(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Presidential campaign activities of 1972, Senate resolution 60; Watergate and related activities"



5 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 



^ SENATE RESOLUTION 60 



EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
Use of Incumbency — Responsiveness Program 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 8, APRIL 8, AND 

MAY 28, 1974 

Book 18 




Printed for the use of the 
Select Ck)mmittee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

FRANKLIN PIERCE LAW CENTER 

Concord, New Hampshire 03301 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 

SENATE RESOLUTION 60 



EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
Use of Incumbency — Responsiveness Program 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 8, APRIL 8, AND 

MAY 28, 1974 

Book 18 




Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
32-818 WASHINGTON : 1974 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 2(M02 - Price $3.10 



SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 

(Established by S. Res. 60, 93d Congress, 1st Session) 



SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman 
HOWARD H. BAKER, .Tr., Tennessee, Vice Chairman 

HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico 

Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel 

Rdfus L. Edmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel 

Arthur S. Miller, Chief Consultant 

David M. Dorsen, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel 

James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Carmine S. Bellino, Chief Investigator 

Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel 

James C. Moore, Assistant Counsel 

Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel 

Barry Schochet, Assistant Counsel 
W. Dennis Summers, Assistant Counsel 

Alan S. Weitz, Assistant Counsel 

Robert F. Muse, Jr., Assistant Counsel 

Mark J. Biros, Assistant Counsel 

R. Scott Armstrong, Investigator 

Michael J. Hershman, Investigator 

Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel 

Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Michael J. Madigan, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Richard L. Schultz, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Carolyn M. Andradb, Administrative Assistant 

Carolyn E. Cohen, Office Manager 

Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority 

[Executive session hearings released to the public after the filing of 
the final report of the Senate Select Committee.] 

(ID 



CONTENTS 



HEARING DAYS 

Page 

Thursday, January 31, 1974 8175 

Friday, February 8, 1974 8187 

Monday, April 8, 1974 8199 

Tuesday, May 28, 1974 8437 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Thursday, January 31, 1974 

Haldeman, H. R., former assistant to the President, accompanied by Frank 

H. Strickler, counsel 8175 

Friday, February 8, 1974 

Ehrlichman, John D., former Chief Domestic Adviser to the President, ac- 
companied by John J. Wilson, counsel 8187 

Monday, April 8, 1974 

Malek, Frederick V., former deputy director of the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President 8199 

Tuesday, May 28, 1974 

Evans, L. J^ Jr., former staff assistant to the President, accompanied by 

Anthony Lapham, counsel 8437 

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Malek Exhibits: 

No. 1 — (8201) White House memorandum for H.R. Haldeman 
from Fred Malek, dated January 28, 1972 with attach- 
ment of "Concept Paper on Alternative Roles" 8291 

No. 2 — (8201) White House memorandum for John Mitchell 
and Bob Haldeman from Fred Malek dated February 16, 
1972, with attachment re talking points suggested for 
meeting _ 8297 

No. 3 — (8202) Eyes only memorandum entitled "Organizing for 

and Implementing New Responsibilities*' 8305 

No. 4 — (8208) Memorandum for H. R. Haldeman from Fred Ma- 
lek, dated March 17, 1972, with attachment re increas- 
ing the responsiveness of the executive branch 8311 

No. 5 — (8208) Memorandum for H. R. Haldeman from Fred Ma- 
lek, dated December 23, 1971, subject: Redirecting the 
White House staff to support the President's reelection.. 8320 

No. 6 — (8208) Memorandum for Ken Cole from Fred Malek, dated 
December 23, 1971, subject: Redirection of the White 
House staff to support the President's reelection 8325 

No. 7— (8208) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Frank Her- 
ringer, dated April 28, 1972, subject: Responsiveness 
briefing of Mitchell 8342 

No. 8— (8209) Note on White House paper for Bill Gifford and 
Peter Millspaugh, signed by Bill Horton, with attach- 
ments _ 8348 

Note.— Figures In parentheses indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record. 

(nz) 



IV 

Page 

No. 9 — (8223) Memorandum to Harry Flemming from Peter Mills- 
paugh, dated June 23, 1971, re second meeting on re- 
sources which was held on June 8 8358 

No. 10— (8226) Memorandum for Daniel T. Kingsley from Clark 
MacGregor, dated August 30, 1971, subject: William 
Edward Bennett, a candidate for position with the ad- 
ministration 8363 

No. 11 — (8227) White House memorandum for Al Kaupinen, GSA, 

dated May 14, 1973, subject: Referral of Stuart Wreaks.. 8364 

No. 12 — (8227) Memorandum for Mack Warren from Stan Ander- 
son, dated November 9, 1971, subject: Leslie Cohen 8365 

No. 13 — (8232) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Stan Anderson 
and Rob Davison, dated June 14, 1972, subject: Re- 
sponsiveness program 8366 

No. 14 — (8233) Memorandum for H. R. Haldeman from Fred Ma- 
lek, dated June 5, 1972, subject: Results of meeting at 
Camp David. _. 8367 

No. 15 — (8233) Paper, subject: Administration efforts in support of 

the reelection 8370 

No. 16 — (8234) Memorandum for H. R. Haldeman from Fred Ma- 
lek, dated June 7, 1972, subject: Responsiveness pro- 
gram 8380 

No. 16- A — (8237) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Harry S. Flem- 
ming dated March 29, 1972, concerning mortgage earn- 
ings of Michael Stack 8387 

No. 17 — (8238) Memorandum to Fred Malek from Al Kaupinen, 
dated May 1, 1972, subject: Labor problem in Pennsyl- 
vania 8388 

No. 18— (8243) Affidavit of William H. Brown III, Chairman of the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 8389 

No. 19 — (8244) Affidavit of John E. Clarke, liaison man between 
the White House and agencies of the Federal Govern- 
ment for the responsiveness program _ _ 8393 

No. 20— (8244) Affidavit of Larry F. Roush. 8397 

No. 21 — (8245) Affidavit of Richard A. Goldstein, former special 
assistant to the Under Secretary of the Department of 
HUD _ 8399 

No. 22 — (8253) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Alex Armen- 
dariz, dated October 9, 1972, subject: Zavala Coimty 
grant- 8405 

No. 23 — (8258) Memorandum for Fred Malek from John Clarke, 
dated June 15, 1972, subject: Black vote field plan with 
attachment 8406 

No. 24 — (8258) Memorandum for John Mitchell from Fred Malek, 
dated June 26, 1972, subject: Black vote campaign 
plan _ .- 8414 

No. 24- A— (8267) Weekly activity report dated September 7, 1972, 

from Paul Jones to Fred Malek 8417 

No. 25 — (8268) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Paul R. Jones, 

dated May 11, 1972, subject: Weekly activity report.. 8418 

No. 26 — (8270) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Paul R. Jones, 
dated April 18, 1972, subject: Meeting with James 
Farmer. 8419 

No. 27 — (8273) Memorandum for Fred Malek from Paul R. Jones, 

dated July 14, 1972, subject: Weekly activity report... 8420 

No. 28— (8273) Form letter from Wallace and Wallace Fuel Oil Co. 
concerning minority enterprise advancements in "8-A 
Program" with attachment 8423 

No. 29— (8283) Memorandum for Charles W. Colson, dated 

June 30, 1972, subject: Weekly staff report.. 8427 

No. 30 — (8285) Affidavit of Frank C. Herringer, member of the 

White House personnel staff during 1971-72 8434 

Note.— Figures In parentheses indicate page that exhibit was maae part of the record. 



Evans Exhibits: 

Page 

No. 1 — (8449) Evans memorandum for Rob Davison dated August 

31, 1972, re "Public Awareness" proposal 8487 

No. 2 — (8450) Memorandum for Bud Evans from Dan Todd dated 

August 18, 1972, subject: 1701 Brochures 8488 

No. 3 — (8450) GAO Report to the Special Committee on Aging, by 

the U.S. Comptroller General _ 8489 

No. 4— (8458) GEO document dated November 17, 1972, to "The 

Record," subject : GEO Grant No. 30064 8530 

No. 5 — (8461) Letter from Hugh W. Brenneman to David Brody 
dated Gctober 3, 1972, subject: 401 radio programs, with 
schedule 8533 

No. 6 — (8465) Confidential document entitled " Proposed Communi- 
cations Support Program for the Glder Americans Divi- 
sion, CRP," dated April 14, 1972 8536 

No. 7 — (8467) Memorandum for Bud Evans from Dan Todd dated 

April 11, 1972, subject: US G materials 8563 

No. 8 — (8468) Confidential memorandum for Dan Todd from L. J. 

Evans, Jr., dated April 13, 1972, re USG materials 8564 

No. 9 — (8469) General brochure guidelines 8565 

No. 10 — (8469) Memorandum for L. J. Evans, Jr., and Webster B. 
Todd from William D. Novelli, dated June 7, 1972, subject: 
Government White Papers and Brochures on Older 
Americans 8566 

No. 11 — (8471) Memorandum for Bud Evans from Dan Todd, dated 

July 14, 1972, re USG brochures 8569 

No. 12 — (8471) Memorandum for Bud Evans from Dan Todd, dated 

July 24, 1972, various subjects 8570 

No. 13— (8471) Note to Dan from L. J. Evans, Jr., dated July 24, 

1972, with attached "Aging Brochures" release schedule _ 8571 

No. 14 — (8472) Memorandum for Dan Todd from L. J. Evans, Jr., 

dated July 27, 1972, re brochures 8573 

No. 15 — (8473) Evans memorandum for Fred Malek dated July 27, 

1972, concerning brochures 8574 

No. 16 — (8474) Memorandum for Dan Todd from L. J. Evans, dated 
September 14, 1972, re brochures, with attached distribu- 
tion list 8575 

No. 17 — (8475) Note to Fred dated August 3 concerning phone call 

from Danny, " Colson having second thoughts (cold feet)". 8577 

No. 18 — (8479) Various memorandums regarding HEW film on older 

Americans 8578 

No. 19 — (8483) Memorandum for Fred Malek from L. J. Evans, dated 
June 19, 1972, subject: Flemming's scheduling-advance- 
man 8584 

No. 20— (8484) Two brochures entitled: "The President Speaks to 
Older Americans" and "The President Speaks to Older 
Americans. . . Again" 8585 

No. 21 — (8485) Memorandum for Flemming, Rensselaer, Keller, and 
Evans from Dan Todd, dated August 16, 1972, subject: 
Second OA Brochure. Memorandum for Eleanor Callahan 
from Dan Todd, dated September 6, 1972, re distribution of 

brochures 8593 

Note — FiRuros in paronthoses indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record. 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 
RESPONSIVENESS PROGRAM 



THURSDAY. JANUARY 31, 1974 

U. S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5 :10 p.m., in room 
1418, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : James Hamilton, assistant chief counsel ; Donald G. San- 
ders, deputy minority counsel; and Gordon Freedman, research 
assistant. 

Mr. Hamilton. The subject is the "Responsiveness Program." 
I will start off by giving you a memorandum that Fred Malek sent 
you on March 17, 1972. You can disregard the tab here, which is just 
for my purpose, and I will let you look at this. I will happily say for 
the record, that I am not the source of that newspaper story. 

INTERVIEW WITH H. R. HALDEMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK H. 
STRICKLER, COUNSEL 

Mr. Haldeman. That is what you all say. 

Mr. Hamilton. I realize that. 

Mr. Haldeman. Do you want me to read this whole thing? 

Mr. Hamilton. I assume you have read it before. 

Mr. Haldeman. I have seen the general subject, and I am sure — is 
this my writing ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is what I was going to ask jou. 

Mr. Haldeman. It doesn't look like it. It looks like — it needs strategy 
for this. 

Mr. Hamilton. I want to make sure that we identify this as a memo- 
randum for Mr. Haldeman from Mr. Malek on March 17, 1972.* What 
is your recollection as to how this Responsiveness Program was ini- 
tiated, and how did it come into being ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I am not sure. I just don't know. I don't know 
whether this initiated it or whether this arose out of conversations 
that started at some other point, or whether it came out of a staff dis- 
cussion, I am not sure. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek has told us in interviews that you made 
a request that he develop some type of plan to make the various depart- 
ments more responsive 

Mr. Strickler. Is this responsive to the voting public; is this the 
shorthand phrase we are using? Responsive to whom? 



*See Malek exhibit No. 4, p. 8311. 

(8175) 



8176 

Mr. Freedman. Responsiveness program. 

Mr. Strickler. Let me read from page 1. It says : "This paper out- 
lines a suggested program to improve executive branch responsive- 
ness to the voting public."' And my question is, when you say ''Respon- 
siveness Program," is it a shorthand description of that sentence I 
just read? 

Mr. Hamilton. xVctually, I think a more correct description, judg- 
ing on the various interviews we have had, and looking at all the docu- 
ments we have got as a whole, is that the purpose of this program, 
as I understand it, and also as the memorandums reflect, was to make 
the departments more responsive to the President's reelection needs; 
that is, what could be done to get the departments acting in such a 
fashion as to aid the President's reelection campaign. 

Mr. Strickler. With that definition, we will use that definition 
rather than the one stated in this memorandum for the rest of this 
interrogation. Do you underetand ? 

Mr. Haldeman. Yes. I am not able to pinpoint a point of initiation. 
This is the kind of thing that is discussed all the time — not all the 
time, but I mean discussed frequently ; it comes up from time to time. 
And as you approach a reelection period, it is a question of some degree 
of sensitivity in terms of departmental actions that would be avoiding 
actions that are going to create unnecessary adverse public reaction or 
unnecessarily adverse reaction among a segment of the public, and 
on the converse actions that could be well received by the public or a 
segment of the public. And I don't know what the instant cause of this 
particularly was. If Fred says that I asked him to prepare a memo- 
randum—and this would indicate from his cover memo that I prob- 
ably did — I wouldn't question that. 

^Ir. Hamilton. AYas the President interested in a program of this 
sort ? Had he communicated to you an interest of this nature ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't know, in terms of a program. But obviously, 
he was interested, as everybody was, in a general sense, in this point 
that I was describing, the sensitivity, as we approach a political period, 
he was concerned about it all the time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Can you recall any specific conversation with the 
President where he expressed a concern like this, let's say, in 1971 ? 

Mr. Haldeman. Not a specific conversation, no. 

Mr. Hamilton. Or gave you any instructions as to developing a pro- 
gram like this ? 

Ml . Haldeman. No, I can't. 

Mr. Hamilton. As to your instructions to Malek, I would like to 
show you a memorandum from him to you of November 11, 1971. And 
the first sentence says: "You have asked that I undertake a study of 
White House staff needs and organization in support of the campaign, 
and if agreeable to the Attorney General, to simultaneously assist in 
developing the organization structure for the campaign." This is his 
syntax ; it is not mine. So I take it from this memorandum that at least 
you had asked him to begin some type of organization effort. 

Mr. Haldeman. This is staff needs, thou<^h. And as he describes it 
here, the division of responsibilities, how things are to be worked out, 
the coordination between White House and campaign staff", which 
would be different, I think, than what you are talking about there. 



8177 

Mr. Hamilton. It may very well be. But I just show you this to indi- 
cate that you were talking to him about campaign matters. 

Mr. Hai.dkman. Yes. He headed the White House personnel office; 
I think tliat was his function at that time. And we used him as an 
organization guide to look at structure and administrative procedure, 
and so forth. And I think that is what this is. Wliat is the difference in 
timing in March of 1972 and November of 1971 ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Here is another memorandum* that I don't have a 
date on, but I am assuming, just because of the existence of other 
memos, that it probably was in 1971. But it should be clear, that that is 
my assumption. And it was prepared by IMalek. And I believe it was 
sent to you. Is this your writing on the bottom here ? 

Mr. Haldeman. It looks like it. I think it probably— probably all of 
this looks like my writing. 

Mr. Hamilton. You referred in shorthand here to "E" and "S." And 
I know who "E" is, but who is "S" ? 
Mr. Haldeman. Shultz. 
Mr. Hamilton. Would it be Shultz ? 
Mr. Haldeman. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why do you say it would be Shultz ? 
Mr. Haldeman. Because at this point, Shultz was Director of 0MB, 
r believe. And so anything that involved organizational structure 
through departments, and so forth, was viewed by Shultz as being the 
end part of the OINIB domain. And the point here was that there 
needed to be an understanding and agreement on the part of Ehrlich- 
man who dealt with the domestic departments, and Shultz for the 
White House, and Shultz who dealt with the domestic departments for 
0MB, and from a management viewpoint, making the point that they 
fully understand and agree to this. Ehrlichman. specially, is the key 
to dealing with the departments, in terms of his suggestions at a 
Cabinet meeting briefing to do this. And I am saying to do it by 
departments. 

^Ir. Hamilton. "Wliich, incidentally, is the way it was done. 
Mr. Haldeman. Is it? OK. One of the things here would be also 
that Malek was always sensitive to his lack of stroke, as he put it, or 
stature, or however you want to phrase it, and whether his going in to 
do something, or talking to people, would carry sufficient weight. And 
my point here was — this is why I say, do it by department, you, S, and 
E, making the point that if he has Shultz and Ehrlichman with him 
in understanding what he is doing here, that he is going to accomplish 
what he was trying to accomplish by having a Cabinet meeting, which 
would have provided that same sort of stroke, as he put it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever have any conversations with Ehrlich- 
man and Shultz about the Responsiveness Program ? 
Mr. Haldeman. Is that Avhat this is about ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes ; if you will look at the subheading here, it says, 
"The departmental responsiveness." 

Mr. Haldeman. There were a lot of things he was doing, of which 
this is one part. 

Mr. Hamilton. This is one part. And it runs over. And it has a 
comment here which says: "Get Cole involved." And a couple of pages 
later it comes up again, and he suggests 

♦See Malek exhibit No. 3, p. 8305. 



8178 

INIr. Hai.dkman. Talking about riding; herd on OMB's effort to 
followup on implications. That is why he would be Shultz. That con- 
firms it again. 

Mr. Hamilton. That is w^ho I thought it was, frankly, but I wasn't 
sure. And this is your Avriting here too on page 4 of the memorandum? 

Mr. Hai.demax. Yes; that is the kind of Haldeman comment that 
drove people up the wall. 

?Ir. Hamilton. Just to refresh your recollection, there were several 
memorandums that preceded this memorandum that was sent to you 
on March 17. And here is one memorandum that was sent to you on 
December 23, 1971, which deals with 

Mr. Haldeman. You are raising a buffer leader. 

Mr. Hamilton, '^\niy am I doing that ? 

Mr. Haldeman. Because the general counsel uses "memoranda" as 
the singular form, and you just restricted yourself and changed it to 
"memorandunL" Dash also refers to "this memoranda." 

Mt-. Hamilton. I have noticed that the spell ino- of the GPO plural 
for "memorandum" is "memorandums," which is the Government way 
of doing it. 

Mr. Haldem\n. I could make a crack about that, but I won't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall receiving this memorandum? 

Mr. Hat.deman. I have a rreneral recollection of this. I can't specifi- 
cally identify having read the memorandum. And the notations on it 
are not mine, that isn't my writing. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you another one that was not addressed 
to vou, but was written by your cousin, William Horton, I understand. 

Mr. Haldeman. He is my wife's cousin. 

Mr. Hamilton. A piece of information that I am sure is 
irrelevant 

^''^r. Haldeman. I can assure you of its irrelevance. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever see this particular memorandum ? It 
was not addressed to you. It was prepared by Horton. 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't think so. The procedure, as I understood it — 
I don't recall ever seeing a memorandum from Horton. And that one 
doesn't look familiar. The procedure in Malek's office — he used Horton 
as a memorandum drafter. And I think what he did — I never saw the 
Horton part, but I had always suspected that because of the syntax 
that many of Malek's memorandums were written by Horton and 
slightly rewritten by Malek and retyped over his signature. And this 
would look like a background paper that Horton has done for Malek. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, it is similar in tone and scope to this March 17 
memorandum that he sent to you which was also a Horton draft. 
['■ Mr. Haldeman. That may be the Malek redraft of this Horton 
nronosal. 

. Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask vou about this March 17 document. This 
does embodv. as we understand it, the final plan for the Responsiveness 
Program that was put into action. Who signed off on this ? Who gave 
approval for this? 

, Mr. Haldeman. I don't know that it was signed off on. I have a feel- 
inc: mavbe it was iust — it is strange, because usuallv, in something like 
this, there is a signoff indication of some kind, which there isn]t, and 
there doesn't appear to be, on this at all. I have a feeling that it may 



8179 

have just been put into motion without any formal signoff on it, or 
review of it, or perhaps with some modification. I am sure there were 
some modifications. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe it is fair to say that Malek has told us that 
you approved it, you, or at least the person immediately above him, 
approved it. Does that comport with your recollection ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't recall any formal approval. The thing that 
puzzles me is that normally something like this I would have marked 
up substantially. And it would have had revisions on it, although that 
is so voluminous that it is also possible that I just said "OK," and let 
it go. 

Mr. Hamilton. Also you had had earlier drafts, in other words, two 
earlier memos had come to you. 

Mr. Haldeman. They were different. 

Mr. Hamilton. Somewhat different, but they were about the Respon- 
siveness Program. The memorandum with a lot of your writing that 
was undated has several items. And the December 23, 1971, memoran- 
dum has got about two pages on it, two or three pages on it. But I don't 
want to put words in your mouth, that is just a suggestion as to why 
there is no writing on there. Also, I am not sure that it is clear that we 
have the copy that went to you. And there were, I believe, five copies. 

Mr. Haldeman. As I say, I don't have a recollection of signing oflf. 
I don't recall there being lany Cabinet meeting or formal launching of 
this kind of activity, although that is called for in here. 

Mr. Hamilton. There Avas certainly no public launching, because, if 
you look at the last two pages, secrecy was a prime part of the program. 

Mr. Haldeman. It was not thought of as a publicly announced ac- 
tivity, but there was a recommendation that there be a Cabinet meeting. 

Mr. Hamilton. And you said to do it individually ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I did in an earlier one, but apparently he stayed 
with the Cabinet meeting concept anyway, because if this is a followup 
to the other, this still calls for a Cabinet meeting. I don't think there 
was one. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think the facts we developed are that there was not, 
and that Malek and other people — Anderson — made contact with vari- 
ous Cabinet members. 

Mr. Haldeman. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that you don't remember any specific ap- 
proval or disappi"oval. 

Mr. Haldeman. That is correct. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember discussing it with the President ? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it the type of thing you would have discussed with 
the President ? 

Mr. Haldeman. It could be either way. It isn't one that would have 
had to be discussed with the President. It isn't something that I would 
have felt had to be taken to him for decision, because it is an internal- 
operating-procedure sort of a thing. 

Mr. Hamilton. But it was identified. And it stretched throughout 
the executive branch. So it was a matter of some importance. 

Mr. Haldeman. But it was a structural implementation for com- 
munication and that sort of thing rather than the substantive thing 



8180 

basically. I don't recall g:oing over the plans with the President. And 
the likelihood is that Malek was working out a program, or was going 
to be working on the business, as that is called, of departmental re- 
sponsiveness, and that the normal thing would be simply to tell him 
that, and he would say, fine. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it, then, your testimony is that he approved 
the general idea, or that you would assume that he approved the gen- 
ernl idea; is that fair to say? 

Mr. Haldeman. I am not saying that he did, because I don't recall 
discussing it with him, so I can't say that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would it be your testimony, then, that as to the 
specifics of this plan, as contained in this memo, you don't recall dis- 
cussing that with him? 

jNIr. Haij)eman. That is correct. 

Mr. Hamilton. So you don't know or you don't remember if he 
s])ecifically approved the plan as set out here ? 

iNIr. Haldeman. No. And beyond that, I would say that would not be 
tho normal procedure, that I would discuss the specifics of the plan 
with him. The more likely thing would be sort of a blanket descrip- 
tion that something of this sort was being done, and giving him that 
information and letting it go at that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you give him a copy of this memorandum ? 

Mr. Haldeman. Very unlikely. 

Ml-. Hamilton. Would you give him a summary of this memo- 
randum ? 

Mr. Haldeman. A written summary? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Haldeman. Unlikely. 

Mr. Hamilton. You would probably just tell him about it? 

Mr. Haldeman. INIost of my communication with the President was 
verbal. I didn't do much — I never wrote memorandums to the Presi- 
dent, or virtually never. And I generally covered things with him by 
word of mouth. 

Mr. Hamilton. You said that this program was more a program 
for implementation than it was substantive. The way I read this docu- 
ment — I suppose one can read it in his own way, but it seems to me 
very clear that one thing Malek was talking about here was rechan- 
neling or redirecting grants to areas that would be politically desir- 
able : in other words, if you needed — as just an example — if you needed 
Spanish-American votes in California, you would put a lot of grant 
money into the Spanish- American community. Did you ever have dis- 
cussions with Malek on that topic ? 

Mr. Haldeman. Like where? 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me see if I can show you. Right here in this sec- 
tion, "Present efforts to tap only a fraction of the total potential." 
And you get over here, and they start talking about what Gifford has 
done, and it says : 

The Department of Commerce provides a good example, to date GifFord has 
made some 39 requests. Most of these involved expediting the normal grant-review 
process and securing the release of information. Approximately a dozen of those 
requests resulted in favorable grant decisions which otherwise would not have 
been made involving roughly $1 million. Politically, these actions have been made 
beneficial. 



8181 

And then down here he talks about, I believe it is, $1.4 billion in 
Commerce, and then he says : 

Even if only 5 i>ercent of this amount can be rechanneled to impact more 
directly on targeted groups or geographical areas, it would be a substantial 
increase over the current efforts. 

Mr. PIaldeman. It is a question of focus and sensitivity in the proce- 
dure in going at those things, I think, not so much a question of policy 
or substance. 

Mr. Strickler. You certainly wouldn't maintain this was any devia- 
tion from the history of our country in the way grants are made, 
would you? 

]\Ir. Hamilton. I am not going to testify on the record my view of 
that. 

Mr. Haldemax. But you might find somebody who would advocate 
that point of view. 

]Mr. Strickler. That is my point. This long-growing bit has been 
with us from the inception of our democracy. Indeed, in my judgment, 
we are hearing part of it. As Lincoln Steffan said, "It is a necessary 
evil." 

Mr. Hamiltox. My question is, did you specifically discuss with Mr. 
Malek the conception of rechanneling grants for political impact? 

Mr. Haldemax. I am not sure that I did, because I don't understand 
the grant thing. Mr. Bill Gifford was the grants man, and I am sure 
that JNIalek and Gilford talked about that. And there is one of the items 
in the sensitivity area. Being attuned to the political realities, was an 
area that I don't — if I discussed it with Malek, it would have been in 
terms of his talking to Gifford or Shultz, who Gifford worked for, with 
regard to that particular area of responsiveness. 

Mr. Hamilton. A little bit further over, they talk about the types of 
actions that the Responsiveness Program would affect. And they refer 
first of all to positive decisions, project grants, contracts, loans, sub- 
sidies, and procurement of construction projects. And then they talk 
about negative actions, or the memorandum talks about negative ac- 
tions, which are defined as taking legal or regulatory action against a 
group for a governmental body, major cutbacks in programs, and re- 
location of the department operations. Did you specifically discuss with 
Malek that part of the Responsi v eness Program that would be affecting 
the taking of a legal or regulatory action ? 

Mr. Haldemax. I don't recall discussing with him any of these 
points. I have a feeling that most of this was in terms of saying, "Work 
up a plan on this,'' and my getting this, or something like it, and say- 
ing, "Go ahead." I don't think Fred and I had any detailed discussions 
about the specifics that were involved here. The point was to try to de- 
velop an awareness throughout the Government of some of these 
factors. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you another document, which is dated 
June 7, 1972.* It is from Malek to you. And it is on the Responsiveness 
Program. It is a progress report on the Responsiveness Program. 

Mr. Haldemax. That is just the one Malek has characterized as puf- 
fery to keep Haldeman happy. 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, it is characterized as puffery. 

Mr. Haldeman. One of the things — -I don't know whether it is in- 
cluded in here — was the continuing problem of bureaucracy respon- 



•See Malek exhibit No. 16, p. 8380. 



8182 

siyeness, where decisions are made at the top, and get diverted on a 
highly political basis at a lower level to a direction other than the pol- 
icy of the department would have indicated. And I don't know whether 
that is covered in here. But it is some of what he is talking about, the 
thing of getting down into the depths. OK, I have taken a general look 
at this. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember discussing this document with 
Malek? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember registering any approval or dis- 
approval in any way as to what he was doing ? 

Ml-. Haldeman. No. It is the kind of thing that normally T would 
write "good work" on and "keep it up," or something of that sort, and 
send it back to him. 

Mr. Hamilton. But you don't remember doing that. Do you remem- 
ber your reaction to it ? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Ha^iilton. Did you discuss it with the President, do you re- 
member that ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't have any recollection of doing so. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember giving the documents to the Presi- 
dent as an example of what Malek was doing? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would it be the type of thing you would have dis- 
cussed with the President? 

Mr. Haldeman. It is possible. It all depends. If the question comes 
up, I have the knowledge. If he says. "Is there anything happening on 
this," I can say, "Yes, as a matter of fact, Malek sent in a report, and 
thsy are doing a good job." If the question never arises, I probably 
would never raise the point from my side. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it the type of document you would have shown 
to *"he President? 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't think so. I would say it was highly unlikely. 
I can't recall showing the President any kind of document of this sort. 

Mr. Hamilton. There are a couple of specifics in there, one involv- 
ing; labor-management matters at the Labor Department, altering the 
course of a labor investigation. And there is another specific in there 
where Malek takes the blame for altering the course of an EEOC 
decision. Do you remember — let me show you those directly. Here is 
one such statement. 

]Mr. Haldeman. That doesn't say it has altered anvthing. That is a 
matter where someone makes a plea for reconsideration, and the plea 
is relaved, and the consideration is given, with a favorable result. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think the record should show that my character- 
ization of what the document shows is only that, a characterization. 
But it also should show that right now we are looking at the two 
entries in this memorandum that relate to Local 454. 

Mr. Haldeman. In any of these cases there is nothing to indicate, 
and I have no reason to believe that these are not actions — there is 
nothing to indicate that this changes an initial or an earlier action 
or an earlier course. It onlv indicates that something that was desired 
by somebody was accomplished. The fact that someone desires some- 



8183 

thing does not make it contrary to what would have happened anyway 
or should have happened anyway, 

Mr. Hamilton. But this is a progress report for the Responsiveness 
Program, and they are taking credit for doing those things. So I think 
it is a fair implication. 

Mr. Haldeman. Sure. But in the same way that a Congressman's 
office, when someone calls on the Congressman from his district and 
says, "I would sure like to have such and such done," and the Congress- 
man gets this done, and then he writes back to the constituent and says, 
"I have accomplished the following for you," and the Congressman 
may not have done a thing about it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Before we discuss that, let me show you the language 
used, and see what he says here. And there is an earlier statement on 
this too, which is right here, which has a little different import, I think 
it is fair to say. 

Mr. Haldeman. Perhaps. But you don't know, without knowing the 
merits of the thing. Senator Tower called us quite regularly about the 
concern about busing problems down there. 

Mr. Hamilton. My question is. Did you ever have a discussion with 
Mr. Malek about the possible implication of a criminal statute that 
makes it illegal to corruptly influence an administrative decision? 
Did you ever discuss whether some of the activities of a responsiveness 
program would come under the provisions of that statute? 

Mr. Haldeman. I recall no such thought or discussion. 

Mr. Hamilton. If you want the citation 

Mr. Strickler. I don't want the citation. 

Mr. Hamilton. But there was no discussion of any type ? 

Mr. Haldeman. Not that I recall. Nothing contemplated in terms 
of something of that sort at all. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Malek 
at all, in either a general or a specific way, as to whether it was im- 
proper to take political factors into consideration in a grant-making 
process ? For example, there is an indication in here that a grant from 
the Labor Department for a migrant worker program was switched 
because of pressure from Senator Tower and the White House. And I 
take it that the governing statutes and regulations of the Labor De- 
partment do not set out a standard that allows awarding a grant for 
political considerations. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. 
Malek as to whether or not he should really be attempting to influence 
the grant-making process? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. As I said, I don't recall discussing the grant 
part of this with him at all, that is an area I am not familiar with. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you discuss it with anybody? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you discuss with Gifford whether or not there 
was any impropriety in taking steps like that ? 

Mr. Haldeman. No, I don't believe so. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever see a second progress report? We 
know that there w as at least one that was sent to you by Dan Kingsley. 
Do you remember seeing that ? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. You of course know who Dan Kingsley is? 



8184 

Mr. Haldeman. I know who he is. 

Mr. Hamilton. And it is my information that he took over the 
responsi])ility for the Responsiveness Program. 

INIr. Haldeman. When Malek went ovev to the committee, 

Mr, Hamilton, Which was around a little bit after the first of July. 
You don't recall seeing that? 

]Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Beside the specifics that are listed here in this 
progress report, do you remember any other specifics that Malek 
claimed or Kingsley claimed were the result of the Responsiveness 
Program ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't remember these specifics, and I have just 
looked at them. No, I don't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Just to see if I can jog your memory, did anybody 
ever talk to you about the fact that the responsiveness operatives were 
influencing the awarding of architectural and engineering contracts? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. I have no recollection of that. Is that supposed 
to be in the Kingsley report ? The truthful answer is, I don't know if 
it is in there or not. It may have been, 

Mr, Hamilton. Do you know why the Responsiveness Program was 
brought to an end ? 

Mr, Haldeman. I don't know that it was brought to an end, 

Mr. Hamilton, You didn't know that it was brought to an end ? 

Mr, Haldeman, You mean prior to the election ? 

Mr, Hamilton, Prior to the election. Did Kingsley ever communi- 
cate with you in, say, September or October of 1972, that the program 
was being canceled ? 

Mr, Haldeman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Strickler. Is that a fact, Jim ? 

Mr. Hamilton. It is a fact that it was canceled. 

Mr. Haldeman. You mean they stopped any effort in this regard ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. Did Malek ever say to you that he had gotten 
cold feet because of a memorandum written to him by Frank Her- 
ringer ? Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Haldeman. That doesn't ring any bell, no. 

Mr. Hamilton. Or did he say to you that he was calling the program 
off because the Watergate burglary had become public knowledge, and 
it was dangerous to have something like this in operation ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I sure don't recall either of those. 

Mr. Hamilton. Can you recall his telling you that all the documents 
on the Responsiveness Proofram had been gathered up and burned ? Do 
you recall Kingsley telling you that ? 

Mr. Haldeman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. And I take it from what you say, you don't recall 
giving any type of instruction to kill the project either on Malek's sug- 
gestion or anybody else's suggestion ? 

Mr. Haldeman. That is correct. 

Mr. Hamilton. And I take it that you don't recall informing the 
President that the program had been killed for one reason or other. 
' Mr. Haldeman. That is correct. 



8185 

Mr. Hamilton. Are there any other facts or specifics as to the Re- 
sponsiveness Program that I haven't asked you about that you can 
recall, any conversations you had with anybody, or any facts you know 
about its implementation, any facts at all ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I don't think so, nothing that comes to mind. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think my last question would be, did you consider 
this thing a serious program? Were you serious about developing some 
type of scheme by which departmental responsiveness can be aifected ? 
And was the President serious about doing something of this nature ? 

Mr. Haldeman. I can't characterize the President's attitude. I was 
serious about it in the sense of trying to bring some awareness and 
sensitivity into the departmental views, and so forth, yes. And not 
just I; I think that all the people concerned were, including (^abinet 
officers and other officials thiough the departments and through the 
White House. 

Mr. Strickler. You say that now without embracing the contents 
of each of these memos ? 

^Ir. Haldeman. That is correct. I am talking about the general 
concept. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall if you ever sought legal advice on 
this program or instructed Malek to seek any legal advice? 

Mr. Haldeman. No; I don't recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. So there was no perception that anything that was 
going on here was either illegal in a criminal sense or was violative 
of governing statutes and regulations that would control specific 
programs ? 

INIr. Haldeman. Not in my line, certainly; no. 

Mr. Hamilton. That is all. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :25 p.m., the interview was concluded.] 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 2 



FRIDAY, FEBRUABY 8, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington. D.C 
FThe following testimony of Mr. Ehrlichman on the Responsiveness 
Proirram is a continuation of the executive session hearing of February 
8. 1974. appearing: in book 16.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Mv subject is called the "Responsiveness Prosrram." 
Just to refresh your recollection, if you don't recall it right offhand, 
it was, according to the testimonv we have received, devised largely 
bv Fred Malek; the purpose of it, we understand, was to make the 
departments responsive to the reelection needs of the President. I 
would just like to ask you in general, first, what you knew about it. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN J. 

WILSON, COUNSEL 

Mr. Ehrlichman. "Well, I am not sure I knew much about the 
formal apparatus, if there was one, or even a formal plan. I knew 
about a general itch to brinar about more political responsiveness on 
the part of the departments than was demonstrated and I knew that 
overybody across the board, the OMB and the departments and every- 
bodv. were making an effort to be more political in their approach 
to things. But this long memo that I understand exists, and all this, 
I am not sure that I ever saw or was specifically aware of. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now the memo you are talking about 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That was some kind of a plan or sort of a business- 
school approach to politics. 

Mr. Hamilton. From Mr. Malek to Haldeman? 

ATr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. You never saw 

Mr. Ehrtjchman. I have been told about it. I am not sure that I 
ever saw it. I don't recall ever seeing it. 

Mv. Wilson. What is the date ? 

INfr. Hamilton. Did you ever see this particular memorandum that 
wpnt to Ken Cole? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. December 23, 1971. 

IVfr. WiT.soN. I am not askinsr about that. 

ATr. Hamilton. IVfarch 17. 1972. is the one he's asking about. 

Mr. Wilson. This is now Malek to Cole. 

Mr. Ehrltchiman. No, not the document itself. No — now wait a 
min?ite. Let me look at this backup thing. 

Mr. Hamilton. This document deals with other things besides the 
Resnonsiveness Proo^ram. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

(8187) 



Mr. Hamilton. I think there are several other factors covered. 

INIr. Ehrlichman. The reason that I want to look at it is because 
this key issues thing is something that I was interested in and that we 
did work on. Great little organization. You know, they seem to staple 
every other one upside down. These Malek things were a dime a dozen 
and I don't think I spent an awful lot of time reading them. No, I 
am not sure I saw this. Oh, now, wait a minute, what is this thing ? I 
can't tell you. I wouldn't want to tell you I hadn't seen it. I don't 
have any real, clear, present recollection of having seen it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember talking with Malek about this 
Responsiveness Program ? 

Mr. Erlichman. Not specifically, no, I can recall talking to Cole 
about, I think. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was the nature of your discussion with Cole? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I think he had been to a meeting or he had 
been to a series of meetings and he came back and then he conducted 
a personal meeting witli a lot of the Cabinet officers and maybe he did 
it with Malek, I don't know. Or they went around to the various offices 
and talked to the Cabinet officers. 

Mr. Hamilton. Cole was involved in that i 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I think so. 

Mr, Hamilton. Did he do that with your approval ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. You don't remember any specific meeting that you 
had with Malek yourself ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't offhand; it could have been, but I don't 
remember. 

]\Ir. Hamilton. We have got a memorandum here that is dated 
Febmar^' 16 from Malek to iNIitchell and Haldeman,* and the subject 
of it is — I will show you this memorandum. It is, "a meeting to discuss 
my role and " 

^Ir. Ehrlichman. There's several of those, I think. 

Mr. Hamilton. And the meeting was with, not only Mitchell and 
Haldeman, but you and George Shultz. The memoi-andum indicates 
that the meeting would be the afternoon of February 16, and it also 
indicates that the Responsiveness Program would be discussed. I might 
say we have another memorandum that I showed Mr. Haldeman last 
time that is undated but has his handwriting where the Responsiveness 
Progiam is discussed and Haldeman makes some handwritten notes 
indicating that he should talk to you and Shultz before he makes any 
recommendations. I would be happy to let you see these two documents. 

]Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I would be interested in seeing these 
documents. 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. This one is not particularly illuminating, but 
that one may be. 

Mr. Wilson. Is that the one from Mitchell to Haldeman ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes ; of Februarj' of 1972. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, this was when he was going to go over to 
the campaign? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes ; that's right. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, I don't think I saw all this script. 

Mr. Hamilton. No. I am sure you didn't see the — I am not sure. 
Obviously, I don't know if you did or not. 



•See Malek exhibit No. 2, p. 8297. 



8189 

Mr. Ehrlichman. There was a meeting at some time to explain to 
ns Malek's role in the campaign and I don't recall when it was and it 
wasn't a particularly significant meeting as far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was Mr. Shultz there ? 

Mr. Ehklicitman. I don't think so, but he may have been. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Mr. Mitchell and IMr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Ehrlichsian. I think it was just Haldeman and Malek. 

Mr. Hamilton. And you? 

Mr. Erlichman. And me and maybe Cole, I'm not sure. 

Mr. Hamilton. At that meeting, do you remember discussing the 
Responsiveness Program or departmental resj)onsiveness ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not as such, no. I never thought of it as a pro- 
gram really in those kinds of stylized terms. I was aware of a desire 
on the President's part that there be more political thought given to 
decisions than was being given in the departments and every once in 
a while something would be said at a Cabinet meeting to sort of sensi- 
tize people to this desire on the President's part because you are getting 
an awful lot of really dumb things being done out in the departments 
that were downing to everybody's political disadvantage and they 
were just not bright in the political context. 

Mr. Hamilton. How were you aware of this desire on the Presi- 
dent's part? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, he would say so. 

Mr. Hamilton. He would say so to you? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Sure. 

Mr. Hamilton. And do you remember any specific statement that 
he made? 

jNIr. Erlichman. No, not anything specific. It would just come up on 
a case-by-case basis and he would react on the news summary and he 
would say, "How in the world could a guy do a thing like this?" and 
how he would react on day-by-day life. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you say that was a major concern of the 
President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It was a continuing, not major in comparison to 
the conditions of the times, but he paid attention to executive man- 
agement and that was one of the elements of executive management. 

Mr. Hamilton. Could you estimate how many times you heard the 
President have a conversation like that? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I couldn't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would it be 10 or 20 or 50? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Over a period of 5 years it would be something 
like 20 probably. But it wouldn't be — I will now deliver myself of a 
major pronouncement survey, but "Did you see such and such in the 
news summary this morning?" and "Do you agree that this and that 
ought to be done or not be done ?" You know. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember any specific incidents that he 
commented on? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I don't. I might be — on a lot of reflection I 
might be able to come up with some. It would be just sort of an indi- 
cation of unawareness on the part of an assistant secretary or an 
under secretary or somebody of that kind. 

Well, we had a lot of trouble with a fellow named James Allen who 
was the Commissioner of Education who was doing a lot of things 



8190 

that were just across the grain politically as far as the President was 
concerned — that I can recall some specific admonitions about that set 
of circumstances. That would have been back in what, 1969, or 1970, 
somewhere back in there. 

Mv. Hamilton. Do you remember the details of any of those? 

?Ir. P^HRLicHMAN. Well, I can't recall what the issue was. It may 
have been busing or it may have been desegregation, I don't remember 
ju'^t what it was. But it was something like than and Allen got him- 
self off on — he was out on a limb, obviously contrary to the President 
in substance and also in politics. And he was just not making good 
sense from a political standpoint- 
Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever hear the President express himself 
about the awarding of grants or the awarding of contracts ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Grants or contracts? Oh, sure. There would be 
situations that would come up like this. He would have a congressional 
reception and he'd sa}^ : "Say, what's this Corps of Engineers project 
in Xorth Carolina?" And 1 would say, "I don't know. What's that 
about?" He would say: "Wien Sam Ervin came through the line last 
night he spent the whole time that he shook my hand arguing that we 
oupfht to have the Corps of Engineers complete that project. Do you 
know anything about it?" And I'd say: "No, I don't know anything 
about it,'' and he would say : "Check into it because he sure is exercised 
about it." 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it from the parties you talked about, that was 
hypothetical ? 

INIr. Ehrlichman. I don't know, that was the first one that came to 
mind. 

]NTr. Hamilton. Not an actual. Do you remember anything specific? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. But a lot of those would come up that way and 
it wouldn't be restricted to Senator Ervin, obviously ; it would be other 
^lombers and people from the private sector who would contact him 
in a receiving line and have a comment to make to him and he would 
comnient to me and say get a report. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he ever indicate to you that the contract award 
process or the grant award process should be conducted with political 
awareness ? 

Mr Ehrlichman. I would say in general, yes ; not in specific terms 
as such, but in general terms, he had the abiding feeling that we were 
rewarding our enemies and punishing our friends pretty consistently 
throu<>-hout the Government. 

>Tr. Hamilton. Did he ever comment to you about the necessity or 
desirability of making contract awards or grant awards in a way that 
w-^uld further his reelection? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, not as such. It was — I mean, it was never 
evpressed in those kinds of "end results" teiTns. I think the typical 
criticism you would get would be from a guy like Sam Devine, for 
instance. Conqfressman Devine who would say, "I just don't understand 
whv them fellows in the Department of Transportation do them thinsfs 
that way, Mr. President. For instance, in my district they did this 
and that fi^^d the other thinn: and T have jrot a constituent who l^jicked 
vou solid for the last 10 years and do you know what they did to him 
while all the time they were awarding the dirty dogs on the other 



8191 

side," and the President would say, ""\^^lat are we ? Out of our minds 
in this administration? Why do I get criticism like that from a guy 
like Sam Devine?" 

Now there again, that's a hj'pothetical, but it is not an untypical one, 
so he would say, "I just don't understand how we could assemble a 
group of people in a department who could be as callous as that to 
the realities of life.'' Well you would check into it and you would find 
out that the Congiessman wasn't always precisely correct in his criti- 
cism of the way the award was given, but the President certainly 
was concerned about those kinds of criticisms. 

Mr, Hamilton. Did the President ever express any concern to you 
about the fact that certain legal or regulatory decisions were being 
made in ways that were not politically desirable ? 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAX. Sure. In the same sense that I have just explained 
to you. I would see something in a news summary, or he would hear 
from a friend of his at a party or somewhere, that the ICC or the CAB 
or the FC(^ had made a decision that was inimical to their interests and 
he would frequently ask about them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would he usually ask you to do something with it ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. No; he would usually ask someone to look into it 
Piiid do the research on it, and it wouldn't usually 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he ever ask you whether decisions of regulatory 
bodies should be influenced ? 

Mr. P^hrlichman. No. To my observation he was very scrupulous 
about that kind of thing in making sure that we didn't have any 
persuasive contact with these independent regulatory agencies. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that it would be your opinion that if, for 
example, a treaty was made to the EEOC to drop a discrimination case, 
that would be improper ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Well, EEOC wouldn't be one that would jump to 
mind as being a regulatory agency. 

Mr. Hamilton. But it does have lawmaking functions. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. You have to tell me that. I was talking about the 
ICC or the FCC, those that are conventional regulatory bodies. 

Mr. Hamilton. Landrum-GrifRn enforcement ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. No ; I think that would be something that I would 
consider the Secretary of Labor should be contacted on, if there was 
something that troubled the President, as a matter of executive con- 
sideration. You are asking a technical question and maybe I am not 
well enough advised but, I think if it was Landrum-Griffin, probably 
that would be fair game, so to speak. 

Mr, Hamilton. When the President talked about the need for action 
by the departments to be more politically sensitive, did he talk about 
it in terms of his reelection ? 

Mr, Ehrliciiman. Yes. That's what I say, I don't recall him ever 
talking about it in terms of reelection. More in terms of we were there 
and that's the right thing to do. You have a mandate to run the 
executive branch responsive to your mandate. 

Mr, Hamilton, Do you recall that the President ever gave you or 
gave Mr. Haldeman any instructions to institute a program or plan 
of action that would make the departments more responsive? 

Mr. Ehrlichman, Yes, I am not aware of a formalized program 
being called for as such, I mean, this, what I call the Harvard Busi- 



8192 

ness School approach. I know there was a constant admonition to 
sensitize the departments in these things, but in my experience it was 
more on a case-by-case basis than it was the imposition of some kind 
of a structure. 

iNIr. Hamilton. Now Mr. Malek has suggested to us that Mr. Halde- 
man gave him instructions to set up a program of this sort — that is, 
for Mr. Malek to organize the type of program that Mr. Haldeman 
wanted. From your knowledge of what the President said to Mr. 
Haldeman, is it possible that he could have made some kind of sug- 
gestion to Mr. Haldeman like that ? 

Mr. EiiRLicuMAN. It was outside my kin ; I am not disagreeing that 
it couldn't happen, but I don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. But you were aware, at least to some degree, of what 
the President said to Mr. Haldeman ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, a very small percentage of their conversa- 
tions would have been overheard by me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever discuss this Malek plan with the Presi- 
dent per se ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not that I recall. 

Mr, Hamilton. Did you ever discuss it with Mr. Haldeman, after 
it got going? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, as I say, you are hitting me kind of cold 
on this. 
. Mr. Hamilton. I realize this. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't recall the structure itself as being any- 
thing that was of much moment to me and I don't have much to do 
with it. I don't recall really discussing it with anyone. You have re- 
freshed my memory to some extent by looking at this document,* 
because I do recall talking to Ken Cole about some things that he was 
doing in the context of Cabinet offices. If this is what it was then I 
talked to Cole about it. But as far as this elaborate mechanism and all 
that, it just doesn't ring a bell. 

jNIr. Hamilton. Would you ever see any progress reports that were 
submitted to Mr. Haldeman on the results of the Responsiveness 
Program ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know whether I did or not. I just don't 
recall any in that sense at all. 

Mr. Hamilton. And I take it — I am sorry to interrupt you. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I want to flush out my previous answer. 
So much of what I saw quickly in here, as relates to the key issues busi- 
ness, I did have responsibility for and we did do and we had a rather 
intensive operation and I did discuss that with the President, and I dis- 
cussed it with Haldeman and with a lot of people, so I wouldn't want 
my answer to be taken as embracing everything that's in that docu- 
ment, because there isn't any question we did have a very vigorous key 
issues effort underway. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it from your answer and this is just to be 
specific on this, that you did not have a discussion with the President on 
any progress report that Mr. Malek 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't recall one. I don't recall one in those terms 
anyway. I did have a number of conversations with the President about 
the key issues upcoming and defining those. Having him decide on 



*See Malek exhibit No. 6. p. 8325. 



8193 

which ones he felt were important and then doing a lot of work on 
those issues. And then doing a lot of work in trying to get a perception 
of the elements of key issues and we spent a lot of time on that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Going back to the Cole memo for a moment. The por- 
tion of this memorandum that I am most interested in starts at the page 
that's not numbered but the caption is "Capitalizing Upon the Execu- 
tive Branch." That is the portion of the memo that I am most inter- 
ested in. 

Mr. Wilson. "Capitalizing — " what? 

Mr. Hamilton. "Capitalizing on the Executive Branch" or "Upon 
the Executive Branch." I am not sure which it says. 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAN. OK. It is a good idea. Try and get everyone to do 
everything right so the President would be reelected. You are asking 
me if I saw this or what ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I have several questions. One : Did you spe- 
cifically see that document ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't remember seeing it. 

