including RIFs, pay caps, fur-

loughs and increased health plan contributions—make it in-

creasingly difficult for these employees to find the money to

make CFC contributions.

The decision of the CFC Eligibility Committee has a par-

ticular irony, since the stated purpose of the Right to Work

Foundation is to oppose the union shop and the agency

shop. Federal employees are not even permitted to bargain

for, much less to obtain, these equitable means of spreading

the costs of union representation among all those whom the

union represents.

The AFL-CIO, together with its departments and its af-

filiated national and international unions, will make every

effort to insure that federal and postal union members are

fully informed on the National Right to Work Committee

Legal Defense Fund’s goals and why it is neither a legiti-

mate charity nor worthy of support. The AFL-CIO will

strongly urge all federal and postal union members not to

designate the National Right to Work Committee Legal

Defense Fund as the recipient of any of their CFC contri-

butions. Instead, the Federation urges members and all

federal and postal employees to designate the agency or

agencies that meet their definition of a true charity.

The AFL-CIO is confident that union members are will-

ing to do their share to help this year’s CFC drive meet its

humanitarian goals but we believe that the decision to in-

clude the Right to Work Foundation in the Combined Fed-

eral Campaign cannot help but impair the enthusiasm with

which trade union members respond to CFC solicitations.

The inclusion of the Right to Work Foundation which was

done administratively is an affront to all union members,

and we urge administrative reconsideration and reversal of

this decision.

Under CFC’s rules, it is highly probable that the Right

to Work Foundation will receive only any monies federal

and postal employees specifically designate as contributions

to that group, and toward that end, we intend to continue

our efforts to insure that none of the local CFC’s un-

designated funds go to the Right to Work Foundation. The

United Way, whose affiliates serve as the combined fund

organizations throughout the country, has advised the

AFL-CIO that its affiliates will distribute undesignated

funds only to those agencies that have historically received

such funds and not to groups such as the Right to Work

Foundation.

The AFL-CIO and its affiliates representing federal em-

ployees, intend to study the structure and conduct of the

Combined Federal Campaign and to examine the question

of whether the current structure best serves the needs of

the nation’s voluntary agencies and the desires of federal

and postal employees to support deserving charities.

EXHIBIT H, RALSTON AFF.; C.A. NO. 83-

RESOLUTION

REQUESTING PRESIDENT REAGAN TO

AMEND E.0O. 12353 GOVERNING

COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

WHEREAS, the Federal Government, in an effort to

help meet basic human-care needs, has traditionally limited

eligibility for the Combined Federal Campaign to charitable

agencies providing direct health and welfare services to in-

dividuals and families, including health research; and

WHEREAS, Executive Order 12353 issued by President

Reagan on March 23, 1982, has been interpreted and ap-

plied by Federal officials to extend eligibility for the Com-

bined Federal Campaign to organizations beyond those pro-

viding direct health and welfare services to individuals and

families, including health research; and

WHEREAS, this change in basic concept has aroused

considerable controversy and threatens to diminish sub-

stantially the necessary broad base of financial support for

the Combined Federal Campaign and the essentia

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.