Mr. Hamilton. And two : Did you have discussions with Malek or 
Haldeman or the President about the specifics of the plan that is out- 
lined in that document ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I would have to say I don't know. I just 
don't know. I don't recall doing so, but I don't know at this point. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever— if you are still reading that, I won't 
interrupt you. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No ; that's all right. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever learn that the Responsiveness Program 
had been brought to an end before the campaign was over? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I don't think so. Not knowing that it had 
begun or at least not recalling it, it is concomitant, I guess. 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. You never heard a discussion that it had been 
called off because Watergate had come to the fore and it was too 
risky of an issue? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever hear that the various documents that 
the Responsiveness Program had engendered had been collected and 
burned ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Freedman. You said that Cole went around and talked to the 
Secretaries of the departments. Was there ever a discussion of having 
a general Cabinet meeting to deal with the same information instead 
of going to the different departments ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. There was a Cabinet meeting at which it 
was announced that we were in a political campaign and it would be 
nice if everybody would help out, so to speak. 

^Ir. Freedman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. You know, it was that kind of pointed remark 
that it would be great if everybody would, please, be a little bit 
political. 

Mr. Freedman. Did Malek attend such a Cabinet meeting? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Probably, I don't know. 

Mr. Freedman. OK. Do you recall Malek showing a chart of the 
key States where (l(>|)nitmeutal action would best serve the reelection 
effort? 



8194 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, not quite in those terms. Malek and Clark 
MacGregor addressed a Cabinet meeting at Camp David where the 
key States were shown in electoral terms. 

Mr. Freedman. Would that have been around June 5, that meeting ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Probably. 

Mr. Freedman. And the different voter block groups were there? 

]Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. 

Mr. Freedman. All right. In the meeting where Malek defined his 
role, was there any discussion about affecting specific department 
action in the way of grants or in the personnel area ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I can't really recall what the content of that 
meeting was. I just recall that the subject was introduced to me that 
Malek was going to go over to the committee and so on. 

Mr. Freedman. In the same vein as the Responsiveness Program, 
was there ever any effort dealing with career personnel — a general 
plan? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. To do what ? 

Mr. Freedman. To place people in the departments ? In a way that 
would circumvent the Civil Service ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Circumvent it ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, not actually circumvent it, but I think there 
was a man by the name of — 'a plan was devised, I think, in Malek's 
shop in the same vein, where instead of grants you would work with 
the personnel in the departments ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know about your question, but it was an 
itch on our part to get friends in the departments rather than the 
people that we found there, but that was just a general ongoing desire 
on our part. 

Mr. Freedman. Was this in career positions as well as other posi- 
tions ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Sure. Just like — the Democrats did that. 

Mr. Freedman. And how would something like that be carried out ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. By attrition essentially. You'd get replacements 
and the people you get in the replacements would be hopefully sym- 
pathetic with the politics. 

Mr. Freedman. And were you essentially in agreement with the 
White House on the Office of Minority Business Enterprise? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Freedman. Could you generally characterize those sentiments ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, at various times specific actions of OMBE 
were criticized as being political and there were opportunities — I think 
it was felt in the White House there were opportunities to encourage 
and cultivate responsible minority business people and some of this 
money was going to militants and kooks and radicals and far-out peo- 
ple, and it was just impossible to explain to the Government. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did the President express an interest in OINIBE? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Freedman. Was there ever a concern with OMBE ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, the President was in OMBE — not really ; 
not that I can recall. 

Mr. Freedman. OMBE works with the SBA, I believe it is in the 
Commerce Department? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I believe it is SBA. 



8195 

Mr. Freedman. Well, they are not actually the same entities ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I understand that, but they were generally con- 
sidered to be under the same tent. 

Mr. Freedman. Was the discou'tentment with OMBE considered to 
be with John Jenkins ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No; it was just the decisions that were made and 
a lot of those were not made in the home office, they were just made out 
in the field office. 

Mr. Freedman. You said, that when Malek was defining his role 
that there was some discussion of him going to the campaign ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Freedman. But he didn't really go until July when Mitchell 
stepped down, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know. 

Mr. Freedman. Do you recall what the discussion was pertaining 
to Malek going to the campaign in February ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I say — don't pin me to February. The 
meeting that I remember was on the general subject of Malek going 
into the campaign. Now maybe there wasn't a meeting on this other 
thing then because the one I recall had to do with his role in the 
reelection effort. 

Mr. Freedman. OK. Are you aware of William Gifford ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Sure. 

Mr. Freedman. What was his role during the campaign ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. You mean the committee — I don't think he was 
there. I think he was in the 0MB. 

Mr. Freedman. Let me rephrase that. Was his role any different 
while he was at 0MB during the campaign? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Than before the campaign ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. Do you recall ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, his role — as far as I know, his role at 
0MB was a sort of an expediter of things that were of concern to 
Congressmen or party people or other interest-type people to try and 
get an element of, I guess you would call it political awareness for 
want of a better term when some committee chairman, for instance, 
or somebody like Congressman — or Senator Buckley or somebody had 
a particular problem in working through 0MB, a complicated prob- 
lem. Gifford was designated as a fellow to whom that individual could 
go and he would then try and find his way through the maze for them. 

Mr. Freedman. Did that concern ever come through in the general 
rubric of the responsiveness operation ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I don't know that I would subscribe to 
the proposition that there was a rubric. 

Mr. Freedman. All right. Are you familiar with the term "grants- 
manship"? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I have read it. 

Mr. Freedman. Were you aware of that term being used in the 
White House? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Freedman. You said that you didn't discuss a so-called Malek 
plan with the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not that I can recall. 



8196 

Mr. Freedman, Would that be the type of thing that you would 
discuss with him if there was such a plan ? 

Mr. EiiRLiciiMAN. Typically not. That ordinarily would not have 
beeii in my ambit. 

Mr. Hamilton. But if the plan like I have described it, it would have 
affected domestic decisions and of course that was in your ambit? 

Mr. Ehrltchman. That's right. And what I meant when I said that 
was, that if there were an instruction from the President to get a fellow 
to set up a machine or a plan or something of this kind, ordinarily that 
would not have come to me to do. If it affected me, then eventually 
I would have been consulted by someone who would have been given 
the assignment. 

Mr. Hamilton. It would have gone through Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Ordinarily, yes. 

Mr. Freedman. Did vou ever hear of any discussion concerning using 
computer facilities to log the upcoming grants so people would have 
a better knowledge of what was available? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Only in the setting of the need for computer 
facilities in the A^Tiite House to do a whole raft of things. That was one 
of the things that was discussed as something we might do. And that 
plan was ongoing for 3 yeai-s that I know of. 

Mr. Freedman. So it wasn't in discussion primarily in the context of 
the campaign ? 

Mr. Etirlichman. No, no. This was a need we felt from the first time 
we flfot there, 

Mr. Freedman. I don't have any further questions. 

Mr. Plotkin. I do. Was Fred ^lalek's Responsiveness Program his 
brainstorm ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. I don't know. I have no idea. 

Mr. Plotkin. "NAHien you first became aware of it, had it much 
credence ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. really. No. I have become a^are of it lately 
as a formalized thing and it, as I say, I don't recall knowing of it as 
a machinery at the time. 

Mr. Plotkin. Upon subsequent reflection, would it have been the 
kind of program that would have been sponsored within the White 
House at a time — at the time of the President's reelection campaign? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, it is obviously not beyond the realm of con- 
templation. I don't know what you mean by that. It isn't totally out of 
the question that such a thing could have happened. 

Mv. Plotkin. But was it the type of program the President would 
have specifically perceived himself and recommended somebody put 
to'T^ether? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No; that isn't the wav he thought really. He 
thinks — he would have approached this much more in an ad hoc basis 
than to sav, now I want a big formal plan and I want it submitted to me 
in advance and I want the machinery and I want people in charge and 
an organization chart. That isn't the way he operated. 

Mi\ Pt.otktn. Did yon ever hear from the President or from anyone 
who had spoken to the President of his opinion of the effectiveness of 
the plan? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No ; not that I can recall. 



8197 

yir. Plotkin. Was Mr. Malek particularly politically astute, in your 
e.stiination, with regard to campaign procedures and practices? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Well 

Mr. Wilson. Does that have to go on the record ? 

Mr. Plotkin. Yes. 

Mr. EiiRMciiMAN. Let me put it another way. I think that Fred 
tended to be somewhat theoretical about things governmental and 
ne\'ei' really did acconnnodate himself to the slippages and the infor- 
malities and the difficulties of putting things in neat boxes. T don't 
know whether that translates itself into a response to your question 
or not. 

Mr. Plotkin. I wouldn't want to put the answer in your mouth. 

^Ir. Ehrlichmax. No; that's about the best I can do, I think. 

Mr. Wilson. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Plotkix. On the lecord. 

Based on what you now know of the Responsiveness Program and 
based on your current statement as to Mr. Malek's political astuteness, 
do you feel that the Responsiveness Program would have been partic- 
ularly effective had it been carried out the way it was envisaged? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No ; I don't understand all — I haven't read care- 
fully this whole document but if I understand it correctly, no; I don't 
think it had much chance of much success. 

Mr. Plotkix. Thank you ; fine. 

Mr. Freedmax. Did you receive weekly reports from the Committee 
To Re-Elect on the activities of the individual voter blocks? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No. 

Mr. Freedmax. You would never get a report about what the 
Spanish-speaking campaign people were doing ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No. 

Mr. Freedmax. Were you aware of Mr. Marumoto's role in the 
campaign effort? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax, Only vaguely, very vaguely. 

Mr. Freedmax, And how did you see that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. How did I see it ? 

Mr. Freedmax. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrtjchmax. I assume he was in the ethnic role, the fairly 
classic ethnic role. 

Mr. Freedmax. Would it be fairly accurate to say Bob Brown had 
the same responsibilities as Mr. Marumoto ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No. 

INIr. Freedmax. How would you characterize that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax". Marumoto was in the AVhite House and he had 
several specific functions wnth several established committees that 
dealt with ethnic problems. Bob Brown's role was much more of a 
generalist and his role in the "V\niite House cut across ethnic lines. He 
involved himself in nonethnic subjects and so he would have much 
more of a generalist role. 

Mr. Freedmax. During the election or during the campaign would 
it be fair to say that Bob Brown was fairly involved in the campaign 
activities ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I don't know. 



8198 

Mr. Freedman. All right. That's it for me. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. Just a question. Basically, is this substantially 
correct that you were not familiar with the Responsiveness Program ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That's right. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. And approximately when did you first hear of it? 
I am not going to review it, just roughly ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Just recently as a formal structure. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. As a formal structural program ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Now I may have heard — someone may have said, 
'•Listen, we are going to try to get more political awareness out in the 
departments,'' and I would have said, "hallelujah." But to say there is 
this paper and there is this structure and reporting lines and all that, 
I don't think I knew that. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. Ill other words, you had, I won't say "a formal 
confei-ence" with Mr. JNlalek, but 3'Ou never spoke to him about a 
specific program of responsiveness that covers the memorandums that 
you have seen so far ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, if I did, it sure left me. 

Mr. SiLV'ERSTEiN. I liave no more questions. 

Mr. Plotkin. I guess that's it. 

[Mr. Ehrlichman's testimony for this date on another subject is 
continued in a subsequent book.] 



MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington, D.G. 
The Select Committee met, piusuant to notice, at 2 :45 p.m. in room 
G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, and Weicker. 
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel; James Hamilton, as- 
sistant chief counsel ; Gordon Freedman, staff assistant ; Michael 
Ilershman, investigator ; and Deborah Herlxst, research assistant. 
Senator Montoya. Will you raise your right hand ? 
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
Mr. Malek. I do. 
Senator Montoya. Will you state your name for the record? 

TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK V. MALEK 

Mr. Malek. My name is Frederick VI Malek. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, will you please state your address for the 
record ? 

Mr. Malek. My laddress is 6700 Lupine Lane, McLean, Va. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, is it correct that you are appearing here volun- 
tarily today without a lawyer ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. What is your present position with the Government ? 

Mr. Malek. I am Deputy Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did you join this administration in April 1969 
as Deputy Under Secretary of HEW ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did you remain in that position until you 
became Special Assistant to the President in October 1970? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did you occupy that position until July 1972 
when you became deputy director of the Committee to Re-Elect the 
President ? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. 

Mr. Hamilton. And how long were you in that capacity ? 

Mr. Malek. Until the day of the election. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did you then return to the White House as 
Special Assistant to the President ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Hamilton. And you remained in that post until you became 
Deputy Director of 0MB in February 1973 ? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. 

(8199) 



8200 

Mr. Hamiuton. Now, from October 1970 until July 1973, when you 
were Special Assistant to the President, what were your principal 
responsibilities ? 

Mr. Malek. My principal responsibilities were in the area of over- 
seeing Government-wide personnel activities with a particular focus 
on the recruiting of qualified people for high level positions in the 
Government and also seeing to their motivation, retention, also evalu- 
ation of appointees in the administration, so that we had a continuing 
run on who was doing the job and who was not. 

In addition to that, it involved receiving the scores of recommenda- 
tions which we would receive from the general public, from the Con- 
gress, from other elected officials concerning the appointments or 
positions that were desired in the Government, and referring these 
as appropriate to the Department, and following up to insure that 
these were handled in an orderly manner. 

In addition to that area of personnel, I functioned as a kind of 
management consultant or troublesliooter for the President and for 
I\Ir. Haldeman on organizational problems which arose mainly within 
the Executive Office of the President, to try to go into an organization 
that wasn't functioning effectively, and try to see what the problem 
was, and to come up with recommendations which would lead to a more 
effective organization. 

There is one other thing I should add. Somewhere around March 
of 1972, I also took on the responsibilities for liaison with certain 
activities of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. This concerned 
mainly working with and coordinating those groups that the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect were presenting the President's records to par- 
ticular voter groups. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, did you take on this liaison capacity at Mr. 
Mitcholl's request? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Haimilton. And with Mr. Haldeman's approval ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Have you fully described the responsibilities that 
you took on, and was it more than just a liaison ? 

Let me put that question another way. As of the spring of 1072, what 
was the scope of your duties respecting the President's reelection 
campaign? 

Mr. AIalek. At the Committee To Re-Elect, as I said, I was respon- 
sible for coordinating the activities of those, and helping to organize 
and give some sense of direction to those people who were engaged 
in presenting the President's record to particular voter groups. We 
had nine such voter groups, either established at that point or planned 
that we would particularly target for presenting the President's rec- 
ord. I also served at that time as a member of the budget committee, 
or some time after that I was appointed a member of the budget com- 
mittee. I also occasionally sat in on campaign strategy sessions where 
general campaign direction was discussed and determined. 

As best I can recall, that pretty well covers what I was doing at the 
committee while I was still in the White House. 

Now, you say, all activities in snpjwrt of the President's reelection. 
We were trying to assure at that time that we were taking all possible 



8201 

actions in the personnel area to appoint people who would bring politi- 
cal vitality to the administration, who would be broadly representative 
of the American people and, consequently, would enhance the Presi- 
dent's political popularity. 

Also at that time, I was asked to develop a plan for organizing an 
elTort for more systematically channeling requests for information 
or requests for action from political sources, which would include the 
Congress, State and local elected officials, and officials of the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President; to channel these requests to the depart- 
ments and agencies for response, and the members of my staff worked 
later on in helping to implement this, primarily serving as a conduit 
for the requests and the supply of information. 

Senator Montoya. May I interject here? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Senator Montoya. Would you name the six voter groups that you 
were concerned with? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. There were young Americans, older Americans, 
veterans, labor, Spanish-speaking Americans, blacks, and we had an- 
other name for it, but it was basically ethnics — Jewish, and there was 
one more, farm families. 

Senator Montoya. Farm ? 

Mr. Malek. Farm. 

Senator Montoya. When you were working at the White House, who 
were your top people, directly under you ? 

Mr. Malek. At the White House, I had Dan Kingsley; and under 
Mr. Kingsley, the top people were Mr. Frank Herringer, Stan Ander- 
son, Jerry Jones, and Rob Davison. They were in personnel and per- 
sonnel administration and liaison with the departments on personnel 
matters. 

On the recruiting side reporting to me were : Mr. Penn James, Mr. 
Marumoto, Mr. John Clarke, and Ms. Barbara Franklin. Also report- 
ing to me as assistant was Mr. William Horton. 

Senator Montoya. Horton ? 

Mr. Malek. Horton, H-o-r-t-o-n. I believe that is all. Those are 
all the professionals. 

Senator Montoya. They were dealing with personnel ? 

Mr. Malek. Except for Mr. Horton, who worked with me on organi- 
zation projects and the like. 

Senator Montoya. You may continue. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. INIalek, as an aid in discussing your campaign 
roles, I would like to show you three memorandums, which I would 
like to have you identify, and I will identify them for the record. 
The first one is a memorandum from you to Mr. Haldeman dated 
January 28, 1972, entitled, "^ly Role in Support of Reelection." 

[The document referred to was marked INIalek exhibit No. 1.^] 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Freedman will give you a copy of this. The 
second one is a memorandum from you to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Halde- 
man, dated February 16, 1972, which is entitled, "Meeting To Discuss 
My Role." and it refers to a meeting that afternoon with John Ehrlich- 
man and George Shultz. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 2.^] 



1 See D. 8291. 

2 See p. 8297. 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 



8202 

Mr. Hamilton. The third document is a document that is not dated, 
and it is entitled, "Organizing For And Implementing New Responsi- 
bilities." I believe that the handwriting on this is of Mr. Haldeman. 
Is that correct ? 

[The document referred lo was marked Maiek exhibit No. 3.*] 

Mr. Malek. Well, I can't be certain, but let me go through it a 
minute. Yes, I believe that it is. 

Mr. Hamilton. For example, on page 3, in the second approved- 
disapproved, there is an "H" there. 

Mr. ]\Ialek. That's what leads me to believe it is. 

Mr. Hamilton. I assume this memorandum went to Mr. Haldeman. 
And the first line of this memorandum says, "This memo reviews my 
major activities for the next 9 months." 

Would it be correct to assume this was the 9 months immediately 
prior to the election, which would mean this memorandum was prob- 
ably written in January or February ? 

Mr. Malek. I suppose that is the case, yes. 

INIr. Hamilton. On page 1 of this memorandum, of the memo- 
randum I have just referred to, under the title, "Major Activities," 
there is a statement that reads as follows : 

There are five activities over which I will exercise direct supervision. Citizens/ 
voting bloc, operations, management control, department responsiveness, patron- 
age and personnel. 

There are four areas of indirect supervision inclu-lins constituent sroup proj- 
ect managers, issue project managers, grantsmanship and communication. 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. We are going to get into some of these in some detail 
later on, but I would like to ask you a couple of questions. When you 
refer to management control, what does that refer to ? 

^Ir. Mat,ek. Well, that refers to having some sort of means of evalu- 
ating the progress of the campaign in various States, and seeing if it 
is being carried out effectively. In the past, it has always been very 
difficult to determine how well the States were organized, how good 
a job they were doing, whether they were really deserving of further 
campnijrn funding and the like. And the idea here was to try to set 
something up that would provide an evaluation of the progress so that 
piiorities could be set, and you would know where to strengthen an 
organization, or know whether a request for further funding is ap- 
propriate, or whether you needed some additional or replacement 
personnel. 

^Tr. Hamilton. Referencing this term "issue project managers," 
could you explain what you mean by that ? 

Mr. Malek. It is kind of hard for me to recall it without going 
through the memo itself; so if you don't mind, I will take a little time 
find look at this to refresh me on it. 

Senator Montoya. Would you state by wav of foundation, who this 
memorandum was directed to? Was it to Mr. Haldeman? 

l^^r. Hamilton. I believe he said it was to Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Montoya. It was approved by Haldeman. Was it directed 
(o him? 

Mr. INTatek. Senator, I believe that it was directed — I believe it was 
for Mr. Haldeman to review. 

•See p. 8305. 



8203 

Senator Montota. All right. 

INIr. Malek. "Issue management" means, essentially, as I recall it, 
to insure that we had people who were thinking about the major and 
most sensitive issues that would arise, and thinking about the way in 
which the President should posture himself on these issues on a way 
that would be not only consistent with his past policy pronouncements, 
but would also permit his views to be presented in such a way that 
would gain popularity with the American people. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, the word "communications" appears in this 
paragraph under "major activities." Could you briefly explain what 
is meant by "communications" ? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, yes. One of the organiziational projects that we 
had been asked to undertake was to help to organize Mr. Klein's office 
and that part of Mr. Colson's office that dealt with communications, 
and try to get them to be able to work together productively and work 
productively with the departmental communications activities, depart- 
ment PIO's, and that is something that Mr. Horton and my staff had 
been involved in for some time ; and the intention here, that he was to 
continue to act as kind of a management consultant to these people 
who were engaged in communications activities. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that means communicating the President's 
programs through the media. Is that what that means? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Behind this memorandum is a chart entitled, "Citi- 
zens/White House Organization Plan." 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And your name appears on this chart right under 
that of Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And there are various types of lines that indicate 
where you have direct supervision, indirect supervision, coordination, 
and so forth. 

Mr. Malek. Keep in mind this is not a chart of the way things oper- 
ated. This was my concept of how it might be structured, and I don't 
think it operated in exactly this way. 

Mr. Hamilton. That was my question, whether or not this chart, in 
part or in whole, reflected your role in the campaign ? 

Mr. Malek. In part, it does reflect my role. Would you like me to 
expand ? 

Mr. Hamilton. What I would like you to do, I believe, is to indicate 
where your role diverged from the scheme set out in this chart. 

Mr. Malek. All of those items where it shows direct supervision es- 
sentially are correct. The citizens/voting blocs are the nine groups I 
described. The names here are not correct. For example, Mr. Zarb, who 
was listed there, did not join the campaign organization. The con- 
troller activity, as I described it, is correct. Patronage/personnel han- 
dled by Mv. Kingsley is essentially correct. 

This other controller function never really came into being. That 
was designed to be a kind of somebody who would oversee all of these 
other activities, and funnel in reports. We never really had need for 
that, so that is not correct. 

Sj)ecial recruiting project; that was in preparation for the new 
administration, and that essentially was correct. And the departmental 



8204 

responsiveness, which also has a direct line, is also essentially correct. 
Those thins^s that show dotted lines, I really did not get involved in, 
but the solid lines actually reflect how we came to operate. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, we have a dotted line, and then we have an 
indirect supervision line. Now, are the indirect supervision lines 
correct ? 

Mr. Malek. The indirect supervision lines do not accurately reflect 
how we actually went about this. This was mj^ perception of how we 
might go about it, but I was not giving indirect supervision to Messrs. 
Colson, Gifford or Cole, or as it shows here, the 0MB assistant 
directors. 

Mr. Hamilton. But it is true, isn't it, that some of the constituent 
project managers in the White House, like Mr. Marumoto, did report 
to you ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, Mr. Marumoto reported to me essentially on his 
recruiting activities, but on activities that related to his activities to 
present the President's record to the Spanish-speaking people, his 
major reporting relationship there was to Mr. Colson. That would 
come under constituent project managers here. 

Mr. H/\MiLTON. And Mr. Giff'ord did not report to you, but you also 
were at least indirectly in contact with the grantsmanship program. 
Is that right? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. I would say that a more accurate portrayal would 
actually happen but not a dashed line, but a dotted line between Gif- 
ford and the people listed here under departmental responsiveness. 
They did have a certain amount of coordination. 

Senator Montoya. The handwriting on the memorandum, Mr. Malek, 
is thi-^. Mr. Haldeman's ? 

Mr. Malek. I believe it is, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. Do you recognize his writing ? 

Mr. Mal^k. Well, I don't recognize his writing precisely, but there 
is an "H" on a blank on page 3 which generally looks like the H's he 
used to make. 

Senator ]Montoya. These were his comments back to you after you 
submitted the memorandum ? 

Mr. Malek. I believe so, but I cannot be certain, but I believe that 
it is. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think I should say for the record that Mr. Halde- 
man has testified before us to this memorandum, and he did say thes3 
were his handwritten notes. 

Senator Montoya. All right. 

Mr. Hamilton. In the February 16 memorandum from you to Mr. 
Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman, the document after the cover sheet is a 
d!ocument entitled, "Talking points to establish new responsibilities." 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. The first individual listed as "talking" is Mr. PTalde- 
man, HRH : and on the second pa'ge, paragraph 4, there is a statement, 
"to meet this need" — the needs set out on page 1^ — "John and I feel 
strongly — and the President has concurred — ^that Fred should join 
John at the campaign but also remain associated here." 

Now, my question is, did you have the President's concurrence as 
to the role you were to play in the campaign ? 



8205 

Mr. Malek. I never talked to the President about that, and I don't 
know whether we had the President's concurrence or not. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, did this meeting that is referenced in the 
memorandum, the cover sheet, actually take place ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And do you recall Mr, Haldeman making a state- 
ment to Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Shultz, that the President 
had concurred in your role in the campaign as set out in the mem- 
orandum ? 

iNIr. Malek. I do not recall any such statements specifically. I don't 
really recall much of the specific things that were said, although the 
content here was generally presented but there w^ere, as best I recall, 
some variations. I do not recall specifically whether or not the Presi- 
dent's name was brought into it. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it at this meeting the item found in paragraph 
2(c) was discussed, that was the role you would have in seeing that 
departmental actions were supportive of the reelect elTort? I take it 
that was the topic of discussion ? 

Mr. Malek. I am really not going to be able to verify specific points 
of this memo on whether or not they were discussed, because I just 
don't recall. The major purpose of the meeting was to kind of set me 
up in this new role, so I could have access to these people and their 
support in the role; and other than that, it was a very short meeting. 
It is just I can't recall the specific things that were said. 

Mr. Dash. Are these minutes of the meeting? 

Mr. Hamilton. Talking points. 

INIr. Dash. In advance of the meeting? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Would these talking points have been submitted in 
advance of the meeting? 

Mr. Malek. These talking points are provided. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be fair to say that when you prepared the talk- 
ing points of that kind, you subsequently tried to cover the talking 
points? 

Mr. Malek. Well, it would depend on Mr. Haldeman's reactions as 
to whether they were appropriate. These were the points I suggested 
he cover, and he would sit there with the paper and go through them, 
and he would look at them ahead of time, and then in his own language 
and with his own variations lay out his points. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was there general agreement at this meeting that 
you should assume the role that is laid out in this memo? 

]Mr. ]\Ialek. Yes. Let me say the main focus of this meeting was 
on the dual role of coordinating the efforts of these voter bloc groups, 
these constituency-oriented groups, and to play that role in coordinat- 
ing them at the campaign, and providing some linkage between them 
and similar activities which were being carried on in the White House. 

This all originated when John Mitchell initially asked me to join 
the campaign organization as his deputy to handle this and several 
other things, and after taking to Mr. Haldeman about it, he suggested 
that it would be much better for me to stay at the White House and 
give Mr. Mitchell some of my time, but to play a coordinating role 
that would link the campaign activities with similar activities to pre- 



8206 

sent the President's record in the White House, and also to continue 
with my other personnel responsibilities. I think that, as I recall it, 
was tlie major thing that we focused on in that session. So we prob- 
ably also touched on some of the other items mentioned here. 

Senator JMontoya. I would like to ask a question at this point now. 
You mentioned these as talking points, and you discussed these at 
this meeting, and on page 2 at the top, you referred to the talking 
points again, and you state: "To meet this need, John and I feel 
strongly — and the President has concurred — that Fred should join 
John at the campaign but also remain associated here." Are you, in 
effect, saying that the President is concurring on the objectives which 
are outlined in these points? 

Mr. jSIalek. Well, Senator, I have no way of knowing whether the 
President concurred or not, or whether he even knew about the fact 
this was going to take place, but I was suggesting to Mr. Haldeman 
that the President's name be used in this way, and I also, of course, 
in my own self-interest hoped that the President was aware of what 
I was doing. 

Senator Montoya. Why did you say the President has concurred ? 

Mr. Malek. These are my suggestions for what Mr. Haldeman 
should say. They are not necessarily based on any firm understanding 
of mine. 

Senator Montoya. Were you ever told by Mr. Haldeman that the 
Prssident had concurred ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall. Senator, whether Mr. Haldeman told me 
that he had discussed this with the President or not. 

Senator ISIoxtqya. I can't figure out what the term means, in light 
of what you said before, "and the President has concurred." 

Mr. Malek. I think you can infer two things from that. One, I am 
suggesting that the President should concur; and second, I am sug- 
f>-esting that that concurrence be mentioned to the group to insure 
their support and coordination with me. I do not recall whether I knew 
at this point in time whether or not the President had concurred. I may 
or may not have. 

Senator Montoya. Well, had you talked to the President at all ? 

Mr. JSIalek. Not about this subject. 

Senator Montoya. About other things ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Senator Montoya. You don't recall that he might have mentioned 
something about the campaign, what you were doing and so forth? 

Mr. Malek. All of my discussions with the President were related 
to my role as his personnel adviser. 

Senator Montoya. Did you ever discuss with him that one of the 
objectives was to select people who would be helpful in the cam- 
paign and contributive to the goals of the campaign? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. We talked to him from time to time about the 
program to bring more people into the administration that would be 
representative of groups we felt were neglected, such as Spanish- 
speaking, and he totally concurred with this. And we reported to him 
on our efforts to get more women into top positions. I would bring 
top women appointees in to meet with the President. 

These were generally the kinds of meetings I had with the President. 
They concerned the selection of a particular person, or bringing a 



8207 

group of new appointees in to meet with him, or concern a policy direc- 
tion we were taking, such as focusing more on minority and women 
in making top-level appointments, and up until the time I joined the 
campaign full time, I do not recall ever having a discussion with the 
President about the campaign or any activities I had in connection 
with tlie campaign. 

Senator Montoya. Did you also discuss with the President the 
opportunity that you had to try to coordinate the different depart- 
ments into making their grants in a way that would be helpful to 
the campaign? 

Mr. ]\Ialek. No, sir. I never discussed that with the President. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe in response to an earlier question from 
Senator ^lontoya, you listed the people in the AVliite House that re- 
ported directly to you. I would like to ask you the same question related 
to CRP. 

Mr. Malek. This is during the period while I was at the White 
House or afterward ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, actually at both times, while you were at the 
White House and after you joined the campaign. I would like to know 
who reported to you. 

Mr. Malek. Well, I will run through it. It probably will not be com- 
plete because my recollection — my recollection would not be complete, 
l3ut I will do the best I can. 

Taking the citizens voting bloc group first, those people whose 
activities I coordinated prior to joining the campaign included Charles 
Shearer, who had general responsibility for the citizens groups. These 
were efforts to present the President's record to the various profes- 
sional groups. Bernard Delery for labor. I don't believe we had any- 
body at this point for ethnics until after I got there full time, and 
then it was a man named Perrace Szmalaga. The black was Paul 
Jones. The Spanish-speaking Americans was Alex Armendariz. The 
older Americans was Webster Todd. The young voters was Ken Reitz. 
The farm families was Clayton Yeutter. The Jewish voters was Larry 
Goldberg. The veterans was Frank Naylor. 

To that list we also added doctors and dentists. The name escapes 
me, the man who had that role. The hiwyer was Dan Pilero. Business 
and industry, his name was Paul Kayser. Then if we go from that over 
to the State campaign organizations, which is after I came to the 
committee full time on July 1, that was really the bulk of my responsi- 
bility or at least the area where I spent roughly 90 percent of my 
time. 

Here I had as my chief of staff in the committee Jerry Jones. I take 
it you don't want me to name all of the people that reported to Jones ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Just the major ones. 

Mr. Malek. The major ones that reported to Jones would have been 
Rick Forr and Lewis Dale. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are these people regional chairmen? 

Mr. IVIalek. No. I will get to the regional. These were internal people 
who reported to Jones, people who put together the program material 
and insured that bumper stickers were distributed on time and at the 
right place, and these kinds of things. Then I had 10 regional direc- 
tors, each with a responsibility for a portion of the country. Their 
names were 



8208 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't know \f we need those names, unless the 
Senator wants them. 

Senator Montota. No. 

Mr. Malek. And I believe those were the principal people reporting 
to me at the committee. 

Mr. Hamilton. In 1971, did Mr. Haldeman ask you or direct you to 
develop a program to insure that the President in his reelection cam- 
paign could fully capitalize on his control over the executive branch ? 

j\Ir. Malek. In 1971, as I recall — and again, this is to the best of 
my recollection — iNIr. Haldeman was concerned that many grants that 
were being made by the administration were being announced by mem- 
bers of the opposite party, and in some cases not even by elected 
officials but State political officials of the opposite party, and it dis- 
tressed him and many of the Republicans in Congress that their 
opponents and potential opponents should be getting a leg up on them 
on announcing grants this administration is making; and therefore, 
he asked me in my capacity as kind of an organizational troubleshooter 
to determine how the process actually worked and what could be done 
to make the process more responsive to Republicans. 

I did look into this — I did not personally look into it. I asked a 
member of my staff, Mr. Horton, to look into it. And he did, and he 
compiled a brief report of what was happening and what he felt 
should be done to make this more effective. 

Mr. Hamilton. I want to show you, if I might, several documents 
that embody a plan that you submitted to Mr. Haldeman and others, 
and ask you to identify them. Let me identify them for the record. 
The first one I would like to show you is a document entitled "Depart- 
mental Responsiveness." It is a memorandum for Mr. Haldeman from 
you and it is dated March 17, 1972. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 4.^] 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. The next one I want to show you is a memorandum 
entitled "Redirection of the White House Staff to Support the Presi- 
dent's Reelection," a memorandum for Mr. Haldeman from you dated 
December 23, 1971. 

TThe document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 5.^] 

Mr. Hamilton. The third memorandum is also dated December 23, 
1971. It has a similar title as the one I previously showed you, and it 
is from you to Mr. Ken Cole. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 6.^] 

Mr. Hamilton. And the final one I want to show you immediately 
is one from Mr. Herringer to you, which is entitled "Responsiveness 
Briefing of Mitchell" and it is dated April 28, 1972. 

TTho document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 7.*] 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to ask you if you recognize these 
documents ? 

Mr. Malek. Well 

Mr. Hamilton. And whether you can identify them? 



1 See p. S311. 

2 See D. 8320. 

3 See p. S3'>5. 
* See p. 8342. 



8209 

Mr. Malek. Well, do you want me to refer to them that they are, 
in fact, valid documents ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like for you to look at them and tell me if 
you recognize them. 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe most of them we have shown you before 
in previous sessions? 

Mr. Malek. I recognize the documents. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to show you one other document, too. 
This is entitled "Communicating Presidential Involvement in Federal 
Programs," and the date, this time on the back, the last page, is June 
23, 1971, and the author is William L. Horton. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 8.*] 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Mr. Horton worked for you, I believe ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr Hamilton. And did he prepare this document under your 
supervision ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. I believe this is the document I referred to, just 
a bit earlier, as being in response to Mr. Haldeman's concern about 
the way in which grants were being announced and so forth. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was this document submitted to Mr. Haldeman, 
this particular one ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't know whether this one was or not. I just don't 
recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember to whom this document was 
circulated ? 

Mr. Malek. I believe it was circulated and discussed with, and I 
am not sure, I am just giving you my best recollection, with Mr. Gifford 
and probably with Jeb Magruder and Harry Flemming over at the 
campaign committee. Possibly others. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe earlier, Mr. Malek, you indicated to us that 
it had been submitted to Mr. Haldeman. Is your recollection hazy 
on that now? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. There is another memo that is a similar kind of a 
plan, which is the first one, March 17, 1972, which was submitted to 
Haldeman, but I am not sure whether the first one was. 

The second would be March 17; in essence, I believe it took the 
place of this first one. I don't recall I ever got any instruction on this, 
and I am not sure we did anything to implement it. 

The INIarch 17 document was one, however, that we did refer to, my 
staff did refer to, for guidance. That was the more definitive document 
in our eyes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that the March 17 document was 
the finalized master plan for what came to be known as the Responsive- 
ness Program? 

Mr. Malek. I would say that would be attributing words a little bit 
more grandiose than I would to this particular document. I would say 
it was an outline to an approach to maximizing the political credits 
that could be gained from various actions that the Government wels 
taking. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Haldeman approve the plan as outlined in 
this memorandum? 

* See p. 8348. 



8210 

Mr. Malek. Which memorandum ? 

Mr. Hamilton, March 17. I am giving you a lot of memorandums 
here. 

Mr. Malek. I have got one here. I believe he did. But I can't verify 
it because I don't have anything from him that says that. But I believe 
that he did. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, taking the March 17 memorandum, at page 7 
of this memorandum, there is a statement that — and I will read this 
to you — "The departments must be given a clear understanding of what 
is expected of them in carrying out the program, as well as the Presi- 
dent's full backing of the program." 

Now, I am going to get into your meetings with the departmental 
lieads later on, but my question right now is, were the departments 
informed that this program had the President's full backing? 

Mr. jMalek. Well, they certainly were not informed by the Presi- 
dent because my request that this be covered at a Cabinet meeting was 
denied, and essentially the presentation to the members of — the agency 
heads, and members of the Cabinet was made by me. And I do not 
recall whether I indicated Presidential support or not. I had no direct 
knowledge that it had the President's support, but it is conceivable that 
I could have, in talking to agency heads, that it had Presidential 
support. 

j^.ir. Hamilton. If you didn't have a communication from the Presi- 
dent face-to- face as to his support of the program, did you receive an 
indirect communication from Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Malek. I may have, but I really don't know. Let me just divert. 
I might help clarify this. As assistant to the President, I oftentimes 
would — not oftentimes, but occasionally say to people that the Presi- 
dent would like something to be done when, in fact, I had never talked 
to the President about it. This was something that was used occasion- 
ally by other members of the staff as well. The President understood 
this, that we would occasionally do this. Sometimes it was important 
in order to get a particular personnel move made that someone felt 
that the President supported it. And you would know if you went to 
the President and said, "Would you support it?" You were pretty sure 
he would, and occasionally he would do that. 

I may have said it had Presidential support. The President never 
told me directly he knew of this and supported it, and I can't recall 
whether Mr. Haldeman communicated to me that the President sup- 
ported it or knew about it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that the goal of the Responsiveness 
Program was to politicize the executive branch to allow the President 
in his reelection campaign to capitalize fully on this control? 

]\Tr. Malek. No, I don't think that would be a fair way of expressing 
it. T think in the main it was an effort to assure that the maximum 
political benefits could be gained from the actions of the administra- 
tioii, to insure that people in the agencies were aware that we had an 
electioji coming on, and thoy were doing everything possible to develo]^ 
initiative that would have political vitality ; and therefore, have credits 
on the President's behavior. 

Mr. Hamilton. If I may I'ofer to the December 23, 1971, memo- 
randum from you to ]Mr. Haldeman ; I would like to read you a portion 
here. 



8211 

Mr. Malek. Which one is that? 

Mr, Hamilton. December 23, 1971. It says, "Responding to your 
direction, our efforts have been concentrated on three basic objectives," 
and the third objective that is listed, and I quote, is "To politicize the 
executive branch." 

Mr. ISIalek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, is this statement in the December 23 memo- 
randum an accurate account of what you intended to do with the 
Responsiveness Program ? 

Mr. JSIalek. Well, politicize — you will notice — is in quotes, and I 
guess we would have to define politicize, and later on in the memo- 
randum, I guess we tried to do that. Let me look at that for a minute. 

Mr. Hamilton. Take your time. 

Mr. Malek. It seems to me what we are saying in essence, what I 
said earlier, the purpose was to derive political benefits from the pro- 
grams of Government through communicating the results of these 
programs in an effective manner through proposing initiatives that 
would have political appeal through handling issues in a way that 
would appeal to the interested parties. 

Senator Montoya. I would like to ask a question. In your memo- 
randum — it doesn't have a date on it 

Mr. Hamilton. June 23, 1971. It is on the last page. 

Senator INIontoya. On page 2, you have this statement : 

* * * initiating grants. In addition to designating "must" grants from pending 
applications, there may be occasions in which political circumstances require 
a grant be generated for a locality. When such a locality is identified by the 
campaign organization, the coordinating group would decide what kind of grant 
would best meet the needs and available program resources. 

A campaign representative would then inform the appropriate local oflBcial 
what to submit. When submitted, it, of course, would be designated a must. 

Well, doesn't this put the grantsmanship under political 
manipulation ? 

Mr. Malek. If it was implemented in this way, it would, but this 
was a paper prepared by a member of my staff in 1971. This is one 
where I do not remember whether it was ever submitted to ISIr. Halde- 
man. In any case, I do not, to the best of my recollection, it was not 
acted upon, and in retrospect what is proposed here, even if we wanted 
to do it, which I would not want to do, be totally unworkable. And I 
know of no instance 

Senator ISIontoya. Why was it put in here? Didn't you pass on it 
when it was submitted? 

Mr. ]Malek. Well, I am not sure it was submitted. That is the 
point. It was a general outline of how to approach things, drawn up 
by a member of my staff. I did read it, but it was not acted upon as 
outlined here. 

Senator Montoya. Did you have any conversation about whether or 
not it was a wise step to take, or unwise ? 

Mr, Malek, I didn't have any discussions with anyone about it my- 
self, because really this was 

Senator Montoya, You were the one final authority before it went 
to Mr, Haldeman, wereii't you? 

Mr. Malek, Yes, But I am not sure this particular paper went to 
Mr. Haldeman. That is the point. I know it was discussed with other 



8212 

members of the staff und members of the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President by Mr. Horton, but I reallv don't know whether this one 
went to Mr. Haldeman or not. If it did go to Mr. Haldeman, then I 
would at the time have looked at it, and T would have signed the cover 
sheet to him. But I don't have anything in my files to indicate that 
that in fact happened. If you do, I would be glad to defer to that. But 
I really don't think it went to Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Moxtota. Well, explain the authorship of this particular 
provision. How did that take place, and where did it go to, and where 
was it disposed of? 

Mr. Malek. Well, Mr. Horton authored it, and it was discussed 
wHh. I believe, Mr. Flemming and Mr. Magruder and I believe with 
Mr. Gifford. and the idea essentially was to designate those grants that 
were of Particular importance and to try to get the State people to try 
to iden^^^ify possible grant applications. But it just doesn't work that 
wav. 

Grant applications are highly technical things that are initiated 
by substantive bodies, and it is utterly foolish to think that a cam- 
nai.frn organization or o camnaign representative could initiate this 
kind of thing. So I would have to say this particular paragraph doesn't 
make a lot of sense, because it is not workable in the first place. 

Mr. Freedman. Did this document go to Attorney General Mitchell ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall whether it did or not. 

Mt'. Frekt>]\t \x. Could you briefly describe what Mr. Flemming's role 
was in the "White House ? 

Mr. Malek. He was not in the White House at this point in time. 
Did you want me to tell you what he did before that ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. 

Mr. Malek. He left the White House shortly after I joined the 
"WTiite House staff, and his role was handling of patronage and per- 
sonnel matters. 

Mr. Freedman. And he left ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

]Mr. Freedman. Where did Mr. Flemming go? Did he leave the 
Gnvprnment ? 

Mr. Malek. He left the Government. I don't remember the exact 
date. It was sometime in early 1971. Then some months later he joined 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, I would like to go back to the question 
I asked you a little bit earlier about whether one of the purposes of the 
Responsiveness Program was to politicize the executive branch, refer- 
^ncinp^ nj^rain this exhibit 5 memorandum from you to Mr. Halde- 
man. I don't want to quibble with you right now as to what you meant 
by politicizing the executive branch, even though there is a paragraph 
on page 3, 1 believe, that deals with this. 

Isn't it true that you suggested to Mr. Haldeman that perhaps it 
would be wise ^"o stop callinflr this program "politicizing the execu- 
tive brnnch" a^^d call it something else like "strengthening Government 
responsi veiiess" ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I don't know if it says that in the memo. I haven't 
looked through the whole memorandum. 

Mr. Hamiltov. T,et me refer to r^age 5 and read a paragraph from 
page 5 that goes like this : 



8213 

Also to minimize any direct links to the President, there should be no direction 
on this project in writing. Most of the initiative should come from the department 
heads themselves. In fact, as this concept is refined further, I proixxse we stop 
calling it iwliticizing the executive branch, and instead call it something like 
strengthening the Government's responsiveness. 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Why do you think it was necessary to change the 
name ? 

Mr. Malek. Because I think politicizing the executive branch can 
lead to some gross misinterpretations, and it has a connotation that I 
don't think is either good public policy or good public relations, and in 
fact, a point of fact, the way I would define politicizing the executive 
branch, that really isn't what we were trying to do. I think improving 
responsiveness of Government was probably more accurately defining 
what we were trying to do. In fact, in the later memorandum, which 
lays out the plan or the approach in this area, I believe we do talk 
about — we have so many memos here. 

Mr. Hamilton. I apologize. We will give you a lot more before the 
day is over. 

Mr. Malek. I can't wait. But in the March 17, 1972, memo, which 
you provided me, we talk here — right in the opening sentence of this 
paper — suggesting a program to improve executive branch respon- 
siveness to the voting public ; and that, in effect, is what we were trying 
to do, because that is the kind of thing that wins votes, the responsive- 
ness to the needs of the public, and if you can act on issues in a way 
that appeals to a particular constituent group and the public at large, 
and if you can appoint people to positions that generate the same 
kind of appeal, and if you try to get underserved groups to apply for 
and gain grants where heretofore they have been cut off because of 
their lack of knowledge or inability, these are the kinds of things that 
do win political points and do gain votes. 

Senator Inoute. Referring to your December 23 memo, page 4 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inoute [continuing]. About midway down the page, where 
four points are made; "to emphasize building construction in key 
States," and the next one is, "expedite disposal of property for parks 
and schools in key States," and "emphasize dual fuel program in 
ecology-minded areas of key States with less emphasis elsewhere." 
What did you mean by "key States" ? 

Mr. Malek. Our definition of key States were those States that 
would be later identified, or perhaps were identified at this point, as 
being swing States in an election, those that would be very close, mostly 
as indicated by the polls, and would carry a major number of electoral 
\'otes. 

Senator Inouye. In other words, those States that were not key 
States would not receive building construction contracts ? 

Mr. Malek. No, sir; that is not the case at all. Wliat this suggests is 
that particular emphasis could be provided in the area immediately 
preceding the election for stepped-up activities and publicity of those 
activities in key States. 

Senator Inouye. Another point of curiosity : What is dual fuel pro- 
gram in ecology-minded areas? 

Mr. Malek. I am sorry, sir, I do not know what that is. I really 
don't. 



8214 

Senator Inouye. I ask you that now, because the energy crisis is so 
paramount in our minds. And I suppose it referred to energy. Didn't 
it? 

Mr. Malek. I really don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, is it fair to say that one of the principal 
functions of the Responsiveness Program was to insure that the Presi- 
dent's reelection needs be taken into consideration in the grantmaking 
processes that the various agencies and departments were engaged in? 
Mr. Malek. I think that would not be a correct characterization. 
There were really several purposes. One was to insure that there was 
adequate consideration given to the inputs from the Congress, from 
State and local officials, and from campaign officials, and that there 
was some means by which these concerns could be communicated to the 
appropriate people in the department so that they could be taken into 
consideration in whatever way the department felt was appropriate. 
Most of these instances came from the Congress. We received some 
in the executive branch, some 200 requests each week from Members 
of Congress for expediting a grant, for making a grant, for placing 
someone in a position or whatnot, and these were perfectly legitimate 
requests from Members of Congress who are properly representing 
their constituencies. 

At the same time as these come in, we felt it would be politically 
beneficial to the President and to other Republicans who were running 
for office, if we were responsive to their requests for information, and 
if WQ insured that their requests were responded to quickly. 

Also, we felt that oftentimes information would be brought to bear 
from these sources, and these aren't only Republicans, we get many 
requests from Democratic Members of Congress as well, that the in- 
formation that they have be considered in whatever action was being 
taken. So that was one purpose of it. 

Tied in with that, we felt that it was also appropriate for State and 
local officials and for members of the campaign organization to also 
have the ability to get their questions answered about where the grants 
stand in the process, or also to make an input as to their feeling as 
to whv a particular program is meritorious. 

Third, and probably the most important, we wanted to insure that 
we had a means of announcing these grants, when they were going to 
be announced, that would be politically beneficial. As I mentioned 
earlier, there was a lot of concern the Democratic Members of the Con- 
gress and Democratic Party officials were oftentimes getting informa- 
tion on grants before Republicans and making announcements on them. 
And this was embarrassing, and the Republican Members of the (bn- 
grpr>s didn't appreciate that too much. 

We wanted to insure that the grant information would go to the 
Republican Member of Congress, and that he would a?Tnounce it, or 
that it might, in some instance, be announced by a White House official 
or someoMe frr^m one of the a.fTcncies in a way which would gain maxi- 
mum nublicity and credit for the President. 

A fourth purpose was to insure that the reople in the agencies were 
thinking about the key emerging issues, so that as the issues developed 
they would have given some forethought to it and would have devel- 
oped some thoughts as to the position that the administration should 
take on those issues, in order to maximize the positive reaction from 
the voting public. 



8215 

Mr. Hamilton. I am going to read you a portion of this March 17 
memo that mentioned Mr. Gifford, Mr. William Gifford. I wonder if, 
for the record, you could state who Mr. Gifford is and what his func- 
tion was in the White House in 1972. 

Mr. Malek. Mr. Gifford is presently an official of the Department 
of Treasury, and I believe he works mainly in congressional liaison. 
At the time of March 17, 1972, he was a special assistant to the Presi- 
dent with responsibility for legislative matters and particularly as re- 
lated to legislative matters between the Congress and the 0MB. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe he was in charge of what is called the 
grantsmanship program? Could you briefly describe what that was? 

Mr. Malek. Well, Bill Gifford was the funnel for all requests from 
Congress that were made through OMB regarding grants, expediting 
of grants, adding consideration even to a grant or contract ; and he 
was a kind of focal point. 

I mentioned earlier 200 calls a week. A good portion of these would 
come into Mr. Gifford's office and he would, in turn, funnel them out 
to the departments and insure that a response was given to the Member 
of Congress who generated them. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to read to you a portion on page 2 of 
this memorandum. It comes under the heading that "Present Efforts 
Tap Only a Fraction of the Total Potential." 

I am reading, starting at the top of page 2. 

The Department of Commerce provides a good example. To date Gifford has 
made some 35 requests. Most of these involved expediting the normal grant re- 
viewing process and securing the release of information. Approximately a dozen 
of these requests resulted in favorable grant decisions (which otherwise would 
not have been made) involving roughly $1 million. Politically these actions have 
been most beneficial. 

Nevertheless, in spite of this achievement, the potential is much greater. In 
the Commerce Department, for example, there is nearly $700 million in funds 
remaining in this fiscal year and over $700 million in the next fiscal year, which 
could be redirected in some manner. The major areas of potential for fiscal year 
1973 are : Economic Development Administration, $275 million ; Regional Action 
Planning Commissions, $40 million ; Minority Business Enterprises, $38 million ; 
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, $100 million ; and the 
Maritime Administration, $230 million. 

Even if only 5 percent of this amount can be rechanneled to impact more 
directly on target groups or geographic areas, it would be a substantial increase 
over the current efforts. To capitalize on such opportunities, the departments must 
initiate actions themselves. This would entail each department developing a pro- 
gram by which it would systematically but discretely seek out opportunities for 
improving services to target groups and geographic areas, and then ensure that 
appropriate action is taken. 

First of all, does this passage accurately state the goal of the Re- 
sponsiveness Program in regard to grants? 

Mr. Malek. Well, it doesn't totally do that, but obviously it is part 
of the intent that, as stated here, that we felt that the departments 
should initiate actions to improve services to target groups and geo- 
graphic areas that were either underserved or for population groups 
that needed more attention, and through that attention could derive a 
certain amount of political credit. 

Mr. Hamilton. "When you speak of target groups or target areas, 
aren't you referencing target groups and areas in a campaign sense ? In 
other words, areas where there was a need to increase the President's 
vote-getting potential. 



8216 

Mr. Malek. Yes, but in particular this would apply to those ^oups 
that had been underserved; for example, a target geographic area 
might be the State of California. A target group within California 
might be Spanish-speaking Americans, and in our estimation they had 
been underserved. They did not have the sophistication within their 
community to apply for the kind of Federal moneys that the other 
groups might, and they had been, in our opinion, ignored by a number 
of administrations ; and therefore, trying to give more attention to the 
needs of a group like that would have a benefit, and that benefit would 
result hopefully in their feeling that President Nixon understood 
their problems; and therefore, would bring political benefit to the 
President. 

Mr. Hershman. If this was being done as late as the end of 1971-72, 
what was being done previously for these groups ? 

Mr. Malek. I think that it was a continuing concern to do some- 
thing about undersei-ved groups. But what we were trying to do as 
we approached the campaign was to intensify that sort of thing. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, was it the intention of the Responsive- 
ness Program that grants should go to the target groups and target 
areas even though these areas and groups were less worthy in terms of 
programmatic considerations than other groups and areas ? 

Mr. Malek. No. There was no intent here to set priorities on the 
basis of those groups which would derive political benefits. We did 
feel that consideration for these groups should be one of many factors 
weighed by a department in making a grant, but we were not sug- 
gesting to the departments that they develop their priority list of 
grants in this manner. They can't. Most grants are prioritized on the 
basis of peer-review groups or other kinds of professional reviews. 

Actually, we were asking that adequate consideration be given to 
those groups that had been underserved ; that consideration he given 
to information that would be provided by the Congress or by cam- 
paign officials or State and local elected officials, and the consideration 
be given to their imputs in making them. 

After all, there are many instances where there is bureaucratic 
bungling and wrong grants are made simply because the GS-12 or 
GS-13, who is down there making the decisions, doesn't really have 
a good sense of what the priorities ought to be, and we felt that the 
more information that could be brought to bear by a Member of Con- 
gress or a campaign official certainly deserved to be part of the con- 
siderations. And it is part of the consideration in most grants that 
are made. 

Senator Inouye. If this were the case, why were you so concerned 
about adverse publicity, if the intention is so noble and the people 
served are so in need ? I would think that you would like the fullest 
publicity of everything that is happening from the very birth of the 
program itself. 

Mr. Malek. Well, there are two reasons for that : One is that the 
program was designed with the basic intent of building the Presi- 
dent's political popularity, and while the political popularity in our 
opinion is V«nilt by f^ood Govprnment, bv serving the people well, the 
basic intent was what is political. And that, it seemed, would not be 
the best public relations attack to take. 



8217 

Senator Inouye. Were you aware that administrations in the past, 
Democratic administrations, used grant nioneys for this purpose, to 
enhance the incumbent's acceptance in certain areas ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, yes, sir. We had evidence that the political con- 
siderations were taken into account in past administrations in the 
awarding of grants. 

Senator Inouye. Was this effort similar in nature ? 

Mr. Malek. Not being intimately familiar with what past ad- 
ministrations have done, or any abuses they might have subjected 
the system to, I really hesitate to say because I am not familiar 
enough. I will say this,* however, that what we were trying to do here 
is not different than what we do in considering the several hundred 
requests from Congress we get every week, which was to insure that 
there were some means, when a campaign official wanted to know 
something, where does a grant stand, or have we a real problem down 
here, and I think you ought to make this grant, to have some pipeline 
so he could make that view known or get that question answered. We 
perform this service on a regular basis for Members of Congress. We 
get pressured from Members of Congress on many occasions on this 
sort of thing. And it is a perfectly normal part of the governmental 
process. 

I do not think it is inappropriate for a Member of Congress or a 
member of his staff to want to know about a grant or push for a 
particular grant that h going to be.ielit that Congressman's or that 
Senator's constituents. He is representing his constituents. But it does 
sometimes result in pressures being brought to bear, and it does result 
in some cases in decisions being changed, but that is not all bad be- 
cause sometimes the information that the Member of Congress is 
bringing to us is something that no one really knew about or con- 
sidered adequately. 

So all we were really trying to do was afford the same opportunitv 
to converse with, the executive branch in a responsible manner with 
State officials and campaign officials. 

Mr. Hamilton. In this regard, I asked you earlier whether or not 
it was the intention of the program that grants should go to politically 
desirable target areas or groups even though those areas or groups 
were less worthy in terms of programmatic considerations. And I 
believe you said, "No." I would like to read you a passage from Mr. 
Horton's memorandum of June 23, 1971 [exhibit 8] ; first, on page 2. 
This is the passage that Senator jMontoya referred to earlier under 
the heading, "Initiating Grants." 

In addition to designating "must" grants from pending applications, there 
may be occasions in whicli political circumstance!^ require a grant to be generated 
for a locality. Once such a locality is identified by the campaign organization, the 
coordinating group would decide what kind of grant would best meet the needs 
and available program resources. 

A campaign representative would then inform the appropriate local official 
what to submit. When submitted, it, of course, would be designated a must. 

Turning over to page 3, reading under the heading "Dealing With 
the Departments." 

Gifford must be flexible on pushing a "must" grant in case it turns out to be 
substantively irresponsible or an obvious waste of Government funds relative 
to other pending grants. In such cases Giflford should weigh the substantive 



32-818 O - 74 pt. 18 - 4 



8218 

drawbacks and risk of adverse publicity against the expected political benefits, 
consulting with others as needed. 

He should then make a final decision on whether the grant is to be approved. 
Also in order to minimize the risk of embarrassment to the President the volume 
of grants designated "mnsts" in any one department should be limited. 

Now, is it fair to say that these passages that I have just read to 
you advocate that, in some instance, a grant which is substantively 
irresponsible or is an obvious waste of Government funds relative to 
other pending grants should be approved if the expected political 
benefits of the grant are high enough? Is that a fair reading? 

Mr. JNIalek. Absolutely not. As I pointed out earlier, this is a memo 
that was done back in 1971 by a member of my staff. It never con- 
stituted a plan that we acted on. I don't even know whether I approved 
it personally or even submitted it to Mr. Haldeman. It is simply the 
work of a member of my staff in responding to a concern on Mr. Halde- 
man's part that we weren't doing the right kind of job in gaining 
political credits for the grants being made. I explained that earlier. 
I do not feel that this particular piece of paper is representative of 
either the intent or direction that tne program ultimately took. 

Mr. Hamilton. So what you are saying is that the Responsiveness 
Proflfram 

Mr. Malek. What I am saying is you have another memo in front 
of you dated March 1972, I believe, which essentially outlines the ap- 
proach that we did take. And that is one that I did forward to Mr. 
Haldeman, I believe. And I am saying this one does not constitute, to 
the best of my recollection, the actual document. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you saying that the Responsiveness Program did 
not have, as a fundamental point, the pushing of grants that were 
politically desirable, that might be less desirable in terms of program- 
matic consideration? 

IMr. Malek. 'VMiat I am saying is that the substance of the memo is 
something that was not acted upon. I am further saying that there 
was never any intent for a grant to be made that was substantively 
irresponsible or a w^aste of Government funds. 

I do acknowledge that where a grant had political benefits, that be- 
came known to the Committee To Re-Elect, or to Mr. Gifford, or to a 
member of my staff, that this information should be forwarded to the 
department that is goini to make the grant, and they should take that 
into account, p.s well as the majiy other factors that they take into ac- 
count in considering the award of a grant, just as they take into ac- 
count, and are asked to take into account 200 times a Aveek, the same 
kinds of requests from Members of the Congress. 

Let me clarifv one other thing. No one at the Whito House, includ- 
ing Mr. Gifford, is in the business of making grant decisions, and it 
is not an inconsistency in this memo why it is not an approved docu- 
ment. It is talking about Mr. Gifford making decisions. He did not 
mal'e grant decisions. The departments and agencies make grant 
decisions. 

Mr. Hamilton. No one in the White House was involved in the 
decisions? 

Mr. Mat,ek. I can't say that no one in the Whit-e House was ever 
involved in any grant decision. But on a normal basis, on those that 
had political interests, the basic decision w^ould have to be made by 
the department. 



8219 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know of anybody in the campaign committee 
that was involved in grant-making decisions? 

Senator Ixouye. May I ask, Mr. Malek, technically I suppose the 
secretary of the department has to sign a certain document to approve 
this grant. But I believe the question is : Was there someone else, not 
in the department, i^ossibly in the White House or in the committee, 
who had sufficient authority to call upon the department head or his 
associates and make a strong suggestion, if I may use that phrase, to 
make this grant ? 

Mr. Malek. Sir, there was an established means by which there 
could be a communication from the White House to a department dis- 
cussing the political impact of a particular grant decision, and the 
person making that contact could, of course, express his opinion as to 
how beneficial it was, and make the case in strong terms. But it was not 
his role or authority to actually make the decision, because he couldn't 
possibly be aware of the many tradeoffs involved and couldn't pos- 
sibly be in a position to judge the quality of the grant application. 

Let me describe how this worked. An idea generated from the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President or from somebody in the field 
organization would be channeled to a member of my staff, who was 
assigned to this, or to Mr. Gifford. If it came to a member of my staff, 
it would generally go to Mr. Gifford. And the request, whether it be 
for information or whether it be a strong suggestion for a particular 
grant, would then go to the appropriate department. 

The department w^ould analy.7e it, and respond with the information, 
if it was just information, or if it was a request to some positive 
action, they would analyze it, determine whether it was possible, and 
generally get back through the member of my staff and Mr. Gifford, 
who initiated it, and would then report that back to the committee. 

That is the w^ay it worked. But T am aware from reading Mr. Maru- 
moto's testimony at some point that he testified that in some of the 
minority enterprises, business enterprise grants, that he and Mr. 
Armendariz, from the Committee To Re-Elect, had the opportunity 
to review some of these before they were made. I am aware of that 
testimony, and I am not in a position to either affirm it or refute it, 
because I really had no knowledge of that. 

But other than that particular piece of testimony that I have read, 
I am not aware of anyone else in the White House signing off or 
making grants of this sort. The one exception to this is in preparation 
of the budget each year; the Office of Management and Budget gets 
involved with the Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engi- 
neers on prioritizing and deciding on the reclamation and water con- 
struction grants that are going to be made for a given year. These 
are major projects, major commitments of funds. But that is a tradi- 
tional 0MB function and not something that the White House is very 
heavily involved in. 

Senator Inouye. In other words, Mr. Malek, as far as you are con- 
cerned, you have never called any department and strongly suggested 
the approval of any grant? 

Mr. Mat,ek. I have on one occasion called a department Under 
Secretary to ask that he get personally involved in trying to work out 
a grant that had been brought to my attention by a campaign official. 
This was the situation in Los Angeles where a Model Cities grant to 



8220 

a Mexican American group in East Los Angeles was pending, and had 
been widely publicized, and everybody knew in the community it was 
pending, but it had been held up by the local HUD officials because 
of some local political squabble between the leaders of the black com- 
munity and the leaders of the Mexican American community. And I 
called Mr. Van Dusen at HUD and told him about this, as it had been 
relayed to me by our California reelect chairman, and asked if he would 
personally look into it to see if that problem could be worked out, 
and if the grant didn't in eflPect have the merit it was said to have, to 
see if he could work out the problem so it could be processed. This is 
the only occasion that I can recall having called the Department per- 
sonally on a grant. In this case, I believe he did intervene and went 
out to Los Angeles and looked into it. And I believe he was able to 
work out the problem, and a very meritorious program was brought to 
bear. 

Also, I might add, it was politically beneficial because, again, we 
were doing something for an underserved group. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think I have one question pending, and that is 
whether it was not a tenet of the Responsiveness Program that an 
irresponsible grant or a grant that would be a waste of Government 
funds would be approved if it were politically beneficial, irrespective 
of this particular memorandum we are talking about. 

Mr. Malek. No, INIr. Hamilton. It was not an intent of the Respon- 
siveness Program that anything be approved that would be either sub- 
stantively irresponsible or a waste of Government funds. 

Mr. Hamili-on. And you would have disapproved anything of that 
nature ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did anyone who read the Horton memorandum of 
June 23, 1971, express disapproval to you as to the contents of that? 

^Ir. Malek. I don't recall that anybody did. They could have. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did anyone express disapproval to Mr. Horton of 
his notions in there ? 

i\Ir. Malek. I don't recall that I did, but again it was not a memo 
that we acted upon. It was something he had drafted, and he had 
discussed with others, but to the best of my recollection, it was not a 
memo that was acted upon or served as a basis for any action. 

Mr. Hamilton. When he prepared some of the later responsiveness 
memos, lil^e the March 17 document, did you instruct him that the 
notions that he had in the June 23 memo were not acceptable and 
should not be included ? 

iVIr. Malek. No, sir. At this point in time, I am not even sure I was 
aware we had an earlier memo. The important thing to me was the 
memo that we had then and which we did submit. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it also part of the Responsiveness Program that 
certain leijal or regulatorv actions taken by the departments and agen- 
cies should be formulated and taken in accordance with the President's 
reeVction needs? 

Mr. ]Malek. I don't recall that that was intended or not, whether we 
intended that. Well, I guess I don't recall exactly, but you may have 
it highli^rhted in one of these papers. But it is quite po sible that we 



8221 

did want to have the same sort of liaison with certain regulatory agen- 
cies, although we never set up any contacts or anything like that in the 
regulator}^ agencies. But it is conceivable when we had a question or 
a request from a campaign official, that we would want to channel it 
to a regulatory agency, just as the Members of Congress have the op- 
portunity to do so. That is conceivable. I don't recall it. 

Mr. Hamilton. On pages 3 and 4 of the March 17 memo, there are 
several headings. The first is "Suggested action." Then right under 
that is "Departmental action." Then there is a section called 
"Guidelines." 

Under guidelines, there are three or four sentences I would like to 
read. 

As a first step, the departments should be given clear guidelines covering the 
political priorities, the types of operating 'decisions which are to be included in 
the program, and the procedures for planning and tracking progress. 

The political priorities would be spelled out in terms of key States and major 
voting bloc groups upon which departmental action could have an impact. The 
departments would be updated as needed, as the political priorities evolve. 

Next the tyi)es of activities covered under this program would be discussed. 
The major ones, of course, are positive decisions, e.g. project grants, contracts, 
loans, subsidies, procurement and construction projects, and negative actions, e.g., 
taking legal or regulatory action against a group or governmental body, major 
cutbacks in programs and relocation of department operations. 

Now, focusing on that last sentence w^here you describe "negative 
actions," and include as an example the taking of legal or regulatory 
actions against a group of governmental bodies, is it fair to say that 
this passage indicates that controlling or directing legal or regulatory 
action was part of the responsiveness program ? 

Mr. Malek. Let me start first by defining. We are talking about 
Cabinet departments or executive branch agencies, operating agencies. 
We are not talking about regulatory actions here. We are talking about 
agencies like SBA or EPA, but not agencies like FPC or FCC. We are 
talking a bout operating agencies. 

As I can best recall, I don't believe anything was ever suggested 
to a department in the nature of a legal regulatory action. Although 
the intent here was that, again, there be a channel for communicating 
concerns or getting questions answered concerning these kinds of mat- 
ters, the same as in connection with the grants. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your testimony then that the affecting of legal 
or regulatory actions by the departments or the agencies was not part 
of the Responsiveness Program? 

Mr. Malek. I do not recall any actions that were taken to affect 
legal or regulatory actions. However, at the same time, I am sure that 
if we had a concern expressed by a campaign official, just as we would 
if we had a concern expressed by a Member of Congress concerning a 
legal or regulatory action of a department or agency, that we would 
forward it in the same way, that information in the same way to that 
department or agency for their consideration and response. 

Mr. Hershman. I would like to establish a difference between a 
campaign official and a Member of Congress. I believe it would be the 
legitimate right of a Member of Congress to inquire concerning mat- 
ters which affect his constituency ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 



8222 

Mr. Hershman. So how does it become a right of a member of the 
reelection committee ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, tell me how it is a right of the ISIember of Con- 
gress? Why does a Member of Congress have the right to — I don't 
really know if he has a statutory right to interfere in the executive 
actions to the point of pressing for a particular grant or holding up a 
hearing on a particular bill that the administration is interested in, 
until the grant to his project is made. I don't know what statutory 
authority a Member of Congress has, but it is done all the time. 

Mr. Hershman. You see no difference between 

Mr. Malek. I am trying to find what the first is. I do see a differ- 
ence. A Member of Congress is elected by the people to represent those 
people. A campaign official is not. There certainly is a difference. 

I think it is demeaning to the Congress to answer any other way. 
But certainly I do feel that a Member of Congress has a right to in- 
quire into the activities of a department or agency, and to inquire or 
even press for a particular grant because he oftentimes has informa- 
mation at his command that people in the department may not have. 
I think that is established, and in my view that is proper. Whether 
it is statutorily his role or not, I don't know. I am not a lawyer and 
haven't studied it. So certainly there is a difference between a Member 
of Congress who is elected by the people. 

Mr. Hershman. You have certainly well explained the respon- 
sibility on the part of a Member of Congress in these areas. I would like 
for you to explain the responsibility on the part of members of the 
Committee To Re-Elect in these areas. 

Mr. Malek. If any member of the public were to write me a letter 
or to write a letter to any White House staff official asking about the 
status of a particular grant or making a case for a particular grant, 
that letter would be responded to. It would be forwarded to the de- 
partment. The department would prepare a response, and we would 
answer the man's question. 

If he had a particular point of view to bring to bear, that would 
be sent to the program official of the department, eventually, so that 
he could look at it and respond to it. All we were doing was insuring 
that there was a way for a reelection compaign official to communicate 
in this same way but faster, and with a little better chance of getting 
a rapid response and insure that consideration be given in a timely 
manner. 

I think it is the right of any American to be able to express his 
views to his Government, or to expect an effort from his Government 
about where a particular grant is in the process or whatever. What 
I am saying is, I don't think there is anything wrong essentially with 
someone requesting the same information; any American in a posi- 
tion to request. And all we were doing was setting up a mechanism 
to insure that expeditious handling was given to the requests that were 
being generated by the campaign official. 

Mr. Hershman. Don't you consider the motivations of the Amer- 
ican public, who makes an inquiry, a bit different from the motivations 
of those in a political organization? 

Mr. Malek. There are some differences. I think requests from the 
American public are basically looking to their own self-interest. If 



8223 

somebody makes a case for a particular grant, he wants that grant to 
be awarded, and it probably benefits him or people he is associated 
with in some way. 

Mr. Hamiltox. I want to show you another memorandum, that was 
not to you or by you, from Peter Millspaugh to Harry Flemming. The 
reason I show it to you is that it mentions Mr. Hoi*ton was participat- 
ing in some of the discussions involving patronage, which is the topic 
of this memorandum, and it was also written on June 23, 1971, which 
is the same date as the Horton memorandum we have been discussing. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 9.*] 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you look at this and see if you have seen 
this, if you arc familiar with this? 

Mr. Malek. I am not familiar with the memorandum. This is the 
first time I have seen it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you look at the third page, at the document 
that is attached, and is entitled "The Basic Types of Patronage" ? It 
may be the fourth page. 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Have you ever seen this document before? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall ever seeing it before. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask you a question related to this document, 
the document that is entitled ''The Basic Types of Patronage." It lists 
jobs, revenues, and then point three is "Execution of Federal law 
(resides mainly in Department of Justice whose interpretive power 
touches every vested interest)." Would you consider the execution 
of Federal law a type of patronage? 

Mr. Malek. Absolutely not. 

Mv. Hamilton. So you are saying you would disagree? 

Mr. Malek. I strongly disagree with that. 

Mr. Hamilton. With the conclusion reached in this particular 
memorandum ? 

Mr. ]Malek. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. If I may, since you are on this page. On the second 
item, "revenue," would you consider these to be legitimate, such as 
bank deposits? 

Mr. Malek. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Contracts as patronage ? 

Mr. Malek. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Grants ? Subsidies to the needy ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't think any of these things are appropriate uses 
of patronage, as I understand patronage. I define patronage as giving 
preference to the party in power, and the supporters. And I don't think 
it would be appropriate in any of these. 

In terms of jobs, on the top, I think it is appropriate for a President 
and his appointees also to appoint people of his political persuasion 
and philosophy in an effort to get a philosophy consistent within an 
administration. To the extent that can be considered patronage, I 
would agree, but I would not agree with any of the things listed under 
revenue. 

Senator Inouye. How about No. 5 ; travel ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I really don't know what he means there. 

* See p. 8358. 



8224 

Senator Inouyt:. I would suppose, in order to be within the law if 
one is to attend an international conference, he has to be appointed 
by the President or some delegate. Was the appointment of the dele- 
gate a basic type of patronage to represent the United States? 

Mr. Malek. Again, Senator, I would have to say that while the 
qualifications of an individual would and should be the primary con- 
sideration, that as in personnel appointments the President or his other 
major appointees could be expected to appoint people to these delegates 
who, again, represent his political philosophy. 

Senator Inouye. I know it is done all the time. 

Mr. Freedman. Could you identify for the record who Peter Mills- 
paugh was in the AVliite House ? 

Mr. Malek. Peter Millspaugh worked for Harry Flemming at the 
White House, and then when Sir. Flemming left, he became an assist- 
ant to Harry Dent. 

Mr. Freedman. And his function was ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I am not too familiar. Under Mr. Flemming, he 
was involved in patronage, personnel/patronage activities, and I don't 
really know what he did under Mr. Dent. 

Mr. Freedman. And Mr. Flemming handled personnel matters be- 
fore you did? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. Horton, did he work for Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Malek. Well, he worked for me, sir. He was an assistant to me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, I would like to ask you a few questions 
now about the operation of the White House personnel office and its 
relationship to the campaign and the Responsiveness Program. In re- 
gard to the campaign, what was the role of the White House personnel 
office ? 

Mr. Malek. In personnel matters we are talking about? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Malek. As I recall it, there was no really strong relationship 
between the campaign and the White House personnel operation, al- 
though we did encourage the leadership of the campaign to suggest 
appointments that would be politically beneficial. As a practical fact, 
they didn't really come up with any, not many suggestions. 

We did in addition to that, however, work in our own regard to 
support the President's reelection primarily by trying to appoint 
people to advisory commissions or full-time positions who, while 
qualified, also represented groups that would gain political benefits. 
I hate to keep going back to the Spanish-speaking Americans, but I 
think this is a very good example of where we did appoint a number 
of very fine people of Spanish-speaking Mexican descent to high-level 
posts in the administration with, frankly, a dual intent : one, to tap 
what had heretofore been an underutilized resource, but at the same 
time to gain political credit amongst Spanish-speaking people around 
the country. 

We had a similar program going on with women which Ms. Franklin 
headed. Again, it was a dual kind of mission, dual kind of purpose. 
One was to tap an underutilized resource, mainly women who had been 
given the same opportunity as mei^ to grow into executive positions, 
and the second was to appeal politically to women by demonstrating 



8225 

the administration's concern and desire to use women in high positions. 
We did the same thing with blacks, and to a lesser degree with other 
minority groups. 

Senator Inouye, We will stand in recess subject to the call of the 
Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 12 :30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene 
later the same day.] 

AiTERNOON Session 

Mr. Hamilton. I think we ought to backtrack just a bit because, I 
believe, I asked you one question about the function of the White House 
personnel office in the campaign before we broke, and I believe you 
gave an answer, but I think it might be well, since this is a new sub- 
ject, to ask you that question again for Senator Talmadge's benefit. 

Mr. ]Malek. The function of the personnel office at that time, with 
relationship to the Committee To Re-Elect the President, was rather 
minimum. We did suggest to personnel at the committee that they sug- 
gest people for appointment to jobs or advisory commissions and the 
like and that we would consider those — that they might be politically 
beneficial. In point of fact, they did not come up with too much. At the 
same time — and we are talking now, Mr. Hamilton, are we not, about 
principally personnel as related to the support of the campaign? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is right. 

Mr. Malek. We also engaged in several programs to help bring 
representatives of various minority groups into the Government, into 
high-level positions. We did this with women, we did this for Span- 
ish-speaking, for blacks, for other minorities with really a dual in- 
tent. One, to capitalize on what had been, in our view, an underutilized 
resource in many of these areas. These people had not been used enough 
and, secondly, by bringing people into positions of this sort, it did 
provide political benefits because it demonstrated our concern and our 
interest and belief in the particular group represented. 

Mr. Hamilton. During campaign time and, in fact, before the 
campaign began, were the departments and agencies asked to consider 
individuals for career jobs, for civil service jobs on the basis of politi- 
cal considerations? 

Mr. Mai^k. The main focus of our activity was on non-civil-service 
jobs, so-called schedule C posts. We would, at the same time, refer re- 
quests or recommendations to the departments for career positions, but 
in these cases, the individuals had to compete and qualify under the 
normal Civil Service Commission regulations and standards. These 
would include the many recommendations we — in the main, it would 
include recommendations from the Congress, I would say. If I had to 
break out the 400 or so requests each month we got for employment, I 
would say 75 percent of them would come from Members of Congress 
who would have a constituent or a friend or someone who they would 
be suggesting for Federal employment, and would like the White House 
to give special attention to. These might be for career, they might be 
nonoareer jobs, and we would normally forward these to the depart- 
ments or agencies and ask them w ^ sider it and to review the files, 
review the person's qualifications, and be responsive to the Member 
of Congress originating the request. 



8226 

Mr. Hamilton. Were the departments asked to take into considera- 
tion political affiliation or political benefit to the President's reelection 
in hirinor career personnel? In other words, competitive service 
personnel ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not recall ever askinjj the departments to consider 
political persnasion in hirins^ career people. 

]\Ir. Hamiltox. Let me show you a few docnments. The first docu- 
ment I would like to show you is a form — the particular document, 
and, Senator, we will show you one also, dated August 30, 1971. 
I am just concerned about the form of it ritrht now, Mr. Malek. This 
particular document is a memorandum for Dan Kin^sley from Clark 
MacGresror. Subject: William EdAvard Bennett. A¥as this form a 
standard form that was used to refer people to your office? 

[The document referred to was marked ]Malek exhibit No. 10.*] 

Mr. Malek. Yes: I believe this form was developed and distributed 
to certain members of the White House staff so that there would be a 
consistent way of recommending someone. Now C^ark MacGregor was 
responsible for relationships with the Congress, and therefore, before 
we would act on any recommendation from the Congress, we would 
Avant to gain the opinion of those who deal with the Congress on a 
daily basis and would hf^ve a better insight into what the particular 
Member of Congress had in mind and how important it was to him. 
And they would indicate on this form — now, in practice, I don't think 
the form was used all that much because — not because we didn't want 
it to be. T think people just didn't conform to the use of the form. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was this form used outside the White House ? For 
example, was this form distributed to CRP ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall that it was. I don't think that it was. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it was just used within the White House proper? 

Mr. Malek. I believe so. 

^Ir. Hamilton. Now. if you look at section 4 of this form, there is 
a heading entitled "Value of Placement to the President Politically." 

^^^. IVTalek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And then there were four categories. The first one : 
"Highest political value, must place" ; second : "High political value, 
nlace if possible": third : "Moderate political value, handle courteous- 
ly"; and the fourth: "Little political value, handle routinelv." 

In other words, you are askinq- the people who referred individuals 
to make a judgment as to the political value to the President of place- 
ment. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Mai>ek. Yes. You have to understand, again, that roughly three- 
quarters of the recommendations were coming from Members of Con- 
gress and a good portion of the others from other elected officials, and 
tve wanted to have some sense as to, really, how important it was to the 
Member of Congress. If. for example, a Senator or a Congressman 
in either part was makin.<r a recommendation, many times they would 
be making a recommendation just as a courtesy to a constituent who 
said. "I want a job." 

In other cases, they would be making a recommendation based on 
some very deep personal conviction that this person was highly worthy 
and they would feel very strongly about it, in which case, it would be 



♦ See n. 8363. 



8227 

of high political value to the President to try to respect the judgment 
and recommendation of that particular Member of Congress. And 
that is, essentially, what they were trying to do here. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask you about the second document that I 
gave you. This is another form, and this particular form is dated 
May 14, 1973, and it is to Mr. Al Kaupinen — I guess that is how you 
pronounce it? It is K-a-u-p-i-n-e-n — who at this time was at the GSA. 
I believe Mr. Kaupinen previously had been at the Committee To 
Re-Elect? 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 11.^] 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. 

Mr. Hamilton. It is from a Mr. William Lament, and it refers to a 
referral of Stuart Weeks. Was this form the form you used to make 
referrals from the White House to the agencies and departments? 

Mr. Malek. I have never seen this particular form before. And I 
do not believe it was ever used when I was in the White House. It seems 
to me to be a new innovation since I left that post. 

Mr. Hamilton. So this was not used when you were in charge of the 
personnel office? 

Mr. Malek. I don't believe it was. I can't say that some of my staff 
might not have used it. I have never seen it before. 

Mr. Hamilton. Referring to this form, it does say on here "This 
candidate deserves a must, high priority, courtesy, or routine referral" 
consideration for a position in your agency. 

Is it true that even if this form was not used, that you were instruct- 
ing the agencies and departments when you referred names to them, 
whether or not the placement was a "must" political placement, or a 
"high priority" political placement 

Mr. Malek. During my tenure in that particular position, we did 
use the term "must place" occasionally. Rather than taking that 
literally, it meant that it was the highest priority and that we would 
want the agency to search very hard for an appropriate position. 

Mr. Hamilton. So, in other words 

Mr. Malek. But let me point out, there were many cases when we 
would send a "must place" to an agency and it would come back say- 
ing this person just doesn't qualify and we cannot comply. So it 
wasn't a "must place" in terms that it alwavs was complied with. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you and the Senator another document, 
and this is from Stan Anderson to Mack Warren, who I believe was 
at GSA. Mack Warren, at GSA, from Stan Anderson. Senator Tal- 
madge, for your benefit, Mr. Anderson worked for Mr. Malek at the 
♦Vhite House. This is dated November 9, 1971, and the subject is a 
Mr. Leslie Cohen, and this indicates that Mr. Cohen is rated as a "1" 
or "must" placement. Would this be an example of the type of memo- 
randum that would go out from the White House suggesting that 
someone was a "must" political placement ? 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 12.^] 

Mr. Malek. I don't know if this is an example of something that 
happened frequently or not, Mr. Hamilton. My staff would communi- 
cate with the agencies on these. I didn't audit their correspondence or 



> See p. 8364. 
2 See p. 8365. 



8228 

how they did it. They probably did it sometimes by telephone. I really 
don't know how they would normally communicate it. 

Mr. Hamilton. But the basic question is, whether or not your staff 
was asking the agencies and departments to take into consideration 
political considerations in hiring, and I take it the answer to that is 
yes. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Malek. Now, I think we have to differentiate here. There are 
two different ways to approach this. One would be to say that for 
this particular career position, we want you to hire this person because 
of his political — the political advantages, regardless of who else is 
qualified, or whether that person we are recommending is qualified. 
That, we were not doing. What we were doing in the case of a career 
position is we would be submitting the name of a person to a depart- 
ment and asking them to determine where this person would be quali- 
fied to serve. And then, once determining that, that they were qualified 
and competitive, to serve in that position, to try to get them into it. 

So, what we were really doing is facilitating the personnel process 
in getting somebody in that door, where, without the political push, 
they may not have been getting into the door. But we were not inter- 
fering with the competitive process of filling a particular position. 

jNIr. Hamilton. Were you aware of the special referral units at 
GSA and HUD that have been the subject of publicity lately ? Are you 
familiar with those referral units? 

Mr. Malek. I'm aware of the referral units. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you aware that the Civil Service Commission, 
now, has under investigation violation of the civil service laws in 
reference to those two units? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, I'm aware of that. I've read the newspaper 
accounts, and I am aware of those. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Did you know that the WTiite House personnel office 
was dealing with those referral units? 

Mr. Malek. That had been my impression, but I did not follow the 
White House personnel office activities for the last 14 or 15 months 
or so since I have been with OMB. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I think that some of the instances referred to 
are in 1972, or during the campaign. 

Mr. Malek. I see. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you know, contemporaneously, that the White 
House personnel office was dealing with the special referral units in 
GSA and HUD in making political recommendations? 

Mr. Malek. It depends on what you are talking about. The special 
referral units that were established after the election in GSA and 
HUD are something that I did not have any experience in dealing 
with. 

On the other hand, while I was in the White House, we did have 
an organization in almost every department which handled noncareer 
personnel appointments. They were established for that purpose. Also, 
for the purpose of handling the patronage requests that we would 
forward on to the departments. Almost every department or agency 
had a unit, varying in size, from 1 person up to 8 or 10 people, who 
would handle and process these kinds of requests. The referral units 
that you speak of at GSA and HUD, I believe, were outgrowths of 
what had existed before. 



8229 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you saying that before the campaign, that these 
referral units were not handling career personnel ? Competitive service 
personnel ? 

Mr. Malek. No ; I am not saying that. What I am saying is that these 
referral units existed throughout much of the administration and they 
had two purposes. One was to do the screening and assist in the re- 
cruiting and evaluation and placement of people into noncareer posi- 
tions. And, second, to take all of the patronage requests that were 
sent to them directly by the Congress, or through us to them, and fun- 
nel them to the appropriate place in the department for consideration. 
So that if we would forward to them, or if a Congressman would for- 
ward to them, a particular recommendation, they would then either 
evaluate that person for a noncareer position, or if it was determined 
that there were no noncareer positions and that a career position was 
desired, and it was important to place the person, they would then 
circulate that person through the department so that he could be eval- 
uated for various career positions. And, if he qualified, and was com- 
petitive, for one of them, brought on board. I think that is a distinction. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it your understanding that the referral units 
in the various agencies were to give special consideration to names sent 
over by the White House that were designated "must" ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. Yes; they were to be given special consideration. 
Absolutely. But the special consideration was not in competition for 
a specific job, but to insure that the person was exposed to a range of 
jobs for which he or she was qualified. 

Mr. Hamilton. All right. Now, this is a little bit redundant, I be- 
lieve, to some questions Senator Inouye asked, but it is true, is it not, 
that the information regarding the Responsiveness Program was to be 
kept secret from the general public ? 

Mr. Malek. That was the intent. 

Mr. Hamilton. And it is also true, isn't it, that the plan was that 
if this material was leaked that certain steps would be taken to dis- 
associate the White House ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, the plan really was to disassociate the White 
House as much as possible from the beginning, so that if it did become 
public knowledge the White House would not be associated. 

Mr. Hamilton. But if there was a leak, isn't it fair to say that there 
would be an affirmative disassociation that the White House was in- 
volved in this program ? 

Mr. Malek. No ; I don't think that is fair to say. It would depend — 
I can't answer that hypothetically. The leak might have involved the 
White House directly, for example, and if it did not, I do not know 
what the response would have been. I was not in the communications 
business there. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read from the March 17 memo [exhibit 4], the 
basic document, at page 6 — I am reading under "Possible Drawbacks" 
and I am reading item 1 : 

The most significant drawback of the program is, of course, the risk of adverse 
publicity. Naturally steps would be taken, one : to insure that information about 
the program itself and the departmental plans would not be leaked ; and two : 
keep the President and the White House disassociated with the program in the 
event of a leak. 

Does this paragraph accurately state your plans in regard to mini- 
mizing adverse publicity ? 



8230 

Mr. Malek. Yes. But to amplify on that — "keep the President and 
the White House disassociated ... in the event of a leak" — again, 
here, we are talking about things to be done beforehand, not disavowals 
that might take place after the fact. And it goes on to amplify, that 
written communications would be kept to a minimum, and so forth. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it part of the program that the White House 
would supply the departments and the agencies political guidelines as 
to how their agency action, departmental action, should be tailored? 
Is that fair? 

Mr. Malek. That is a very broad statement and it is impossible to 
say whether it was fair unless you define it. Let me put it in my own 
words. The intent of the program was to furnish the agencies with 
political guidelines which consisted of informing them of where the 
close, and therefore, key States w^ould be; what some of the swing 
constituent groups would be, in total ; and within those States ; and 
then to ask them to focus speaking engagements ; focus their efforts in 
terms of publicizing grant releases, and the like, in those particular 
areas. 

Mr. Hamilton. I was referring in my question — I will be as specific 
as I can — to page 3 of the March 17 memo, under the heading "Guide- 
lines" where you say — where the author says : 

As a first step, the departments should be g:iven clear guidelines covering the 
political priorities, the types of operating decisions that are to be included in the 
program, and the procedures for planning and tracking progress. 

I take it that is a fair statement of what you intended ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Xow, is it a fact that you and vour staff held a num- 
ber of meetings with Cabinet officials, agency officials, and their chief 
aides to explain the Responsiveness Program? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. I met with most members of the Cabinet, with 
heads of a number of other agencies, and in tw^o or three instances, at 
their request, with members of their staffs afterwards, to discuss 
with them the campaign — the key States that our polls showed would 
be swing States, showed them maps outlining these, talking about what 
some of the kev voter groups would be in those States, talking about 
the T^eed for them to be sensitive to this and to try to do as much 
speaking as they can on the President's behalf in these areas. And to 
try to publicize grants in these areas; to look for opportunities to 
better serve in an intensified way the groups in these areas ; to think 
about issues that were a margin that could present problems or could 
be of great concern to the various constituent groups we were con- 
cev'^ed with; to think in advance as to how^ these issues ought to be 
handled in order to be most responsive to these groups ; and to provide 
the most political gain for the President. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were other members of your staff, like Frank Her- 
rinn:er, Stanton Anderson, and Robert Davison also involved in these 
'denartmental meetings and agency meetings ? 

/ Mr. IMalek. I don't recall whether they came to the meetings with 
the Cabinet officers, or agency heads. T think they did. They went to 
some of them, but I am not sure they came to all of them. T do not 
rfTall precisely, however. 

Mr. Gifford participated with me in some of these, and I believe I 
■had — as I think about it, to the best I can recall — I did have a member 



8231 

of my staff who was going to kind of deal with that department, 
come with me where it was possible. 

Mr. Hamiltox. You divided your staff up so that certain people 
would deal with certain departments and agencies ? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct, that is correct. They had been divided 
up. That was not a new thing. They were divided up in that way in 
dealing with the agencies on personnel matters. And so I believe I did 
bring them along and then in many instances they would have a follow- 
up meeting with the person that the head of the agency designated as 
kind of the contact point for the agency and I believe I provided you 
earlier with a list of those. 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, you did, Now% in those meetings, did you use as 
a visual aid a color-coded map of the Ignited States that indicated 
where the tai'get areas were and the target groups ? 

]Mr. Malek. Yes, yes, exactly. 

Mr. Hamilton. And I take it the departments and agencies were 
asked to gear their programs to impact in those particular areas? 

Mr. Malek. AVell, not just their programs, but their publicity, 
their speaking engagements. And your resources can go only so far. 
A Department like HEW, I don't know, makes maybe 10,000 grants a 
year, you can't really take each one of those and make it a major pub- 
lic relations success. So we would want them to focus on these States, 
and, as grants are coming out, to try to get them announced in such a 
way that it gets a little publicity and gains political credit. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that the departments and agencies 
were asked, to the extent possible, to redirect their grants into those 
areas ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't think it would be fair to say they were asked to 
"redirect'' their grants. It would be fair to say that it was suggested 
that they look to these areas for opportunities for programs or initia- 
tives that w^ould have real political vitality and would serve the 
people well. And, consequently, win a certain amount of favor for the 
administration. 

Mr. Hamilton. The March 17 memo that we referred to earlier talks 
about "redirecting'' and "rechanneling'' grants. I believe, on page 4, 
the first two paragraphs, talk about rechanneling and redirecting. 

Mr. Malek. Now, which date is this memo? 

Mr. Hamilton. March 17 — I'm sorry, that is the wrong page. Page 2. 
Excuse me. 

Mr. Malek. And where are you reading ? 

Mr. Hamilton. The second paragraph talks about the Commerce 
Department grants which could be redirected in some manner. And 
then the last sentence in the second paragraph says "Even if only 5 
percent of this amount can be rechanneled to impact more directly on 
target groups and geographic areas, it would be a substantial increase 
over current efforts." 

Were departments and agencies asked to redirect or rechannel 
grants to impact on target groups and areas? 

Mr. Malek. I cannot recall ever asking departments or agencies to 
redirect or rechannel. I do recall outlining where the key States were 
and asking that emphasis be given to these areas, but I do not recall 
having asked anyone to redirect or rechannel. I cannot say for sure 
that I did not. But I cannot recall having done that. 



8232 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if any of your staff members made 
those types of requests ? 

Mr. Malek. No. I do not know whether they did, or at least I 
cannot recall ever having — now, we are talking on a broad basis, as 
broad guidance to the agencies ; and I cannot recall that being a gen- 
eral policy that we were pushing. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were the departments and agencies asked to sensi- 
tize their appointees, especially those in the regions, to the political 
priorities of the election so that they could take actions that would 
have an impact on the election ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. After the departments and agencies were briefed, 
did you brief Mr. Mitchell on the Responsiveness Program? 

Mr. ]Malek. I think that I did. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe that I have already shown you this memo- 
randum. Senator, we have a lot of memorandums ; this is the one T am 
talking about right here. 

Mr. Freedman. It is exhibit 7. 

Mr. Hamilton. It is tab 5 in the book you have. And there is a brief- 
ing paper attached to this memorandum. Does this briefing paper ac- 
curately reflect the briefing that the Attorney Greneral was given ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I haven't had a chance to look at it. ]May I just 
glance through it? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, you may glance through it quickly. It's just five 
pages, double spaced. 

Mr. Malek. This probably clearly represents the events I discussed 
with Mitchell. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. Did you and your staff also meet with a number 
of State chairmen for the Committee To Re-Elect and explain to them 
the Responsiveness Program ? To refresh your recollection on this, let 
me give you a memorandum, dated June 14, 1972, that is to you from 
Stan Anderson and Rob DavLson. Have you got another copy of this, 
Grordon ? 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 13.^] 
Air. ]Malek. I will give it back to you. 

Mr. Hamilton. All right. This indicates that there would be a brief- 
ing of State chairmen. You notice that — I believe you have a hand- 
written note at the top. 

Mr. Malek. Yes, I believe we did talk to the State chairmen about 
the desirability of generating ideas or thinking about this in a field. As 
is indicated here, we didn't really get too much, we hadn't been getting 
much response. We only had one request — this was June 14 — we only 
had one request to date from the Sta^te chairmen. It wasn't something 
that they were really set up to do too effectively. ]Most of the requests 
that we processed came from the ISIembers of the Congress. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. Did you and your staff in May of 1972, meet 
with the directors of the various constituent groups and voter blocs 
and explain to them the Responsiveness Program? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, I believe we did explain it at that time. 
Mr. Hamilton. I have a memorandum here from you to Mr. Halde- 
man, which talks about the results of a Camp David meeting. 

1 See p. 8366. 



823S 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 14 ^] 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that this memorandum accurately reflects 
what happened at Camp David, and also reflects the attendees at the 
meeting. 

Mr, Malek. Yes, I believe it does. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, attached to this memorandum — I don't believe 
it is attached to the one you have; we put it with a different tab — 
is a briefing paper that apparently was used for briefing the directors 
of the voter bloc groups. Does this briefing paper accurately reflect the 
briefing that was given to voter bloc groups ? 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 15.^] 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall exactly how we presented this, so I don't 
know if this accurately reflects it or not. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you familiar with this particular document? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I must be, because I see what looks like my writ- 
ing on page 5 of it. 

Mr. Hamilton. On page 4, it states : "Each of you should be alert to 
opportunities to utilize the resources of the incumbency to improve our 
position with your constituent group." 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that the voter bloc directors were informed 
that they should be alert to use the incumbency ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. And examples, I think, that follow that — awarding 
of grants, announcing a new project ; need for a speaker from the De- 
partment and so forth — we wanted to think about those kinds of 
things, where they could use a speaker on a certain issue, or where an- 
nouncing a new project in a major way would be helpful or a grant 
that was in process could be particularly beneficial. We did encourage 
them to make these kinds of things known so that they could be con- 
sidered with all of the other factors in arranging schedules and the 
like. And in actual practice, it really didn't come up with a whole lot 
of ideas, but I suppose there were some that were generated. 

Mr. Freedman. Mr. Malek, were there staff people from the White 
House attending the meeting who also had responsibility in the con- 
stituent groups ? 

INIr. Malek. Yes, there were. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were the voter bloc people asked to submit names 
from their constituent groups that perhaps could be placed in the 
administration ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't know if we asked them, how we made the request, 
but I would guess that we suggested one of the things that could be 
done was to appoint people to positions or advisory commissions, and 
ask them to develop suggestions for us. 

Mr. Hamilton. On page 3 — actually, it it the third from the last 
page, under the heading "Personnel" 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton, [continuing]. There is a line that goes, "I would 
suggest you give this possibility some thought and try to come up with 
a list of 10 or so persons from your group that you would like to see 
placed." 



^ See p. 8367. 
= See p. 8370. 



32-818 O - 74 pt. 18 - 5 



8234 

Mr. Malek. I dont' know if those were the words in which it was 
conveyed, but essentially we did ask that they, as I said before, develop 
some ideas of people who could be placed. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. 

Mr. Freedman. To refresh your recollection, I think that you stated 
before that possibly Mr. Anderson and Mr. Herringer gave that brief- 
ing. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I don't know when I said that, because I really 
don't recall who gave this particular briefing. 

Mr. Hamilton. Actually, Mr. Malek, on page 2 of exhibit 14 from 
you to Mr. Haldeman, dated June 5, 1972, it says: 

Stan Anderson and Frank Herringer of my staff presented the various pro- 
grams we have initiated to make the bureaucracy more responsive and to take 
advantage of the incumbency to the maximum degree possible. 

Mr* Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I'd like to turn, Mr. Malek, to some of the results of 
the specific activities which came under the Responsiveness Program. 
And I would like to refer you to a June 7, 1972, memorandum from you 
to ]Mr. Haldeman. Senator, in your book this is item 9. And this is 
entitled, on the inner page, "Responsiveness Program Progress Re- 
port — Confidential, Eyes Only." Now, who prepared this report? 

fThe document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 16.*1 

Mr. Malek. It was prepared by my staff. I guess Mr. Anderson and 
Mr. Davison probably prepared it. 

Mr. Hamilton. This report has two parts; the Responsiveness Pro- 
gram report, and then attached to it there is another document entitled 
"Responsiveness Program, Week Ending June 2, 1972," which is a 
listing of, I believe, 12 specific "results," if I can use that word, of the 
Responsiveness Program, through June 2. 1 would like to ask you about 
a few of these. 

Senator Talmadge, I don't plan to get into all of these specifics, but 
of course if you want to ask about some of the ones that I don't get 
into, please feel free to do so. The first one I would like to ask about is 
in the second part of this report, the listing of the results. It is DOL-6. 
And this part of the report was prepared by whom, do you believe? 
Is this Mr. Davison's work ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I can't tell you for sure. I am just telling you 
the best I can recall. I believe it was, I believe it was Mr. Davison; 
perhaps Davison and Anderson together. But I think it was probably 
more Davison. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read to you from this backup listing of 12 
results, and then read to you from the body of the report. DOL-6 says : 

Migrant Program, Texas. Requested 5/24/72. Senator Tower's oflBce requested 
that a $2.2 million migrant worker program grant be given to the pro-Adminis- 
tration Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council, as opposed to the con- 
sortium of OEO/CAP agencies. DOL has already announced that the OEO groups 
have the best proposal. If the Development Council were to receive the grant, 
there would be a significant plus for the Administration, as OEO's negative voice 
would be silenced, and the Council's positive feelings toward the Administration 
could be stressed. DOL has told Tower that the grant will be awarded to Tower's 
choice. Tower will confirm his decision this week. 

• Spe p. S.SRO. 



8235 

In the body of the memorandum itself there is a capsulized version 
of this that reads : 

The Department of Labor was asked to award a $2.2 million migrant labor 
program contract in Texas to a pro-Administration group. Labor has already 
publicly committed itself to a consortium of anti-Administration OEO/CAP 
agencies. Labor has reversed its stand. 

I am reading from page 3 of the basic memorandum. Do these state- 
ments, in this memorandum, accurately reflect what happened, to your 
bast knowledge? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I recall this incident only quite vaguely and I 
really don't know whether that is an accurate reflection. I will tell 
you what I do recall. I do recall that Senator Tower's office had ob- 
jected to this particular grant, and I vaguely recall someone in my 
office, or it could have been Mr. Gifford, I don't really know who made 
the request, that the Department of Labor reconsider this in light 
of the new information that Senator Tower had brought to bear. And 
that is about all I really do recall. I recall that rather vaguely, be- 
cause I did not get into these particular incidents. They were really — 
my staff really served as a funnel from the Committee To Re-Elect 
to either Gifford or the agencies. And since we were just a funnel 
and weren't making judgments, I did not get into specific instances. 
But this is one that I do have a vague recollection of. 

Now, it is my understanding, however, that eventually this OEO 
group got the grant. So I am not sure if this is accurate. I really do 
not kiiow whether Tower's group did get the grant. This is something 
that could be checked easily enough, but I really don't know. 

I will tell you who might be able to give you more information on 
this, and that is this fellow — I think his name is Adams, from the 
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who someone from the committee initially 
leaked these documents to, because he has researched it rather thor- 
oughly, and he has written a number of followup stories on it and he 
probably would have the most insight into this particular one. 

Mr. Hamilton. For your information, I believe the fact of the mat- 
ter is that eventually the OEO group did get the award, but that the 
award was made after the election; is that correct, Gordon? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. 

Mr. Malek. That is what I had read in the newspapers. 

Mr. Hamilton. But is it fair to say from the statement here, that 
an attempt was made by members of your staff to award the grant 
to the proadministration group because of the impact that it would 
have on the election ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I don't think that would be fair to say at all. I 
think it would be fair to say that Senator Tower's concern about the 
program, the information he wanted to bring to bear on it, was re- 
layed to the Department of Labor. I can't even tell you if it was re- 
layed from my staff, because all we were doing, really, here, was re- 
porting on something that had come to our attention, and that the 
Department of Labor, upon learning of the Senator's interest, ap- 
parently did pause to reevaluate. 

Mr. Hamilton. I do not want to quibble with you, but the report 
that was written by Mr. Davison — if he did indeed write this — says : 

If tJie Development Council were to receive the grant, that would be a signifi- 
cant plus for the Administration, as OBO's negative voice would be silenced and 
the Council's positive feelings toward the Administration could be stressed. 



8236 

Mr. Malek. Well, I am sure there is some validity to that, but my 
point is, I do not recall that my staff had anything to do with this par- 
ticular one. They may have; it could have come directly from Senator 
Tower's office to the Department of Labor, and we might have been 
informed about it. It could have gone through any one of a number of 
channels. All we are doing here really is reporting something that had 
taken place and its impact. 

And, as to what reasons it was delayed, you would have to ask some- 
body in the Department of Labor who made or participated in this 
grant decision. It could have been delayed because of the fact that the 
Senator bi'ought some new information to light that truly did change 
the substantive nature of the competing grants, or it could have been 
out of political considei'ation. I do not know. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, the Responsiveness Program 

Mr. Malek. We did not participate in making grants. I did not, and 
members of my staff did not. We were a funnel for requests and for 
information. 

Mr. Ha]miltox. The question is, is it fair to say that a contact was 
made with the Department of Labor with the purpose of having Labor 
take an action that would be beneficial to the President in his reelection 
campaign ? Whetlier or not the contact produced the results, was the 
contact made with that idea, with that purpose in mind? 

Ml". INIalek. AVell, Mr. Hamilton, I really and truly do not know how 
this contact was made. You know, you have talked to members of my 
staff and you have probably asked them the same thing; but I haven't 
asked them labout these, and it is conceivable that a member of my staff 
did pass this on. But it is also conceivable that it went directly from 
the Senator's office to the Department. I really do not know. 

]Mr. Hamilton. One of the purposes of the Responsiveness Program, 
I believe, as these documents show, was to have the departments take 
steps that would benefit the President's reelection. 

Mr. ]\Ialek. If, in fact, the request was made through my staff, their 
purpose in relaying it was to express the Senator's concern and pass on 
this information. And also they felt that the reconsideration by the 
Department of Labor would also have a benefit for the President's 
reelection. 

Mr. Fkeedmax. I might interject here that these two programs were 
evaluated by the Department of Labor, and the OEO/CAP agencies 
received an 87-percent rating, and the other group, the Development 
Council, received a 68-per^cenit rating. 

Mr. Malek. By the same token, though, we do not know what evi- 
dence or information Senator Tower brought to bear on the situation. 
He may have some information that was not available to the bureau- 
crats who evaluated this, and this is the case in many requests that we 
get fi-om the Congress. I just don't know. But I am saying it could have 
been that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read you another one, Mr. Malek, if I might. 
This is in the backup memorandum to the progress report, and it is on 
the fifth page of exhibit 16: 

HUD-il : William Meehan, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, requested 3/29/72. Wil- 
liam Meehan, Republican ward leader in Philadelphia has requested that his 
Democratic counterpart, Michael Stack, be prohibited from receiving the sub- 



8237 

stantial comijensation he earns as a fee attorney for Fannie May. The impact of 
such action would not be of great benefit to the reelection. It is not pos.sil)le for 
us to significantly change Mr. Stack's earnings, as he is a close friend of Congress- 
man Barrett, a member of the key HUD committee that appropriates funds for 
Fannie Mae. 

Were you asked by Mr. Flemming to see if Mr. Stack's Fannie May 
earnings could be reduced ? Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I don't remember how this came to us, but I do 
have a recollection that — of this request being made. I do not recall 
how it came to us, but obviously we concluded that it was not appropri- 
ate and did not pursue it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me refresh your recollection. I have a March 29. 
1972, memorandum to you from Mr. Harry S. Flemming. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 16-A.*] 

It reads like this : 

Our Pennsylvania Ck)mmittee for the Reelection of the President has brought 
to our attention that Michael Stack, a Democrat ward leader, last year earned 
$58,000 in mortgage foreclosures 

Mr. Malek, That is disgraceful. 
Mr. Hamilton [continues reading] : 

From Fannie May. Mr. Stack happens to be the ward leader in the same ward 
as William Austin Meehan, who is Republican leader in Philadelphia. Meehan 
cannot understand why the type of work that Stack is doing has to be given to 
a Democrat ward leader who is working against our interests. Perhaps a qualified 
Republican could be found who could handle Fannie May business in that par- 
ticular area. Any help your oflSce can give rectifying this situation would be 
helpful. 

Mr. Malek. Well, obviously the request did come from Mr. Flem- 
ming to me, and as stated here, I guess it was hard to understand why 
Mr. Stack earned so much from this. But when we looked into it, we 
did not feel it was appropriate to take action. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it a member of your staff did look into it to 
see whether ]Mr. Stack's compensation could be cut down; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't know whether he looked into it with that pur- 
pose. I assume when this came in that I routed this to my man who 
covered HUD, and that he would have either made a call to HUD and 
told them about this and asked them what their opinion was, or just 
sent the memo over saying, "What do you suggest?" or something on 
that order. We would not just jump at this suggestion from somebody 
from the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Rather, we would refer 
it to the department for evaluation. And I assume they came back and 
told us that you really shouldn't do this ; that he has been doing this 
for some time and in addition to that he is a close friend of a guy who 
gives us all of our money. Congressman Barrett. And consequently 
it did not seem appropriate to take any action. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember who made the contact with HUD ? 

Mr. Malek. No. I am sure we could determine that just by looking 
down the list, which I don't have available now, of who was covering 
HUD at that time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you think it was Robert Davison? 

• See p. 8.387. 



8238 

Mr. Malek. Most likely it was Davison. 

Mr. Hamilton, OK. Now, I would like to read you two other ex- 
cerpts from this progress report and the backup document to it. First 
from the backui) document, I am reading from page 1 of that document. 

DOL-1 : Local 454 Dock and Wharf Builders, Philadelphia, Pa., requested 
May 10, 1972. Herman Bloom, Specter's Assistant at the Pa. CRP requested that 
the subpoenaed records of Local 4o4 be returned. The business agent of the union 
is a Republican supporter and could be very helpful to the Administration in 
impacting the blue collar vote in a key county. The books were returned on 
May 23, 1972, and the union given a clean bill of health. 

And reading from the summary of this, page 2 of the progress 
report : 

The Department of Labor ruled that Local 454, the Dock and Wharf Builders 
Union of Philadelphia, whose steward is an active backer of this Administration, 
was not responsible for the illegal actions of its president. This action was re- 
quested by the Pennsylvania Committee for the Re-election of the President. 
And they report that this action had a very strong impact on the local ethnic 
union members. 

Xow, do these two paragraphs accurately reflect what happened? 

INIr. Malek. AVell, I have a very vague recollection of this particular 
one. I do have some recollection of the request being made. 

Mr, PIamilton. Do you remember whom it came from ? 

Mr. Malek. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, not to interrupt you, but I have another 
document 

Mr, INIalek, AVouldn't it save time if you would just show me this 
to start with, because I really can't recall who would bring something 
like that to my attention. 

]\lr. Hamilton. This document — Senator, you do not have a copy 
of this, it is dated May 1, 1972, It is to Mr. JNIalek from Al Ivaupinen — 
and that's K-a-u-p-i-n-e-n; subject: Labor problem in Pennsylvania, 

[Tlio document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No, 17,*] 

Mr, Hamilton. It is short ; I will read the whole text. 

Mr. Herman Bloom, Arlen Spector's assistant with the Committee for the Re- 
Election of the President in Pennsylvania has had some pi'oblems with the 
Department of Labor, Can somebody in your oflSce call Herman Bloom to assist 
him with this problem? 

Do you know who called Mr. Bloom? 

]\Ir, Malek, No, I don't ; but I believe INIr. Davison was our liaison 
with the Department of Labor, so he conceivably could have done it 
or he could liave passed it on to the Department to do it, I do not know 
who — the only thing that I recall from this was that a request was 
made, and I believe, as best I can recall, was that when this was checked 
into, this action had already been taken. In other words, that the 
records had already been returned in the normal course of busine>ss, 
I do not think there was any affirmative action that needed to be taken. 
That is my recollection of it, although you could probably get a more 
precise answer on exactly what happened if you talked to the people 
at Labor. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that the call was made to Labor 
with intent to see if some affirmative action to benefit the union could 
be taken ? 

* See p. 8388. 



8239 

Mr. Malek. Well, I do not know, because I do not know whether 
this memo could have just been passed on to Labor and asked them to 
look into the problem ; or it could have been that Davison called 
Bloom to find out what the problem was, and he then relayed it to the 
Department to determine whether there was any action that could be 
taken. Any one of those scenarios could have happened. I do not know 
which one. 

To amplify that, if the call was made from a member of my staff 
to the Department of Labor after talking to Mr. Bloom, I assume that 
he would have given them Bloom's side of the story and asked them 
what, in their opinion, the situation was, and what could or should be 
done. But I do not believe the members of my staff were acting as 
advocates, because they were not in a position to know the trade-offs 
involved. They were really in the business of serving as conduits so 
that the people in the departments, who had the kind of substantive 
knowledge to mako the trade-offs, could make these kinds of judg- 
ments. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it, since this was done under the auspices of 
the Responsiveness Program, the purpose of the phone call would have 
been to have Labor take an action that would have benefited the 
President's reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Malek. The intent of — the waj^ I see it, and I can't put intent 
in somebody else's mind, but the intent that I would have intended it to 
have been, would be that they would be calling to say, "Look, there is a 
political problem that erupted from an activity in your Department 
and we would sure appreciate your taking a look at it, and see what 
appropriately can and should be done about it." But they are not call- 
ing to say, "You have got to do this," or anything like that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you think it is proper to bring political circum- 
stances or considerations into a regulatory proceeding before the Labor 
Department ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I think the way our Government works, that 
political considerations, political information, any kind of informa- 
tion that can help in making a valid decision should be put before the 
decisionmaker. 

Mr. Hamilton. Even in a regulatory 

Mr. Malek. Was this a regulatory ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe it is. I believe it is a proceeding under the 
Landrum-GrifRn Act, because the Labor Department has a regula- 
tory function, just like the 

Mr. Malek. I don't really know enough about the case. If you know 
that it is a regulatory function — I really don't know. I see nothing 
wrong with passing on the information that has come into the De- 
partrnent. Now, they are in a position to determine whether or not 
that information is appropriate. 'Whoever passed on the information 
is not in a position, he does not know much, if it is the Landrum- 
Grilfin Act he probably doesn't even know what it is. And he is 
simply passing on information as a conduit. The people in the De- 
partment have to make that judgment. 

Mr. Hamilton. You do not think it is improper if the person pass- 
ing on the information is attempting to change the outcome of a 
regulatory decision? 



8240 

Mr. Malek. The person passing on the information is not attempt- 
ing to change the outcome of a regulatory decision. He is serving as a 
conduit to get this information to someone who could more adequately 
weigh the pluses and minuses of any kind of action. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, the person passing it on, if it is a member of 
your staff acting under the auspices of the Responsiveness Program, 
was trying to take action that would benefit the President's reelec- 
tion in this particular instance. 

Mr. Malek. Only if he is substantively responsible. He is passing it 
on and saying, "This is something that has come to our attention. We 
would like you to look at it." He is not making any judgment as to 
whether' it ought to be done or what the trade-offs are. That is the job 
of the people in the Department who have that responsibility and are 
trained for it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read you another specific from this progress 
report, Mr. Malek. First, reading from the backup document, and then 
reading from the text of the report, and I am reading from the last 
page of the backup document, from an item entitled "EEOC-1, EEOC 
suit of the University of Texas" : 

Senator Tower was informed by vice chairman Holcomb tliat Ed Pena, director 
of compliance, liad recommended to Bill Brown that EEOC sue the University of 
Texas. Brown appeared to agree. If siich suit took place, the result would be a 
serious negative impact in a key State. Brown denies that the suit is under con- 
sideration. This should be followed carefully. 

And then turning to the text of this memorandum, at page 3, the 
following paragraph appears : 

We garnered from reliable sources in the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission that the Commission was preparing to sue the University of Texas 
for discrimination in the hiring of faculty. This could be disastrous in Texas. 
When queried, Bill Brown, chairman of EEOC, agreed not to pursue it. I will 
continue to follow this situation closely. 

Do these two paragraphs accurately reflect what happened in regard 
to this EEOC proceeding ? 

Mr. Malek. Well here again, I have a rather vague recollection of 
it, and apparently this so-called reliable source was not too reliable, 
because as I recall it, when contact was made, just to find out whether 
or not this was happening, he informed whoever it was that called 
him that the suit was not under consideration. So apparently the in- 
foi-mation that Senator Tower had received here was incorrect, and I 
believe from what I have read in a newspaper story after these leaked 
documents came out and several people followed up on them. I believe 
that Brown stated the same thing, that this was never something that 
was being considered. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you continue to follow this situation closely? 

Mr. :\[alek. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that the contact to Mr. Brown, what- 
ever the result of the contact, was made with the intent of trying io 
reach a result in this matter that would be favorable to the administra- 
tion in the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not think it is realistic to try to place intent here. 
1 think it could have been simply a request for information. There was 
a rumoi- that was brought to some— this rumor was brought to some- 
one's attention by Senator Tower. Chairman Brown was called to 



8241 

determine whether the rumor had validity, and he said it did not. 
Now, you are getting awfully hypothetical if you come back and say, 
well, what if he had said it was under consideration, then what? And 
only then, I think, can you get down to intent, and I do not know then 
what. 

Mr, Hamilton. Well, the call was made, I take it, by somebody on 
your staff. And the question was whether you know that the contact 
was made with the intent of affecting the proceeding in a manner that 
would benefit the President's reelection campaign ? 

]Mr. Malek. Well, as I recall, this was one that, I believe, was made 
by a member of my staff. But the call was for information purposes, 
and Brown said that the suit was not under consideration. So there 
was really nothing here to pursue or consider any further. 

Mr. Hamilton. What did you base the statement on page 3 of the 
memorandum, the statement that reads : "When queried. Bill Brown, 
Chairman of EEOC, agreed not to pursue it." ? 

Mr. Malek. I think that is the author of this paper using a little 
bit of liberty in his choice of words. I believe the backup material more 
accurately defines this situation as it occurred. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Jim, may I ask something at this point ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Sure, please do. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Does this memorandum contain a little puffing? In 
other words, is there some effort by the writers of this to justify a 
Responsiveness Program ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes ; there is a definite effort here by the people who put 
this together to demonstrate a certain amount of action and organiza- 
tion, perhaps beyond that which, in fact, existed. 

Mr. SciiULTz. Is it not your recollection that there was an action and 
a response with regard to each and every one of these items listed? 

Mr. Malek. No; I do not recall that there was an action and a 
response in each one of these. I think in some cases we were simply 
reporting on something that took place that came to our attention. 

Mr. ScHULTz. And if it was favorable and could be incorporated in 
this Responsiveness Program — that is where I get to the puffing. I 
have the feeling that they are going a little bit further than the facts 
involved, and it fits in, and you can help justify a program, so you 
cay this is what we did. And it may not have been done at all. 

Mr. Malek. There is a little bit, I believe, of puffing in it. 

Mr. Hershman. So in other words, your staff members compiled this 
information, including possible exaggerations, sent it to you, and 
you sent it on to Mr. Haldeman, is that correct ? 

Mr. Malek. In some instances the staff member might have been a 
conduit for the information, and in some cases it might have been 
simply something he had been made aware of that came to his atten- 
tion. I cannot tell you which were which precisely, but in essence this 
was an activity that had just gotten underway, and the progress report 
itself is aimed at describing the activity and offering some specific 
examples. And I think some of the specific examples probably would 
have taken place with or without any involvement by any members of 
my staff. 

Mr. Freedman. Mr. Malek, what participation did you have in pre- 
paring this document ? 



S242 

Mr. Malek. I read it. Probably — I don't recall exactly, but my nor- 
mal practice would be to review what my staff had written, and if I 
did not like the way it was organized or written, to suggest how it 
could be written better before forwarding. I don't know whether I did 
or not, but I read it and I put a cover memo on it, and sent it to 
Ilaldeman. 

Mr. IIershman. Would you consider 

Ml'. JMai.ek. Let me say this. This was not an activity that I chose 
to invest very much time in. I would guess that this whole responsive- 
ness effort, when you take aside the time that I spent in mulling around 
to meet Avith agency heads, aside from that, I don't think I spent more 
than 1 percent of my time on this. 

JNIr. Hamilton. But Mr. Malek, you did consider this operation 
important, didn't you? 

Mr. Malek. Pardon? 

Mr. Hamilton. You did consider this operation important, didn't 
you, the Responsiveness Program ? 

Mr. Malek. I thought it was of marginal value. 

^Ir. Hamilton. If you will bear with me just a second, until I can 
put my finger on what I'm looking for 

INfr. Malek. You are going to look for an earlier memo in which I 
say it's important to do, and then you're going to compare it with why 
it is marginal. AVell, after experiencing a couple of months in it and 
seeing the very infrequent and insubstantial requests that came about, 
it really made me question whether this particular part of the re- 
sponsiveness effort was really of that much value. 

I did feel that the more important, the more consequential parts of 
the Responsiveness Program were getting our speakers out to the key 
areas and announcing grants in a way that would reflect favorably on 
the Republican candidates and on the President, and on posturing the 
President, oi- recommending posturing to the President on issues that 
would generate public support. These things I did feel were very, very 
important. But this particular aspect of serving as a funnel of in- 
formation, I thought, was a very minor and not a very contributive 
part of it all. 

Mr. Hersiiman. Was it abandoned ? 

Ml'. JNIalek. Yes ; I believe it was abandoned. 

Ml'. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, in this document [exhibit 3] I showed 
you earlier with INIr. Ilaldeman 's handwriting on it that was not dated, 
entitled "Organizing For and Implementing New Responsibilities," 
you do say on page 1, under the heading "Department Responsiveness ; 
This is potentially one of the most productive activities we will 
undertake." 

Ml'. ^SIalek. That was written about 6 months before, wasn't it? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. And then, just to give you another example, in 
tlio briefing of John Mitchell that we referred to, which is dated April 
28, 1972 [exhibit 7], and is behind the memorandum of the same date 
from Mr. Herringer to you, it says: "Potentially one of our most sig- 
nificant advantages over the opposition is the incumbency if it is used 
pj'operly." 

]\Ii'. Malek. But the use of the incumbency refers to this whole 
bailiwick of getting speakers out and posturing yourself properly on 
issues and announcing grants in the right way, and those kinds of 



8243 

public-relations-oriented events and issue-oriented kinds of things, I 
think, are very iniportant. But that the minor benefits to be gained 
from a few patronage placements and a few things such as this, I did 
not think were of major value at this particular time. And in fact, 
when I went to the Committee To Re-Elect on a full-time basis July 1, 
I ceased being involved in this. I did not think it was important enough 
to take up any of my time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, is it at least fair to say that when this program 
started off that you considered the Responsiveness Program a signifi- 
cant part of the campaign? Is that fair to say? 

Mr. Malek. Significant as compared to what? I consider it of some 
significance, but again, the Responsiveness Program, let us remember, 
has four parts, and the three that I think as most important were the 
arranging of speakers, to go out to speak on issues to the right groups, 
persuasive articulate speakers from the administration and from the 
Senate. We had spokesmen from the Senate, Governors who would go 
out looking for those grants that were going to be announced in key 
areas and trying to gain publicity announced in a way that would gain 
favorable publicity. And these, to me, were the more important things. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I believe in each of those memos it says "potentially 
important," Did there come a time when you found out there really 
was no potential there ? 

Mr. ]Malek. Well, it is kind of a gradual thing, as we went along 
here and realized how limited and inconsequential most of the requests 
were, and then as you further realize and you funnel these things to 
tlie departments, how complex the decisions are that are in all of the 
considerations that go into making a grant, it is just very difficult for 
the political considerations to be given that much weight. And when 
weighed in with all the other factors, it just was not something that 
was that effective. 

Mr. Hamilton. Before we leave the EEOC matter, I would like to 
state for the record, that we have been supplied with an affidavit by 
William Brown, who was the chairman of the EEOC, in which he 
denies that he was subjected to improper pressure from the White 
House or that he succumbed to improper pressure. And this affidavit 
will be included in the record. I think, though, it is only fair that I 
make reference to it now in questioning Mr. Malek. 

[The affidavit referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 18.^] 

Mr. Hamilton. Getting back to the progress report, was it sub- 
mitted to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, did Mr. Haldeman ever express to you any 
disapproval of the activities that you were reporting on ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not recall his doing so. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he ever comment to you that the President was 
informed of what the progress report contained ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not believe that he did. 

Mr, Hamilton. Did you ever discuss the legality of any of the mat- 
ters in the report with Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not believe so. 

1 See p. 8.389. 



8244 

Mr, Hamilton. Who was John Clarke? 

Mr. Malek. John Clarke worked for me as a recruiter of executive 
manpower, formerly associated with a very distinguished INIember of 
the U.S. Senate. He was an executive recruiter and concentrated on 
recruiting people at the Presidential appointee level. I believe about 
the time that I was going over to the committee full time — I do not re- 
member exactly when he made the switch. I think it was after I came 
to the committee — he moved to kind of a dual role. In addition to re- 
cruiting he was handling relationships with a group of departments 
and agencies, and I believe this was caused by the fact that I brought 
Mr. Anderson with me when I went to the campaign. 

Mr. Hamilton. But did he work on the responsiveness aspects after 
you left? 

Mr. Malek. That was my understanding, that he kind of had the 
liaison with a certain group of departments. And I think Mr. Kingsley 
kind of carried it on for a short period of time after that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now. we have received an affidavit from Mr. Clarke 
dated November 21, 1973, and I would like to read a part of this into 
the record : "The Responsiveness Program generated activity with 
architectural engineering contract awards bv GSA." 

[The affidavit referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 19.^] 

Mr. Hamilton. By the way, I am reading from page 2 of this : 

When contract awards were to be made, which are nonbid awards, the archi- 
tectural engrineering contract award board would select three to five firms who 
would technically qualify to fulfill the contract, and these firms were recom- 
mended to GSA. I would then be contacted by Larry Roush of the GSA, and 
Rotish would give me the names of the firms who were being considered for an 
award. I would call Lee Nunn at the finance committee to Re-Elect the Presi- 
dent — FCRP — and ask Nunn if the committee had any preference as to which of 
the firms should receive the award. It is my understanding that Nunn would then 
check with various sources on the Hill, as well as other political sources who 
might be affected by the contracts to be awarded, and ascertain whether or not 
there was any preference as to the award. In a day or two, Nunn would call me 
and state that there was no preference if there was none, or indicate which firm 
was preferred if they had a preference. I would relay the message to Roush at 
GSA. In relaying the message to Roush, at no time did I indicate anything other 
than a preference. This is the extent of my knowledge as to what action was 
taken on the preferences, and there was no structured follow-up to see whether 
or not the contract was actually awarded to any particular firm. 

Th'^ affidavit goes on, but I think that is the essence of it. Now, 
we have also received an affidavit from T.arrv F. Roush. the GSA 
official who is referred to in the Clarke affidavit. This affidavit from 
Mr. Roush is dated November 25, 1973. and I Avon't read the whole 
thing. It is short, but I will not read the whole thing. But there is the 
statement in here that Mr. Clarke's recommendations were accorded 
considerable weight. 

TThe affidavit ref'>rred to was marked Mniek exhibit No. 20.^] 

Mr. Hamit,ton. Now, my question to you : Were you in any way 
in\olved in the contacts with the GSA described in Mr. Clarke's 
affidiavit ? 

Mr. Mat,ek. No. I was not lawarc of these contacts. 

Mr. Hamilton. That was my next question, whether you had any 
contemporaneous kiiowledge in the summer or fall of 1972 ? 



1 Spp p. M9^. 

2 Spp p. 8.397. 



8245 

Mr. J.Ialek. Let me qualify that by saying, I do not recall being 
aware of these contacts. 

Mr. Hamilton. But in the summer and fall of 1972, did you know 
that GSA architectural engineering contracts awards were being run 
through CRP ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, they weren't really. It was the finance commit- 
tee. Nunn was with the finance committee. 

Mr. Hamilton, I'm sorry, the finance committee. 

Mr. Malek. But you know, everything — I would like to say cate- 
gorically no, because that is the way I feel. But everything is so long 
ago that it is a little bit fuzzy. So I will say, to the best of my recollec- 
tion, I had absolutely no knowledge of that, and I believe that this 
took place after I left the White House, because I do not think Clarke 
was in a position, or in that kind of a position until afterward. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let us go off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know a Mr. Richard A. Goldstein who was 
a Special Assistant to the former Under Secretary of the Depart- 
ment of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Richard Van Dusen ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I cannot place him. But it is conceivable that I 
have met him or I knew him. 

Mr. Hamilton. He was Special Assistant from October of 1970 
through March 1973. 

Mr. Malek. It is probable, if he occupied that position for that 
period of time, that I have met him. But I do not recall him. 

Mr. Hamilton. Goldstein has submitted an affidavit to us that is 
dated November 23, 1973, and I would like to read you a portion of 
this affidavit, and ask you similar questions as I have just asked you 
about the Clarke affidavit. 

[The affidavit referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 21.^] 

Mr. Hamilton [reading:] 

Some time in the summer of 1972, after Mr. Malek had left the White House 
staff to join the Committee to Re-Elect the President, I received a telephone call 
from Mr. Davison, in the course of which he asked that the Department set 
aside approximately $2-3 million that could be used in the State of California 
as a part of the Responsiveness Program. Under Mr. Davison's proposal, an 
individual whom the White House would designate, but who would not be an 
employee of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with an appro- 
priate delegation of authority from the Secretary, would make the decision as 
to how those monies were to be committed, i.e., which cities and towns in Cali- 
fornia would receive those funds. I told Mr. Davison that in my judgment such 
a program did not make sense ; that it sounded illegal and certainly improper, 
and that I felt confident that HUD would not participate in such a program. I 
further told Mr. Davison that if he wanted a decision from a higher authority 
I would take the matter up with Under Secretary Van Dusen. Mr. Davison 
suggested that I do that. At the conclusion of my conversation with Mr. Davison 
I spoke with Under Secretary Van Dusen about the matter. He agreed, and told 
me that HUD would in no way participate in such a program. 

Now, was Mr. Davison acting under your instructions ? 

Mr. Malek. Absolutely not. I certainly do not think he was. As I 
pointed out, this took place after I left the White House, and I do not 
believe I would have ever given him any instructions like that, or that 
I did. It sounds nonsensical to me. He can't do that kind of thing. 

1 See p. 8399. 



8246 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have any contemporaneous knowledge that 
Mr. Davison had made this request ? 

Mr. Malek. I had heard something about some scheme that someone 
had dreamed up, and it sounded preposterous. And I do not know if 
this is the particular one or not, but it sounds like it might be. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Davi- 
son about this? 

Mr. Malek. I do not recall having any. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall reprimanding him in any way for his 
suggestions ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I do not recall reprimanding him. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who is William Marumoto ? 

Mr. Malek. William Marumoto is a man who worked as a recruiter 
for me at the White House, recruiting people for Presidential ap- 
pointee positions. He also specialized with part of his time on recruit- 
ing members of minority groups for high-level positions. He has now 
left the White House and is in private industry. 

Mr. Hamilton. And who is Mr. Alex Armendariz? 

Mr. Malek. Alex Armendariz was the director of our effort to pre- 
sent the President's record to the Spanish-speaking voter at the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were Mr. Marumoto and Mr. Armendariz acting in 
connection with the responsiveness program in a fashion to use the 
incumbency to benefit the President's reelection ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, you are asking me an interpretive question there. 
I have read Mr. Marumoto's testimony before your committee, and 
apparently they were. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have contemporaneous knowledge of this 
conduct ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not believe I knew they were participating in the 
review of minority business enterprise grants. I did know that they 
were trying to encourage minority group members, particularly those 
in the Spanish-speaking sector who had not had the benefit of par- 
ticipating in this program, to come up with viable and acceptable 
applications. I did know this encouragement had been going on, but 
I did not know that — I do not recall that I knew anything beyond 
that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you a document that is entitled "Capi- 
talizing on the Incumbency," and it refers to activities in the Spanish- 
speaking area.^ 

Gordon, do you have a copy ? 

Mr. Freedman. I do not find one in this package. 

Mr. Hamilton. It is attached actually to a memorandum of Au- 
gust 3, 1972,' to you from Alex Armendariz. At least, it is attached 
m our files. And I want to ask you if you have seen it. 

Mr. Malek. Well, let me say first of all that I do not think it would 
have been attached to the memo,- because the capitalizing on the in- 
cumbency thing says tab G, and all the covering memorandum says is 
"Attached is the Spanish-speaking organizational chart and phone 
numbers for your convenience." So I doubt that it was in this same 
package. 



1 Previously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 13, exhibit 
262-1, p. 5532. 

» See book 13, exhibit 262-39, p. 5648. 



8247 
Mr. Hamilton. It may not have been. That is why I indicated that 



it- 
Mr. Malek. Nevertheless, let me look at it to determine whether or 
not I do recognize it. 

I may have seen this before. I really do not recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. Does it constitute a fair statement of what Mr. 
Marumoto and Mr. Armendariz were doing, to the best of your 
knowledge? 

Mr. Malek. Armendariz was not in my understanding to be in- 
volved in this sort of program. Mr. Marumoto was to be involved in 
certain aspects of these, for example, providing the campaign team 
with up-to-date information on all programs directed at the Spanish- 
speaking community, use of department and agency public informa- 
tion offices to publicize favorable administration activities on behalf 
of the Spanish speaking, develop specific ideas for using grants, per- 
sonnel appointments and programs to fill out any gaps in the Presi- 
dent's record ; for example, appoint a Mexican American to a regula- 
tory commission. 

I understand the example. I don't understand exactly what is in- 
tended by the first part of it. The fifth statement on there, I do not 
imderstand what that means at all. 

Mr. Freedman. Weren't these points discussed in the Camp David 
meeting of May 26 ? 

Mr. Malek. Marumoto made a presentation, I believe, on the activi- 
ties they had going on to win the Spanish-speaking vote, and some of 
this was probably included. But again, I would offer the same com- 
ments. Some of this I really do not understand exactly. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, were you aware that Mr. Marumoto and 
Mr. Armendariz were seeking to obtain governmental grants for mem- 
bers of the Spanish-speaking community who were supportive of the 
administration? Were you contemporaneously aware of that? 

Mr. Malek. Well, my awareness was a little bit different. I was aware 
that Mr. Marumoto was involved in trying to generate grant applica- 
tions from members of the Spanish-speaking community who were 
favorable or potentially favorable, and could generate potentially 
favorable publicity toward the administration. There are many 
]Mexican-American groups who for one reason or another have not had 
the opportunity to participate in the grant process of the Government. 
They either aren't sophisticated enough, they are just not good enough 
grantsmen, or haven't had the kind of attention that they needed. And 
one of his responsibilities was to seek out groups like this, and try to 
get them participating and into the mainstream of what the Govern- 
ment could do to help them, because we felt this was an undeserved 
group, first, and secondly, we felt that it was a ^oup that politically 
could be supportive of the President. I think this is really the way in 
which majorities are developed in American politics. 

Mr. Hamilton. Wasn't one of the focuses of their activities on pro- 
viding grants to those who were supportive of the administration ? 

Mr. Malek. Well. I tell you, if I had known that's what they were 
doing, that would have been ridiculous. Why should they — if you 
have a political motivation in mind, it would make a lot more sense 
to go to those who aren't supporting you and try to demonstrate to 



8248 

them that the political system can work for Mexican- Americans as 
well as all Americans, because then you get an incremental vote. So I 
am not sure that that is exactly what they were doinor, and what I was 
aware of, though, was that they were trying to generate grant applica- 
tions and they were trying to guide these people into the process. 

^Ir. Hamilton. Well, I have some memorandums here that I would 
like to show you. I have a series of them, and I tell you what. Let me 
identify these memorandums and read a passage from each, and then 
when I get through the three or four I have here, then we can discuss 
them. 

Mr. Malek. ok. 

]Mr. Hamilton. The first one I am reading from is dated May 12, 
1972.^ It is from Mr. Marumoto to you and Mr. Colson. It is a weekly 
activity report of the Spanish speaking. All of the memorandums that 
I am going to read from are weekly activity reports, and I think Mr. 
Freedman can give you copies of these. The first one I am reading 
from, paragraph 16, said: "Rodriguez met with Carlos Villareal." 

Senator Weicker. Carlos Villareal. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Administrator of UMTA to talk about setting aside 
specific moneys for some of our Republican SS contractors." I take 
it SS means Spanish speaking? 

Mr. Malek. Right. 

Mr. Hamilton. Then a memorandum from Mr. Marumoto to you 
and Mr. Colson, dated May 5, 1972,^ reading fro mparagraph 7(b) : 

Department of Transportation : working with UMTA re a $70,000 prant to 
J. A. Reyes Associates of Washington, D.C. He is the chairman of the District 
of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia section of National Hisitvanic Finance Committee. 

Then, reading from a memorandum from Mr. Marumoto to you 
and Mr. Colson, dated April 7, 1972,^ paragraph 10(a) : 

In the grants area, Rodriguez and I are working on the following: (a) review- 
ing with John Evans, Bob Brown, and Wally Henley proposals and grants at 
OMBE to make sure the right people are being considered and receiving grants 
from OMBE. 

And then finally, from a similar memorandum from Mr. Marumoto 
to you and Mr. Colson, dated May 19, 1972,* reading from para- 
graph 18 : 

Rodriguez is assisting Ultrasystems, Inc., of Long Beach, Calif., with a $200,000 
grant from OMBE. This organization strongly supports the administration. 

Now, when you received these progress reports, didn't those passages 
give you some indication that Mr. Marumoto was seeking grants for 
people who were supportive of the administration ? 

Mr. Mai^k. Well, a couple of points I should make here. First of 
£Vll, as I think Mr. Marumoto pointed out when he testified before you, 
he was reporting to me on personnel matters and to Mr. Colson on 
other matters, and so when I read through a memorandum like this 
I was particularly watchful for two things: one, what he was doing 
in the way of liaison with the Committee To Re-Elect, where I had 
Some responsibilities; and two, personnel actions. 



»See Book 1.3, p. 5576. 
' See Book 13, p. 5571. 
»See Book 13, p. 5556. 
* See Book 13, p. 5579. 



8249 

And second, I'm not even sure I read all of these memorandums. I 
couldn't tell you which ones I read and which ones I didn't. I had 
an awful lot of things coming in at that time, and reading an activity 
report which didn't require a decision or an action would have been 
pretty low on a priority list. And occasionally I would read them and 
sometimes I wouldn't. So I don't know that I actually read all of 
those, although I am sure my office received them. 

Finally, in reading through those, if I had seen the kind of things — 
and out of these four it is a reasonable assumption that I would have 
read through at least one of them — I think I would have interpreted 
the way I interpreted what his activities were, that he was working 
with some Spanish-speaking groups who had not had the opportunity 
to participate in the Federal grant process before, to try to help them 
develop the skills with which to apply for grants, to qualify for 
grants, on a substantive basis. I did not think Mr. Marumoto was 
doing anything improper, and I am not sure that he was. Today, I 
don't know that he was. 

Mr. Hamilton. If you read a document, Mr. Malek, like the one 
that is dated April 7, 1972, paragraph 10(a), that says: "We are re- 
viewing grants in OMBE to make sure the right people are being 
considered and receiving grants from OMBE — ^OMBE only deals with 
minorities," how would you interpret "right people"? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I would assume, given what I perceived his job 
to be, that they were trying to insure that groups that they had been 
developing and encouraging were getting their applications in, and 
that thev were being given serious consideration. 

Mr. Hamilton. You would not interpret "right people" as being 
supporters of the administration? 

Mr. Malek. I didn't say that. What I said was that people that they 
had encouraged and brought along and tried to bring into the system, 
they may or may not be supporters of the administration, but certainly 
part of the intent here was not only to bring Mexican-Americans into 
the mainstream, but to gain political benefit from so doing. So I would 
assume that those people, those groups that he refers to as the "right 
people" would be groups that were either favorably inclined or po- 
tentially favorably inclined toward the administration, or groups 
whose receipt of grants would reflect favorably within the Spanish- 
speaking community on the administration. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that Mr, Marumoto and Mr. Ar- 
mendariz were signing off on grants? 

Mr. Malek. No. No; I was not aware of that, to the best of my 
recollection. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you a memorandum dated March 31, 
1972.^ This memorandum did not go to you. It just went to Mr. Colson, 
even though it is the same type of weekly activity report for Spanish- 
speaking that we have been referring to before. In paragraph 12 of 
this memorandum there is this statement: "Armendariz and I signed 
off on a $600,000 SBA/Navy grant to a Spanish-speaking California 
firm." 



1 Previously entered during testimony of WUUam H. Marumoto. See book 13, exhibit 
262-10, p. 5551. 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 



8250 

Even though this memorandum was not directed to you, in the title, 
it does show that you got a copy of it back. Do you recall seeing this 
particular memorandum ? I would be happy to show it to you. 

Mr. Malek. Yes; let me take a look at it. I do not recall this specific 
memorandum ; no. I may have seen it. I do not recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you consider it proper for an official in the cam- 
paign committee to be involved in signing off on or approving grants? 

Mr. Malek. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Hamilton. So had you seen this, would you have disapproved 
it? 

Mr. Malek. If it had caught my attention — and I hadn't interpreted 
it that way — I think I would have determined really what they are 
doing. I can't really tell just from that description whether, in fact, 
they were sitting there exercising a signoff or whether he had just given 
Armendariz an opportunity to look at it. But, if you interpret it liter- 
ally, what is said there, I would have been concerned about it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that certain other persons working 
in the Spanish area were seeking to deny funding to certain 
Spanish-speaking grantees or potential grantees who opposed the 
administration ? 

Mr. MatoEk. I don't recall hearing of any instances where they were 
trying to deny funding. I am a little bit — I read Mr. ^larumoto's 
testimony prior to — over the weekend, and there was something in 
there that implied that. But I do not believe I was familiar with it 
before that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, there are several documents I would like for 
you to look at, and the first document is the document to you and Mr. 
Colson from Mr. Marumoto dated June 2o, 1972^; paragraph 13(f) 
says : 

Rodriguez working with Nat Beyer of the Domestic Affairs Council, re identify- 
ing Spanish speaking groups who have applied for federal grants in DOL who 
are unfriendly toward the Administration. 

Do you recall receiving this particular document? 

Mr. Mai-ek. No ; I don't recall reading the specific memo. Again, it 
is conceivable that I did. What item are you reading from? 

Mr. Hamilton. I am reading 13(f). The question is, why would Mr. 
Rodriguez be attempting to identify Spanish-speaking groups who are 
unfriendly toward the administration who were getting DOL grants? 

Mr. Malek, Well, I think you would have to ask him that. 

Mr. Hamilton. There are two other memorandums here that I 
would lilvc for you to look at. These memorandums do not go to you, 
but they involved a firm called Development Associates. There are two 
memorandums here, one from Mr. Marumoto to Mr. Davison, who 
was in your office, I believe, at least at one time, and the second one 
for Mr. Davison from Mr. Armendariz. I will not read this whole 

^Iv. ISIalek. Can you tell me the dates on those? 

Mr. Hamilton. I am sorry. The first one is July 19, 1972, and the 
$^ond one is July 24, 1972.- It would have been after you went to the 
tVhite House. 



1 Pr«'vlo"«Jv entered tAtixtas testlowmy of WUJlam H. Marumoto. See book 13, exhibit 
.263-28, p. 5«t3. 

. « T're'V^lo^-'s'V eacitetgsd (!ttBl3»i« te«tti»»tt|r of 'Wltltasn "H. Mar<uaioto. See book 13. exhibit 
{B»«96, p. 563Q. 



8251 

Mr. Malek. After I left the White House. 

Mr. Hamilton. I'm sorry, after you left the White House and went 
to the campaign committe. Now, these two memorandums suggest that 
proposals at DOL and HUD from Development Associates be stopped 
because this particular company is not sympathetic to the adminis- 
tration, and in fact its director, Mr. Sanchez, had some contact with 
Sargent Shriver. I would like you to look at these two memorandums, 
and while you are doing it — I am sorry to give you so many docu- 
ments — I would also like to refer you to a memorandum to you from 
Mr. Marumoto, July 21, 1972,^ at paragraph 10(b) where Mr. Maru- 
moto says: 

Recommended to Rob Davison that he carefully review the background of 
Leveo Sanchez whose firm has been receiving a number of grants. 

Mr. Malek. What paragraph? 

Mr. Hamilton. Paragraph 10(b). 

Mr. jNIalek. Yes. Well, I don't believe I've ever seen these other 
memos from either Armandariz or Marumoto to Davison. I doubt 
very much. 

Now, the memo that he has here to Colson and me, just says he 
recommended Davison review the background, confirm that they've 
received a number of grants. That wouldn't trigger off anything in 
the back of my mind. 

I would also add, once I went over to the campaign full time, I don't 
think I read this kind of stuff. I don't think I even had them send 
it over because I was really up to my ears trying to work and develop 
State campaign organizations. So I am really not in a position to 
comment on this. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is your testimony you know nothing about 
this Sanchez situation? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I do not recall knowing anything about the 
Sanchez situation. It is conceivable that Armendariz or someone could 
have mentioned it to me. It is conceivable that I saw this memo. But 
I don't recall having seen it. 

Mr. Hamilton. In regard to attempting to cut off unfriendly groups, 
let me show you one more memo. 

Mr. ^Ialek. I^et me comment on this memo. This is certainly an 
interesting document, and I think it kind of demonstrates how things 
worked in this town. Here is this man Sanchez who had worked for 
Sargent Shriver, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, prior to 
that for Frank iMankiewicz, the McGovern campaign manager, and 
he had been evidently set up in business after this, and was getting a 
steady stream of grants to his consulting firms. I'll bet there are a 
lot of consulting firms in the country that would like to get $1 to $2 
million from the Government every year, such as this fellow is getting, 
and I wonder just how he got that $1 or $2 million each year. It just 
seems to me that it is a good example of somebody being taken care 
of, and I wonder who was taking care of him. But in any case, I really 
do not know what, if any, actions Mr. Marumoto or anyone else 

Mr. Hershman. If I might point out at this time, Mr. Malek, that 
a number of the groups mentioned in these weekly activity reports 



» Previously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 1.^, exhibit 
262-37. p. 5638. 



8252 

who were being acted on favorably by Mr. Marumoto or Mr. Rodriguez 
or Mr. Armendariz were also established consulting firms in business 
for a number of years and firms which had received funds previously 
under minority assistance programs. 

Mr. Malek. I understand that. But doesn't it make you just a little 
bit suspicious that here is this guy closely associated with Mankiewicz 
and Shriver getting a couple of million bucks every year of the tax- 
pavers' dough for whatever kind of consulting he is doing? It sure 
raises my eyebrow a little bit. 

Mr. Hersiiman. Well, in conversations with members of the 

Mr. Malek. I would sure like to know, and I bet a lot of people 
would like to know how he got set up in business and what his quali- 
fications are for this amount of grant money. 

Mr. Hershman. In staff interviews with members of the relevant 
minorities assistance programs, agencies, and departments, Mr, San- 
chez' firm was mentioned as one of the most qualified, highly qualified 
Spanish-speaking consulting firms in the country. 

Mv. Malek. And who mentioned this ? 

Mr. Hershman. In interviews with members of the Office of Mi- 
nority Business Enterprise or HUD or HEW. 

Mv. Malek. I wonder who they worked for before they got their 
jobs. 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't think we 

Mr. Malek. This is a diversion which is not going to be of any use 
for vou, and it is probably not of use for our process liere. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, let me just ask you a question. Do you con- 
sider it proper to cut off grantees who are responsible grantees because 
they are not supportive of the administration ? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, no. No, not at all. I don't think that is appropriate. 

^Ir. Hamilton. There is one final memorandum in this regard I 
would like to show to you, and this is a memorandum from Mr. Maru- 
moto to you and Mr. Colson, dated May 26, 1972,^ and I am looking 
at paragraph 5(b) on page 2. Mr. Marumoto reports : 

In the grants area : Expressed concern to OEO re a $3 million grant to the 
Mexican-American Unity Council, only to find that there are some legal hangups 
to try to cut them off. They promised at least to monitor the group. 

When you received this did you take anv action in regard to Mr. 
Marumoto's activities? Did you call him in and question him about it? 

Mr. Mat>ek. I am not even sure I read this memo. I may have read it, 
but I don't recall it. This is getting close to the time, this is 5 days 
prior to my — the date on this is 5 days prior to my moving over. 

Mr. Hamilton. No, it's 35 days. 

]\Ir. Malek. I'm sorry, 35 days. You're right. In anv case, I may 
have read it. I may not have. I do not recall the specifics here, and 
l! do not recall this item ;<'ou have pointed to. 

Mr. Freedman. Mr. Malek, Mr. Davison's name comes up a number 
of times in the last few memorandums. Was he carrying out responsive- 
ness activities in this regard ? 

Mr. INIalek. Well, Mr. Davison was responsible for liaison with a 
certain group of departments and agencies. We had them divided up. 



1 Previously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 13, exhibit 
29^19, p. 5583. 



8253 

and I think part of his, as I recall part of his liaison was with agen- 
cies like Labor and 0P]0, where apparently a lot of the discretionary 
grant money for minorities seems to go. And that is probably the reason 
he seems to be in there so much. 

Mr. Freedman. So he could be utilized as a conduit ? 
Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr, Hamilton. Were you aware that Mr. Marumoto and Mr. Ar- 
mendariz were seeking certain grants for La Raza Unida, if I am pro- 
nouncing that correctly, and tlie Southwest Council of La Raza, two 
Spanish-speaking groups, in order to neutralize them as administra- 
tion opponents ? 

]Mr. Malek. I knew they were working with the La Raza group in 
trying to — as I recall, the La Raza group was a very vocal, very anti- 
Nixon organization, and they were spending some time trying to culti- 
vate them, to try to at least make them neutral if not pro-Nixon. And 
they had gone down and talked to their leadership. 

And I also recall that at one point in time somebody — I don't recall 
where it came from — suggested we provide a certain amount of fund- 
ing, either through the campaign money or something else, for the 
group, and I think I rejected the idea as not seeming to be a very 
sensible one. That is basically what I can recall about La Raza. 

Mr. Hamilton. I have two of my endless stream of documents here 
that I would like to show to you. The first one is dated October 9, 1972, 
and it is a memorandum for you from Alex Armendariz, and the sub- 
ject is the Zavala County grant. And I just read to you the last para- 
graph of this memorandum. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 22.^] 
Mr. Hamilton [reading]. 

We have no way of publicly supporting this group — 

He is talking about La Raza — 

♦ * ♦ without antagonizing Republicans and making La Raza Unida look as 
though they had sold out. At the same time, neither do we want to antagonize La 
Raza Unida's supporters and drive them back to their old positions as Democratic 
voters. The Zavala County grant provides us with an opportunity to support 
the party indirectly in a positive and legitimate manner. Such an action is likely 
to strengthen their position of neutrality, which is so politically beneficial to us. 

And then, reading from another one of these reports from Mr. Maru- 
moto to you and Mr. Colson, dated June 9, 1972,^ paragraph 17(c) : 

Rodriguez is working to obtain $30,000 for the Southwest Council of La Raza 
for a conference next month. This is the group we want to neutralize. 

Now fii*st of all, do you recall being contemporaneously aware of 
the activities portrayed in these memorandums? 

>\lr. Malek. No, I don't recall being aware of these activities. As 
I stated earlier, before you showed me these, I was aware that there 
was some effort to gain a more neutral position out of this La Raza 
group. I do not know what happened. You probably have talked to 
people and know whether they have ever provided any grants. I don't 
know of anything that ever happened to follow through on this. 



1 Sipp n. .S4n.5. 

' Previously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 13. exhibit 
262-24, p. 5599. 



S254 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I must say, I do not know as to these two 
specific grants what happened. Mike, do you know? 

[IMr. Hershman nods in the negative.] 

Mr. jNIalek. It seems to me, just frankly, it seems to me to be a 
rather preposterous kind of a scheme here, that they think they are 
going to neutralize this party with a few bucks of grant money. I 
don't think it is a very good idea, even if it was appropriate. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you think it is a proper use of Government 
funds? 

i\Ir. ]Malek. Of course not. My recollection was that they wanted 
campaign funds, they wanted us to take some money out of the 
campaign treasury to give to these people to help support some of 
their activities. And I thought it was kind of a harebrained idea. I 
didn't think it would work. I didn't pursue it. That is mv recollection 
of it. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think to be fair, Mr. Malek, I should show you 
this memorandum to you from Mr. Armendariz dated September 8, 
1972.1 

Mr. ]Malek. Dated which? 

Mr. Hamilton. September 8, 1972 — where there was a suggestion 
that $8,000 be contributed to the campaign of a Mr. Muniz. And it says : 
"A promise was made to publicly condemn McGovern if such donation 
were made." And you have a handAvritten note at the top : "Do you 
think we should do this? I am doubtful. How could GOP contribute 
to a rival candidate? In addition, it seems too cheap, Raza Unida's 
principles should be worth more than that. Fred." 

Mr. Malek. That is probably what I was thinking of. 

^Ir. Hamilton. I think you were thinking of that. Of course, that 
particular episode is something distinct from this Zavala County 
grant, and also distinct from the $30,000 for Southwest Council of 
La Kaza to neutralize them. 

^Ir. Hershman, To the best of your knowledge, was there any 
followup concerning the possible undercover funding of this organi- 
zation in the tune of $8,000? 

Mr. Malek. Not to my knowledge. 

^Ir. Hershman. Did you have discussions concerning that funding 
with ^Ir. Colson ? 

Mr. Malek. The La Raza funding ? 

Mr. Hershman. Yes. 

'Sir. Malek. I don't recall any. 

IMr. Hershman. Did you make any recommendations to Mr. Armen- 
dariz of the Committee To Re-Elect to speak to Mr. Colson concern- 
ing it? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall having done so. 

Mr. Hamilton. I have just a few more questions on the Spanish 
area. "What is the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish- 
Speakinor People? 

Mr. Malek. AVell, that is a committee of principally domestic Cab- 
inet officers. It is chaired bv a man named Henry Ramirez who has a 
staff. The purpose, really the committee itself, of Cabinet members 
is not a unit which meets much. The staff itself carries out activities 



^ ^ Previously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 13. exhibit 
li62-50, p. 5677. 



8255 
to try to help the Spanish speaking, kind of serving as an advocate 
for tile Spanish speaking within the administration, try to find under- 
served groups within the community and get them involved, and so 
forth. I believe it is established by statute. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did the Cabinet committee have any campaign 
responsibilities ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. Ramirez as a Presidential appointee was asked to 
cultivate Spanish-speaking leaders on the President's behalf, to make 
speeclies in support of the President, to try, insofar as is possible to 
publicize the administration's record in serving the Spanish-speaking 
people— generally those kinds of responsibilities. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it your understanding that Ramirez was not 
Hatched— not under the purview of the Hatch Act ? 

Mr. i\lALEK. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Hamilton. How about the rest of the people on the committee? 
What is your understanding? The rest of the staff members of the 
committee ? 

Mr. ^NIalek. Well, I believe that the staff members of the committee, 
much of them would have been Hatched, aside from perhaps a couple 
of his assistants. But if they follow the pattern of other agencies, most 
of them would have been Hatched. 

Mr. Hamilton, Do you know if any of the members of the commit- 
tee were working in the President's reelection campaign? 

Mr. jNIalek. Members of which ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Members of the committee that were actually work- 
ing on the 

Mr. Malek. No ; I don't know, I don't recall whether any were or 
not. Ramirez was the only one, I believe, that I knew. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, I would like to show you a couple of 
documents. The first one is from Carlos Conde — I believe it is 
C-o-n-d-e — ^to a number of people, including you, dated May 31, 197*2.^ 
On page 2 of this document, under the heading, "The Committee to 
Re-Elect the President," there is a suggestion that Diana Lozano be 
reassigned to Mr. Armendariz at the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President. 

Mr. Malek. Where is that lat now^ ? Page 2 ? 

Mr. Hamilton, Page 2, down at the bottom. Now, on the particular 
document I have here there is a handwritten note. Is this your writing 
right here? 

Mr. Malek. I think it is, yes. 

Mr. Hamilton, And I believe this says, "Let her work from where 
she is. No wav she can be added," Wouldn't that be a violation of the 
Hatch Act? 

Mr, Malek. Lot me read the paragraph, 

Mr, Hamilton. I would like a ruling that the documents we have 
identified will be made a part of the record. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Fine. 

Mr. Hamilton, I think we will proceed until we get finished, which 
will probably be another hour, 

Mr, SciiuLTZ. Jim, does your request for a ruling include those 
documents which you read excerpts from ? You are going to put the 
whole document in ? 



1 Previously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 13. exhibit 
262-22, p. 5595. 



8256 

Mr. Hamilton, Yes. I am going to put in the whole document. I 
think it would only be fair to have in the whole document where I 
have read excerpts. 

Some of these documents like the Spanish-speaking documents are 
already part of the record. They were introduced with Mr. Marumoto, 
and I think the record is clear also that there are some documents 
that did nol: go to uNIr. Malek. And I think it is clear, the record is clear 
where a document was used that he could not identify, that he did 
not know anything about that document. But I do think for com- 
pleteness those documents still should be in the record. I would like 
to-^can you stay for about 10 more minutes ? There is one matter. 

Senator Weicker. Xo. As I said before, I have no objection — if you 
have a question, ask it now. I gather the insistence in having a Sena- 
t/or }\ere — is that Mr. Malek's insistence or your insistence? 

Mr. Hamilton. It was my idea. I thought it would be appropriate. 

Senator Weicker. Well, in any event why do you not proceed with 
your questions? 

iSIr. Malek. Do you want me to answer this about this? 

]Mr. Hamilton. Yes, why don't you go ahead and answer that, and 
then I'm going to skip to something. 

Mr. Malek. Well, you asked if that would be a violation of the 
Hatch Act. It really would depend upon two things: One, if she 
is Hatched — and I don't think this memo establishes that she was 
Hatched; in fact, up above it says, "She had been assisting part- 
time in Carlos Conde's activities at the White House." 

So maybe she isn't Hatched. I don't know, and I didn't know when 
I read the memo whether she was Hatched. I don't think it occurred 
to me that she was. 

Secondly, to let her work from where she is. She was working at 
that time, as it is explained here, in doing research work which I 
assume was supporting her boss, Mr. Ramirez, as well. And I don't 
think that in itself would be a violation of the Hatch Act; So I don't 
believe you could interpret from this that I was condoning a violation 
of the Hatch Act, because I didn't know if she was Hatched, and I 
wasn't applying what kind of work she was going to do from where 
she was. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Why don't we come back to that in a few minutes? 

Mr. Malek. All right. 

Mr. Hamilton. Because I do want to ask you some questions in the 
black area as opposed to the Spanish area. Who are Bob Brown and 
Paul Jones? 

^Ir. INIalek. Bob Brown weis special assistant to the President with 
responsibility for liaison with various black groups and — I should say 
representing their points of view and interests in White House coun- 
cils. Paul Jones was the head of the group at the Committee To 
Ke-Elect, responsible for gaining the support of black voters. 
' Mr. Hamilton. Now, I take it ]\Ir. Jones reported to you, is that 
correct ? 
' Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. How about Mr. Brown? Did he have any reporting 
responsibilities to you? 

Mr. Malek. No. 



8257 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown 
coordinated their activities? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that ISIr. Brown and Mr. Jones 
were attempting to get grants, contracts, et cetera, for black groups 
supportive of the administration? 

Mr. Malek. I w^as aware here again, as in the Spanish-speaking 
area, that they were trying to develop, particularly Mr. Brown was 
trying to develop, grant applications that would meet the established 
criteria for members of the black community who heretofore had not 
had the opportunity to participate. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, did you understand that the emphasis was 
getting grants, et cetera, for blacks supportive of the administration ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, the way I understood what he was doing was that 
he was trying to demonstrate to blacks that a Republican administra- 
tion was responsive to their needs, and in so doing he was encouraging 
black groups who had legitimate needs and legitimate programmatic 
activities to apply for grants. 

Now, the end result of this, of course, would be that if they got the 
grants that they would then recognize that they can indeed work with 
the Republican administration, and there would be political benefit. 

^Ir. Hamilton. Was it your understanding that Mr. Brown and Mr. 
Jones were trying to drum up black support for the administration ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And contributions from black groups by the use of 
Government resources? In other words 

Mr. Malek. Contributions? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Malek. No. I was never — I was not aware that they were trying 
to use Government resources to gain contributions. That is clearly a 
violation of the law. 

Mr. Hamilton. How about vocal support for the administration? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, yes, that was their mandate. I did not know that 
they were in the fundraising business except for one black fundraising 
dinner we held here in Washington. I had assumed that most of their 
activities were confined to gaining votes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read you passages from two documents- 
Senator Weicker, are you leaving ? 

Senator Weic;ker, Yes. I might add if you are going to go much 
beyond an hour, he has apparently got a problem with his throat, and 
I would inquire as to whether your witness wants to continue or not, 
all right? 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. 

Senator Weicker. Otherwise, if there is any problem that comes up, 
let us know. We will be on the floor. 

Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. I hope I am not going to go beyond an 
hour. I am doing my best. 

Mr. Malek. Let's do whatever you have got to do. I am fine. 

Mr. Hamilton. I want to read from a memorandum to you from 
John Clarke dated June 15, 1972. Actually, there is a cover memo- 
randum entitled "'Black Vote Field Plan," and the field plan is at- 
tached. And I am reading from page 5, under the heading "Special 
Activities : Grants and Government Resources." 



8258 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 23.*] 
Mr. Hamilton [reading] : 

Alt the present time, Bob Brown and his staff are handling the grants activity. 
To date, they have identified all blacks vpho are receiving or have received money 
from this administration. These recipients are being utilized as a source of cam- 
paign contributions and volunteers, and as a vehicle for getting our appointees 
invited to various black events as speakers and participants. They also form an ex- 
cellent group of visible blacks, and they are being used to reach the voters in their 
areas of influence. 

In addition to the above results. Bob and his staff are actively seeking out 
other projects that could be funded to the benefit of the campaign. They are 
specifically looking for projects that will impact heavily on blacks due to voter 
appeal and black involvement. To date, they have been very successful in this 
area. A local black building contractor. Jack Crawford, has developed a program 
for identifying potential projects, getting them funded through Bob's office, and 
in return obtaining a strong vote commitment for the President from the recip- 
ient. This plan is being acti -ely pursued at present 

Another specific project that is under wry is i,:e identification of all remaining 
grant and loan monies with u view to carefully allocating those funds to projects 
which will impact most heavily on black voters. 

Finally, Bob and his staff are working closely with Dan Kingsley to identify 
various advisory boards and commissions and job oiienings which can he filled 
by visible blacks. 

Now, before I ask you any questions I would also like to read to you 
from a June 26, 1972, memorandum from you to Mr. Mitchell which 
is entitled, "Black Vote Campaign Plan." 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 24.^] 
• Mr. Hamilton [reading on page 2 from item 3] : 

Intensify efforts to utilize government grants and loans. I feel that our strong- 
est selling point with black voters is the economic assistance this Administration 
has provided the blacks. To fully capitalize on this, we have to do a better job 
of publicizing the grants already given and of identifying new projects for which 
we will receive maximum Impact. 

The major portion of the responsibility for this activity falls on the White 
House side of the black team. Bob Brown and his staff have identified all blacks 
who are receiving or have received money from this administration. These re- 
cipients will be utilized as a source of campaign contributions and volunteers, 
and as a group of highly visible blacks to be used to reach the voters in their 
areas of influence. 

Effective allocation of new grants requires close coordination between the 
White House and the campaign team. As a first step I have asked Bob Brown to 
identify all major sources of grant and loan money which eotild be allocated 
to blacks. Then Jones and Sexton, working through their field organization, will 
be responsible for finding recipients in key cities who will be supportive of the 
reelection effort. 

Now, do these two passages accurately describe to your kno\s ledge 
the activity in the black area ? 

^Tr. MaIvEK. This is the first time I have seen these in 2 years, if in 
fact, I saw them then. Is this something that definitely went from mo 
to Mitchell ? 
, Mr. Hamilton. Well, perhaps I should ask you — is it a memorandum 
for John Mitchell from you ? 

INIr. Malek. Well, it is something that could have ]^een prepared for 
my signature but never signed and sent. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, I have no way of knowing, but I suppose 
•I should have asked you whether you recognize this as a document 
you sent to Mr. Mitchell. 



1 See p. 8406. 

2 See p. 8414. 



8259 

Mr. Malek. I can't say that I did ; I can't say that I didn't. But in 
any case 

^Ir. Hamilton, Let me ask you this question. Mr. Mitchell was the 
campaign director. Is it fair to say that memorandums that were sent 
to him over your name would have been read and approved by you? 

Mr. ]Malek. Oh, yes. But I am just not sure that I sent this. I had 
asked John Clarke to look at our black voter group organization 
because I didn't think it was working right, and I didn't have time 
to get into it in detail. And that is what this cover memo was all about, 
and I guess what this plan that is attached is all about. And con- 
ceivably this memo was for me to send to Mitchell to implement some 
of these recommendations. I don't know whether I sent it or not, or 
saw it or not. 

But, in any case, to get to the crux of your question, whether this 
represents my understanding of the black vote activities, I did know 
that people who had contributed — excuse me — people who had re- 
ceived grant money from the administration, particularly here we are 
talking about business enterprises who had been assisted by the admin- 
istration were thought to be logical sources of support for the admin- 
isti-ation, a Republican administration that didn't have very much 
support among the black voters. So it was perceived by some who 
were working on this that it would be logical to go to some of these 
who had received major amounts of funds, because they would more 
than likely, because of this, be appreciative and be supportive. And 
using them as a nucleus — many of them are respected names — we 
would then have the opportunity to develop further support. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were the blacks who had received contracts being 
solicited for contributions, as well as vocal support ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, that I really— it says in this memo that they will 
be utilized as a source of campaign contributions. I was not in the 
fundraising business whatsoever. I had nothing to do with fund- 
raising. And, in particular, if I had had something to do with fund- 
raising, I think I would have spent my time where the bigger money 
was. I don't think I would have been trying to take on the black com- 
munity, which is not the wealthiest community in the country by a 
long shot. 

So it v/as not my intention that Paul Jones, who worked for me, 
be involved in any way in fundraising, aside from one event, which 
was a massive $100-a-plate dinner that was held in Washington back 
in May or June. And the only reason I let him participate in that was 
because I felt it would be, because of the great large number of blacks 
who had indicated a desire to attend, some of the big names that were 
willing to speak at such an event, that it would have political benefit 
to the administration by the publicity to be gained from it. But I 
was not — I did not have any intention that Jones or his people be 
involved in fundraising. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that the blacks who were asked to 
that $100-a-plate dinner were Government contractors? 

INIr. ]Malek. I was aware that among the people at the dinner were 
people who had been past recipients of Government awards; yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. "WTiat type of awards? Grants, loans, contracts? Do 
you know the specifics? 



8260 

Mr. Malek. Probably all. I really don't know. 1 was just aware 
there was a wide cross section of blacks coming in, some of whom were 
simply strong supportei-s of the administration, some of whom had 
developed businesses on the basis of Government grants and loans. 
But I wasn't aware that there was any direct solicitation based on 
their awards. 

We had big contributor from other industry as well. Most of our 
large contributors are involved in business that have Government 
contracts. Most of the large contributor's of any political candidate 
come from businessmen, and most businesses have Government con- 
tracts, so that wasn't a particularly unusual sort of thing that those 
blacks who were for us were those who were in business, not those 
who were on welfare. And the fact that many of them who came in 
were recipients in the past of Government loans and contracts really 
meant that they were business people, and this was the normal com- 
munity that we could hope to attract. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know Jack Crawford, a local black building 
contractor identified in this memorandum from ]\fr. Clarke to you? 

]Mr. ]\rALEK. Yes: I think I have met Jack Crawford. 

ISIr. Hamiltox. Did you have a meeting with him to discuss his 
program for identifying potential proiects, getting them funded 
through Bob's office, "and m return receiving a stix)ng vote commit- 
ment for the President from the recipient"? 

I am reading, of course, from Mr. Clarke's memorandum to you 
of June 15, or at least from the field plan — black vote field plan. 

Mr. Malek. No; T don't believe I ever met with Crawford on that. 
I believe that I met with Crawford on one occasion, and the only 
reason I did it was because I was literally pressed into it by someone 
who thought Crawford was just really a great guy and could come 
in and really show us how to run the black political campaign. And in 
deference to this individual's request, I met with Mr. Crawford just 
to kind of size him up. 

It Avas my recollection — if it is the man I am thinking of, it is — to 
m}^ recollection, that was the only time I met with him. And after I 
met with him, I really didn't think he could be very useful to the 
can Dai gn. 

Mr. HA]\rTLTOx. Did yon know he had submitted a written plan in 
res:ard to this program to Mr. Miardian ? 

M?" Malek. Well, T don't really recall if I knew that or not. It was 
Mardian who insisted I meet with him. 

Mr. Ha:!miltox. Did you ever see a written plan, anything in Avriting 
f i-om Mr. Crawford ? 

Mr. Mat.ek. I don't recall having seen anything in writing from 
him. If I did, I doubt that I Avould have taken any time to read it. 

Mr. Ha^tilton. Xow, the way these memorandums are written, at 
loast the first memorandum, it comes close to suggesting a quid pro 
quo arrangement. It says, "Mr. Crawford has developed a program 
for identifving potential projects, getting them funded through Bob's 
office, land i'l return obtaining a strong vote commitment for the Presi- 
dent from the recipient." 

Was it your understanding that l^Ir. Brown was attempting to 
achieve a commitmeTit from blacks who were receiving grants, that 



g261 

they Avould support the administration as a quid pro quo for the 
grant ? 

]\[r. M.vr.EK. Xo ; that was not niv understanding. 

Mr. IIa^iii.tox. So you think "wh.at is written here was an error, 
or vou disagree with my interpretation of it ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I disagree with your interpretation, or perhaps 
it is a question of sloppy writing plus misinterpretation. What page 
is that on again ? 

Mr. Hamiltox. Page 5. 

Ml'. Malek. Where is that, on the top ? 

Mi-. Hamiltox. Page 5 in the first full paragraph. It starts oif, "In 
addition." 

Mr. ]Maekk. All it says here is that Crawford developed a pro- 
gi-nm — ^oh, it says the plan is being activ^ely pursued. I wasn't aware 
they were doing anything like that, "looking for projects that will 
impact." 

It says : 

Crawford has developed a program for identifying potential projects, and 
getting them funded through Bo])'s office, and in return obtaining a strong vote 
commitment for the President from the recipient. 

That could be interpreted several ways. 

It could be interpreted as a direct quid pro quo. It could be inter- 
preted that it is in return for these people being considered, that they 
would be for the President anyhow, I don't really know how to in- 
terpret it. You would have to ask the writer of this particular docu- 
ment. Now% as to whether I was aware that they were doing this, or 
aware of the Crawford plan, I do not believe that I was. 

Mr. Hamiltox. And it is your testimony that Mr. Crawford, when 
you talked to him, did not discuss this plan with you ? 

Mr. Malek. I do not recall that he discussed his plan. He may have. 
He may have laid out a general kind of an approach such as this. But 
the one thing I do recall from my meeting with ]SIr. Crawford is that 
I was not terribly impressed wath his overall approach to campaign 
organization. It was not consistent with what I — how I felt the black 
campai,<Tn needed to be developed. 

Mr. Hamiltox. In this memorandum that you wrote Mr. Mitchell— 
or at least it appears that you wi'ote Mr. INfitchell — on page 2 there is 
this statement : 

In section 3, Jones and Sexton, worlcing through their field organization, will 
be responsible for finding recipients in key cities who will be supportive of the 
reelection effort. 

And there is a similar statement in the Clarke document, which says, 
on page 5 : 

Another specific project that is under way is the identification of all remaining 
grant and loan moneys with a view to carefully allocating those funds to projects 
which will impact most heavily on black voters. 

I take it from these two statements that there was, indeed, a con- 
centrated effort to allocate grant money, loan money, in the black 
area, with the intent of affecting the reelection campaign. 

Mr. Malek. Would you repeat that? 

^Vlr, Hamiltox. I take it from these two statements that I have read 
to you from the memorandum that you ostensibly wrote and the 



8262 

memorandum that Mr. Clarke ostensibly wrote that there was an effort 
to allocate money in the black community, allocate grants and loans, 
with the intent of affecting favorably the President's reelection 
campaign ? 

Mr. INIalek. Well, I think if you read this, what it says here is that 
they would identify grant moneys "with a view to carefully allocating 
these funds to projects which will impact most heavily on black 
voters." 

What that means to me is that they are to be allocated in a way that 
would reflect favorably on the President and would demonstrate to 
blacks that a Republican administration is concerned with them. And 
that, in fact, was the intent, that we do a better job of getting black 
groups to apply for grants and contracts and to get them together with 
the various programs that could be helpful to them, such as minority 
business enterprise and the SBA loan programs. 

INIr. Hamii.tox. You do not interpret this provision as saying the 
plan is to put the money where it will best advantage the President? 
In other words, put the money where you will get the black votes ? 

INIr. ^Ialek. Well, yes; you are putting the money where you can — 
there is an implication here that you are putting the money where you 
can have an impact on the voters and gain political consideration. But 
I think that is totally consistent with my earlier statement of allocat- 
ing the funds in a way that will demonstrate to blacks that they can 
work with this administration. 

Mr. Hamilton. What is your explanation of the sentence that I read 
you at page 2 of the memorandum you ostensibly wrote to Mr. Mitchell : 

Jones and Sexton, working through their field organization, will be responsible 
for finding recipients in key cities who will be supportive of the reelection effort. 

Isn't it a fair interpretation of that provision that money is going 
to bo channeled, or rechanneled, to those people 

Mr. ^Ialek. That was never my intention that that be done. And 
since I really can't tell you that this is a memo that I approved or 
sent, it is kind of difficult for me to explain the intent. It does seem to 
me that it could be interpreted several different ways. However, even 
if that were the case 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Mitchell 
about this particular memorandum? 

Mr. ^NIalek. Well, as I recall it, I met with Mr. Mitchell and dis- 
cussed the black organization and the need to strengthen it, but I do 
not recall sending him a memorandum on the subject. INIy normal 
practice in dealing with Mr. Mitchell was to sit down and discuss with 
him things I wanted to do and gain his approval. It would not have 
rQally been necessary to send this kind of memorandum since I met 
With him on a regular basis. Now, that is one of the reasons that leads 
me to believe that this is not a memo that I ajiproved or sent. 

Mr. Hamilton. You weren't in the habit of sending Mr. IMitchell 
memorandums ? 

Mr. Malek. I sent Mr. Mitchell memorandums, but on something 
like this where all I wanted to do was to — where I really didn't need 
a decision from him that couldn't have been handled verbally — all I 
was asking to do would be to add a man from the Republican National 
Committee to the campaign committee — it doesn't seem to me in retro- 



8263 

spect it is the kind of thing that I would have needed to send him a 
memo on. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is your testimony, you do not remember his 
discussin*:; with j^ou this particular memorandum or this particular 
plan that is set out here ? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. I do not recall discussing this memo- 
randum or this plan with Mr. Mitchell, nor do I recall reading or send- 
ing this memorandum to him. 

Mr. Hamilton. You do not recall any disapprobation expressed 
by Mr. Mitchell as to the contents of this memorandum? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall it, which doesn't mean it didn't happen. 
But I don't recall any. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK, Mike. 

]\Ir. Hersiiman. All right. Because I'm a little bit hazy on the au- 
thorship of this memorandum, and because it is such an important 
memo, I would like to go over it point by point. 

The first sentence says, "As we have discussed, there have been some 
problems in getting the black vote campaign moving." Did you have 
a discussion with Mr. Mitchell in which you indicated there were some 
problems in getting the black vote campaign moving? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, yes, several. 

Mr. Hershman. OK. Let us skip down to the last sentence of that 
paragraph. "I have developed a three-part plan of action which is 
described below." Did you develop a three-part plan of action ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I remember a two-part plan of action. 

Mr. Hershman [reading] : 

Part No. 1, support Jones with an experienced political organizer to compensate 
for Jones' lack of political experience. I have arranged the addition of Ed Sexton 
as field operations manager. 

Did you indeed do so ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. That is not completely accurate. He never became 
totally the field operations man. That is the role I had intended, but we 
didn't work it out exactly that way. 

Mr. Hershman [reading] : 

No. 2 : Establish a field organization focused on key cities. Once Sexton is on 
board, he can begin to br Id the field organization that we now lack. Under him 
we should have two fie.d coordinators responsible for working with the State 
Nixon organizations to establish effective black organizations in key cities. The 
field coordinators and the field operations manager would each be assigned re- 
sponsibility for specific key States and cities. 

Is this part of your plan of action ? 
Mr. Malek. Yes, generally. 
Mr. Hershman [reading] : 

Part 3, intensify efforts to utilize Government grants and loans. I feel that our 
strongest selling point with black voters is the economic assistance this admin- 
istration has provided to blacks. To fully capitalize on this, we have to do a 
better job of publicizing grants already given and of Identifying new projects 
for which we will receive maximum impact. 

Was this part of your plan ? 

Mr. Malek. It was my intention, yes, to more fully capitalize on 
what we had already done for the black community by publicizing 
these efforts, and also, as I stated earlier, to try to identify grouj^s 
which had been underserved where new projects — and who could ap- 
ply and qualify for grants and contracts and the like. 



8264 

Mr. Hershman. And as the next paragraph indicates, was the major 
portion of the responsibility for that activity in the realm of the 
White House side of the black team? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. 

Mr. Hershman [reading] : 

Bob Brown and the staff have identified all blacks who are receiving or have 
received money from this administration. These recipients will be utilized as a 
source of campaign contributions and volunteers and as a group of highly visible 
blacks to be used to reach the voters in their areas of influence. 

Was that part of your plan? 

Mr, Malek. Well, as I stated earlier, we felt that, given the very 
limited support we had in the black community, that a very natural 
area to search for initial support would be amongst those who had 
benefited from this administration's presence and to find those amongst 
that group who would be — who were supportive and who could kind 
of act as a rallying point to other blacks. 

INIr. Hershman [reading] : "These recipients will be utilized as a 
source of campaign contributions and volunteers." Now, I am talking 
about recipients of money from this administration. Was this part of 
your plan? 

Mr. INIalek. Well, as I said earlier, I had nothing to do with fund- 
raising, and I did not have a plan for raising of funds. 

]Mr. Hershman. Sir, we just went through this, almost this entire 
memorandum, and you have identified everything in here as being 
part of your plan. 

Now, I would like you to either identify or disassociate yourself 
with this particular sentence in this plan. "These recipients will be 
utilized as a source of campaign contributions and volunteers and as 
a group of highly visible blacks to be used to reach the voters in their 
areas of influence." 

Mr. Malek. What I am saying is, if in fact the finance committee 
intended to use these contributors, these recipients of grants as a source 
of campaign contributions, that could have been so. I do not recall. 
It certainly was not part of my plan, because I had absolutely no 
responsibility for raising one cent. My responsibility was organiza- 
tional and political, not fundraising. 

Mr. Hershman. So, then, your testimony is that this strategy was 
not part of your plan? Is that correct? 

Mr. Malek. My testimony is that I do not recall having any — 
giving any direction concerning the raising of campaign contributions 
from black grant or contract recipients. 

: Now, on the other hand, we did intend — I did approve the plan that 
I believe Bob Brown had to try to use these recipients as kind of a 
.cornerstone for buildinir a black organization, since, as I stated, we did 
not have much support amongst the black community, and these people 
who were in business and who were generally more conservative than 
t^ie average black in political philosophy, and who had benefited from 
the policies of this administration, were the natural place to turn to 
get a nucleus of support in key cities, which could then be built upon. 
But here we are talking about organizational. 

, , Mr. Hershman. Going on to the third paragraph under "Intensify 
efforts to utilize Government grants and loans," it states: 



8265 

Effective allocation of new grants requires close co-ordination between the 
White House and the campaign team. As a first step, I have asked Bob Brown 
to identify all major sources of grant and loan moneys which could be allocated 
to blacks. 

Did you indeed do so ? 
Mr. Malek. I don't recall. 
Mr. Hershman [reading] : 

Then Jones and Sexton, working through their field organization, will be 
responsible for finding recipients in key cities who will be supportive of the 
election effort. 

Is that, sir, part of your plan ? 

Mr. IMalek. I do not believe it was part of my plan. I do not believe 
I ever asked Jones and Sexton to work with their field organization to 
find recipients who would be supportive of the reelection. But I do not 
recall that, and I do not know what Mr. Jones or Mr. Sexton said. I 
do not recall ever asking them to do that. 

Mr. Hershman. So that in summarizing this memo, would it be fair 
to say that the major portion reflects your strategy as to the black 
vote campaign, with the exception of soliciting funds from recipients, 
grant recipients, and with the exception of working through the field 
organization in finding recipients in key cities who would be sup- 
portive ? Is that correct, sir ? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. 

Mr. Hershman. Thank you. 

]Mr. Dash. This was your memorandum ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, we haven't established that, Mr. Dash. 

]Mr. Dash. Haven't we ? 

Mr. Malek. It does say "from Fred Malek to John Mitchell." I do 
not recall signing or sending or reading this particular memorandum, 
and it could have been drafted for me to send. I do not recall. 

Mr. Dash. Just in response to some of your answers that I just 
picked up, if this were your plan and were sent by you, the language 
"these recipients will be utilized," if there was an organizational kind 
of concept — it may be semantics — the language could be that these 
recipients could be utilized, with the reference "will be." And later on 
each time, "Then Jones and Sexton, working through their field or- 
,'i;a7nzation. will be responsible." 

It seems to be some expression of a plan that is not a potential plan 
but is one that is in effect — will take effect. 

I wondered if a memorandum which reads "from Fred Malek to 
John Mitchell" seems to be one which actually is telling him of a plan 
that will take place. 

Mr. Malek. Well, two points that should be made there, though : 
First, I recall discussing with Mr. Mitchell the changes I wanted to 
make in the black campaign, which was not at this point going very 
well. I do not recall drafting, signing, or sending him a memorandum 
on the subject. So I cannot say that this memo was something that had 
my approval. 

Second, I think I should say that it was never my intention to utilize 
our grant and contract moneys for gaining support, specifically of 
specific ffrant recipients of the reelection effort. And I do not believe, 
to the best of my recollection, that Mr. Jones or Mr. Sexton ever 



32-818 O - 74 pt. 18-7 



8266 

worked with their — within their field organizations specifically iden- 
tifying potential recipients for grants and arranging for them to get 
grant or contract money in return for reelection support. I don't be- 
lieve that happened. 

Mr. Dash. Who on your staff may I ask 

Mr. Malek. Now, you have probably questioned these people, and 
it might be interesting to know what they have to say. I do not recall 
ever giving any direction of that sort, and it certainly was never my 
intent to do that. 

Mr. Dash. Actually, the source material for many of these memos 
do come from, in fact, the memos from either the White House or the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President. So that, in effect, is a correct 
copy of a memo that did in fact go to Mitchell. 

Now, if this was a memo that bore your name to Mr. Mitchell but 
one you did not draft, who on your staff would be likely to be drafting 
memos on your behalf to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Malek. Now, the language is very similar to what is in this 
other paper that was prepared here, which was really an amplification 
of a total plan for attracting the black vote. It seems to me, in effect, 
that this is — I just kind of glanced at this — but this one to Mitchell 
seems to be a summary of this longer plan, which was submitted to me. 
And, conceivably, whoever was participating in preparing this may 
have prepared this for me to send to Mitchell to kind of get this under- 
way, but I just don't recall having read this or signed it. 

Mr. Dash. I understand that the kind of question I asked, they have 
been going into before, so I don't want to repeat the questions. 

I guess the only question I have is that when a memorandum, either 
by a staff person or anybody acting under your supervision, would pur- 
port to send a memo or draft one — I assume it is true in many staffs 
that subordinate staff people do draft memos for their superiors ; did 
this ever occur in which the memo wouldn't at least be shown for your 
approval before being sent out to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, it would not have been sent without my approval. 
I am quite sure of that. What I am saying is I'm not at all certain 
this was sent to Mitchell. It is the kind of thing that could have 
easily been prepared, and I would have said, "Oh, hell, I'll just talk 
to John about this. I'm going to meet with him tomorrow ; I'll just 
go over this with him." 

You know, there is no approval blank. I'm not asking him for 
approval. I'm just sort of informing him. Maybe I just mentioned 
it to put it on a list of six things I'm going to discuss with him when 
I see him tomorrow. I don't know, Mr. Dash. 

I am not denying that I sent the memo. I simply do not recognize 
the memo and do not recall having sent it. But, irrespective of that, I 
can tell you without any doubt whatsoever that the intent was not to, 
^as not to do what you interpreted this last sentence to do, and that 
is to find recipients and then give them grants in return for their 
support of the reelection effort. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, hadn't you been informed though, that 
^r. Brown and Mr. Jones were, in fact, trying to get grants from 
various departments for various persons? 

Mr. Malek. I knew that they were working on grants, yes. But my 
impression of what they were doing is the same as was being done 



8267 

in the Spanish-speaking effort, and that is that they were going out 
and looking for potential grantees and contractors. 

Mr. Hamilton. Can we go off the record? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Back on the record. 

Is it fair to say that ISIr. Jones and Mr. Brown were seeking grants 
for individuals who were supportive of the administration and that 
you had been so informed? 

Mr. Malek. No, I don't think that would be a fair way to categorize 
it at all, I think the way I understood it was, that they were reaching 
out into the black community to find people who had not had the 
opportunity to participate in many of the programs of Government 
which aid minorities, and try and encourage them to apply for grant 
applications and, if they were substantively qualified, hopefully to 
receive them, and in this wiay to demonstrate to the black community 
that it was possible to work with this administration, with the Repub- 
lican administration, and that consequently the hope was that they 
would then judge — and other blacks that saw this happening — would 
judge this an administration that they would like to support. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you a memorandum that was written 
to you by Mr. Jones, dated September 7, 1972, weekly activity report. 
And I would like to read to you what amounts to the first, second, 
third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs. Mr. Jones reports, 
"Attended White House OMBE meeting to clarify status of minority- 
oriented proposals that had been submitted by active supporters." 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 24-A.^] 

Now, does this passage convey to you that Mr. Jones and others 
were involved in trying to achieve grant money, loan money, for active 
supporters ? 

^Ir. Malek. Well, first of all, here again I'm not sure that even 
though this is addressed to me and sent to me that I bothered to read it. 
At this stage of the game, September 7, the activities of the black 
campaign, the Black Vote Division, were not high on my list of 
priorities, although a lot of polls indicated that we had kind of leveled 
off in terms of the black support we could expect, and our major targets 
of opportunity were really in other areas. 

And I really doubt that most of these, as well as most of the voter 
bloc memos, probably didn't even get read to me. In fact, they went 
to one of my staff members, who a lot of times would not even forward 
them to me. So I'm not sure I saw this. 

In the event I did see it, again here, you could interpret this several 
ways. "Clarify the status of proposals that had been submitted by 
active supporters." Clarifying the status could be to find out where 
they were so that they could, in turn, let the people know where their 
frrant applications stood, whether they were in the ballpark, whether 
thoy had any promise of being acted on in this year or next year or 
this month or whatever. So it could mean different things. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you another memorandum if that one 
is too late and you weren't concerned about the black vote at that time. 
This one is dated May 11, 1972, and it is from Paul Jones to you, 
again, a weekly activity report. 

1 St-p p. 2417. 



[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 25.*] 

^Tr. Hamit.ton. The fifth paragraph says, "Coordinating and de- 
veloping Avith Bob Brown's office a strategy for a $30 million negotia- 
tion for the Department of Labor." "VVhy would Mr. Jones, who was 
a campaicrn official, be involved in a $30 million negotiation with 
Labor? 

^^v. Mai,ek. I don't know. 

IMr. Hamilton. Do you remember seeing that memorandum? 

■Mr. Mai.ek. No. 

IMr. Hamilton. Wouldn't something like that have struck your eye, 
that a $30 million grant was being negotiated by 

Mr. INIalek. It doesn't say grant. It says "a strategy for a $30 million 
negotiation for the Department of Labor." It is amazingly unclear 
and not very comprehensive. I couldn't tell you what that meant. 
Could you? 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it it would mean a grant, a contract, a loan, 
something of that nature, $30 million put up by the Department of 
Lfibor. 

Have vou got anv specifics on that ? 

TMr. Hershman nods in the negative.] 

Mr. Malfk. I think it's pretty sloppily written. I have no idea what 
it means. 

Mr. Hamilton. Isnt it true that some concern was expressed to you 
bv various people — Mr. Brown, Mr. Marumoto. Mr. Jones, and Mr. 
Armendariz — that their program to use OMBE grants was being 
frustrated by personnel at the Office of Minority Business Enterprises, 
specifically, Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. They felt very strongly that the funds from the 
Office of Minority Business Enterprise were being utilized in a parti- 
san manner to help our opponents, while those who were potentiallv 
supporters were being ignored. They felt that the incumbent of OMBE, 
Mr. Jenkins, and his staff had — were being influenced or had motiva- 
tions to help the opposition party. And I never really have met Mr. 
Jenkins or looked into the program, but they all seemed fairly con- 
vinced of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. I have here a memorandum to Mr. Brown. Mr Maru- 
moto, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Annendariz fro'n vou dated March 3, 1972,^ 
I believe it has vour initials on it. Is that your writing? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. The first paragraph reads: 

Each of you has expressed concern to me recently about the use of OMBE 
grants. This obviously represents an excellent opportunity to make a contribu- 
tion and gain headway in the black and Spanish-speaking area. 

Now. is it a fair interpretation of this passage that you have written 
that OMBE grants were to be used to gain headway, to gain votes in 
the black and Spanish areas ? 

Mr. Malek. Here again, OMBE was one of the key areas where we 
felt that we could develop people in the Spanish-speaking and black 
communities who were qualified and who could submit and qualify 
substantively for grants of this type who hadnt participated before 



1 (Sep n. R418. 

' See book 13, exhibit 262-7. p. 5542. 



8269 

because they hadn't had any encouragement. And so, therefore, it was 
an area where we felt some additional encouragement should be made. 

Mr. Hamilton. My question is : Was it your intention to use OMBE 
grants to make headway, make an impact in the black community and 
the Spanish-speaking community in a way that would benefit the Presi- 
dent's reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, the way you are stating it is not the way I looked 
at it then. 

Mr. Hamilton. You can answer "no" if I make an incorrect 
statement. 

Mr. Malek. Well, your statement is not totally out of line, but it is 
not correct either. The intent was, again, to, as I saw the intent, my 
intent and what I understood the intent of Mr. Brown and Mr. Maru- 
moto, was to go out into the black and Mexican-American communi- 
ties and assist those groups who had not had the opportunity to par- 
ticipate in OMBE grants, to familiarize them with the fact that 
OMBE grants existed and what needed to be done, and to encourage 
them to apply for OMBE grants, because we felt that there were a 
lot of people out there who simply did not have the opportunity, due 
to their own ignorance of the program and their o^vn lack of sophistica- 
tion, from being able to apply, and yet there were people who were 
deserving of these kinds of grants under the statute. 

And in doing so, and in encouraging them to apply, we obviously 
felt that this, along with the possible awarding of grants, would — 
to these people when it occurred — would have political benefits, yes. 

Mr. Hershman. Excuse me, Jim, if I may. In line with this question 
concerning the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, I caught part 
of a statement you made before, and I just want to clarify it. And 
that was that some of your subordinates felt that Mr. Jenkins, the 
Director of OMBE, was acting in a partisan manner. Is that correct, 
sir? 

Mr. ^NIaijik. Yes. 

Mr. Hershman. And they felt that this should be corrected ? 

Mr. Malek. Right. 

]Mr. Hershman. And did you agree with this, sir ? 

Mr. Malek. I didn't know that he was acting in a partisan manner, 
but they were convinced of it. If you read further in this memo, be- 
cause they all felt concerned about it, I thought that what we ought 
to do was to have one person who understood the substance of the pro- 
gram who could look into this and serve as a liaison. And I talked to 
Mr. Cole about it. and we agreed that Mr. Evans of the Domestic 
Council staff could fill that role. 

I didn't think it was right for Brown and Marumoto and Jones 
and Armendariz and company to be all harping on this man Jenkins. 
And I didn't think it was appropriate for all of them to be going to 
Jenkins on grant issues. I thought we ought to handle it in the way 
that we handled other substantive issues, where we have a person on 
the Domestic Council who works on a particular issue or set of issues 
who could look into it and provide a more responsible kind of liaison. 
And that is, in effect, what this memo sets out to do. 



8270 

Mr. Hkrsiiman. However, if Mr. Jenkins was. indeed, actini* in a 
partisan method in allottina: grants, T assume that yo" would haVe 
wanted to correct that. Is that correct, sir ? 

Mr. Mai.ek. Oh, yes. 

Mr. TTf.rsti]\tan. And did Mr. Jenkins 

Mr. IMat.ek. I wouldn't have wanted to correct it. I wasn't in the 
(rovornment — at this particular time, I ^ess I was, but it wasn't my 
function to correct it. I was trying to get it into the proper channel, 
which was the Domestic Council channel, a policy issue. 

Mr. Hershman. And did Mr. Jenkins finally leave the Office of 
Minoritv Business Enterprise? 

Mr. ]\Tai>ek. Well, he left, but he left sometime after the election. 

Mr. Hershman. And who took his place as Director of that Office, 
sir ? Do you recall ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, Mr. Armendariz. 

iNIr. Hershman. Mr. Armendariz. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, do you know of any incident where any 
hlfidr was provided support in relation to getting a grant, any promi- 
nent black, so he could be or become a spokesman for the administra- 
tion? 

IMr. Mat.ek. Where he was actually given support in return for 
which he promised his support ? 

>^r. H \Mii.T0N. Yes. 

IMr. Mat.ek. I know of one instance where a prominent black who 
was a supporter of the administration was applying for a grant, and 
I was encouraged, by someone, to expedite that in order that he 
could have more time to spend in vocalizing his support of the ad- 
mif)istration. I don't recall that any action was taken in that particular 
instnnce. but I do recall that being recommended to me. 

T^^r. Hamti,ton. Who was that? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall who recommended it, but the grant was 
foT* a ofroup. It pertained to an application that James Farmer had 
submitted. And my recollection of it — I don't recall it precisely, but 
that he had an application and it had been judged to meet the sub- 
stantive criteria and that it was a matter of timing of when it would 
bo made. But I don't recall that we took any action on that par- 
ticular 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, we have two memorandums that relate 
to that, and let me read these to you, and it may refresh your recollec- 
tion. 

The first is in this briefing paper to Mr. Mitchell, which we have 
already referred to several times. On page 3 of this briefing paper 
you suggest as a type of responsiveness activity "Paul Jones wants 
favorable action on an HEW grant for James Farmor that would 
enable Farmer to have time to speak in support of the reelection." 

And then there is another document, a later document. It is a 
memorandum dated April 18, 1972, for vou from Paul Jones; subject: 
meetincr with James Farmer. 

fThe document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 26.*] 

Mr. H.ATMTLTON. TiOt me give this to vou and give one to Senator 
Ervin, and I would like to read this into the record. 

* See p. 8419. 



8271 

In the Brown-Jones meeting with James Farmer, the following points of in- 
terest were discussed : (1) Farmer's willingness to work in support of the Presi- 
dent. It was agreed he might better serve at this time by maintaining a non- 
partisan posture. Jim expects to build on the attitude coming out of Gary. (2) 
His spealcing engagements. He is to send a list of his engagements ; we will seek 
to arrange media interviews in connection with his key appearances. (3) Farmer's 
interest in funding for his think-tank proposal. He is seeking $200,000 seed 
money from HEW. This should be moved on but should allow for a final Brown- 
Jones checkoff in order to reinforce Farmer's involvement. Additionally, there 
is some need that the think-tank initially focus on key issues of interest to black 
voters. 

Now, is it your understanding that Mr. Brown and Mr. Jones were 
given a checkoff or a signoff capacity to reinforce Farmer's 
involvement ? 

Mr. Malek. No, no. I believe this is something that Jim Farmer 
personally talked to me about before this memo was even written. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your understanding that there was a quid pro 
quo here, that Mr. Farmer's involvement in the campaign was de- 
pendent upon this grant ? 

Mr. Malek. Absolutely not. My recollection of it is that Farmer 
was trying to get this organization started, but he was having to spend 
a great deal of his time in the effort, and he would be able to spend 
more time speaking once he got the thing underway. 

He had talked to me about this, I think, some months prior to this. 
He is a personal friend from the days when we served together in 
HEW. And he had come to me because he didn't know anybody else 
in the "White House. And I don't remember what I did. I may have 
sent him off to someone else who was more directly involved. And 
that is my major recollection of it, and I don't know what the final 
disposition of this was. 

I do not believe that I took any action or directed anyone else to 
take any action on it. And I certainly don't feel that Mr. Brown or 
Mr. Jones should have had a checkoff, and I don't believe they did. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you think it w^as proper for Mr. Jones, who was 
a campaign official, to be involved in the decision on an HEW grant 
in any way? 

Mr. Malek. No, it was not appropriate for him to be involved. It 
was appropriate for him to surface the need for him expediting some- 
thing that — I don't think there is anything inappropriate to advocate 
something that was in process and make his view known that there 
was a consideration. But I think the appropriate persons to make the 
decision on the grant were the program people in HEW, and I assume 
that they did so. And I don't know whether they decided favorably 
or unfavorably on it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you take any action in regard to this memo- 
randum ? 

INIr. Malek. I don't recall taking any action. 

iNIr. Hamilton. Did you reprimand Mr. Jones for being involved 
in the grant-making process ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall that I did. You are showing me a memo 
here 2 years old on a kind of a — frankly, what I realize to you at this 
point is an important point, but which to me, at that point in time, 
was a rather obscure point, and asking me to recall specific things 
from it, which is awfully difficult to do. 



8272 

I may have skimmed this thing and not even known about the 
Brown-Jones checkoff. I may not have even caught that. I may have 
just read it and let it go through. I may have read it and registered and 
thought about following up, or not. I don't recall exactly how I re- 
acted to this specific piece of paper. This is one of probably, you know, 
50 or 60 pieces of paper I looked at on that particular day. 

Mr. Hamilton. But it is fair to say, isn't it, that this piece of paper 
is at least consistent in concept with the concept that is set forth in 
your memorandum to Mr. Mitchell, the memorandum that ostensibly 
was sent by you to INIr. Mitchell on the black field plan, where it was 
suggested 

Mr. Malek. I don't think there is any relationship at all. 

Mr. Hamilton. Where it was suggested in that memorandum that 
part of the black field plan was to provide grants to individuals who 
wore supportive of the administration so they could become visible, so 
they would become visible supporters of the administration. 

Mr. Malek. I don't think there is a relationship. This is an entirely 
different kind of thing. I don't think it is at all supportive of what is 
in the memo, this memo that may or may not have gone to Mitchell. 

Mr. Hajiilton. Well, I don't want to quibble with you, Mr. Malek, 
but this memorandum says, "These recipients" — in other words, the 
recipients of money from the administration — "will be utilized as a 
source of campaign contributions and volunteers and as a group of 
liifrlily visible blacks to be used to reach the voters in their areas of 
influence." 

And here they talk about — in the Farmer memorandum, which, 
incidentally, was even written before this memorandum to Mr. 
Mitchell — they talked about 

Mr. Malek. Two months before. 

Mr. Hamilton. Two months before. They talked about "Farmer's 
interest in funding for his think-tank proposals. This should be moved 
on but allow for final Brown- Jones checkoff in order to reinforce 
Farmer's involvement," involvement being his willingness to work in 
support of the President. Now, it seems to me that it is difficult to 
say 

Mr. Malek. But the point is. Farmer already was a supporter of 
the President. He had served as an Assistant Secretary in the Nixon 
administration. He kept contact with a number of us in the adminis- 
tration. He had been vocalizing his support of the administration in 
a low key but effective manner, so this wasn't anything new. 

The main thing they wanted to do, as I understand it, was they were 
hopeful this grant would be made sooner rather than later, so that Mr. 
Farmer would be freed to spend even more of his time in speaking. 
Mr. Hajiilton. Well, if he was already on board, why was it neces- 
sary "to allow for a final Brown-Jones checkoff in order to reinforce 
Farmer's involvement"? 

Mr. Malek. I can't explain the lanfruage that Mr. Jones chose for 
this memo. But I think I probably know Mr. Farmer better than 
Mr. Jones does, and my very distinct impression was that Mr. Farmer 
was a supi^orter of the President throughout the 4-year period. 

Mr. Hamilton. T just have a few more questions on the black area. 

Senator Frvin. Was Farmer at this time a part of the administra- 
tion, or had he resigned ? 



8273 

Mr. Malek. He had resigned, Mr. Chairman. He resigned in, I be- 
lieve it was sometime in 1970. 

Senator Ervin. What was his think-tank proposal ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, he has got an operation that is here in Washing- 
ton, and he has asked me to speak at it, and I haven't been able to but 
will shortly, that is devoted to — it is devoted to some sort of social 
research and education for blacks. And it is hard for me to define it 
much beyond that. I think it is connected with — it might be connected 
with Howard University. 

Mr. Freedman. I believe it is connected with Howard University. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Malek, does the name Charles Wallace mean 
anything to you ? Mr. Wallace is president of Wallace & Wallace Fuel 
Oils in 

Mr. Hersiiman. Queens, New York. 

Mr. PIamilton. Queens, New York. 

Mr. Malek. I recall the name of Charles Wallace as a black business- 
man who I believe was a supporter of the President, but I don't 
know anything more than that. I don't recall anything more than that. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to show you a memorandum from Mr. 
Jones to you, another weekly activity report, dated July 14, 1972. 
And the ninth paragraph reads like this : 

Through White House contacts initiated new efforts to assist Charles Wallace, 
president, Wallace and Wallace Fuel Oils, in overcoming present constraints to 
expand his business. This has for the time being allowed us to assist a staunch 
Nixon supporter. 

Now, do you know what action was taken in this regard? 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 27.^] 

Mr. Malek. No, I don't . 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you know that Mr. Wallace was actively in- 
volved in the Presidential campaign, or was to become actively in- 
volved ? 

Mr. Malek. I may have. I don't recall enough about him at this 
time to say whether I did or did not. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if he was a Government contractor? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall. 

]\Ir. Hamilton. Did you know that he made a solicitation to various 
minority SBA, 8(a), minority contractors for contributions in support 
for the President? 

Let me ask you if you ever saw this particular document. It is 
dated September 12, 1972, and it is from Mr. Wallace. In the document 
I have, the name of the firm is left out, because it would be typed in. 
It is a form letter. 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 28.^] 

Sir. iMalek. Well, I don't recall having seen this particular letter 
before. At the same time, it seems to me that it is — there is nothing in- 
appropriate about the letter itself. 

PTe is simply pointing out there that the 8(a) program is a very 
good program that has been very helpful to minorities and which has 
multiplied several times under President Nixon and he thinks that this 
demonstration of the President's concern for the blacks justifies their 



1 See p. 8420. 

2 See p. 8423. 



8274 

supporting the administration voterwise. But I don't recall ever having 
seen it before. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you have any indication that Mr. Wallace's cam- 
paign activities were the result of the support that had been given him 
by Mr. Jones and others in overcoming restraints to expand his 
business ? 

Mr. Malek. I just don't recall what his specific activities were and 
I don't recall what motivated his particular activities. 

INIr. Hershman. Are you aware of the fact that 1 month after Mr. 
Wallace sent out that particular letter you have in your hand now, he 
received a $2 million-plus 8(a) contract? 

Mr. IVIalek. No, I was not aware of that. Look, you say that as 
though — is there anything wrong with that? Was he not getting 8(a) 
contracts right along? I was just wondering if that was an unusual 
sort of thing. 

Mr. Hershman. I was just wondering if this suppoit indicated in 
the weekly activity report directed to you did not involve helping him 
obtain this $2 million 8(a) contract? 

Mr. Malek. Well, certainly from my point of view, it didn't. I oan't 
say certainly that no one assisted him in getting this, but I have no 
recollection of that. 

And, further, it might be interesting to look at what the pattern 
has been. Usually these 8(a) contractors get something each year. It 
is not just a one-time event and it might be interesting to see if this 
was out of the ordinary for him or for his firm or a firm of that size. 

I really don't know. I am just suggesting you might look at that 
before you draw any conclusions. 

Mr. Hershman. Well perhaps we can jump back for just a second 
to a Spanish contractor from the Washington area. I believe we dis- 
cussed him earlier, Mr. J. A. Reyes Associates. Mr. Reyes was men- 
tioned prominently in a number of weekly activity reports, directed 
from Mr. Marumoto to yourself and Mr. Colson. 

Mr. Reyes stated to us in a staff interview that during 1971 he had 
done between $400,000 and $500,000 in business. In 1972, Mr. Reyes 
became chairman of the Virginia-Washington, D.C., and Maryland 
Chapter of the National Hispanic Finance Committee which was an 
authorized arm of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the 
President. 

In 1972, his firm's business doubled. All of which was under the 8 (a) 
program. Do you, perhaps, know of any connection between Mr. Reyes' 
campaign activities and the increase, sudden increase, of his business? 

Mr. Malek. I know of no connection whatsoever. I don't deny that 
there was a connection. But I certainly don't know of any. 

Senator Ervin. At this time, were you a White House employee? 

Mr. Malek. Well, we're talking about several times here, Mr. Chair- 
man. Up until July 1, I was a White House employee. 

Senator Ervin. What year? 

Mr. Malek. 1972. 

Senator Ervin. And were most of your activities political in nature? 

Mr. Malek. Well, sir, my activities in the White House were pri- 
marily related to the overseeing of personnel for the President, which 
included the recruiting and hiring of people for various Presidential 



8275 

appointee spots and the handling of the various patronage requests 
we got. In addition, as a campaign approach, I spent part of my time 
assisting in a coordinating role with the Re-Elect Committee in over- 
seeing some of the 

Senator Ervin. The testimony we have received thus far indicates 
to my mind that many of the White House employees who were being 
compensated by tax moneys, were primarily engaged in political 
activities. 

Mr. Malek. Well, I would say from about ]\Iarch 1, until June 30, 
1972, I spent, I would estimate anywhere from one-third to 50 percent 
of my time — or let us say, roughly, 40 percent of my time — on 
campaign-related activities. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the evidence we have received, the 
information we have gotten, is to the effect there was about as much 
political activity going on in the White House as there was in the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. Malek. Well, sir, I don't think there was quite as much. I don't 
think the budget of the White House was quite as big as the Committee 
To Re-Elect, but I think it is fair to assume that there were a number 
of us who spent part of our effort in support of the President's re- 
election. 

I don't think this is particularly unusual, in my own opinion. I 
don't think it is particularly unfair. The President has a White House 
staff whom he appoints, who are exempt from the provisions of the 
Hatch Act, and I think as an election approaches, that generally in 
the past, as in 1972, many of these people do engage in activities that 
help support his reelection. That is my own judgment, of course. Yours 
and others may be different. 

Senator Ervin. My own judgment is that I am an old-fashioned 
man, I guess, but I think there is something unethical in employing 
people who are engaged in political activities with taxpayers' funds. 
There is no use for us to argue about that point. 

Mr. Malek. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. There is another thing. These things indicate to me 
that the program contemplated that every Federal program, where 
discretionary grants were involved, that that program should be 
utilized primarily for political advantage. And secondarily, for any 
other good effects it might have. 

Mr. Malek. Well, sir, that was not the intent. The intent was simply 
to be able to respond to the many requests that we got, and the ad- 
ministration receives several hundred requests from the Congress each 
month, concerning grants, either the expedition or the awarding of 
grants, and the intent was to not only be responsive to those needs of 
the Congress for information and for consideration of the information 
they brought to bear, but to also be in a position to furnish informa- 
tion and consider the information that would come in from the various 
campaign officials. But the primary consideration in the award of any 
grant was to be, and to my knowledge has been, the merits of the 
program. And I think that is the only kind of public policy that is — 
that should be practiced. 

Senator Ervin. Well, I see many references here in writing in the 
memorandums prepared by you to the effect that these grants should be 



8276 

given political priorities in such a way as to most effectively promote 
the President's reelection. 

Mr. Mat.ek. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the point that was made 
in the few memos that I have actually signed here, has been that the 
political factors should be one of those considered, not to the exclusion 
of others, but certainly it should be one of those considered. 

I would have to say, Senator, that in almost any grant that is made 
in the Government, the political factor is considered in some way or 
another. I don't think there is a Congressman or a Senator who doesn't 
have an interest in a grant that is made and who isn't in there fighting 
for his constituents to get a particular grant. That is a political factor. 
That is considered. 

Senator Ervin. I would say that these papers indicate that the po- 
litical consequences of them were given priority, and I would think 
that under this program, if you had two groups seeking the same grant, 
both of them are equally qualified, that under these things, that the one 
that was conducive to the reelection of the President would have been 
the one that would have gotten it and the others would have been 
proscribed. 

Mr. Malek. Well, sir, if you had two grants that were equally well 
qualified, I think you are right. I think a tendency would be to provide 
a grant to the one favorable to the President. But as long as they are 
■ equally qualified, I don't see a problem in that. I would imagine you 
would like to see your friends get their share of the grants as long as 
they are equally qualified, as well. 

Senator Ervin. I don't think that I have ever considered the politi- 
cal consequences of any grant I have ever sought. I have never inquired 
as to the political affiliation. 

Mr. Dash. I think, according to the memos that I saw, one of them, 
even if they weren't equally qualified. The memorandums indicate 
that when the contracts would not otherwise be granted, at the request 
of Gifford, the grants were made, and that would have a political 
impact. It wouldn't otherwise have been granted, but for the request. 

Mr. IMalek. However, what you have got to take into account is that 
when a IMember of Congress, and most of these requests referred to 
when we were talking about those Commerce grants and the different 
ones involved — most of those requests came from the Congress. 

They don't just come in and say, "I want this grant." They come in 
and make a case, and when making such a case, they often present in- 
formation that someone hadn't considered. They do a second thing, 
they also insure that a higher level of attention is going to be given 
to the particular grant so that instead of a GS-12 or GS-13 making 
a decision, you have got somebody at a higher level looking into it. 
Now, the advent of further information and the higher level attention, 
can oftentimes and will oftentimes change the priorities that have 
been arranged by the staff. 

Mr. Dash. But in the plan, the overall plans, and then the followup, 
more detailed memos given in the plan, they are memos with your 
name on it, from particular individuals or reports to you, I don't see 
them primarily concerned with requests from Members of Congress. 

It seems to be clearly demonstrated as a plan on how to use the 
incumbency and the power of the incumbency to be responsive to the 



8277 

political things in the administration. And that these memos don't deal 
with the response to the requests of Congress ; they deal with the need 
of identifying those grantees who would be friends of the adminis- 
tration and to support them. 

Mr. Malek. AVell, there was, very certainly, an effort, particularly 
in the minority communities, to identify grantees, potential grantees, 
who had not had the opportunity to participate and to bring them into 
the mainstream of economic life. But, at the same time, if you look 
at the report that I prepared, the one example that we have which 
lists, I think, about a dozen particular projects that we reported out, 
a number of those were generated from the Congress, a number gen- 
erated from local elected officials, and really not that many generated 
by the campaign organization. 

In fact, one of the reasons that the program — I don't know if you 
were here when we talked about it earlier, but as I stated earlier, it 
didn't occupy much of my time and, in fact, I believe it was scrapped 
shortly after my departure from the White House — was that there 
really weren't that many requests that would come in. And, when 
requests did come in, oftentimes the considerations on the grant were 
so complex that the political factor that would be conveyed by the 
particular request, would not be commanding and, therefore, it did 
not have a high utility. 

Mr. Hershman. I would like to bring two points forward which 
I gleaned from the public testimony of Mr. Marumoto, the former 
staff assistant of the President. It seems to me that Mr. Marumoto's 
concept of this Responsiveness Program differs in some w^ays from 
yours. 

The first point I would like to bring out — and this is under the 
questioning by Mr. Dash: 

Mr. Dash. If one of the contenders for a grant was more qualified than the 
other, although the other was not wholly unqualified — 'I think you mentioned 
if a person was completely unqualified, the agency would report that to you and 
you would not press for a grant. But, if there was a question of — if one con- 
tractor who was not supportive of the administration was more qualified than 
another who was supportive, the preference would be given to the one that was 
supportive? 

Mr. Mabumoto. Yes, but I think that was an exceptional situation. 

Mr. Dash. Why don't you give the page reference, for the record ? 

Mr. Hershman. That's page 5287. 

Mr. Malek. I read that in the testimony over the weekend. You are 
correct that his interpretation of the intent of his approach differs 
from mine. 

Mr. Hershman. Well, I would like to get your comment concern- 
ing his testimony, coming in on page 5318 and 5319, and this is during 
questioning by Hon. Senator Talmadge: 

Senator Talmadge. What was the responsiveness group? 

Mr. Mabumoto. As I explained this morning, this was a group of four or five 
gentlemen who initially were under the leadership of Mr. Malek and later under 
the leadership of Dan Kingisley, who were responsible to and working with 
various interest groups under Mr. Colson's operation as well as our personnel 
operation to make sure that various departments and agencies were responsive 
to requests that went to them from the White House on personnel matters, 
publicity, public relations, and grants and contracts. 

Senator Talmadge. To simplify it, it was a group to take maximum political 
advantage of public dollars that were awarded in the form of • u'lic srants 
and contracts, was it not? 



8278 

Mr. Mabumoto. A system to facilitate some of our requests. 
Senator Talmadqe. Facilitate? What do you mean by that? 
Mr. Marumoto. Try to get through the bureaucratic redtape. 
Senator Talmadqe. In other words, my statement is correct. It was to maximize 
the advantage of the American taxpayers' dollars in a political effort, was it not? 
Mr. Mabumoto. Yes. 

Would 3'ou comment on that ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, let me find it in here. 

Mr. Hershman. Perhaps your page numbers differ. 

Mr. Dash. You probably have the transcript instead of the 
printed 

Mr. Malek. Well, I just differ with Mr. Marumoto's interpretation. 
I did not feel it was an effort to maximize the advantage of the tax- 
payers' dollars in a political effort. Not at all. I have expressed my 
view of what it was several times, and I don't know that it serves 
anybody's interests to keep repeating that. 

Mr. Hershman. I understand that. 

Mr. Malek. I don't see it the same way as Mr. Marumoto does and 
perhaps it is my fault that he interpreted it the way he did, but I 
would also point out that he has also testified in the same testimony 
to a question by Mr. Dash, that he reported to Mr. Colson. He reported 
to me for recruiting matters and for the Spanish-speaking efforts. He 
reported to Mr. Colson and perhaps he received different interpreta- 
tions from different people, but my interpretation has always been 
as I stated it. 

Mr. Hershman. Well, it seems to me that the documentary, these 
weekly activity reports and the memos and whatnot, seem to indicate 
that not only does Mr. Marumoto have a different interpretation of 
the Responsiveness Program than you, but quite a few other staff 
members. 

Mr. Malek. Who ? 

Mr. Hershman, Well, for example, Mr. Brown, Mr. Jones, Mr. 
Armendariz 

Mr. Malek. Now, Mr. Brown did not report to me. He did not work 
for me. Mr. Brown kind of ran his own show. He in no way reported 
to me. 

Mr. Hershman. Let's take, for example, Mr. Clarke, who sent you 
a memo concerning the black vote field plan. Can you enlighten us, 
please, as to why perhaps these people had such conflicting ideas of 
the Responsiveness Program ? Was there an intervening force in here ? 
Was there someone else responsible for the Responsiveness Program? 

Mr. ^Ialek. So far, you really haven't identified anyone who really 
worked directly for me who had a differing view. You stated Mr. 
Clarke, but you can't support that Mr. Clarke — he prepared that cover 
memo to me which does not get into responsiveness. You mention 
Mr. Marumoto, but he reported duly to IVIr. Colson. He reported to Mr. 
Colson for the Spanish-speaking campaign activities. 

Mr. Hershman. He did send memos of his activities to you. 

Mr. Malek. He sent memos to both me and Mr. Colson because 
they covered both recruiting activities and they covered also campaign 
activities. Now, what I am telling you is my interpretation of what 
I intended and if it was not communicated effectively, if my inten- 
tions were not communicated effectively, then it is conceivable that it 
could have 



8279 

Mr. Hamilton. Off the record a second. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Hershman. Were you aware that they weren't communicated 
properly ? 

]\Ir. Malek. At the time, I wasn't aware that they weren't communi- 
cated properly; no. 

Mr. Hershman. When did you first learn that they weren't com- 
municated properly? 

Mr. INIalek. I haven't learned that yet. You're putting words in my 
mouth. I said "conceivably" they weren't communicated. I have also 
pointed out to you that you have not named a member of my own staff, 
anybody that worked for me, that had a misinterpretation. You named 
Mr. Brown, who did not work for me. You named Mr. INIarumoto, who 
worked for Mr. Colson on most of these activities. You named Mr. 
Clarke, but I see nothing in anything you have shown me that would 
demonstrate that Mr. Clarke had a misunderstanding at that time. 

And, after I left the White House on July 1, Mr. Clarke no longer 
worked for us. I think we are getting into kind of a nebulous area of 
what was my intention and what did I want, and if you want to con- 
tinue in that vein, I guess we can, but I don't see how it is going to 
be productive. 

Mr. Hershman. I would just like to know, in view of these memos, 
some of which you have identified — I cannot understand why you did 
not come to realize that perhaps some of these other people's views of 
the Responsiveness Program was not jelling with yours. 

Mr. Malek. Have you ever worked in a campaign ? Have you ever 
run a campaign? 

Mr. Hershman. No. 

Mr. Malek. It's a pretty tough job, particularly when you are start- 
ing from scratch and you have to build a field organization in 2 months 
and get a million volunteers and 2,000 storefronts, and a computerized 
system for following up on them. You have got to hire 10 regional di- 
rectors; you have got to get 50 State chairmen mobilized with their 
staffs; you have got to put together a program to give to them; you 
have got to put together a speaker's program ; to go out and knock on 
doors; to get publicity ; to get out the vote effort. 

It is not an easy mission. It is one of the toughest things I have ever 
had to do and it was the cornerstone of the Nixon campaign from 
July the 1st until November 7. I spent virtually all of my time doing 
just that, building from nothing — a damn strong grassroots campaign 
organization — a very demanding thing. 

I wasn't too concerned about what — about reading informational 
memos on weekly activities which were basically pump pieces by mem- 
bers of the staff to show that they were busy. In fact, most of these 
information memos that I got went to Mr. Herringer, who reviewed 
them and on occasion would pass something on, but it was not the 
cornerstone of my activity and I was not concerned about it and I 
certainly didn't think the Responsiveness Program, or whatever you 
want to call it, was worthy of any attention once I went over to the 
campaign. 

Mr. Hershman. Well, In viewing these memos, it seems to mc that 
a good portion of the campaign 



8280 

Mr. Malek. ^Hiat you are trying to do is to attribute tiling to me 
from memos tliat were sent to me that I don't even know ever ^ot to 
me, let alone were read by me. 

Mr. Hersitmax. "Well, it seems to me that a orood ])ortion of the cam- 
paifrn was related to politicizing the executive branch. 

Mr. IMalf.k. Oh, baloney. 

Mr. Hershman. Or capitalizinir on the incumbency. 

Mr. Malek. That's a minor part of the campaifrn, a very minor part. 
And in my estimation, a tremendously unimportant part of the cam- 
paiijn. Mv effort in the campaign, the main effort I ran, if you read 
Teddy ^Vliite's book, he spells it out, was buildin<r a strons: cfrassroots 
orfjanization to out-McGovern McGovern, to beat the oro;anization that 
they put together in the field. 

Now, whether w^e did or not, somebody else will have to judfre, but 
that's what we tried to do. We wanted to fret out our voters. We didn't 
want them sitting home on election day. That, to me, w^as 00 percent 
of the campaign from my point of view% what I worked on. The other 
big part of the campaign was the issues and the President's position 
on the issues. 

Mr. Hamilton. Dick? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Let me ask a couple of specific things. I take it from 
your testimony that it was a policy of the administration to put con- 
tracts and grants in the hands of a minority for the purpose of in- 
creasing their share of the business activity ? 

Mr. Malek. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHULTz. And isn't this policy supported by official regulation ? 
The statutory basis of the Economic Opportunity Act? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, it is. 

Mr. SciiuLTz. Do you have any knowledge that any firms not quali- 
fied were awarded contracts, or grants ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I have no knowledge that any nonqualified firms 
were awarded contracts or grants. As a matter of fact, it is my under- 
standing, in talking to the administrators of various programs, that 
exactly the opposite is true. That all grants and contracts that were 
made have been made to people who qualify under the criteria spelled 
out by legislation. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, do you have knowledge or did you solicit — did 
anybody who worked for you — solicit from people who were not quali- 
fied, requests for grants or contracts ? 

Mr. Malek. Not to my knowledge. It is conceivable that they sug- 
gested people who ultimately turned out to be not qualified, that they 
apply for grants, but there was no way of telling at that point until 
they actually got down to submitting the applications. 

Mr. ScHULTz. In your capacity with the Government, have you had 
occasion to observe any practice whereby the Senators or Representa- 
tives make public announcements that grants and awards w^ere given 
to persons or firms within their districts ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, it is a very common practice for Senators and 
Congressmen to announce grants and contracts that are made in their 
States and districts. 

Mr. ScHULTz, Was this Responsiveness Program any different 
than utilizing awards and grants for a similar-type purpose ? In other 



8281 

words, gaining some measure of recognition for the jobs that were 
done ? 

Mr. Malek. That, in fact, was the main purpose of the Responsive- 
ness Program. And the analogy to tlie procedures used with Members 
of Congress is one that I have tried to draw forth, apparently un- 
successfully, earlier in my testimony. 

Mr. SciiULTZ. I know you have testified that the ultimate writeoff, 
or the ultimate approval for grants, awards, contracts, whatever, was 
with the specific department. Did you, or to your knowledge did any- 
one on your staff, change or stop an award from being granted, so far 
as you know, for political reasons ? 

Mr. ISIalek. I do not know of any such thing happening due to my, 
or a member of my staff's, inter\'ontion. T do know of instances where 
a Member of Congress has intervened and asked for reconsideration, 
and out of courtesy to a Member of Congress or because of the in- 
formation he or she has brought to bear, this has been done. But I 
know of no change in actions that have been brought about by me or 
a meml>er of my staff's intervention. 

Mr. ScHULTz. You have no prerogative to overrule an award, or a 
dpcision by any department? 

Mr. Malek. No, no. I did not. 

Mr. ScHULTz. I know you can't be held accountable for any excesses 
or misunderstandings of people you work with, or perhaps that re- 
ported ito you, but did you ever become aware prior to the election, 
that there were excesses or demands or a quid pro quo asked for by the 
individuals who worked for you ? I'm talking now with regard to the 
awarding of grants, contracts, for votes. 

Mr. Malek. I do not recall being aware of any awarding of grants 
or contracts in return for votes or contributions. 

Mr. SciiULTz. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to move on because I think we know 
your views on this particular area. 

Mr. Malek. OK. 

Mr. Hamilton. You know what the memorandums which we have 
shown you say and I don't think it serves any purpose right now to 
airgue further about the memorandums' meaning. 

We were talking before, right before Senator Weicker had to leave, 
about the activities of the Cabinet Committee on Opportunity for 
Spanish-Speaking People, and I think I asked you if the Cabinet com- 
mittee was engaged in any campaign activities, with the exception of 
its Chairman Ramirez. Do you know if Mr. Ramirez' staff members 
were engaged in campaign activity ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall that any of them were, Mr. Hamilton, 
although it is conceivable they were. I just don't recall. I do — as you 
refresh my memory — recall ^Is. Lozano was in some way assisting 
in some of the White House efforts and I believe she later joined the 
Committee To Re-Elect, but I don't recall any other instances. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, there is the memorandum from you to Mr. 
Conde dated June 5, 1972,* which indicates, paragraph 2 — numbered 



•i-reviously entered during testimony of William H. Marumoto. See book 13, exhibit 
262-22, p. 5593. 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 8 



8282 

paragraph 2, on the first page— I will read it : 

If Alex— 

and I take it that is Alex Armendariz — 

wants to add a research person to his staff, he will have to make tiie case to me. 
Basically, I quCvStion a long-term need in view of the fact that we have cen- 
tralized research and advertising at the Committee and because a Spanish- 
speaking consultant iis being added to the advertising grouip. If, however, Alex 
can still demonstrate the need for Ms. Lozano's help, we can arrange for her 
to remain at the Cabinet Committee but spend part of her time supporting our 
activities. 

That is the end of the quote. 

In view of the provisions of the Hatch Act, which I understand 
cover the Cabinet committee, do you think it was proper for Ms. 
Lozano to remain at the Cabinet committee but spend a part of her 
time — 

Mr. Malek. If she in fact is Hatched, as I mentioned earlier — you 
may have established, I, to this day, do not know whether she is 
Hatched 

Mr. Hamilton. You don't know whether the Cabinet committee was 
Hatched? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I would assume that many employees of the Cab- 
inet committee were Hatched, but there could also be some that were 
not Hatched. I am not an attorney, but there are certain positions in 
a department that are not subject to the Hatch Act. And I do not 
know whether Ms. Lozano was Hatched or not. I assume she was not 
Hatched because she was working in support of some White House 
activities. That was established in the earlier memo on her that you 
showed me and I had heard her name before as helping in some of this 
PR research-related stuff and I assumed she was not Hatched. I do 
not believe I ever really gave it that much thought that she was. Do 
you know that she was Hatched ? 

Mr. Hamilton. It is our understanding that she was Hatched. 

Mr. Hershman. Let me, for the record, clarify that. All members 
of the Cabinet Committee on Spanish-Speaking Opportunities were — 
or fell under the provisions of the Hatch Act. 

Mr. Malek. Even the chairman ? 

Mr. Hershman. The chairman was questionable until 1973 when it 
was decided that yes, he, too, fell under the provisions. 

Mr. Malek. OK. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know any Government employees who were 
covered by the Hatch Act who participated in the campaign activities? 

Mr. Malek. Well 

Mr. Hamilton. I think, to be fair with you, we ought to let you know 
what the statute says, and the provision of the Hatch Act that applies 
is section 7324(a)(2) of title 5, which says that "Hatched employ- 
ees shall not take an active part in political management or in political 
campaigns." 

Do you know of any Government employees who were Hatched that 
took an active part in the campaign ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I think there were some that worked as advance 
men, but I believe they took a leave of absence from their positions 
while they did so in order to avoid that complication. There may have 



8283 

also been a couple of instances where we were bringing people from 
the Government over to the Committee To Re-Elect, and there might 
have been — I'm just speculating — there may have been a period when 
they were working on campaign activities before they actually got otf 
the Government payroll. If you have any specific ones you want to ask 
me about, I can respond, but offhand, t don't recall any instance. 

Mr. Hamilton. You don't recall any names? Do you recall any 
names of the advance men for surrogates ? 

Mr. Malek. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall that — I believe in early 1972 there was 
a meeting in the White House — early 1972, late 1971 — there was a 
meeting in the White House for approximately 100 people from the 
various agencies to train them to be advance men, 

Mr. Malek. Yes. I heard something about that. Yes, I did know 
that there was that, but these were people from the agencies as well 
as people from the private sector we had identified as having a capacity 
to serve as advance men. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if those agency persons were actually 
used as advance men for the surrogates, when the surrogates were out 
making political speeches? 

Mr. Malek. I don't know for sure, but I believe some of them were. 
But my understanding was, when they acted in a political capacity, 
they took leave from the agencies of which they were a part. 

Mr. Hamilton. You mean, if they went out for one or two trips, 
they would take leave for the day, or what? 

Mr. Malek. I think that's what they did. Also, it is conceivable 
that many of these people were in schedule C jobs, and weren't 
Hatched. My understanding was that the people who took part in 
this activity were not subject to the Hatch Act, and those that were 
took leave from the Government while they served in that capacity. 
We wanted to be careful about that, so as not to jeopardize employees 
and not break the law, and it is conceivable that it did not hold every 
time. But I don't recall any specific instances where there w^ere 
violations. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who is Frank Troy? 

Mr. Malek. I don't recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you a memorandum dated June 30, 
1972. It is written by a Bud Evans, L. J. Evans. It is written to Mr. 
Colson. If you look on page 4, in pencil or in pen, it shows a copy to 
you, and looking at paragraph 19, which is also on page 4, the follow- 
ing paragraph appears: 

Frank Troy will be brought on board on July 5, to act as Flemming's schedul- 
ing advance man from now until the election. Flemming is still not completely 
on board on this one, but did agree to Troy's hiring. Malek has been very helpful 
in getting HEW to pick up the tab. 

Could you explain the circumstances on that? 
[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 29.*] 
Mr. Malek. Flemming was chairman of the White House Council 
on Aging, and I don't know at this time if he was made Commis- 
sioner of Aging or not. Does anybody happen to know ? 

* See p. 8427. 



8284 

Well, in any case, much of the staff of the White House Council on 
Aging, it was my understanding, was being picked up by HEAV. It was 
basically an HEW program, so it was not unusual to have members 
of Flemming's staff paid for by HEW. The problem here was that 
Flemming was moving around doing an awful lot of speaking on the 
problems of the elderly. We felt that it was very, very useful for 
him to be doing such, because he was an excellent representative for 
the President in speaking to the elderly. 

Now, the speeches he was engaging in were, for the most jiart, sub- 
stantive speeches. He was not going to political rallies or making po- 
litical speeches. Obviously, liowever, at the same time, in things he 
did, it was hel])ful to the President politically. There was a concern 
on the part of Mr. Evans and others, however, that Flemming's 
scheduling was rather haphazard, and that the arrangements for his 
trips were not being prepared sufficiently in advance. And therefore, 
I don't know who exactly found this man Troy, but someone found 
this man Troy who could fill tliis role, and one of my people asked 
HEW to cooperate in providing an extra spot on his staff for him. 

Now, Mr. Troy, acting in the capacity as an advance man for non- 
political speeches, need not have been subject, I don't think, would 
have been — he could have been subject to the Hatch Act, but he would 
not be in violation of the Hatch Act, any more than an advance man 
for a Cabinet officer going out to make a subjective speech would be 
in violation of the Hatch Act. 

Mr. Hamilton. I want to make sure that we are on the same wave- 
length. Is this Harry Flemming we are talking about ? 

Mr. Malek, No, this is his father, who is Dr. Arthur Flemming, 
who, in the Eisenhower administration, was Chairman of the Civil 
Service Commission, and later Secretary of HEW, and then became 
president of McAlester College, I believe it was, prior to coming back 
to head up this conference on the aging. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, was Harry Flemming at this time at the cam- 
paign committee? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. You are sure that Mr. Tro^ was not acting as an ad- 
vance man for Harry Flemming? It was for his father ? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, yes. We wouldn't have an advance man for Harry 
Flemming. He wasn't out speaking. This is for Arthur Flemming. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. I'm about through, Mr. Malek. 

Mr. Malek. I am, too. 

Mr. Hamilton. When you went to the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President, I believe around July 1, 1972, who took over the Responsive- 
ness Program? 

Mr. Malek. Dan Kingslcy. 

Mr. Hamilton. After that date, did you have an occasion to see a 
second progress report on the Responsiveness Program, signed by Mr. 
Kingsley, sent to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember when this was ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I don't remember, but Mr. Herringer has an affi- 
davit, I believe, that addresses it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember any of the details of this report ? 



8285 

Mr. Malek. I recall — you see, after I went over to the committee, 
I really didn't think that there would be much followthrough, because 
you heard that Kingsley just took over my responsibilities. I learned 
on June 30 that I was goinpr to start on July 1, and I started with a 
bang and didn't really look back. I just asked Kingsley to take every- 
thing over, so I wasn't really aware of what was happening. 

Then a progress report came to me from Frank Herringer. Frank 
Herringer was a screen of all of the memos that came to me, and in 
fact cut off a number of them, which in fact goes back to the point I 
made earlier about some of these voter bloc memos. This one, however, 
he forwarded, and he made some notation on it, or a cover blurb, I 
don't remember which, as it just really didn't seem worthwhile, and 
probably ought to be killed. And I recommended the same to Mr. 
Haldeman, and I believe they decided to terminate the program at 
that time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it Mr. Herringer's point that he was disturbed 
by the descriptions in the report of some of the individual actions that 
had supposedly occurred in the responsiveness project? I'm looking at 
page 2 of his affidavit, which we have a copy of here. Do you have 
that with you? 

[The document referred to was marked Malek exhibit No. 30.*] 

Mr. Malek. I guess that, apparently, he was, as he states, concerned 
that some of the exaggerated tone could cause someone not familiar 
with the general staff practice of exaggerated writing to think that 
inappropriate activities were being carried on. I gather that, since that 
is his affidavit, that that is what concerned him. My reaction, though, 
was a little bit different than his. When I got it, I didn't realize it was 
still going on. I thought it was rather stupid to be carrying it on. be- 
cause of the fact that it could be subject to misinterjiretation, and that 
at that point in time both Mr. MacGregor and I, on direct orders from 
the President, were extremely sensitive to anything in the whole cam- 
paign that had even the look of impropriety or lack of ethics, and we 
were trying to root anything like that out. And I felt that this, if it 
came to light, could give that appearance. That was my major concern, 
and I do believe I recommended to Mr. Haldeman that the project 
be discontinued. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would it be fair to say that, since the Watergate 
incident had come to the fore, that you wanted to make sure that the 
campaign appeared clean ? 

Mr. Malek. I think it would be fair to say that the Watergate inci- 
dent highlighted, for many of us, the point that the campaign was 
subject to abuse by people on down the line who were being a little bit 
overzealous, and that it was our responsibility, as well as, I think, to 
our political benefit, to insure that nothing of this sort went on in the 
campaign. And we made, really, a considerable effort from that period 
of July 1 on to insure that offcolor things, or off-lcey things, or any- 
thing that would be interpreted in that way were not carried out. I'm 
not saying that there was nothing done from July 1 on that somebodv 
couldn't judge to be inappropriate. But to the extent that we could, 
we looked for these kinds of things and rooted them out. And this wns. 

♦ See p. 8434. 



8286 

in mv estimation, somethincr that belonored in that catp/xorv. It was 
not doinij anybody that much cood. It was subject to a lot of misinter- 
pretation, and I did not think it was in anyone's best interest for it 
to continue. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe von said Mr. Haldeman concurred in 
the 

]\Tr. Malkk. That is mv recollection. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember what reasons he ^ave you for his 
concurrence? 

]\rr. Malek. I don't even know if he passed on anything: to me. 

IMr. Hamilton. Then did you inform Mr. Kinirsley of this decision? 

Mr. ]Mat,f.k. I doTi't recall whether T did. or Avhether it came directly 
from Haldeman, or how it came down. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you aware that IVIr. Kincrslev subsequently col- 
lected all of the responsiveness documents he could find, and burned 
them ? 

Mr. Malek. I'm aware of it from the affidavit thnt his secretary 
collected materials. I wasn't aware of what he did with them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now. Mr. Malek, you are not a lawver. but I would 
like to ask you if you think that any of the conduct that took place in 
connection with the Responsiveness Profjram. or took place in connec- 
tion with the acti\'itif^s in the Spanish area or the black area that we 
have discussed, was illecjal, either violating civil law or the criminal 
law? 

Mr. Mat,ek. T can catefjoricallv state that there was never any intent 
of anything illegal to be done. It is my opinion — not beinjr a lawyer, 
as I say. I cannot be definitive — it is mv opinion, to the best of my 
knowledire, that there was nothin<r illegal done in either the black, the 
Spanish-speaking, or other elements of the campaiorn related to 
responsiveness. 

Mr. Hamilton. The Hatch Act, section 78^4 (a)(1) of title 5, a 
different provision than we have previously discussed, provides that 
an employee in an executive acrencv may not use his — and I'm ouoting 
now— "may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose 
of interferinir with or affectinfr the result of an election." Do you 
think there was any conduct that violated this provision? 

Mr. Malek. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hehshman, Was that a direct quote, Jim ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, the quote starts with "use," but the "may not" 
is fllso a direct quote. 

Mr. SriiuLTz. "May" is usually permissive. It says "may" : it doesn't 
sav "shall not." 

Mr. Hamit>ton. I believe the word is "mav." T was fairlv careful 
when I took it out. Now, the various provisions of the civil service 
laws, and specifically section 4.2 of Executive Order No. 10577, which 
was issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3301, provide that— and now I am 
quoting — 

No discrimination shall be exercised, threatened, or promised by any person 
in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government against, or in favor of, any 
emnloyee in the competitive service, or any elijrible or applicant for a position 
in the romi>etitlve service, because of his political affiliation, except as may be 
authorized by law. 



8287 

Do you think this provision was contravened by any of the policies 
of the White House personnel office ? 

Mr. Malek. Could I read that ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Sure. It is in quotes. 

Mr. Malek. This is for career positions ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is for career positions. 

Mr. Malek. I cannot say that no agency of the Government did this, 
because I have no way of knowing. But it was not the policy of my 
office, or my policy, that that be done. 

Mr. Hamilton. Title 18, section 595 of the United States Code, 
makes it criminal for: 

A person employed in any administrative position by the United States in 
connection with any activity which is financed, in whole or in part, by loans or 
grants by the United States, to use his official authority for the purpose of inter- 
fering with or affecting the nomination or election of any candidate for the 
Office of the President. 

Mr. IVIalek. Could I see that, also? [Pause.] What is your question 
on that ? This is hard for me to interpret, because it says it's illegal for 
anyone employed, really, by the U.S. Government. 

Mr. Hamilton. In connection with the granting of loans or grants. 

Mr. Malek. It's not all employees of the Government? 

Mr. Hamilton. No, no. Anybody employed in connection with the 
administration of loans and grants to use his official capacity for 
the 

Mr. Malek. I see. These are the people that make the grant decisions, 
in other words? 

Mr. Hamilton. That's right. Do you think any activity that was 
carried out under the plan to capitalize on the incumbency violated 
this provision? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I do not know of any, and I would hope that it 
was not, but I think you have to remember that, in the position that 
I was in, that I was not dealing directly with the departments or 
agencies, and that my staff was really only serving as a conduit for 
grant information requests and suggestions. So that it is very con- 
ceivable that I did not have my finger on what was going on in every 
agency of the Government. 

Mr. Hamilton. You are not a lawyer, but would it be your opinion 
that the shifting of grants and loans to target groups and target areas 
to aid in the President's reelection would be violative of the statute? 

Mr. MaIiEK. If it was a real shifting from something that would 
otherwise be funded, yes. But if it was — if the grants were being 
awarded on a competitive basis, with fair and adequate consideration 
to all of the competing utilizations of the money, then that is not in 
violation, in my layman's opinion. 

Mr. Hamilton. Section 611 of title 18 makes it criminal 

Mr. Malek. Are my opinions really useful to you on 

Mr. Hamilton. We are not going to take them as final statements 
of the law. 

Mr. Malek. Shucks. 

Mr. Hamilton. My questions are whether or not you think that 
any activity carried out under the responsiveness heading, or under 
the broad plans to utilize the incumbency to reelect the President were 



8288 

violative, in your opinion, of any of the provisions that I'm now read- 
ing to you, and I am frankly interested in your opinion as to legality 
of this conduct. 

Mr. Malek. I am flattered. 

Mr. Hamilton. Section 611 of title 18 provides that, in essence, that 
it is illegal to solicit a campaign contribution from an individual with 
a Government contract, and it is also illegal for someone who has a 
Government contract to make a campaign contribution. I'm talking 
now about an individual who has a Government contract. Do you think 
any of the activities, specifically the activities of the black group, were 
violative of this particular provision ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, for example, if a corporation which has a large 
Government contract, and its chief executive officer, who might own 
5 percent of the stock, makes a contribution, are you telling me that 
is a violation? 

Mr. Hamilton. No, I'm not. I think the contract should have to be 
with a specific individual. Do you know of any such circumstances ? 

Mr. Malek. I don't know of any activities which would have vio- 
lated that particular provision. 

Mr. Hamilton. Title 18, in section 1505, makes it criminal to cor- 
ruptly influence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavor to influence, ob- 
struct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under 
which the proceeding is being had before a department or agency of 
the United States — in other words, influencing or endeavoring to in- 
fluence a regulatory administrative proceeding. Do you know of any 
conduct taken in connection with the Responsiveness Program that 
VWSfiHTd violate that provision ? 

Mr. Maijik. No, I do not know of any violation of that provision 
through the Responsiveness Program. 

Mr. Hamilton. Finally, Mr. Malek, section 371 of title 18, the 
United States Code, makes it illegal and makes it a felony to con- 
spire to defraud the United States; and defraud the United States, 
as that term has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, means a 
conspiracy to interfere with the lawful functioning of Government. 
Do you think any of the activity carried out in the Responsiveness Pro- 
gram interfered with the lawful functioning of Government ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I do not. 

Mr. Hamilton. I am through. Does anyone else have any questions ? 

Mr. Freedman. I have several questions. 

Were you aware of any research in the White House to determine 
the use of Government resources in past administrations for campaign 
purposes? 

ISfr. Malek. I had heard that some research, that someone had looked 
into that, but just very vaguely. 

Mr. Freedman. Do you remember the results? 

Mr. Malek. No ; well, I remember that it was rather accepted knowl- 
edge around the White House that prior administrations had used the 
incumbency to their advantage in reelection. 

Mr. Freedman. Was there any suggestions that they had devised 
programs similar to the Responsiveness Program ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes ; it was my belief that there had been similar types 
of operations. 



8289 

Mr. Freedman. All right. Getting into the personnel area. 

Mr. Malek. And to extrapolate on it for just a minute, really, again 
the Responsiveness Program was simply an extrapolation of what goes 
on all the time through the Congress, anyhow, of responding to tiieir 
needs, and of considering the information they bring to bear. 

Mr. Freedman. OK. In the personnel area, was anyone in the Civil 
Service Commission consulted on the activities of the White House 
personnel organization? 

Mr. Malek. Oh, yes. I believe I consulted with Mr. Hampton, 
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, on a lot of things. 

Mr. Freedman. Was Chairman Hampton aware of your referral 
program ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes, I believe he was. 

Mr. Freedman. I am still unclear on two things, on two people's 
roles, Mr. Flemming and Mr. Dent. Could you give me a brief descrip- 
tion of their roles from early 1971 through the campaign? 

Mr. Malek. Well, I don't really understand all of the things, what 
Mr. Dent's role was. He was kind of a political adviser to the Presi- 
dent, and did a lot of speaking down in the South, kind of sensed 
the mood of the people in the South, and advised the President on 
political matters generally. That is about as aware as I am of his 
specific activities. 

Mr. Freedman. Did that function occur for the 2-year period, a 
3-year period? 

Mr. Malek. I suppose. I guess he started with the beginning of the 
administration. I think he was there for the whole 4 years. Mr, Flem- 
ming — this is in the period now, 1971 ? 

Mr. Freedman. [Nods in the affirmative.] 

Mr. Malek. He was in private enterprise. I think he left in Janu- 
ary of 1971, and went into private business until he came back into 
the campaign organization, and he worked under John Mitchell. It 
was his responsibility for organizing the field activities, the State 
organizations. And then later, that was divided into, I think, four 
geographic areas under Mr. Mitchell, with Mr. Flemming responsible 
for the Northeast, and then, around July 3, after Mr. Magruder 
and I came to the committee, he was reassigned to do some special 
political analysis of various States, and we reallocated the various field 
responsibilities among 10 regional directors. 

Mr. Freedman. You mentioned a number of times that polls were 
taken. Were these for the campaign ? 

Mr. Malek. Yes. 

Mr. Freedman. And on whose budget were they paid from? 

Mr. Malek. The campaign. 

Mr, Freedman. You brought a number of documents with you to- 
day. Do any of those documents reflect information that we have not 
discussed to this point? 

Mr. Malek. I don't think so. I think your information far surpasses 
mine. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think a better way to put that 

Mr. Malek. Well, I've got some information here on examples of 
congressional intercessions in the grant process, which you may not 
have. 



8290 

Mr. Hamilton. I think a better way to ask that question, Mr. Malek, 
is, do you have any additional documents which relate to the Respon- 
siveness Program, and were covered by the subpena that was served 
on you that you have not turned over to us ? 

Mr. Malek. No, I do not. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. 

Mr. Freedman, Was Chairman Hampton aware of the August 30, 
1971, form? 

Mr. Malek. I don't know whether he was or not. Probably not. 

Mr. Freedman. OK. Was there a group within the White House that 
would advise on the determination of whether the candidate was to 
receive a high political rating, such as a must placement ? 

Mr. Malek. Well, it would typically rely on the congressional liai- 
son staff, either Mr. MacGregor or Mr. Timmons, to make that de- 
termination, since most of the requests were coming from the Con- 
gress. If they came from a State or local elected official, I believe we 
would get the opinion of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, 
who dealt on a regular basis with these people, because it is very diffi- 
cult somtimes to differentiate between somebody who did have ex- 
tremely high priority to a Member of Congress, and those who didn't. 
And we would rely on their guidance. 

Mr. Freedman. Was there a similar group who would pass judg- 
ments on grants ? 

Mr. Malek. No, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Freedman. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Hershman. Just one. Are you aware of any instance of White 
House staff personnel receiving cash funds from Government con- 
tractors or grantees, or people receiving loans from the Federal Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mr. Malek. None, none that I am aware of. 

Mr. Hershman. That's all. 

Mr. Hamilton. Dick ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I have nothing further. 

Mr. Hamilton. All right. I think we are through. Thank you very 
much. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :20 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
adjourned.] 



8291 



MSMOllANDUM 

CONFIDENTIAL 
MEMORANDUM FOR: 
FROM: 
SUBJECT: 



Malek Exhibit No. l 



THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHIKCTOW 



January 28, 1972 
H. R. HALDEMAN 
FRED MALEK 
My Role in Support of Re- Election 



Attached is a concept paper outlining and evaluating the alternative 
roles 1 could assume to render maximum support to the re-election 
efforts. I will look forward to discussing it with you. 



Attachment 



8292 



EYES ONLY - CONFIDENTIAL 



CONCEPT PAPER ON ALTERNATIVE ROLES 



As I see it at this point there are three alternative ways I can contribute 
over the next 10 months. The purpose of this memo is to lay out and 
evaluate these three options. I -would be happy to undertake &^6f one 
of the three and feel the decision should be made by you and John Mitchell 
or the President. 

As you knoTw, John Mitchell has asked me to join the Campaign Organization 
as his deputy for supervising the Citizens and Voting Bloc operations. My 
proposed responsibility would also include providing him with a continuing 
management audit to evaluate performance and spot problems throughout 
the campaign organization. This is explained nnore fully in the attached memo 
that Mitchell has approved. To me this is a critical role that can have a 
major and direct impact on the President's re-election, and I feel confident 
of being able to handle it \vell. Since the dennands on me associated with 
my current responsibilities at the White House are diminishing, my transfer 

I >vould be very happy to undertake the campaign role, 

A key gap left by my departvire fronn the White House would be in coordinating 
Administration efforts in support of re-election. Thus, a second option would 
be for ine to remain here and act as the general manager of the overall 
Administration activities in support of the President's re-election. This 
would provide the President and you with a focal point for coordinating and 
directing the half dozen programs which have been initiated to capitalize 
upon our control of the Executive Branch. This, too, is a highly meaningful 
role which I would be pleased to undertake. Still another possibility would 
be to have me assume both the campaign and the general manager responsi- 
bilities. The latter two options have advantages and problems as discussed 
below, but either one enables me to remain at the White House, w^hich I 
urvderstand is your desire. 

GENERAL MANAGER OF ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS 

As you knoAV, I am developing a managennent information system to assist 
you in coordinating and managing the programs being initiated to support 
the President's re-election: grantsmanship, issue management, constituent 
group management. Departmental prograins to enhance their responsiveness, 
communications, and personnel. While this information system should 



8293 



prove helpful, the management burden will still fall on you, since you 
are the only one, besides the President, with the responsibility and 
authority. However, it is doubtful you will have the time to monitor 
progress, dig into problem areas, and keep the pressure on each of 
these progranns. Thus, the overall operation may become disjointed 
and bog down as the day-to-day White House demands inevitably assert 
themselves on the key players. 

To overcome this problem, someone should be established as the general 
manager to supervise and coordinate the various activities. This would 
give you and the President one person to look to and hold accountable 
for Administration efforts. This person's responsibilities would include 
the following: 

Take the lead in the program to politicize Departments and 
J Agencies by coordinating orientation visits, reviewing plans 
/ for each, riding herd on OMB efforts to foliDW up on these 

plans, reviewing monthly reports on progress against plan, 

and taking corrective actions where needed. 

Work closely -with Chuck Colson and individual constituent group 
rvT-r>i«»rf m^ria acrn fn Hpvplnn fitratepv an«1 artifin nlans for <»af-h 
Key group ana to ensure tnat tnese plans are eiiectiveiy carried 
out. 

Closely monitor Issue Management efforts, ensuring that the 
Domestic Council staff remains forcefully on this track and 
that adequate White House support is provided. 

/-- Ride herd on the implementation of the Government-wide 

communications project ensuring that recommendations are 
rapidly carried out and that public inforination offices function 
as planned. 

Directly supervise the patronage operation and closely monitor 
the grantsmanship project to ensure maximum and unrelenting 
efforts. 

Keep you fully informed on the results achieved and problems 
being encountered utilizing the managennent information system 
referred to earlier. 

A inajor probleni in my being able to carry out these responsibilities would 
be gaining- cooperation from key players affected (i. e. , Ehrlichman, Shultz, 
Colson, Cole). Each of these ar,c strong men with justifiable pride and 



8294 



territorial claim. Particularly in the case of the Domestic Council, they 
will not accept "meddlers" with open arms. Overcoming this problem 
would require a good deal of support from you and the President and 
considerable tact on my part. To set the stage it would be essential for 
you or the President to clarify my role v/ith these men and supply me 
with the clout necessary to do the job. 

COMBINED CAMPAIGN AND WHITE HOUSE RESPONSIBILITIES 

The second possibility would be to have me assume both the campaign 
responsibilities and the general management responsibilities described 
above. I would remain on the White House Staff and retain my office 
here. I would also have general responsibility for the Citizens/ Voting 



Bloc an d management audit programs. These would be conducted by a 
Citizens Director whom I would ha ve a hand in hiring. T his man would 
be responsible to Mitchell on paper but would take general guidance from 



This dual assignment would put me in a unique position to meld two mutually 
reinforcing responsibilities and would have several distinct advantages as 
summarized belov/. 

- ..„,..,„........„....., ................ / 

agent in the White House and then ensures him a key hold on 
running Governnnent activities in support of the campaign. 
This would greatly assist him to be fully effective. 



^ 



Also from Mitchell's viewpoint, this provides greater support 
to the Citizens/ Voting Bloc programs. The Campaign Organization 
is devoted primarily to establishing State organizations and 
generating a certain amount of publicity. Yet, much of the success 
of the Citizens/ Voting Bloc programs will depend on actions 
by the President and/or Administration. Clearly, it would be 
much easier to deliver on these needed actions from here if the 
programs were closely integrated into the grantsmanship and 
Departmental responsiveness operations. 

Coordination between the various campaign groups and the 
White House is essential if we are really going to make a 
difference v/ith key constituent groups. An opgiative with 
overview of both areas v/ould certainly be in the best position 
to effect these coordinated thrusts. 



8295 



A combined "controller" for both campaign and Adnninistration 
political activities would enable you, Mitchell, and the President 
to review the overall effectiveness of all activities supporting 
the President's re-election. 

To effectively guide Administration efforts a solid knowledge 
of campaign activities will be required. You are the only person 
now with the kno\vledge and clout to do this, but your time will 
be limited. Thus, the creation of a dual role for me would fill 
what may otherwise become a serious void. Also, my campaign 
responsibility would make my general management role more 
logical and hence, naore acceptable to Ehrlichman, Shultz, 
Colson and Cole. 

I feel these benefits would be significant. However, there are a number of 
barriers that would have to be overcoine to make the concept work successfully. 

[First, and obviously most critical would be Mitchell's acceptance of 
the concept. He would have to believe that the advantages enumerated 
I above are real and that the dual reporting role is feasible. Frankly, I 
; expect that Mitcliell would be reluctant to give so much responsibility to 
someone he does not own. He mav also n^-^ipc^ fr> the Vpropt- of hio rr^^■n^norr\^■r,^ 
LiiroriiiiiLloii Bysiein being in a position of conveying proolems ol nis operation 
into the White House. I would feel this v/ay in his shoes. The only w^ay to 
address this would be to have a frank and open discussion with Mitchell on 
this subject. If necessary, we may even want to consider my primary 
reporting relationship to Mitchell. 

A second drawback is that having a White House staffer intimately involved >/ [ 
in campaign activities seems in conflict with the President's posture of 
being removed from the cannpaign until the convention. While I would expect 
to maintain the lowest profile, it is likely that certain elements of my role 
would become visible. You are in a better position to judge the seriousness 
of this. 

Finally, there is concern as to whether the combined job is doable, 
particularly by me. It is a complex and highly sensitive assignment, and 
it depends on the cooperation of many others. It may not be doable at all, 
and if it is, I may not have the stature, respect, or capacity that is needed. 
Again, you are in a position to evaluate this. My own conclusion is while 
connplete success is undoubtedly not obtainable, we can make considerable 
progress, and I can make a contribution. 



8296 



1£ after reviewing this you feel the above idea.s make some sense, I feel 
it would be very worthwhile to sit down and discuss them in depth. There 
are nnany ramifications and probably a range of possible problenns not 
covered in this memorandum that need to be drawn out before a conclusion 
is reached. 



Attachment January 28, 1972 



8297 



Malek Exhibit No. 2 



CONFIDENTIAL: 
MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 
SUBJECT: 



THE WHITE HOUSE 
WASH I NGTON 

February 16, 1972 



JOHN MITCHELL 
BOB HALDEMAN^.^^ 



FRED MALEK 



Meeting to Discuss My Role 



The meeting this afternoon with John Ehrlichman and George Shultz is ' 
generally to establish my new role with them. Specifically, we want to~ 
accomplish the following: 

-- Brief John and George so they fully understand my role 
in the campaign and the White House and as a bridge between 
the two. 

-- Gain their support and commitment for this role. 

- -- Get their suggestions on how best to carry out my 
responsibilities effectively, particularly how best to operate 
with their staffs. 

-- Gain agreement on how to broach this with their staffs 
in a way that will enhance cooperation. 

Attached are talking points that I suggest for this meeting. 



Attachment 



32-818 O - 74 pt. 18-9 



8298 



CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 



HRH 



TALKING POINTS TO ESTABLISH 
NEW RESPONSIBILITIES 



1. John and I have arranged this session to discuss coordination of cam- 
paign and Administration activities and a means of ensuring maximum 
support and responsiveness from the Administration. 

2. As you know, we have already started a number of thrusts to ensure 
that the power of the incumbency is used. 

a. Constituent group teams and project managers are being set' 
up to gain support with major constituent groups 

b. The Domestic Council staff has designated issue managers 
who are responsible for posturing the President correctly ajid 
generating support for his position on major issues 

c. Plans have been developed wherein George's people would 
play a major role in seeing that Departmental actions to the 

■greatest extent possible are supportive of the re-election 
effort 

d. Bill Gifford has iindertaken a project related to grants and { 
Fred's people have a new program to strengthen responsive- 
ness of patronage to campaign needs. 

3. There are several problems, however,- that are not adequately covered 
by present arrangements. 

- a. Projects may easily bog down as day-to-day demands in- 

evitably assert themselves on the key players 

b. There is a great need for coordination between these various 
efforts 

c. Most importantly, we need to ensure these efforts are truly 
responsive to campaign priorities and that there is close 
coordination in areas such as constituent groups (JM may 
want to reinforce this point) 



8299 



To meet this need John and I feel strongly - and the President has con- 
curred - that Fred should join John at the cannpaign but also remain 
associated here. 

a. Act as John's deputy in supervising citizens/voting bloc 
activities (JM may want to elaborate on this, e. g. , this 
gives Fred responsibilities most affected by Administration 
activities) 

b. Outwardly, he would remain a member of the White House 
staff, keeping pressure on the programs discussed earlier 

■ and ensuring that these programs are responsive to and 

coordinated with campaign needs '-•... 



JM . 

1. The roles described are mutually reinforcing. 

' a. Ultimate knowledge of campaign priorities, plajis, and re- 

quirements will enable Fred to be more productive in 
coordinating in- house activities 

b. ■ At the same time knowledge of White House capabilities, 
-programs, and problems will make him more effective in 
guiding campaign voting bloc efforts 

2. In addition I feel this provides other advantages. 

a. It ■will help ensure that White House and other Governmental 
activities are supportive of campaign to greatest degree 
possible 

b. Much of success of the Citizens/ Voting Bloc programs -will 
depend upon actions by the President and/or the Admin- 
istration. The combined responsibility would help gain the 
support needed. 

c. Coordination between the Citizens and Voting Bloc programs 
and the parallel White House efforts would be facilitated by 
having an overview^ responsibility for both areas 

3. I have asked Fred to get into additional specifics. Before he does, you 
nrvight Tyrant to discuss some of the points that have been covered. 



8300 



FVM 

1. Generally, the plan entails - 

a. Spending at least 1/2 time physically at 1701, but bringing 
on board a full-time Citizens Executive Director to work 
with me 

b. Turning over personnel responsibilities between March and 
th« election to Dan Kingsley 

2. Success of my mission depends on working effectively with certain 
members of your staffs, and I would greatly value your thoughts on 
how to handle this. My general approach is as follows: 

a. Clearly, I would not presume to tell your staffs what to do. 

They are the experts and know best how to serve the President 
in their areas. 

- b. . However, I will inform them of overall re-election priorities 
relevant to their areas of responsibility and keep the'pres- 
sure on as much as possible for results in these areas 

c. ■ If it becomes apparent from polls. State Chairmen, or 

otherwise that we are losing ground in an area, I will want 
to discuss it and try to gain aji agreement on what corrective 
action can be taken 

d. I will also want to ensiire that John's issue managers are 

receiving adequate White House support from cominunica- 
tions and legislation staffs . _ . _ . 

3. It is still too early to describe precisely how I -would work with the 
staffs, but in the Domestic Council area it would probably include: 

a. Bringing relevant Campaign and Domestic Council staff 
members together to ensure latter are totally familiar with 
policy needs and priorities of various constituent groups 
(e. g. , Payment of prescription drugs for elderly) 

b. Doing same in relation to State victory plans (e. g. , priority 
environmental projects or Presidential policy pronounce- 
ments needed for Florida) 

c. Meeting with Ken Cole periodically (or issue managers if he 
prefers) to discuss progress on issues and determine whjere 
added White House or Departmental support is needed 



8301 



d. Once the concept is fully introduced, much of the contact 

can be handled on staff level with only problems rising to 
Cole or me (e.g., Bi-lingual education example)' 

In the OMB area, George, we have already discussed this on a pre- 
liminary basis. 

a. I would coordinate the Departmental responsiveness 
program as we di scussed with my staff working closely 
with Gifford in the planning and your budget directors 
on the follow through 

b. In addition my people would use the Department political ,. 
structure to make specific requests needed by the Campaign 

c. The grantsmanship operation will be closely allied to the 
Departmental responsiveness program, and I anticipate no 
problem in working effectively with Bill Gifford in these 
two areas 

The greatest assistance after you have generally agreed oA the con- 
cept and role would be to create a receptive environment among 
your staff 

a. You may want to cover this at a staff meeting writh or 
■without my presence 

b. I could then follow up with appropriate staff members to 
work out the details - 

c. Also, your help will be needed periodically to gain coop- 
eration from Cabinet Officers 

Initially, we may want to have this covered with 
them in a Cabinet Meeting 

Alternatively, you may prefer that you and I meet 
individually with them 



8302 



TALKING POINTS FOR MEETING WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Continued high level of enthusiasm for campaign role 

A. Have discussed at length vidth HRH, and he, too, is for it 

B. I have given much thought to how best to get the job done and ■what 
possible problems must be overcome 

C. I have a suggestion to overcome problems ajid be even more 
effective for you. > ... 

n. Problems 

. A. As briefly covered with you earlier, I have been involved in a 

number of special projects in support of re-election -- let me cover 
these so you can best appreciate their significance and their neces- 
sity to your efforts in the campaign. 

1. Patronage, grantsmanship. Government- wide commxmications 

2. Constituent and issue group project management, closely re- 
lating to efforts of Citizens/ Voting Bloc groups 

3. Department programs to assure day-to-day operations are 
supportive in every possible ■way to the campaign effort 

B. Ensuring that the Government pro^vides maximum support to the 
caxnpaign efloTT is essential, an'S'tEis is the hole I was to have 
plugged '— 

'I. I have been responsible for conceiving and establishing each 

of these special prcjects 

2. Except for the Departmental effort, each is under someone 

else's managennent, and ■without consistent prodding and 
direction, they ■will ■wither eind become ineffective. 

a. Inevitably, day-to-day ser'vicing of President's needs 
■will take priority, and projects neglected 

b. Bob is 'the "only one ■with overview to manage but he does 
not have the time 

c. Thus, someone is needed to ride close here on each of 
these operations and ensure they give you the support 
reqxiired 



8303 



C. A second problem revolves around the ability to get things done 
from the campaign organization 

1. Many of the most meaningful programs of the Citizens/ Voting 
Bloc operations will depend on White House/ Administration 
cooperation and responsiveness 

2. Also, close coordination with parallel White House activities 
is essential- 

3. These things may be hard to a"chieve from campaign office 

in. I have come up with a solution to these problems -- Bob agrees -subject 
to your approval . _ 

A. Assume general responsibility as we have discussed but at the 
same time be given clear responsibility" for managing the White 
House and Administration efforts as outlined above 

B. Basically, I \yo uld report to you but with a dual portfolio that 
.would provide these advantages 

|/ I. This gives you an effective force within the Administration 

to ensure that White, House and other Governmental activities~~" 
are supportive of the campaign to the greatest degree possibl-e,^. 
One of your greatest assets is that ■we are in power, and we 
must use this asset. 

2.— Much of-success of the Citizens/ Voting Bloc programs will 
\ depend upon actions by the President and/ or the Administration. 

" The co33nbined responsibility would help gain the support needed. 

3. Coordination between the Citizens and Voting Bloc programs 
and the parallel White House efforts would be facilitated by 
having an overview responsibility for both areas 

4. Effectively guiding Administration efforts requires a thorough 
understanding of campaign strategy and operations 

5. My campaign responsibility •would make my general manage- 
ment role more acceptable to Ehxlichman, Shultz, Colson, and 
Cole, and would, therefore, enable me to be more effective 

6. Finally, a combined "controller" both both campaign and Admin- 
istration political activities wovild better enable you, Haldeman, 

I and the President to review the overall effectiveness of all 

activities supporting the President's re-election 



8304 

IV. How it would work • - 

A. My primary reporting relationship to you -- your man 

1. Secondarily report to Bob for Administration programs 

2. Bob agrees to this arrangement and will provide me the neceJs- 
sary clout to get the job done at the White House 

B. To maintain leverage over White House staff and Administraticn,' I 
would remain identified as a member of the White House staff 

C. I could not run both the Citizens and Voting Bloc operations and still 
do this -- thus, a Citizens Executive Director would have to be hired 

1. I would take the responsibility for finding you an Eocecutive 
Director within the next week 

2. He would, of course, report to you, and I would supervise 
many of his day-to-day activities as originally envisioned 



D. I would establish the management/audit control operation for you 
and would report at least weekly to you on progress and problems 



V, Possible barriers • J" 

A. First and most important is your acceptance of the concept 

I. Do you feel tha_t the combined responsibility and dual reporting 

relationship is feasible? 

2. You may feel awkward about having the keeper of your infor- 

mation system being in a position to convey problems to the 
White House. I would want to address this problem explicitly 
if I were in your shoes. 

B. If the job is doable, there is a question whether it can be done by 
me, given its great connplexity and sensitivity and the dependence on 

/ the cooperation of many others. 

C. While I would maintain the lowest possible profile, having a. White 
Houste staff menriber intimately involved with the campaign might be«_ . 
come public and create adverse publicity. 

D. Despite barriers, I think it can work and that the benefits far outweigh 
the problems. ' 

-.or, 



CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 



8305 
Malek Exhibit No. 3 



ORGANIZING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING NEW RESPONSIBILITIES 



This memo reviews my major activities for the next 9 months, suggests a 
tentative organization plan to handle these activities, and outlines the general 
steps that need to be taken to make me fully operational. 

MAJOR ACTIVITIES 



There are 5 activities over which I will exercise direct supervision: Citizens/ 
Voting Bloc operations, naanagement control. Department responsiveness, 
patronage, and personnel. There are 4 areas of indirect supervision in- 
cluding constituent group project managers, issue project managers, grants- 
manship, and communications. While my plans are far from fully developed, 
my initial thoughts on each of these are discussed briefly below. 



Direct Supervision 



Of^": 



/ 

Citizens/ Voting Bloc Operatic^s f^ Although I will not have direct r 




sponsibility for White House constituent group activities, I tend to view thenar 
in tandem with citizens/ voting bloc efforts. Consequently, a major pa^;*-^ 
my job will be to bring these together so ■we have one coordinated.^^:^ for 
each major voting bloc that both the campaign and the Whitelfcfuse constituent 
group nnanagers are committed to. Overseeing the deji&l-rJpment and innple- 
mentation of these plans will require a large portiorfof my time; however, a 
Citizens Executive Director will be brought,j>ii'^ spend full time on these key 
activities. Recruiting and deciding oju-t+Te Executive Director will be a top 
first priority. ^^.^'^ 

Management Coqt^^. This operation ^vill give you, Mitchell, and the 
President a meang.'CST reviewing the overall effectiveness of all campaign and 
Administratiqjjr^ctivities supporting the President's re-election. This ■will 
involve esJ^fSlishing and operating a report and follow up system in both the 
campajgli and the Adnninistration that pro^vides an evaluation of how effectively 
th e>maior activities, are being carried out, especially in the key States . The 
_ stem will highlight major problem areas and ■will follow through to ensure 
that corrective action is taken as directed by you or Mitchell. In a sense, 
we ■will be breaking new ground here, and it •will require a great deal of 
effort in the 
both Mitchel 

.1^ . \ Departnrient Responsivenessf This is potentially one of the most pro- 

f^ / yductive activities we will undertake. The first steps include a Cabi^n et^^ —^£0 
^^^^x'^ Meeting briefing, orientation visits to each Departnient, establishing a --, 

political team (generally headed by the Under Secretary) in each Depart- Qa*'^ 5^^ 
ment, and instigating and reviewing Departmental plans for strengthening/ ^ 




reviewing Departmental plans for strengthening/ ^ 



8306 






responsiveness. The role will then change to working closely TAfith OMB to 
ensure plans are carried out on time and utilizing the Department political 
teams to carry out other requirements which develop during the course of 

the campaign. 

Patronage and Personnel. The key thing here is to maintain maximum 
control over Administration- wide appointments to Advisory Commissions 
and full time posts so as to ensure responsiveness to campaign needs. Dan. 
Kingsley can be counted on to continue to handle this effectively. We also 
plan a major project to prepare for 1973 which will include identifying 
marginal performers (Kingsley) and developing an improved talent bank 
(Pen James) that will aim at including the best people in the country for a 
wide range of key functions. I would plan to directly supervise the James 
talent bank project, but turn the 'remaining personnel/recruiting respon- 



sibilities over to Kingsley with a minimal amount of direction from me. 
indirect Supervision ^A ''^f'^ jS'ftjOe^ti*^ t^/*>t''C'^ /Jj^-^^^-t-ft-^ — ' 




Constituent Group Project Managers. As pointed out earlier, mv 
major function here will be to bring this together with the Citizens/ Votfcig 
Bloc activities. This will involve working with the project managers to 
develop a comprehensive connbined plan and then following closely to ensure 
the plan is carried out, additional opportunities are seized, and maximum _^^ 
responsiveness to the cannpaign is maintained. ^^f(^ /^ ^^^t^S**'*^'"'*''"'*" J^^^^^ 

Issue Project Mans^^ers. The focus here will be on loosely monitoiviT^^,^? 
efforts, ensuring that we stay on track and that adequate White House support y 
is provided. Also, we would ensure that Issue Managers are well informed v J 
on and responsive to campaign needs that develop. It will not be easy to . iV y\ 
gain real cooperation here, but at the same time, I do not view this as a .(jr 'v ^ 
nn jnr piypff n I'rn Hence, it will not occupy a major portion of time. 'A (y Ir 

■ ^Z^^T^^^- ^^/^y'-d*ax*^>t^^ ' Ok, a. ^e^iAj- ?1^Ajr.*.t^-f^ Mag 

Gr ant sman ship. 1 expect that Bill Gifford wilrdo a fine job here and 
be fully cooperative. Thus, this will require limited time, mainly ensuring 
that the cannpaign team is creatively coming up with grant ideas and that 
Gifford is aware of these. It may also require sonne enforcement with . 
recalcitrant Departments. ^/>^ 

Communications. We are well into implementation here and should be 
fully operational by April I5th. Bill Horton will continue to track ren-iaining 
iniplementation steps, and we can audit^performance and responsiveness 
thereafter through Des Barker. 



8307 



ORGANIZATION 

My tentative organization plan to handle the above activities is shovvn in 
Tab A and elaborated on below. Once you have reviewed the plan, I intend 
to keep the chart solely for my own use and not for distribution elsewhere, 
including my own staff. Much of this plan involves changes in use of White 
House personnel and requires your approval. A discussion foUov/s on a 
few salient points of the plan and the key personnel implications. 

Controller. As you can see from the chart, I have a virtually un- 
controllable situation with a large number of constituent and Citizens/ Voting 
Bloc managers and a number of Departments and Agencies to be concerned 
with. Obviously, I will have to involve myself on a selective basis in only 
the most important areas. This makes the role of the Administration Con- 
troller quite critical. It will be his responsibility to help plan the Admin- 
istration efforts, continuously follow up on these efforts through reports and 
other means, and identify problem areas for my attention. In effect, he 
would be my deputy to help supervise the various Administration activities. 
In addition, he would work closely with the campaign controller in setting up 
a managennent control system and monitoring activities. I recommend 
phasing Bill Horton into this role so that he is full time Controller in one 
month. O/^^/jCa ^ yK,OU>t&\^ - ''^t^ -^X^ y<.Cj,c^ e=e. <9%^<Lm^ — J/ift^ 

Approve ^#'*^ Disapprove 

Campaign Controller. The job here is one that to my knowledge has 
never been done before. It is to establish a report and follow up system, that 
provides John Mitchell with a continuing management audit to evaluate per- 
formance and spot problems throughout the campaign organization. It will 
involve getting people to do things they don't want to do (e.g. , plan and 
report), and the job will require great tact and diplomacy as well as a solid 
understanding of nnanagement. This is a key role that could have a great 
impact on the campaign's success and for this reason warrants moving Jerry 
Jones from the White, House staff. / _ - _, U/ , . 4-~ xO - . 

Approve __^_J^^ Disapprove 

Department Responsiveness. Strengthening Departnnent responsive- 
ness involves orientation visits, reviewing plans for each, reviewing monthly 
reports on progress against plan, riding herd on OMB efforts to follow up on 
implementation, and using Department political organizations to fulfill special 
campaign requirements. We cannot depend on OMB to do all that is needed 



8308 



here, and I propose using Stan Anderson and Frank Herrlnger half-time as 
my personal agents in monitoring and prodduig Department efforts. 

Approve Dis&pm-ove ^_ , '^ J y ^^ ,/ 

Patronage /Personnel. With the departure of Jones and the use of 
Anderson and Herringer on Department responsiveness, Kingsley will be short 
handed. The slack in the recruiting area will not help since Marurnoto and 
Franklin will spend most of their time as project managers for Spanish 
Speaking and VV omen respectively, and James and Clarke will be involved 
in the special recruiting project described above. We have already requested 
tsvo clerical workers to perform much of the administrative work currently 
handled by Anderson and Herringer. In addition, I recommend you authorize 
us to replace Jones. If you agree, we will, of course, submit a specific 
candidate for your approval. ^^/^^ £4/^^^-'^' y<l2^^ ^^<'^(Ay-' 

Approve V^ ^^^o^ P'^'''^^---*^ '^^-^•^-^ 

Indirect Responsibilities. I expect it will be quite easy to coordinate 
Gifford's role on Grantsmanship as required, and Bill Horton will continue 
guiding efforts to strengthen PIO operations. I do not feel there is a great 
1 .■^\J^?^r^z:sfoii irox'c\^& I'aSViQ yiz.vi.z.%&Ts, and, consequently, I anticipate a much 
I.A' (looser type of coordination here. The most difficult area and the one ■with 

Ithe most payoff potential is the Constituent Project Managers. Therefore, 
this is the area that will cotnmand the greatest attention from me and the 
Controller. 

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 

You and I should meet as soon as convenient to discuss the proposed organi- 
zation as outlined above, the implementation steps, and what can be done to 
establish my new mission with the maximum force and credibility. In order 
to be operational by the time you depart for China, I hope we can meet and 
agree to a plan soon. Assuming this to be the case, the foUov/ing steps 
would be taken subsequently: 

Steps Date 

1. Brief my staff on the new mission generally and meet 

with each on his specific role 2/10 

2. Work with Magruder on developing total campaign organi- 
zation structure for Mitchell's approval. 2/U 



8309 



3. Select and gain John Mitchell's approval of Citizens 

Executive Director. 2/11 

4. Brief senior White House staff on the mission/organiza- 
tion and how it relates to them. 2/15 

5. Brief campaign staff on same. 2/16 

6. Brief Cabinet on overall effort, focusing on requirements 

for Departmental responsiveness. * 

7. Become fully operational in new role. 2/17 

During this initial period I will also be devoting substantial time to getting up 
to speed on various campaign activities, developing initial thoughts on the 
management control system, and generally getting on top of the Citizens/ 
Voting Bloc operations. 



/P ^//^ 



*■ At a Cabinet Meeting subsequent to the briefing of the senior White House 
staff. Obviously, this date may be delayed until early March if an appropriate 
opening in a Cabinet Meeting does not occur before the China trip. This delay, 
while causing some inconvenience, would not be a major problem. 



8310 



m 






T" 
















> 


+J 


o 




§-? 


<; 


11 


a. 

O 


(U 


S 


Q 


a 


Pi 


o 





G 


"" 






o 








a. 














»H 


<u 


m 


C 


<U 


rrl 


fn 




M 




<U 


>4 




jj 




4) 


^ 


p. 


> 


Tl 


ki 


o 


« 


lU 


U 


0, 


< 


X 


' 


"" 


1- 


— r 



JZ3' 



o c 



-~ 
















>N 






u 






C 




u 


ff) 


-o 


u 


o 


c 


<u 


rt 


<; X 


> 







-s 






(1) 


C 




a 


on 




o 








rt 






a 


L< 


>. 


E 


a 


^1 


n) 


O 




U 


u 


•-> 



rt 01 CQ »< 




CO ^ 



8311 
Malek Exhibit No. 4 



MEMORANDUM ' .* '/ *'^7- 

THE WHITE HOUSE- 

WASHINCTOW *. 

>.' ■ March 17/ 1972 . • 

:CONFlDENTiAL . ' ' _ - 

- -MEMORANDUM FOR: H. R. HALDEMAN 

FROM: ■' 'TKEOMAJLEKy^^pp^ 

SUBJECT: '- Departmental Responsiveness 



Attached is a paper outlining our proposed program for improving 
Departmental responsiveness in support of the President's re-election. 
It has been reviewed and concurred in hy Bill Gifiord. 

As indicated in the paper, the program should be initiated as soon 
as possible if you ■wish to take advantage of discretionary resources 
remaining this fiscal year. Consequently, I have directed my staff 
to develop all necessary implementation materials (briefing notes, 
planning guidelines, etc. ) curing my absence nesct "week. We ■will ■ ■ 

then be in a position to implement the program shortly after my 
return on Monday, March 27, should you so desire. 



Attachment 



8312 

EXTREMELY SENSITIVE - CONFIDExNTIAL 

INCREASING THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 



This paper outlines a suggested program to improve Executive Branch 
responsiveness to the voting public. It discuLses the present efforts 
and the need for augmenting them; suggests an action program and 
assignment of responsibilities to carry it out; reviews possible drawbacks 
of the program; and suggests implernentation steps. 

PRESENT EFFORTS 



Several steps have already been taken to improve Executive Branch 
responsiveness. First, project managers have been assigned respon- 
sibility for understanding the needs of certain groups of voters, suggesting 
action to meet these needs, and communicating achievements. The 
desirable action identified by these and other sources may involve policy 
or operational matters. 

If a policy matter is involved, the action would be handled by the Domestic 
Council staff. In addition to their continuing responsibility for all domestic 
policy matters, certain Domestic Council staff members have been assigned 
responsibility for ensuring that the President's position on specified key 
issues is responsive and is communicated effectively to the public. - . . 

I Actions involving operational matters are handled in one of two ways. 
Personnel matters are handled with the Departments by Dan Kingsley. 
All other operational matters (grants, contracts, construction decisions, 
etc. ) are handled by Bill Gifford. "^ "While each of these programs is 
■working effectively~R)~carjry out its mandate", the mandate for non-personnel 
operating matters should be broadened in order to overcome the two 
problems discussed below. 

I. Present efforts tap only a fraction of the total potential . Under current 
procedures, it is the usual rule that the Departments only do as they are 
' instructed. . Tn only a limited number of cases are their actions self- gene rated. 
The burden is on Gifford for developing methods to gain appreciation for 
the Administration. • He relies on the campaign apparatus. White House 
staff, direct consultation \eith campaign management, as -well as ideas 

(generated by the Departments thenns elves. Thus, the effort from the 
Departments is. largely reactive. 

* During the recently corrvpleted budget cycle, Gifford worked closely 
•with the budget examiners to ensure the budget vras as supportive as 
possible for the President's re-election. 



8313 



The Department of Commerce provides a good example. To date 
Gifford has made some 35 requests. Most of these involved expediting 
the normal grant reviewing process and securing the release of information. 
Approximately a dozen of these requests resulted in favorable grant 
decisions (which otherwise would not have been made) involving roughly 
$1 million. Politically these actions have been most beneficial. 

Nevertheless, in spite of this achievement, the potential is much greater. 
In the Commerce Department, for example, there is nearly $700 million 
in funds remaining in this fiscal year and over $700 million in next fiscal 
year which could be redirected in some manner. The major areas of 
potential for fiscal year 1973 are: Economic Development Administration, 
$275 nnillion; Regional Action Planning Commissions, $40 million; 
Minority Business Enterprises, $38 million; National Oceanographic 
and Atmospheric Administration, $100 million; and the Maritime 
Administration, $230 million. Even if only 5% of this amount can be 
rechanneled to impact more directly on target groups or geographic 
areas, it would be a substantial increase over the current efforts. 

[To capitalize upon such opportunities, the Departments must initiate 
ictioa themselves. This would entail each Department developing a 
>rogram by which it would systematically but discretely seek out oppor- 
Itunities for improving services to target groups ajid geographic areas 
land then ensure that appropriate action is taken. Attempting to undertake 
this effort at the White House level -would be futile, since there is neither 
sufficient staff, nor the needed depth of expertise in Departnnental programs. 
The White House, of course, could -- and should -- set priorities and 
provide general supervision~to the Departmental effort. Specific means 
for' doing this will be outlined after discussion of the second problem area. 

2. The Departments receive conflicting direction on operating matters. ~ 
Various White House sources sometimes give widely diverging direction 
to the Departments in allocating discretionary resources. For example, 
the Administrator of EDA at Commerce- has received calls from White 
House sources including Harry Dent, Bob Brown, Peter Flanigan, a-nd 
the Domestic Council, each one advocating the allocation of projects to 
a different geographical area. The Departments are not in a position 
to rationally prioritize among conflicting requests. Typically, they 
will either choose the one advocated by the most influential individual 
or try to satisfy all the demands, thus substantially diluting effectiveness. 

The tendency for multiple direction to the Departments is bound to increase 
this year, and unless checked, it -will cause considerable confusion and 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 10 



8314 



increase the risk of adverse publicity of White House mieddling in 
Departmental operations for political gain. More importantly, without 
coordination, it is unlikely that su^h diverse White House directives 
appropriately rellect the relative importance of targeted groups and 
areas. 

Consequently, as originally envisioned in establishing Gifford's 
grantsmanship operation, direction to the Departments on politically 
sensitive operating matters should be centralized in order to utilize 
this resource most effectively in serving target groups and geographic 
areas and to reduce the possibility of adverse publicity. 

SUGGESTED ACTION . ' ' . 




As indicated above, two fundamental steps should be taken to strengthen 
Departmental responsiveness: (I) gear up the Departments to systematically ' 
seek out and act on opportunities, under the general supervision of the 
'White House, and (2) centralize contact with the Departments on politically 
sensitive operating matters in order to improve coordination and effectiveness. 
Carrying out these steps will naturally require action both by the Departments 
and the "White House. • . 

Departmental Action " . 

Gearing up the Departments to systematically seek out and act upon 
opportunities requires (a) giving the Departments clear guidelines on 
hoM* to conduct their politically important activities, (b) having the 
Departments develop pFans Twhich are_reviewed and approved, and 
tO.following through to ensure the plans are carried out and day-to-day 
activities conform to the guidelines. The points of contact with the 
Departnnents -would be those individuals already designated by the Cabinet 
officerto work with Gifford on grantsmanship. In most cases, this is 
the Under Secretary. 

/ Guidelines. As a first step, the Departments should be given clear 
guidelines covering the political priorities, the types of operating 
decisions which are to be included in the program, and the procedures 

[for planning and tracking progress. 

[The political priorities would be spelled out in terms of key States and 
major voting bloc groups upon which Departmental action could have an 
impact. The Departments would be updated as needed, as the political 
priorities evolve. 



8315 



Next, the types of activities covered under this program -would be 
discussed. The major ones, of course, are positive decisions (e.g., 
project grants, contracts, loans, subsidies, procurement and construction 
projects), and negative actions (e.g., taking legal or regulatory action 
against a group or governmental body, major cutbacks in programs, and 
relocation of Department operations). The Departmental contact -would 
naturally not be expected to control all of the possible positive actions 
throughout his Department. Rather, the effort should be focused on those 
sub-Agencies where the payoff is the greatest. In Commerce, for example, 
this means the Economic Development Administration, Regional Action 
Planning Comnnission, Office of Minority Business Enterprise, National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and Maritime Administration. 
In some cases, the Departments -will have to tighten controls over decisions 
in the high payoff areas and over the announcement process. 

Equally important to controlling the decisions is the need for announcing 
positive actions in a -way to gain maximurh visibility and ensure the 
President and his Administration are given the credit. Consequently, 
emphasis -would be placed on properly announcing favorable actions through 
various means. To gain added favorable publicity, emphasis -would also be 
placed on a Departmental speakers program, publications, mailings, etc., 
thus reinforcing the project to strengthen Departmental communications. 

Also, under this program, the Departments -would be expected to culti-vate 
the leaders of organized groups Nvhich are affected by the Department to 
gain. their support and the support of their groups for the President's 
re-election. Similarly, the Departments -would be expected to take discrete 
and subtle steps to ga-in_employee_support_of-the President's re-election. 

These. general guidelines -would provide a frame-work for directing 
day-to-day Departmental activities to be more supportive of the President. 
They -would also serve to help the Departments identify those politrically 
sensitive decisions which should be referred to the White House. Finally, 
they -would provide the basis for Departmental plans discussed belo-w. 

I Departmental Plans. Each Department should be required to develop a 
plan to ensure operating decisions reflect the priorities to the greatest 
extent possible. The plans would outline what amount of discretionary 
resources in each area identified above -will be allocated to priority areas 
and groups along v/ith a timetable and responsible individual. Also included 
would be steps planned for strengthening control over the relevant operating 
decisions, the announcennent process, and the public relations improvements. 
I Finally, the plan would cover actions for cultivating organized groups and ■■ 
for gaining the support of Departmental employees. 



8316 



In developing these plans, the Departmental contact •would work •with the 
appropriate Assistant Secretaries and sub-Agency Heads individually in 
their various areas of responsibility. The contact and his immediate staff 
■would then be responsible for pulling together a Department-'wide plan 
for review by the White House. 

FoIIq-w- through. As suggested earlier, the Departmental contact •will 
be expected to establish controls to ensure the desired action is taken. 
Moreover, he •will be asked to report monthly on progress against plan, 
as ■well as accomplishments in unplanned activities in support of the 
President's re-election. The reports -would be nnade verbally to certain 
White House staff members in accordance -with the responsibilities' described 
belo^w. • ... 

WHITE HOUSE RESPONSIBILITIES - '■ ■ . - •• - 



Bill Gifford's responsibilities in this regard •will continue as they are 
no^w. Principally, these are (1) ensuring the Departments are responsive 
on'specifically identified operating decisions, and (2) revie^wing and 
briefing Shultz on the impact of sensitive OMB decisions. 

[In addition, under the action proposed above, Gifford would -work •with 
Fred Malek and his staff in establishing and supervising the Departmental 
[programs. Gifford -would be the principal contact for operating matters 
{•with the Departments, communicating to the Departments the political 
Ipriarities as "well as the "must" operating decisions. Also, he rwould 
participate in presenting the guidelines discussed earlier to the Departmental 
I contacts, reviewing the"Departmental planSj_and evaTua ting progre ss reports. 

Complementing Gifford's role, Malek and his staff (Anderson and Her ringer) 
•would be responsible for establishing the management procedures needed 
to coordinate and conduct the program. Specifically, this •would entail: 

Preparing the guidelines for presentation to the Departmental contacts. 

-- ' Assisting the Departments in organizing for the program and '" ' 

•working •with them in the development of their plans. 

-- Reviewing the Departmental plans to ensure they map out the 

best possible effort to meet the priorities and coordinating these 

■with Cap Weinberger and the relevant Domestic Council staff 

members. 

Ensuring that the combined activities of the individual Departments 

effectively fulfill the priorities •without overallocating resources 

to any one. - ■ . . 



8317 



Working with others in Malek's area of responsibility (e. g. , 
Voting Bloc Directors) to identify ways to better serve priority 
groups and geographical areas. 

Monitoring Departmental effectiveness through (I) the monthly 
progress reports discussed earlier, (2) OMB budget directors' 
checks on whether budget reallocations in the Departments' plans" - 
are adhered to, and (3) reports from the campaign field organization 
on problems caused by Departmental action. 

Also, this Malek-Gifford operation should be the central point through 
which all White House direction on politically sensitive operating matters 
flows to the Departments. This would eliminate the current confusion in 
priorities discussed in an earlier section. " . 

Gearing up the Departments to systematically seek out and act on oppor- 
tunities in support of the President's re-election does have some drawbacks. 
These should be addressed prior to discussing possible implementation 
steps. 
1 ' 
POSS IBLE DRAWBACKS ... '^ 

Three possible drawbacks have been cited regarding this proposed program. 

1. A dvqrse Publicity . The most significant drawback of the program 

is, of course, the risk of adverse publicity.' Naturally, steps would be 

taken (l) to ensure that information about the program itself and the 

Departmental plans would not be leaked and (2) keep the President and 

the White House dis-as-&ociated ■with the -pi-ogram in the event of a leak. ' 

First, written communications -would be kept to a minimum. There would 
be no written communications from the White House to the Departments -- 
all information about the program would be transmitted verbally. The 
only -written material submitted by the Departments to the White House 
-would be the plans. These would be in a brief outline format and only 
two copies woulcf be permitted -- one for the White House and one for 
the Departmental contact. Progress reports -would be verbal. 

Second, the documents prepared -would not indicate White House in-volvement 
in any way. Also, oral and written communications concerning the program 
-within the Department would be structured to give the impression that 
the program was initiated^by the Department Head without the kno-^^^ledge 
of the White House. - 



8318 



In spite of all precautions, there is still the possibility that some 
aspect of the activity ■will "be leaked. However, this possible d^a^wback 
is small compared to the probable payoff from effectively capitalizixig 
on the resources of the Executive Branch. 

2. Increased Confusion . A second possible dra'wback that has been 
cited is that the Departments -would be confused by the addition of 

this ne'w program to existing efforts. However, as pointed out . . 

earlier, the Departments are now confused by the multiple and 
often conflicting direction received from the White House. Centralizing 
these inputs into the Malek-Gifford operation as described abovg should 
reduce, not increase, this confusion. ' -. 

3. Manpo-wer Allocation. A final potential drawback is the stretching 
of already scarce White House staff resources to assume an additional 
■workload. The major burden, of course, would be assumed by Malek's 
and Gifford's staffs and their current staffing levels (including Gifford's 
projected assistant) can absorb the added workload. The -workload 
placed on other OMB officials and the Domestic Council staff would be 
negligible. • " 

Consequently, in spite of possible drawbacks, the program should be 
implemented. ' -. 

IMPLEMENTATION 



To capitalize. as much as possible on discretionary_funds remaining 

this fiscal year, the program should be launched as soon as possible; ■ 

Three basic steps must be taken to make the program operational. 

First, the Departments must be given a clear understanding of ■what " 
is expected of them in carrying out the program, as -well as the 
President's full backing of the program. To demonstrate Presidential ■ 
support, it should first be covered briefly at a Cabinet meeting. This 
briefing ■would be made by.Malek and ■would cover the need for the 
program, the Departmental responsibilities outlined previously, and 
the irriplementation tii-netable. He ■would indicate that follo^w-up meetings 
would be scheduled with each Department Head and/or the already 
established Departnnental contact to outline the program in more detail 
and discuss ho^w it applies to individual Departments. ._ " 



If you do not feel this should be done at a Cabinet Meeting,; Malek - 

and Gifford -would meet individually ■with each Cabinet Officer to revie^w 

the prograna. . . 



8319 



The second step would be the development of Departmental plans. It 
is estimated that the Departments should be able to develop these plans 
within two weeks of the briefings mentioned above. As discussed earlier, 
these plans would be reviewed by Malek, Weinberger, Gifford and the 
appropriate Domestic Council staff member. These reviews should be 
completed v/ithin one week of submittal. With this step completed, the 
Departments can begin carrying out. the program, and it, in effect, 
will be operational. - 

The third implementation step, of course, is to follow through to ensure 
that the Departments' activities conform to their plans, as V7ell as capitalize 
upon the day-to-day operations which present themselves. The first, 
series of follov/-up meetings with the Departments v/ill be one month after 
the completion of the initial plans. ■ ; .■ . . , 

Assuming that the Cabinet briefing can be held soon, the implementation 
steps could be carried out in accordance with the following timetable: 

\' Completion During 

Action . \ • Week Ending 

Cabinet Meeting to Introduce Program . . - April 1 

Briefing of Departmental Contacts on Program 
, and Guidelines April 8 

Submission of Departmental Plans April 22. 

-^ ..White House Review of Plans April 29 

First Progress Reports June 3 



March 17, 1972 



1 MEMOliAXDUM 



8320 



Malek Exhibit No. 5 



THE WHITE HOUSE 



CONi-'iDilMTlAL 



December 23, 1971 



MEMOR^MVDUM FOR: 



H. R. HALDEMAN 



FROM: 
SUBJECT: 




FRED MALEK 



Redirecting the "White House 
Staff to Support the President's 
Re-election 



This m emorandurn reports progress on our work to redirect the While 
House staff organization to be more supportive of the President's 
re- election. Responding io vour direction, our efforts have been 

concentrated on three ba.cic obieciivcs: 



-- To ensure that the President is postured correctly on inajor 
issues and v.'itii major constitv;eirL groups. 

-- To ensure the V/l^.ite House svipports and meshes effectively 
■ v/ith the campaign organization. - .-.;'. 

-- To "politicize" the Executive Branch. 

Generally, tlie planning is v.-ell underv^/ay to achieve each of these 
objectives and we should be in a position to initiate action by mid- 
Janunry. Progress is each area is discussed below. 

ESTABLISHING ISSU E/ CONSTITUENT GROUP PP.OJECT MANAGERS 



We arc v.orking closely v.ith Ken Cole in developing a prograin to ensure 
that the Presidoit derives the greatest political advantage on significant 
issues and with major constuuent groups. The most important issues 
will be handled directly by the White House, supported as appropriate by 
Dcpaitrricntal resources. The remaining issues will be assigned to 
appropriate Dcpartin cntnl officials under tlie general surveillance of the 
W^hite House. 



8321 



Cole and I are simultaneously taking tv/o basic steps to establish this 
program. First, Ken has eslablislicd a task force to study the Harris 
poll and identify significant issues and constituent groups. The task '} 

force will then assign respoiiiiibility to appropriate \7hite House staff y -O 

members and Departmental officials to ensure maximum political mileagej 
on each issue. 

The second step (my responsibility) entails spelling out clearly the tneans-^, 
of effectively orchestrating the various White House support offices (e. g. / 
Coimnunications, Congression.al Relations,' Organizational Liaison, ) V *-. 

under tlie direction of the Domestic Council project managers. Also, ; ■*« 

since the cannpaign is organizing by constituent group, there must be a 
■ clear division of responsibility between issue and constituent groups to _/ 
a\'oid confusion or~71aplicjrtTon of effort. 

Bill Horton and I have met with Cole and Magrudc]- to obtain their views 
on how the program should be organized and responsibilities divided. We 
tentatively agreed to the following arrangement. 

The campaign v/ill focus on the field organization and get-out- tlic- vote 
activities. This v/ill incluc'e identifying potcJitial voters for the President, 
ensuring they are registered, rnotivaling tl.osc tliat are uncertain to vote 
for the President, ciisuring that those favorable for the President get ov;t 
to vote. 

The ^^''llite House project nianaccrs v.-ill h.ave rcspont.ibili:y for a broad- 
based communications ca.rnpaign deiiigned to inforin the constituent group 
of v/hat the President has done to benefit thein and to ensure tl-at the 
President and the entire Administration is portrayed as favorably as 
possible to the group. ■ ■" 

Wc have drafted a paper describing tiie proposed operation and forv.'arded 
it to Magrv;der and Cole for their review. After incorporating their 
modifications, as appropriate, v/e will review the paper with other 
affected offices, e.g.. Congressional Relations, Comtnunications, 
Organizational Liaison and bilcrgoverninental Relations. I expect that 
those reviews will be completed by mid- Janua ry. 

Vi'hcn these two steps are conipletcd Ken and I v^ill jointly submit to you 
our proposal for activating this operation. At this stage 1 ain unable to 
predict when Ken's piece of the worlc v.-ill be completed. However, I am 
sending Iiim a inemorandum suggesting a timetable wliicli will enable tlic 
entire package to be ready for your reviov/ by inid- January. 



8322 



SUPPORT FOR AND COORDINATIOiN' WITH THE CAMPAIGN ORGAISHZATION 

In our mcctir.g with Magrudcr, \vc covered the support which he expected 
from the White House. The majority of areas that he discussed should be 
able to be handled by tiic existing staff in conjunction with the normal day- 
to-day activities. For exainple, Ron Walker and his staff will assist in 
training Advancemcn. My staff is already providing recruiting assistance. 
Buchanan and Khachigian will continue their prograin to track the opposition. 
Dick Moore and Dwight Chapin are advising on public relations matters. 
Van Shumv^'ay is helping to establisli their public relations capability. Al 
Snyder is assisting in TV scheduling. 

T\vo areas, however, may require some additional staff support beyond 
v/liat is currently planned. The first is public relations. Herb Klein's 
recoinmcndations on organizing for the c£'.mpaign included t-vvo staff addi- 
tions "approved" by the Attorney General: (1) son'icone on Ziegler's staff 
to coordinate iriformation betvveen the White House press office and the 
campaign press section, and {?.) so'.Ticonc on Kleiji's stEiff to monitor all 
editorial endorsements, prepare Presidcntiai thank-you letters for en- 
dorsement, and circulate vveekiy lists of editorial endorsernents to 
campaign staff. 

The second area involves rcvicv/ of campaign copy mr'.tcrial. Mag ruder 
feels strongly that soineone from the V/hitc House should review all cam- 
paign advertising copy prior to its being used. Jeb is uncertain, however, 
how much effort this -%xill require, and he is going to discuss this point 
with Buchanan. 

Thus far, neither area has a clear-cut need. Unless you disagree, I will 
suggest to Huntsman and Kehrli that nothing need be done to hire additional 
staff for these purposes until the need is more apparent. 

POLITICIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 



As you have pointed out, the President's unique asset in the forthcoming cam- 
— paign is-his control of the Executive Branch. The White House must ensure 
that the President is able to capitalize fully upon this asset. 

As you );now, we have already initiated p)ograrns to derive greater political 
benefit from grants, communications, and personnel. Also, as discussed 
above, we v/ill soon be establi.shing firm AVhite House control over the 
handling of key issues and con.stituent groups. These V/hile House directed 
efforts will control the key Execxitivc Branch operations having llie higliest 
jiotrutial poHtical payoff. In addition, wc- ilioiild take action to cnsvire tliat 



8323 



the day-lo-day Departmcr.tal operations are conducted as much as possible 
to support the President's re-election. Since it is iinpor.sible for the ^Vhite 
House to directly control day-to-day activities, we must establish manage- 
ment procedures to ensure that the Departments systematically identify 
opportunities and utilize resources for maximum political benefit. 

DEPARTMKNTAL PROGR.A.MS 



A major problem is the general insonsitivity to political needs. To combat 
this problem, we are taking several steps. Tlie first was a meeting chaired 
by the Vice President and attended by all Agcjicy Heads which paralleled the 
political Cabinet .Mscting. Next, we are planning a series of briefings in 
eacli Department for politically reliable appointees outlining in general terms 
the re-election strategy and actions thoy could take in tlieir day-to-day opera- 
tions to support this strategy. White House aiid campaign officials would 
participate in these, sessions as ?.-opropri?.te. A'ext, we will form a task 
force in each Department chaired by tlie Ui\der Secretary and containing the 
politically reliable Assistant Secretaries and sub-Agency Heads. 

The task force would inventory all the possible v.ays to support tlie President's 
re- election and. develop specific action plans for carrying these out. Tliore . 
would be iome aeneral areas of commonali:/ in !hc Departmental plans., e. g. , 
steps to generate support for t!ie Pn^'sident v.-itlii;i orgj'.nizcd groups associated 
with tl^e Department. Hov.'e-,-er, most of L'le action steps would be uniqi'.cly 
tailored to the individual Department operations. For instance, GSA might 
undertake the following: 

-- Emphasize building constrxiction in key .States, cities, and counties. 

Expedite di.sposal of property for parks and schools in key States. 
-- Emphasize d'.iel fuel programs in ecology-minded areas of key States. 
-- Emphasize niinority procurement in those States and areas where 

there is a real opportunity to v/in some of the Black vote. 

Politicizing the i-egions, v.-hich we have discussed, would be a natural bi- 
product of this program, since tlie regions v.'ould carry the major burden of 
implcmenling these politically lielpful actions. 

V/HITE HOUSE CONTROE 



Although each Departincnt would have responsibility for developing and 
iinpicnienting its own program, the White House v.-ould monitor its effective- 
ness. For example, the appropriate White House staff members {in most 
cases Domestic Council Assistant Directors) should participate in the 
Do)Kr.tmcjital jjlanning to assure it ij; thorougli and imaginative. The 



8324 



completed plans would be reviewed by a Vr'hite House group chaired by 
the DomestJc Council inember and containing representatives from those 
organizations affected by the plan (e. g. , the campaign. Organizational 
Liaison, the Communications Office, the White House PersorLnel Office, 
etc. ), and the Department would be directed to make changes as deemed 
appropriate. 

I Follow-through would be the prime responsibility of the Donnestic Council . 
j member, but J. would monitor the results achieved. The Departments 
would report monthly on what had been accomplished in support of the 
[President's re-election. The Domestic Cpuncil member would review 
'these reports and v/ould have the responsibility to contact the Departments 
.' on missed opportunities or changed priorities. 

Naturally, carrying out this program, even if done discretely, will repre- 
sent a substantial risk. Trying to pressure "non-political" civil servants 
to partisanly support the President's re- election would becoine quickly 
publicized and undoubtedly br.cl;fire. Consequently, the strategy sliould 
be to work through the top and mecium-lcvcl political appointees v/Iio 
exercise control over most of the Departinental decisions and actions. 

[Also, to minip.iir-.e any direct linhs to the Prcsidoit, tlierc should be no 
directions on this project in writing, and most of the initiative sl.ould coine 
from the Department Heads thcm.selves. (In fact, as t!iis concept is re- 
fined further, I propose we stop calling it "politicizing the Executive 
Branch, " and instead call it Eoincthing like-strengthening the Government's 
responsiveness. ) 

I As is evident from the above, this program calls for substantial effort by 
I the Domestic Covincil. .Cole is in general agreement but requires a fuller 
description of the Domestic Council role. Co:iseaufntly, we drafted a 
paper and sent it to Ken discussing our ideas in some depth. In developing 
the concept, it has become apparent that it, combined with the project 
maijagemcnt assignments described above, could stretch the Domestic 
. Council staff rather thin. V/e would then run the risk of trying to do too 
much and r.ot doing an/thing well. Consequently, wlien v/c review the idea 
v.'ith Cole, we will discuss the impact it would have on the Domestic Council 
staff. I v.-ill tlien submit a specific proposal to you by mid-January. 



1 will report progress to you on each of llie above areas by mid-January. 
In addition, I will also consider how you should monitor the effectiveness 
of these various operations to ensure that action is being taken wliich is 
targeted effectively to ensure the President's re-election. I believe that 
we can be helpful to you in keeping track of the various activities, and I 
will develop a specific proposal for carrying this out as it becomes clearer 
hov/ these various pieces will be conducted and fit together. 



8325 
Malek Exhibit No. 6 

MEMORANDUM 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

December 23, 1971 
CONFIDENTIAL 



MEMORANDUM FOR: KEN COLE 

FROM: ■ FRED MALEK 

SUBJECT: _ Redirection of the White House staff 

to Support the President's Re-election 

Follo'wing up on our recent meeting, I have drafted two papers 
for your consideration. 

The first (Tab A) discusses project managers. (As you will note, 
I have incorporated your poHcy check list which I concur with. ) After 
review and input by you and Magruder, I plan to coordinate the end 
product with the other offices, i. e. , communications (Klein and Colson), 
Congressional Relations, and Office of Intergovernmental Relations. 
I am shooting to have the procedures coordinated and finalized by 
January 14. Lf possible, the White House task force you have assembled 
to identify and assign the key issues shovild have its work completed 
by about the same time so we can activate the program as soon as 
posbible thereafter. 

, As you know. Bob Haldeman has directed me to develop a program 
to insure the President is able to fully capitalize upon the Executive 
Branch in support of his re-election. As we discussed, this program 
should build upon the iTieetlngs you have already held with the Cabinet 
officers; and the Domestic Council staff should take the lead role in 
dealing with the Domestic Departments. As you requested, v/e have 
fieshed out our idea and have added sonie specific examples (paper 
attached at Tab B). 

Whiile I feel tiiat trSe idea has considerable merit, there is a 
major drawback in the amouril~of tiine required of the top level 
Domeslic Council staff to carry out the program effectively. Adding 
this program responsibility to the issue and project management 
responsibilities outlined in the first paper, the Domestic Council 
staff could be stretched pretty thin. Consequently, if the program to 
capitalize upon the Executive Branch has merit, the time constraint 
problem must be addressed. 

After you have had an opportunity to review the attached papers, 
Bill Horton and I would like to discuss them with you. 

CONFIDENTIAL 



8326 



CONFIDENTIAL 
DISCUSSION DRAFT 



ISSUE MANAGEMENT 



The purpose of tliis paper is to outline management procedures for 
ensuring that the President is positioned correctly on nnajor issues and with 
constituent groups. The specific issues and constituent groups of importance 
to the President's re-election are being identified by a White House task 
force headed by Ken Cole. Since over two dozen issues and constituent groups 
have already been tentatively identified, naost of the operation will have to be 
conducted by the Departments, under the general management of the \Vhite 
House. Some issues, however, have such overriding importance that they 
will be handled directly by the White House staff. 

This paper first discusses the procedures for those issues handled at 
the White House level and then turrLS to procedures by which the White House 
shouldrnanage the Departments' issue management. 
KEY ISSUES HANDLED BY WHITE HOUSE 

Each key issue and constituent group will be assigned to an individual 
for handling. The man in charge is responsible for establishing an attainable 
goal for Iiis issue and ensuring that everything possible is done to achieve that 
goal. The goals generally will be get as much credit for the President as 
possible on the issue or with' the constituent group. 

For this approach to work, three key requirements must be met. First, 
the project managers must be highly capable individuals wlio have sufficient 



8327 



time and substantive expertise to get the job done. Second, the project 
managers must be given explicit authority and sufficient staff support to get 
the job done. Third, the project managers must be given clear direction and 
held accoxuitable for achieving results. " .- ' ' 

Selection of the project managers v/ill be determined by the White House 
task force mentioned above. The following sections discuss steps to fulfill 
the second two criteria. '• ' . ■ • . - ■ 

Authority and Staff Support • ' • . .. ' . 

The responsibilities and authority of the project managers will yary 
depending on whether the issue assigned is substantive (e.g., drugs, crime, 
and tases) or a constituent group (e.g., Spanish- speaking, Catholics, and 
the Elderly). 

Substantive Issue Project Managers . The is's.ue project managers \viU 

have substantive. as well as aTaroad public relations responsibility. The sub- 

stantii/e responsibility will be carried out following nornrial Domestic Gouncil 

procedures. To carry out his public relations responsibility, the project 

manager will have to Nvork through various White House' support offices 

and • . 

(i.e.. Communications, Congressional Relations, /Organizational Liaison). 

To achieve this, an individual in each of these offices should be designated to 

support each project manager. Naturally, the project manager must rely 

heavily upon the judgment of and consult closely with these individuals in 

developing plans (discussed sv\bsequenlly) and in day-to-day operations. Never- 

tliclcss, if the project manager is to be hold fully accountable for results, he 

must have the tiltiiriate authority. 



8328 



The project manager should tap Departirnental resources through designated 

Departmental contacts who have the expertise and clout to provide support, as 

«<-■ ■■-. ■ , 

needed, in the way of research, \vriting, nnailings, printing materials, soliciting 

the support of organized groups, and Congressional Relations. Finally, the 

project manager should have the support of a full-time staff assistant to help 

hinn in carrying out the day-to-day activities, coordinating the comm\inications 

acti\'ities and folio-wing through to ensure the White House and Departmental 

support occurs as expected. ■ ' 

Constituent Group Project Managers. The constituent group project 
managers' primary responsibility would be communications. They v/ould have 
substantive responsibility, however, on those issues pertaining solely to their 
constituent groups. For example, Whitaker would have responsibility foi" 
determining Wliite House posture on a corn price support program, but the 
project manager for the Spanish- spealdng would not have final authority over 
health or v/elfare issues. Naturally, the substantive issue project managers 
will be required to consult the constituent group project managers on issues 
having substantial impact upon their constituents before final decisions are made. 
Conversely, it will be the responsibility of tlie constituent group project manager 
to inform the substantive issue project nr^anagers which questions appear most 
innportant to thenrx. 

The objective for the constituent group project manager will be typically 
to maximize the President's support within the target constituent group, par- 
ticularly in key States. Since the campaign organization is also organizing by 



8329 



constituent group, there must be close collaboration betwec^n these two opera- 
tions. For example, the campaign constituent group directors should send 
copies of all memoranda to their counterparts on the White House staff and 
vice versa. Also, to avoid confusion and duplication of effort, there should 
be a clear division of responsibility between the two operations. 

The cannpaign should focus on the field organization and get- out-the- vote 
activities. This will include identifying potential voters for the President, 

ensuring they are registered, motivating those that are uncertaiii to vote for 

and 
the President, /ensuring that those favorable for the President get out to vote. 

Naturally, this organizational work will involve developing literature targeted 
for tliese groups, obtaining appropriate spokesmen to address organizing rallies 
and political -events, and making suggestions on Presidential statements and 
appearances. The latter group of activities should be coordinated ^vith or 
channeled through the White House project manager. 

The V/hite House project managers will have responsibility for a broad- 
based communications campaign designed to inform the constituent group of 
what the President has done to benefit them and to ensure that the President 
and the entire Administration is portrayed as favorably as possible to the group. 
To carry out this mandate, the project manager will need to w^ork with the 
White House communications staff. An individual on the communications staff 
should be designated to provide needed support to the project manager. As 
with the substantive issue project managers, the communications staff should 
be closely consulted with by tlie project manager, but the project inanager must 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 11 



8330 



retain final authority. Departnnental support (e.g., documentation of achieve- 
ments, support for feature stories, producing radio and TV actualities, con- 
ducting mailings, etc. ) should be obtained througli the ^Vhite House Commvuii cation: 
Office. In addition, the project manager should have the assistance of a full-time 
staff member to handle day-to-day dealings, ensure that White House and 
Departmental support comes through as requested, and work with Pat O' Donnell 
to schedule speakers for constituent group events. 
Clear Direction' and Accountability for Performance 

To maintain direction and a sense of urgency in the face of the day-to-day 
White House activities, the project managers must be given clear direction and 
theii- performance must be reviewed critically on a regular basis. This should 
be the responsibility of John Ehrlichman and Ken Cole. Consequently, neither 
of them should assume a project manager responsibility. This feedback should 
■consist of guidance on planned .actions and evaluation of results achieved. .- 

Guidance on- Planned Actions. Each project manager should develop a 
strategy statement consisting of (1) specific objectives to be achieved,- (2) a 
timetable of major events focusing public attention on the issue or constituent 
group, and (3) a general description of how the objective is to be achieved. (A 
check list of items to be considered is attached. ) This long-term view should 
be supplemented by a monthly plan outlining specific actions to be taken. These 
should be reviewed by Ehrlichman and Cole and constructive feedback given. 

Evaluation of Restilts. Each project manager should sxibmit monthly 
reports of results achieved versus plan along witli a general evaluation of 



8331 

progress. These also should be critiqued by Cole and Ehrjichman. 
DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES 

Issues assigned to the Departments will be managed by the White House 
but not operated on a day-to-day basis. These will involve only substantive 
issues and no constituent groups, ' ■ .... 

For each issue, the assigned Department will be required to designate 
a project manager along the lines of the project managers for substantive 
issues within the White House. These project managers will be held. accountable ■ 
for both the substantive and public relations aspects of the issues for which 
they are responsible. On the substantive aspects of issues, the Department 
project nnanagers will be responsible to the Domestic Council following normal 
procedures. Monitoring the Departments' public relations on these issues 
will be the responsibility of the A\'hite House Communications Office. This 
will erjsure that the departmental project manager has the needed communications 
support and that the public relations program is professionally devised and 
executed. 

Once the issues have been assigned and the above procedures approved. 
Bob Haldcman should take the lead in in-iplementing the program. He should 
call a meeting of the officials affected and nnake clear his commitment to 
making it work. At this meeting a briefing should be given on the project 
managers' responsibilities and authority and the project managers should be 
introdxiced so no confusion over who is accountable for what will occur. Also, 
the Cabinet should be given a briefing on the project managar concept and 
the Departmental issue assignments to ensure they understand the program 

and to give it their full support. 

December 23, 1971 



8332 



■ . . — '■ ' ~ ATTACHMENT 

POLICY CHECK LIST . ^ • 

I, Decide on tha Goal 

A. Is it to keep the Prcaident fron being attacked? 

i 

B, Can tho President be positioned favorably? 

Qaootlons to be asked 

: 1» "Who is affected? . . , - 

..,2. Where do they livo? 

3. Aro fchoao affcctod likely to ba for or against tlie 
President? 

.. 4. Do v;e need thojj; support to v?in? 

5. If they r.re generally our nupr ctcrs, is ovir prograa 
likely to appeal to thcra? 

6. If f.t v.'ill, do thay underntDnd it esid do they have 
a favorr-blo iwago of tho Preaident's action? 

7. If tiiey aren't c-'-'ing the President credit, v;ould 
they if they ui-.dsrctood the prograai? 

0, If no, could V70 change oiu* program and thereby gain 
their Eupi>ort7 

* 9 . Who ic our opposition f roa? 

10. l-ihat pOMor base does our opposition operate £roni? 

11. l^afc is tho dicpocition of tlie liational media to 
the issue? 

12. Ifhat is the dicposition of the Congrosa? 

13. vrnat is tlio disposition of tho conservative?-. 

14. Does the iusue have an effect on the general public? 

15. Hill our action or toa action of tha opposition be 
viovjed in a positive or negative light by tho general 
public? 



8333 

II, What aro th o pol icy p a rcunoters for the issu o? 
Questions t o acX 

1. VThat are the principles of our program - tho koy 
points In priority order? 

2. I'Jhat is tiiG raininusi vjo will ta<J;e? 

3. What is the niaiciKua v/o can accept? " . •. 

4. K'hat poiiita do we consider bargaineible? " . • • 

III. >/hat is our pre so plan? 



IV. VHiat is o ur specia l jptorcst plan? 

'V. \Ti\at is our Congrcsaional plan? 

VI. Kho nra tha koy p layers in IIZ^ IV and V above? 

VII, t-Hint leg isl atio n i s cu r rently pending? 

A. Who io for tho legiiilction? 

B. l«io is againat the lerjiclctlon? 

C. Vifhat is th2AdT:iniatration's position on it? 

I D. Hill this loyiolation have any chance to cove? 



8334 



CONFIDENTIAL . . 

DISCUSSION DRAFT . ' . 

CAPITALIZING UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 

In the forthcoming election President Nixon has a unique advantage 
available to no other candidate -- control of the Executive Branch. 
This paper suggests steps to use the resources inherent in this 
control to the greatest possible political benefit of the President. '• . 

The White House has already initiated Administration-wide 
programs to derive -g'reater White Mouse operations direct activities 
inf political benefit from grants, comnnunications, and personnel, 
also. White House project managers and coristitvient groups v/ill soon be 
established lo handle key issues. Tliese efforts should prove productive 
and should continue undisturbed. . - 

In addition, -the White House should take steps to ensure the' 
day-to-day program administration and operations in the Departments* 
are conducted in a manner to moving support for the President's 
•reelection. Undoubtedly, many DeparlTnental officials would do this \vith- 
out direction from the White House. Nevertheless a White House 
directed program would: 

(a) give desired emphasis to the effort 

(b) clarify the type and degree of action which ■would be most beneficial 

(c) enable performance to be monitored, and 

(d) establish a mechanism to quickly change priorities or add 
activities as required by the campaign. 



* Major Agencies such as VA, SDA, OEO, GSA and EPA should also be 
included. 



8335 



The essential purpose of Departmental politicization programs is 
to insure that day to day Departmental program development, implementation 
and administration are conducted to support the President's reelection. 
Since it would be impossible for the White House to directly control all the 
possibilities for this type action, the Departments should assume this 
responsibility under the guidance of the White House. 

DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMS 



A Departmental task force of politically reliable Assistant 
Secretaries and sub-Agency Heads should be established under the 
direction of the Under Secretary and be given responsibility for 
insuring the Department takes all possible actions to support the 
President's re-election. AVhile each Departmental task force would 
be' expected to take any actions which carries out the general charge, 
each Department would be expected to (I) conduct an educational 
program for loyal appointees outlining what is expected of them- and 
(2) develop a comprehensive plan ovitlining the intended actions. 
Educating the Departments 

A major problenn to be overcome is tlie general insensitivity to 
political needs. To combat this problem a series of briefings for 
loyal appointees should be held shortly after the President announces 
for the New Hampshire primary. They would cover the following: 



8336 



-- The political outlook and strategy in general terms, including 

key states and voting blocks. 
-- General division. of re-election responsibilities between the 
campaign organization, the RNC, and Administration political 
appointees. 
-- Actions for political appointees to take: ■ -. . 

-- Garry out the President's re-election strategy in . . •• • 

day to Say activities. 
-- Contribute to Departmental plan (discussed below) 
-- Gooperate with grantsinanship, communications personnel 
and issue management programs. .' . • ' 

-- Brief discussion of White House organization ■which will guide 

and assist and monitor results. 
To minimize the risk of direct public association of these meetings 
■with the President ■while still penetrating into the Departments, the 
briefings should be conducted in a three- stage process: 
Slate 1 Mitchell and Ehrlichman brief the Department Secretaries 

and key Agency Heads at a Gabinet meeting. Only the 
politicization program would be discussed since the other 
material has already been covered. . ' . , 

Stage 2 Under Secretaries, and Assistant Secretaries and sub Agency 

Heads ■would be briefed at meetings hosted by the Gabinet officer 
or Agency H<uTds witli briefers supplied by the cainpaign and 
the AVhitc House. 



8337 



Stage 3 The Assistant Secretaries and sub Agency Heads, at their 

discretion, would then hold similar briefings for loyal lower 
level political appointees, including regional personnel. These 
sessions would draw on White House and Departmental resources 
as necessary. ■ . . 

Having been informed on general terms of how they can support the 
President's re-election, the loyal appointees v/ill be expected to take 
appropriate action on a day to day basis. To further Etimula:te this 
activity and to coordinate the Department wide effect, comprehensive 
action plans should be developed 
Developine Departmental Action Plans • 

The politicization task force should inventory all the possible ways 
to'support the President's reelection and then develop comprehensive ; 
action plans for carrying these out. 

The following questions give a rough idea of what these plans might cover: 
-- What will be the significant issues (other than those already 
identified and assigned by the White House) and how will the 
Department handle them to posture the President correctly? 
-- What major actions (both with and without budget adjustments) will 
the Department talce to significantly increase (1) the President's 
re-election chances in key States and (2) the President's popularity 
with key voting groups? 



8338 



-- What actions will the Department take to obtain the support of 

organized groups affected by the Departments? 
— What actions will be taken by the Departnnent Heads to motivate 
day- to-day support within the Department for the President's 
re-election? 
.While the above questions are very general and need considerable 
refinement, planning along these lines •would get Department officials to 
think in specific terms about what they can do to support the President 
and commit themselves to doing something. For exainple, GSA might 
undertake the following: ' . ■ 

-- Emphasize building construction in key States, cities and counties. ' 
-- Expedite disposal of property for parks and schootls in key States. 
• ■--•'Emphasize duel/fUel program in ecology nninded areas of key . 
■ . States lA'ith less emphasis elsewhere. 

-- Emphasize minority procu.reincnt program in those States and 
areas vi'here ^ye really have. an opportunity to win some of the 
minority vote. ' . 

While there would not be a specific format, three items, of information . 
would be required for each planned activity: (1) what -would be accomplished 
in specific, measurable terins, (2) when it would be accomplished by and 
(3) which Departmental official (Assistant Secretary or sub-Agency Head) 
is responsible for results. 



8339 



Once the plan is reviewed, refined and approved, the Departmental 
Task Force would have the responsibility 

for carrying out the plan and insuring in general that Departmental 
actions are supportive of the President's re-election. To maintain 
pressure for following through on the progrann, the Under Secretaries 
would be required to develop monthly reports summarizing progress on 
plan and other key actions taken in direct support of the President's 
re-election. 
WHITE HOUSE CONTROL 

Although each Department would have responsibility for developing 
and implementing its own program, the White House would inonitor 
its effectiveness. For example, the appropriate White House staff 
mefmbers (inmost cases Domestic Council Assistant Directors jshould 
participate in the Departmental planning to assure it is thorough and 
imaginative. The connpleted plans would be reviewed by a White House 
group chaired by the Domestic Council member and containing representa- 
tives from those organizations affected by the plan (e.g. , the campaign. 
Organizational Liaision, the Communications Office, the White House • 
Personnel Office, etc. ), and the Department would be directed to make 
changes as deemed appropriate. 

Follow- through would be the priine responsibility of the Domestic 
Council iTicmber. He would reviev/ jiionthly progress reports and 
would follow til rough with the Departments .on missed opportunities or 
on changed priorities. 



8340 



MINIMIZING ADVERSE PUBLICITY 

Trying to pressure "non-political" civil servants to partisanly 
support the President's re-election would undoubtedly become 
quickly publicized and backfire. Consequently, the strategy 
contemplated in the above program is to work through 
the top and medium level political appointees who can exercise 
control over most of the major Departmental decisions and actions. 
Even with this limited approach, we could generate unfavorable 
publicity. Consequently the following precautions should be 
taken to prevent leaks: 

; -- All the' Departmental actions should be construed as being 
taken at the initiative of the Department Head 

-- No one should have access to the written complete Department 
plan below the level of the'Under Secretary. (Particularly 
the staff documents used in developing the plan and for 
reporting progress should be tightly controlled. ) Naturally, 
each participant. Assistant Secretary and sub-Agency Head would 
have a general understanding of the overall Department effort 
and be held accountable for results in his individual area. 

-- Department progress reports, botli internally and in the White 
House, should be on a verbal basis. 



8341 



In spite of these precautions there could be some unfavorable 
publicity but this potsible drawback is minis cule compared to the 
probable payoff f roin effectively capitalizing upon this unique 
asset. Astute orchestration of the executive branch operations can be 
of. immense political value to the President. Undirected, the Departments' 
efforts would be at best incomplete and unfocused. K the proposed 
administration wide effort is effectively implemented, it could be 
instruinental in reelecting the President. 



December 23. 1971 



8342 



Malek Exhibit No. 7 



Bci.qsS-C^^'Octvv.l V/z^ 



MEMORANDUM 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 



April 28, 1972 
FRED MALEK 
FRANK HERRINGER_ 
Responsiveness Briefing of Mitchell 



4^ 



Attached are proposed talking points for the briefing of the AG on 
the responsiveness program. 



I recommend that the briefing be held after we have had at least 
some of the Cabinet Officer meetings so that we can tell the AG tl 
the program is well underway. . . «» ^^^/VvWt?''*^ **" "^"f^m 

Agree 



:g^^€r2i34^^^ 



You should handle the briefing. 
Agree 



Disagrre 



♦ Gifford should be there because of his grantsmanshi 



Agree 



hip involvement. 
Disagree A>iS^ ^ 




*^ 



I should be there because presumably nriy role as Adnninist ration Controller 
will include reporting on the effectiveness of the responsiveness program. 



Agree 



Disagree_ 



Stan should be there because he is to "coordinate" the responsiveness program. 

Agree jy^ Disagree 

In addition, I think that Rob should attend the briefing. He will have as 
much involvement in the program as Stan, and should not be made to feel 
like a second-class citizen. 



Agree 



l^ 



Disagree 



This would make it a five-on-one meeting, which can make the "one" 
uncomfortable, or result in excessive formality. You know Mr. Mitchell -- 
if you think the participation should be cut back, I would recommend 
cutting Rob, Stan, myself and Gifford in that order. _ ^ >0 

Attachments ^!Jc^^ 



8343 



DRAFT - CONFIDENTIAL April 28, 1972 



JOHN MITCHELL BRIEFING 



ON RESPONSIVENESS 



Potentially, one of our most significant advantages over the opposition 
is the incumbency -- if it is used properly. 

Consequently, we are taking several steps to ensure that the Executive 
Branch is as supportive as possible of the re-election effort. 

You already know about Bill Gifford's excellent work on grants. 
We would like to take a few moments to explain a new program 
that is in the process of being launched -- we call it the "responsiveness' 
program. . \ . ■ 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 



The objective of the program is to get the Departments (on their o-vra 
initiative) to allocate available resources in a manner supportive of the • 

re-election. . ' 

As a preliminary step. Bob Marik and his staff developed specific 
geographic and voting bloc groups priorities. 

Bob produced a detailed analysis of each key State, pinpointing 
counties and constituent groups that -will be pivotal to the 
re-election effort. 

Wherever possible. Bob obtained inputs from the State RN 
Chairman, Senators and Congressmen, and Constituent Group 
Project Managers, so that the State ^alyses reflect practical 
judgments, as well a= demographics. . 



8344 



* Once we had this information, I held meetings with each Cabinet Officer 

1 
and a key contact in each Department. 

At these meefings, I first described the political priorities as developed 

by Marik. - 

Then, I asked each Cabinet Officer to conduct a review of all non-policy 

actions that the Department intended to take betv/een no'w and the election 

which could have an impact on the key areas and/or groups. "'-^ 

After completing this review, each Department is to prepare and submit 

to us a brief outline report describing what they intend to do to support the 

re-election, including: 

-- ' Identification of actions that could have a major impact on a 

key area or group, and proposed changes to enable actions 

to impact on higher priority areas or groups, or changes to 

postpone negative repercussions. 

Steps to be taken to maximize the exposure of positive actions, 

minimize the exposure of negative ones, and ensure that the 

President receives credit for favorable results. 

Proposals for eliciting favorable reactions from particular 

groups that the Department relates to -- veterans, doctors, teachers, 

etc. 

-- A program for communicating the political priorities to loyal 

Regional Directors, and a follow-up process to ensure that the 

Regions are responsive to the needs of the voting. bloc and other 



8345 



organized groups, and also are giving' the President sufficient 
exposure. /' 

We should be receiving these plans in the next two weeks. 
BENEFITS 



We believe this program will result in substantial benefits. 

It will force the Departments to think in terms of actions 
directly supportive of the re-election. ■ . --. 

It will ensure that Departments have a common understanding 
of the political priorities as we see them. 

It will establish a channel through which we can communicate 
to the Departments as the campaign develops. 
This last part -- the establishment of a commjunications channel -- may 
prove to be extremely important. 

Even though our people have no specific knowledge of the program, 
we are beginning to get requests from the field and voting bloc 
groups for politically sensitive actions by the Executive Branch. 
For example: 

Lyn Nofziger wants the Department of Labor to use Emergency 
Employment Program funds to hire politically reliable 
Blacks throughout California. 
• - Paul Jones wants favorable action on an HEW grant for James 
Farmer that would enable Farmer to have time to speak in 
support of the re-election. 



32-813 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 12 



8346 



Dan Todd wants HUD to release additional model cities funds 
to support a project for elderly Chicanes in California. 
' --' These requests come to me, and I have a member of my staff 
research them to see if the requested action is feasible and 
desirable. 
: - K it is. Bill Gifford is asked to work with the Department 
to get it done. ^ ■, 

This seems to be an effective way of operating, and I would like 
to see it continue, an(J even expand. 
NEXT STEPS. 

' In sunnmary, we think the responsiveness program is a potentially 
valuable way of utilizing the resources of the Executive Branch to support 
re-election. 

To improve its effectiveness, the existence of the program should be 
made known to key people here at 1701, and they should be encouraged to 
identify ways in -which the Departments can be made more responsive. 

-- I have already taken steps to inform the Constituent Group Project 
Managers. 

If it is agreeable to you, I would also like to hold meetings with ' 
Jeb and each of the Individual State CDordinators to explain the progran 
to them. 
The only significant drawback to the program is the danger of a 
leak --.we have taken several stops to minimize this danger, in our 
coRlMCts vrith the Dopartrnenis. 



8347 



As far as the Campaign Committee is concerned, all communications-, 
concerning the program should be verbal, and the White House involvement 
should be known only to a limited number of people. 

From time to time, I will keep you posted on our progress in this 
and other efforts to effectively utilize the incumbency in support of the 
re-election. .: '--...■ '' 



8348 

Malek Exhibit No. 8 
THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 



June 24, 1971 



Note for: Bill Gifford 

Peter Millspaugh 



^ 



Attached are redrafts along with your copy of the 
first drait. 

Sorry again for the delay. When I redrafted, 
there appeared to be substantial holes which I 
have tried to fill. 

I did not include a discussion of the papers or. 
Federal benefits to States because it did not 
seem to fit in logically with the rest of the 
material. The paper idea can be covered with 
Shultz and Rumsfeld separately. 



Bill Horton 



Attachments 



8349 



The White House 

WASHINGTON 



4-is 



7>^^^ 











8350 



July 3, 1971 



MEMORANDUI'l FOR HARRY FLErlMING 
FRCftl JEB S. 1-IAGRUDER 



Enclosed is a proposal Bill Korton drew up 
with the assistance of Bill Gifford, 0MB, 
euid Peter Millspaugh. As you can see, they 
are including the political input that you 
will be able to provide them with. If there 
are changes you feel should be made please 
traBsmit them to Millspaugh or Horton, 

Enclosure 



8351 



July 3, 1971 



CONFIDEUTIAL 

HEI^ORAITDUll FOR THE ATTORNEY GEt^ERAL 
SUBJECT! Grantsnanship 



Enclosed is a copy of a proposal to insure that the President 
and his Concrre33ion2kl supporters get prop«r credit for Federal 
Govenrtuent programs. This proposal was written by Bill Horton 
in Fred Malek's office v/ith tlie assistance of Bill Gifford, 
C£ia, atnd Peter I4illspaugh in Harry Dent's office. 

If implemented this should be an effective method of insur- 
ing that political considerations are taken into account. 



JSB S. MAGRUDER 
Enclosure 



JSM:ger 
JSM Chron 
JSM AG file 



CCf>rFIDENTIAL 



8352 



CdNFIDENTIAL DISCUSSION 

DRAFT 



Copy. 



COMMUNICATING PRESIDENTIAL INVOLVEMENT 
IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 



The President has shaped the Federal budgetand has established policies 
guiding the awarding of grants and contracts. The President, therefore, 
and his Congressional supporters should receive due credit for the benefits 
accruing to the public under Federal Government programs. In addition, the 
President's direct control over awarding selected grants should be strengthened 
to ensure that political circumstances can be considered, if appropriate, in 
making awards. 

Consequently, procedures should be established to fulfill the following 
objectives: 

-- Ensure special consideration is given to politically important grants 
and OMB operating decisions 

Ensure the President receives due credit for favorable Federal 
Government dfe,cisions and actions 

In complement with the President's campaign strategy, assist targeted 
Senate and Congressional candidates through announcements and close 
liaison. 

While OMB awards some major grants (principally large water and construction 
projects),' the Departmental approved grants account for the vast majority of 
funds spent. Consequently, an OMB-Departmental network and operating 
procedures must be established to fulfill the above objectives. This paper 
discusses how the proposed network and procedures ■would fulfill the objectives 
and then covers implementation steps. 

ENSURING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION 

To ensure politically sensitive grant applications receive appropriate consideration, 
two basic steps must be carried out: (1) determine which grants are politically 
sensitive and (2) ensure these grants receive positive consideration from OMB 
and the Departments. 



Hereafter the term grants will be used broadly to include contracts as well. 

The term Departments refers to the nine domestic Departments and the major 
Independent Agencies. Special provisions ■will have to be made for State, Defense, 
and the Post Office. 



8353 



DETERMINATION OF POLITICALLY SENSITIVE GRANTS 

This step should be accomplished in a manner ■which minimizes the risk of 
unfavorable publicity and falsely raised expectations. Therefore the 
possibilities of surveying all pending grant applications or soliciting the opinion 
of Congressional and local Nixon supporters were rejected. 

Identification through rovitine contacts . Identification should rely on routine 
contacts with various White House and campaign officials. For example, 
supportive Senators and Congressmen usually infornn the Congressional 
Relations staff of pending grants which are politically important to thenn. 
State and local representatives contact various White House officials in a 
similar manner. All these inputs should be passed along to Gifford for 
consideration by the grant coordination group. Based on past experience, the 
most politically important grant applications are usually brought to the attention 
of White House or campaign officials. However, especially important localities 
where no appropriate grants seem to be in process will be checked in the grant 
initiation process covered below. 

This identification process will generate jnore grants than could be or should 
be given special consideration. Consequently, priorities must be set. 

Grant coordinating group to select "must" grants. Designation of "must" 
grants should be made by a grant coordinating group consisting of Bill Gifford 
as Chairman, Bill Tinnmons, Harry Dent, and Harry Flemming. This group 
would ensure the most recent political infornnation and campaign priorities 
were considered in selecting "must" grants. This group should also have other 
responsibilities as discussed subsequently. 

Initiating grants . In addition to designating must grants from pending applications 
there may be occasions in which political circumstances require a grant be 
generated for a locality. Once such a locality is identified by the campaign 
organization, the coordinating group would decide •what kind of grant would best meet 
the needs and available program resources. A campaign representative would 
then inform the appropriate local official what to submit. When submitted, it, 
of course, would be designated a "must." 

ACTION ON "MUST" GRANTS 

Once a grant application is designated a "must, " there are two ways to obtain 
its approval, depending upon whether the grant decision is made at the OMB 
level or at a Department. 

OMB decisions . Since the OMB approved projects are typically line items in 
the budget, decisions must be nr\ade on them this fall. Consequently, after a 



8354 



preliminary screening by Cifford, the grant coordinating group should review 
the project requests to identify the politically most important. Cifford will 
then ensure those identified are among those approved. 

In addition to the major project decisions, Shultz also makes many routine 
management decisions affecting Federal Government operations. Although 
routine to the Federal Government, some are terribly important and politically 
sensitive to specific localities. For exannple, the move of a Federal office 
from one city to another may be routine on its face but have severe political 
implications. It is understood that Shultz has already established a procedure 
to be provided with political input in the inaking of such decisions." 

Departmental grants . Cifford must rely on the Departments to follow through on 
"must" grants under their jurisdiction. To accomplish this, a network of 
Departmental coordinators should be established. These individuals must have 
tyvo prime qualities: (1) loyalty to the President and sufficient authority to 
ensure "must" grants are approved and Departmental announcements of all 
grants conform to the guidelines discussed subsequently. Consequently, these 
coordinators should be at the sub- Cabinet level. These individuals would not, 
of course, be expected to personally perform the function. They -would be held 
responsible, however, for achieving the desired results and infornning Cifford. 

Dealing with the Departments. >Gifford must be flexible on pushing a "must" 
grant in case it turns out to be substantively irresponsible or an obvious 
waste of government funds relative to other pending grants. In such cases, 
Cifford should weigh the substantive drawbacks and risk of adverse publicity 
against the expected political benefits, 'consulting with others as needed. He 
should then make a final decision on whether the grant is to be approved. 
Also, in order to minimize the risk of embarrassment to the President, the 
volume of grants designated "musts" in any one Department should be limited. 
Cifford should make these judgments on a month-to-month basis, drawing, 
naturally, from the grant coordinating group and the Departmental contacts. 

ENSURING POLITICAL BENtrIT IS GAINED 



Once grant decisions are made, they should be announced in a way to ensure 
appropriate credit is given to the President and Nixon Congressional supporters 
in key races. Needless to say, this principle should apply to all grants, not 
just "musts. " Also, politically sensitive Departmental liaison with candidates 
can be very helpful. Procedures to capitalize upon these opportunities and 
monitor results are discussed below, 

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENTS 



Grants v^ill be announced both at the White House and the Departmental levels. 



8355 



White House procedures. The major and politically most important grants 
should be screened for possible announcement by the President and White House 
spokesmen (e. g. , Finch, Rumsfeld, Klein) traveling on behalf of the President. 
There would be three sources of such grants: (1) the major water and 
construction projects decided by OMB, (2) the roughly 200 pending 
Departmental grants per month of $1 niillion and over which are routinely 
reported to the White House 24-48 hours prior to planned announcements and 
(3) "must" grants approved by the Departments. This screening would be 
performed by Gifford. To guide him, screening criteria would be developed 
by Chapin and the grant coordinating group and then reviewed by Haldeman and 
Mitchell. 

Close coordination will be required between Gifford and Chapin to ensure the 
President derives maximum benefit from grant announcements. Gifford should 
continually inform Chapin of grants which may be desirable for the President 
to announce. (If Presidential involvement in a grant announcement is rejected, 
Gifford should be informed as soon as possible so he can line up another appropri- 
ate announcement procedure. ) Also, Chapin should keep Gifford informed of 
planned Presidential trips so that grant announcements pertaining to the areas 
to be visited can be lined up for possible announcement in conjunction with the 
President's visit. Similarly, Gifford should coordinate closely with the White 
House scheduling operation to match grant announcements with trips planned by 
senior Administration spokesmfen. 

Naturally, White House level announcements should be coordinated with the 
applicable Department coordinator and, as appropriate, the relevant Senators, 
Congressmen, and candidates. It would be Gifford's responsibility to ensure 
this coordination takes place. 

Department announcements . The vast majority of announcements would be made 
through the Departments under the control of the designated coordinator. 
To ensure these announcements are made in a manner consistent writh the 
campaign strategy and priorities, announcement guidelines should be developed 
by the grant coordinating group and, after review by Haldeman and Mitchell, 
followed by the Departmental contacts. These should build upon the procedures 
already established by Congressional Relations and outline for each State and 
target Congressional district specifically how grants should be announced. For 
example, they would cover such questions as how to handle a target Congressional 
district with a Democratic incumbent or division of announcements between 
Senate and Congressional candidates. Naturally, these guidelines should be 
updated periodically as campaign priorities and alliances shift. 

In developing and establishing these guidelines the assistance of the Republican 
Senate and Congressional Campaign Committees should be sought. For example, 
in 1970, a representative of the Senate Campaign Comnnittee did an excellent 



8356 



Job of obtaining the approval of non-candidate Senators in allowing favorable 
information to flow to the Senatorial candidates from their States. 

DEPARTMENTAL LIAISON WITH KEY CANDIDATES 

Besides grant announcements, the 1970 experience showed the Departments 
can help candidates significantly simply by exercising politically sensitive 
liaison. For example, progress reports and prompt status checks can assist 
a candidate during the course of a campaign even though a final decision cannot 
be announced. Expediting a favorable decision can be helpful. Conversely, 
as the primaries and general elections approach, delaying unfavorable decisions 
will also be important politically. 

Such specialized assistance can only be devoted to a small number of key 
Senatorial and Congressional candidates. These should be identified by the 
campaign organization and communicated to the Department contact by Gifford, 
The Departmental coordinator should designate an individual to be the liaison 
with candi^Iates and provide the clout to help him operate effectively. 

MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness of the operation at the White House level will be readily 
apparent. To monitor the Departments' effectiveness, either the President's 
campaign committee or the Republican Senate and House campaign committees 
should periodically survey the staff of each key candidate on the quality of 
assistance given by each Departnnent. If a Department shows a pattern of 
poor assistance or political errors, Gifford should inform the Departmental 
coordinator and ask him to take corrective action. 

NEXT STEPS 



If this general approach is approved, it can be implemented informally for the 
most part. However, two actions are also necessary. These are: (1) inform 
the Departments and Agency Heads about the program and establish the contacts, 
and (2) provide staff assistance for Bill Gifford. 

Informing the Departments . At a Cabinet meeting soon, there should be a 
brief presentation about the project's "objectives and procedures. Ideally 
it would be given by Shultz. Also, Gifford would be present and introduced 
as the President's project coordinator. The President should make clear that 
he endorses the project and directs it to be carried out as outlined. The Depart- 
ment Heads would be told to designate appropriate individuals at the Under 
Secretary or Assistant Secretary level who will be responsible for results and 
to ensure these individuals have the necessary authority and staff to carry out - 
their mandate. Subsequently, Shultz and Gifford would have a meeting with the 
Departmental designees to ensure they fully understood the program and what wa 
expected of them. 



8357 



Providing Staff Assistance for Gifford . To carry out his responsibilities, 
Cifford must be assisted by a well-qualified professional with appropriate 
secretarial assistance. This individual's prime responsibilities would be 
monitoring the Departments' follow-through on "must" grants, coordinating 
the release of major OMB and Departmental grants announced by the President 
or White House spokesmen, and monitoring the effectiveness of Departmental 
announcements and candidate liaison. 

William L. Horton 
June 23, 1971 



MEMORANDUM 



8358 
Malek Exhibit No. 9 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

CONFIDENTIAL 

EYES ONLY June 23, 1971 

TO: IJarry Flemming 

FROM: PetertMillspaugh 

Second meeting on resources was held Tuesday, June 8, and 
attended by Flemming, Millspaugh (W.H. - Political), Gifford 
(OMB - Schultz), Nidecker (W.H. Congressional Liaison), 
Lissy (State) and Mastrangelo (HEW). 

Inventory of patronage items submitted by members was dis- 
cussed. Decision was reached to concentrate initially on a 
program utilizing this Administration's Presidential appoin- 
tees. The basic objective of the program would be to carry 
the message of the President's good works out into the states, 
cities, towns and communities through these appointees as 
his Ambassadors. Set up properly, it was felt we could 
greatly maximize the impact of this effort by some centralized 
control over timing, geographic and constituency concentration, 
issue selection, and speaker-to-audience match-ups. Elements 
required to set up such a program were analyzed and Millspaug 
instructed to draw up a working outline, obtain a current listing 
of Presidential appointees, and develop some data on the public 
speaking presently associated with this group. 

A need for some research was acknowledged and ideas solic- 
ited. Millspaugh was to meet with Mr. Roehmex McPhee to 
discuss the 1956 White House campaign set-up and consider 
him for a possible addition to the present group. 

Flemming alerted the group to a separate study underway to 
develop recommendations for an arrangement tying OMB into 
the campaign. Participants are Millspaugh, Gifford (OMB - 
Schultz) and Horton (W.H. - Haldeman) and these recommenda- 
tions are to be integrated into one overall report. 

Date of the next meeting would be set by the Chairman. 



8359 



POINTS FOR DISCUSSION 
6/9/71 



General Proposition : By virtue of the incumbency, what do 
we have that can be used, and how do we use it to re-elect 
the President? 

I. What do we have? (see materials). Is this enough for 
our purposes, or should we go Department by Department 
and dig out more specific types of patronage? If so, how 
shall we proceed? To what extent is it required that the 
campaign management team be aware of specific patronage 
items? 

n. What form should this be in to be of most use to campaiga? 
Should we list by Department/Agency? By subject, etc. . . 
or maybe cut it a number of ways? 

Should we go one step further and attempt to organize it in 

categories more suited to direct campaign use, i. e. , along 

issue lines, geographically, candidate support, etc. ? How 
. would we do this? Who would do? 

in. Could we also come up with separate project ideas developed 
around the use of the various types of patronage that would 
augment the campaign nicely? (Looking at our appointees 
for example, and the idea we discussed concerning an 
Ambassador's Club project to develop an elite corps of sales- 
men to go out and sell the President. ) What about a project 
aimed at incorporating the enormous public information 
apparatus at our disposal into various aspects of the cam- 
paign, etc. 7) 

IV, How do we approach the problem of our patronage delivery 
system? Two requirements for this system w^ould seem to 
be: (1) deliver on one-shot, short notice requirements, and 
(2) insure ongoing regulation of outgoing patronage vsdthin 
guidance provided by campaign. Any other? What is best 
way to structure our system, i. e. , charge each Department 
and Agency with gaining control of all of the Department's 
outgoing patronage, then centralize that control in the hands 
of one person who in turn becomes the contact point with 
the campaign? Once established, how do we condition 
and discipline the system? What level should we deal 
at? How should the arrangements be made? Who 
should do? 



8360 



THE BASIC TYPES OF PATRONAGE 



1) Jobs (full-time, part-time, retainers, consultantships, 

etc.) 

2) Revenue 

- Contracts (Federal Government as purchaser - GSA) 

- Grants (do-good programs - EDA, Model Cities, NSF 

(research), etc.) 

- Subsidies (needy industries - airlines, etc.) 

- Bank Deposits (all Federal accounts) 

- Social Need Programs (direct benefit to citizen, i.e., 

Social Security, welfare, etc, ) 

- Public Works Projects 

3) Execution of Federal Law (resides mainly in Department 

of Justice whose interpretive power touches every vested 
interest). 

4) Information and Public Relations Capacity (a professional (? ) 

public relations office in each department and agency con- 
stitutes an enormous public information apparatus). 

5) T ravel (domestic transportation can be provided by law, 

foreign travel, international conferences, etc. are avail- 
able). 



8361 



WHITE HOUSE PATRONAGE 

A. Invitations (White House functions of all types) 

B. White House Tours 

C. Appointment with the President (Vice President and 

staff also) 

D. Addresses (Vice President and staff also) 

E. Visits (Vice President and staff also) 

F. Correspondence (Vice President, staff; includes direct 

mailings recognizing accomplishments, graduations, 
etc. ) 

G. Phone Calls (Vice President and staff also) 

H. Endorsements (Presidential or White House generally for 
events, happenings, organizations, etc.) 

I. ■ Memorabilia and Autographed Photos (includes pens, golf 
balls, tie clasps, etc. ) 

J, Positions or Assignments (occasional full-time positions, 

summer internships, special White House assignments 
or missions) 

K. Awards (Presidential, Vice Presidential and White House) 

L. Doors Opened (accessibility to Federal officials in depart- 
ments and agencies) 

M. Christmas Cards (and gifts) 



32-818 O - 74 - pi. 18 - 13 



8362 



EXAMPLES OF SOME SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS 
AND 
THE FEDERAL DOLLAR * 



Farmer (upper and middle class) 

subsidies $ 4.0 Billion 

Oil (depletion allowance) 1. 5 " 

Airlines and Users 

(subsidies) 1. 2 " 

Railroad and Shipping Firms 

(subsidies) 1.0 " 

Trucking Firms and Mocorists 

(subsidies) 5.0 " 

Construction (private housing) 2. " 

Suburbanites (interest write-off 
on taxes) 

Veterans (benefits generally) 7. 3+ " 



* Source: 

To the "Victor, Random House, 1971. 



8363 
Malek Exhibit No. 10 

^^)atc: August 30,. 1971 



^^' Vvv\ ^'^X^^l 



l^ 



^■^JjM 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



DANIEJ. T. KINGSLEY 
CLARK MacGREGOR 

William Edward Bennett 

A Candidate for Position with the 
Administration 



I. Appropriate Action 



II. Ability in Area of Competence 



j Executive Level 



Outstanding 



I I Supergrade 'GS 16-18) • Good 



( j GS 15 &; BeLov/ 

Departmcntal and/or 
functional preference: 

IRS 

Field of Tax Law 



Average 



Poor 



Unknown 



I I 

IZZ] 

[=1 



III. Source of Evaluation 



Knov/n to me personally 



IV. Value of Placement to the 
President Poli tically 



I I Known by a reliable source 

I \ Rccoinmended by individual 

, \ \vho£:c jud;^mciU is unknov.n 



V. Oth'.- r Con s idcva tion.s or 
Coni;';icnts 



Highest political value 
_J (Must place) 

High Political Value 
n . (Place if possible) 



Moderate political value 



I (Handle cour tooLisly^ 



Little Politic.M X'alui. 

I I '(Handle routinely) 



COMFIDr.ni.M. 

Mcmorandutn for: 

Subject : Referral of 



8364 
Malek Exhibit No. 11 



THE WHITE HOUSE 
Washington 



r^^at R'« 



Al Kaupincn May 14, 197^ 

GSA 



Stuart V/ocks 



CVumc of UidrJidK^l) 

For a n Full-Ume D Parl-timo Position Su:ru.-,C1 



[ I In rcri onr.c to your vacancy notice of 

for tlie fOoition of ._ 



This candidate de.x-rvos a: 

D Mu3t I — 1 Courtesy 

Higli Priority , D Routine Referral 

consideration for a position in your aQency. A resume on tl;e inaividual io attached. 

[ I This candidate should L^ interviewed. 

Please note your disposition on the carbon. copy and return by 

Remarks: ^ 



Options: Intent Program 

Loi: ]cvel consultancy 



Tciriporary need appointment 



\iv;A 

_J5i 1 1__I,i^T;'gut 



AGf£UCY ACTiCi; 

This ccmli.i :tc 



n Ts u>. i:r Activ- ^'] Was not G '•-^■■-■- '- '^-^"^^1 ' 

Q,,. , : ,, , ' selected for !ur:hci ccnr.! : 



8365 



■<?- 






n 



Malek Exhibit No. 12 



THE WHITE HOUSE 
WASHINGTON 

November 9,-1971 






■:r^ MEMORANDUM FOR: 



FROM: 



■:;:■ SU EJECT •'>:;-^^/-''-^:?Vv 






Mack "Warren 



Stan Anderson 



Leslie Cohen 




^^^:^'m§M 



-• •--^^;^_< v-V :- *r/^'?-3iCt.Vt^^^t^^5^;-^ V 






e. resume: of Ilesiie CoHen^ v^Mr^i^'Coherr corSesC^'- 





■ -.' .;if''>-r^m£orxne<L'of_'your.progress on 



y° 

his 



I behalf : ;^^,^ri- J^^r®'M%?5i^J^.^5i§= 



r-5?^?^ 



.•^;:C'.;^Sr-:-:- 



-TT, >vi/^ , ~V t:;.-^^"', .« tti^- ><i;> V. - -^-^il 















8366 



Malek Exhibit No. 13 



5}4t^^^.^*;-^-^c*l 



'^A.^^ 



THE WHITE HOUSE 



WASHINGTON 



June 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 



FROM: 



^T^'^'^ "^r&O^f A?<^i2j^ ' 






FREDMAI^ 




t'^. 



SUBJECT: 



STAN ANDERSON, 

ROB DAVISON A^C^'^h ' 

Responsiveness Program 



Several days ago you emphasized the need for us to use 
our ingenuity and imagination in the responsiveness 
program. We were analyzing the requests that we have 
received to date and determined that only one State 
Chairman (Nofziger) had ever made a request through 
our channels. The reason in most instances obviously 
is that these State Chairmen are unaware of the prograjm, 
We don't think we can count on the political coordinators 
to properly indoctrinate'State Chairmen. 

As a result, we would suggest that you might want to 
consider the possibility of including the responsiveness ■ 
program on the agenda of the State Chairmen meetings 
when they are in Washington beginning in late June. We 
would obviously limit these sessions to first and second 
key priority states. 






8367 



Malek Exhibit No. 14 






THE WHITE HOUSE 
WASHINGTON 



June 5, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



H. R. HALDEMAN 
FRED MALEK- 




Results of Meeting at 
Camp David 



The purpose of this memorandum is to review for you some 
of the activities which took place at our recent Camp David 
meeting and to indicate the results flowing from the meeting. 

I had two goals in mind for the Cannp David meeting: a) to 
make the Voter Bloc Directors feel more a part of the top- 
level campaign team and b) to bring closer together the 
Voter Bloc Director and his c6unterpart at the White House. 
Both of these goals were met. 

The meeting began at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 25, with 
a presentation by Bill Novell! on advertising in the campaign. 
Bill began with an overall view of general advertising campaign 
strategy, then related the role of advertising to each of the 
voter bloc groups. Bill's presentation was outstanding and 
nnany of the subjects discussed evoked a great deal of dis- 
cussion from both the Voter Bloc Directors and the White 
House Project Managers. 

After dinner on Thursday evening, I conducted a lengthy 
discussion on field organization. Fred La Rue w^as our guest 
and he did a fine job. During the discussion period ^we zeroed 
in on some of the existing coordination problems between the 
NLxon field operation and the voter bloc activities. This was 
a very beneficial discussion period. 



8368 



On Friday morning. May 26, Ann Dore gave a presentation 
on the development of communication and press plans for 
the voter bloc groups. Since the development of an overall 
public relations program is the responsibility of the White 
House Project Manager, I used this opportunity to discuss 
the responsibilities of the Voter Bloc Directors and the 
Project Managers. We had a lengthy and very frank dis- 
cussion period and I identified some severe problems, and 
developed action steps to correct these problems. While 
some real weeknesses still exist, I feel the role of the 
Director and Project Manager has now been clarified; and • ■ 

there is now greater understanding between these two groups. 

The second morning session dealt with administration efforts 
to support the reelection. Stan Anderson and Frank Herringer 
of my staff presented the various programs we have initiated 
to make the bureaucracy more responsive and to take ad- 
vantage of the incumbency to the maximum degree possible. 

In the afternoon session Jeb Magruder and I held a discussion 
on the overall campaign strategy. This session was par- 
ticularly helpful to both the Voter Bloc Directors and 
Project Managers. Each participant had an opportunity to 
ask questions and to comment- on the various topics as they 
•were discussed. 

All in all this meeting was a huge success. Each participant 
now has a far better knowledge of the overall campaign direction 
as well as a better understanding of his responsibilities and 
those of his counterpart. Finally, it was a great morale boost 
for all participants, and their gratefulness was quite evident. 

Let me close by expressing my deep thanks to you for approving 
the use of Camp David. In light of the new policy, I am par- 
ticularly appreciative of your making this exception. I can 
assure you that it had exactly the desired effect and was 
enormously helpful. » 



Attachments 



8369 



ATTENDEES 



Alex Armendariz 

Mike Balzano ■ 
^Howa^d Cohen V^^,;' 
-/Bud Evans \:>; n;, : 
.Xiarry Goldberg ^-'i 

Paul Jones'/f V (" 

Bill Marumoto 

Frank Naylor 

Bill Rhatican 

Ken Rietz 

Don Rogers 

Charles Shearer 

Dan Todd 

Clayton Yeutter 



"Spanish Spealcing /' 

Ethnic .. ■ '. 

•: Touth ^' c ~ ''j^-^'^ v/i>r. 

Aging '-';-/ /.y- r . 
. Jewish , _■? ,-..'■ it 
.^Black •'/■■'- ^^^"-i- 
' Spanish Speaking ' ; 
.Veterans -^ ' .'-"-, 

"Veterans . . /' ■ 

Youth ' . ' ' ; 

Labor 

Citizens 

Aging 
-Agriculture 



PARTICIPANTS 



Stan Abder son ' 
Ann Dore 
Frank Herringer 
Fred La Rue 
Jeb Magruder 
. BUI Novelli 



8370 

Malek Exhibit No. 15 

ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS IN 
SUPPORT OF THE RE-ELECTION 

Potentially, one of our most significant advantages 
in the re-election effort is the incumbency - if it 
is used properly. 

Consequently, several steps are being taken to 
ensure that the Executive Branch is as supportive 
as possible of the re-election effort. 

Sonne of you already know about Bill 
Gifford's excellent work on major grants. 
Other programs are under way to generally 
improve the responsiveness of the Executive 
Branch to political priorities; to ensure 
that the President is properly postured on 
key issues; and to fully utilize communica- 
tions and personnel resources. 
Since each of these programs impacts to 
some extent on our campaign activities, 
UJL thought it would be worthwhile to spend 
some tinne reviewing them with you. 



8371 



GRANTS AND GENERAL RESPONSIVENESS 

• First, let's discuss the Grantsmanship program, and the closely- 
related effort to generally improve the responsiveness of the 
Executive Branch to political priorities. 

• Grantsmanship was created to ensure that politically beneficial 
grants are charmeled into high payoff areas. 

Bill Gifford of OMB is the key White House contact on 

this program. 

The program has had two principal thrusts: 

• In a one -shot effort, all major grants and con- 
struction decisions for next fiscal yearlwere 
reviewed prior to the finalization of the budgets 

to ensure that to the extent possible they impacted 
on politically beneficial areas. 

• On a continuing basis, as other grant opportunities 
come to our attention. Bill works with the depart- 
ments to ensure that, if possible, the decision is 
favorable to the re-election effort. 

• While we >were happy %vith the results achieved by the grants 
program, -we recognized that we -were only scratching the surface. 



8372 



First, the continuingiprogram is completely dependent 
on us for ideas -- the Departments, who have the real 
knowledge of programs, play a passive role, reacting 
only to our requests. 

Second, there are a great many areas other than grants 
in which the Departments can be responsive -- 
publicity and the use of Departmental speakers are two 
particularly important examples. 
To prod the Departinents into acting on their own in grants and 
other areas, we have held meetings with each Cabinet Officer 
in which we havej 

Told him which states, counties and voting blocs we 

consider key. 

Asked him to review his Department's resources and 

planned activities \vith the objective of making t^ R. 

positive impact on these by areas. 

Asked him to sensitize his loyal appointees to the political 

priorities -- particularly in the Regions. 

Finally, we asked for a brief plan describing what they 

intend to do, and told them that we wi)uld hold periodic review 

sessions to check on progress. 



8373 

We believe this process will result in substantial benefits. 

It will force the Departments to think in terms of actions 

directly supportive of the re-election. 

It will enSTirethat Departments have a common understanding 

of the political priorities as we see them. 

It will establish a channel through which we can communicate 
J to the Departments as the campaign develops. 
This last part -- the establishment of a communications channel -- 
is Ithe most important from our point of view at the campaign. 
Each of you should be alert to opportunities to utilize the resources 
of the incumbency jto improve o.ur position with your constituent group. 

For example: awarding of a grant, announcing a new 

project, need for a speaker from a Department, etc. 
When you have a proposal, talk it over with Stan Anderson. 

To balance workloads, Stan and another member of my 

staff, Rob Davison, have divided responsibility for these 

request^by Departments) but Stan shovild be the initial 

contact point. 

Stan (or Rob) will research the possibilities with the 

Departments and other concerned parties^ Ti)>»vft+>. '-<^— «•• i 



8374 

■ If it is agreed that some action should be taken, and 
departmental action is required, Stan or Rob will talk 
to Bill Gifford, and he will work ■with the Departments to 
get them to act. 
In most cases, you should not be contacting the Departments 
directly -- it confuses them, and increases the danger of a leak. 
Obvious exceptions: Yeutter and Todd. 






t^i^?i^x 



^ 



^J^,,JZW 




f$rtf^^«^'^^^^^ 



.•A«3- 



8375 



ISSUES 



A third major program that is underway at the White House is ihe 

Issue Management program, concerned with Icommunicating the 
— President's position on the key issues f c t ("I (■"•■'!■/ ic pn.iihV' . 

Naturally, the first step in this program is to identify what the 

key issues are: 

The President, John Ehrlichman, Chuck Colson, and 
others are putting their heads together, and examining 
polls, and defining a list -- not yet finalized, but one 
cut was: 
p Inflation 

• The New Populism fbig guy vs. little guy, taxes. 
. . bureaucracy) 

• > General Unrest 

• Busing 

• Drugs 

• Environment (Pollution) 

Once this list of issues is refined, each issue v/ill be assigned 
to a project manager, who will be responsible for developing a 
program to gain as much voter support for the President as 
possible on that issue. 

The project manager will form a team, including persons 
■with substantive, communicationj and public relations 
responsibilities. 



8376 

Together, they will develop a plan consisting of: 

(1) An analysis of the issue and our position on it. 

(2) Specific objectives to be achieved. 

(3) A description of how the objectives are to be achieved. 

(4) A time table for completion of major tasks. 

The plan will concentrate on communications: events 
for the President and First Family, development of a 
spokesTnan program, road shows, etc. 

As a group, we will have a mixed involvement in this program. 

- Many of the White House people here will be members of 

project teams. 

Frank and I will keep close to the development of the 
position and plan on the various issues, and keep you 
plugged in where the interests of your constituent group 
1-^ at stake. 



8377 



PERSONNEL 



"^icte-it of you are familiar with our ongoing personnel progrann 

under the direction of Dan Kingsley. 

Placement of people can certainly.be of benefit to us as the 

cannpaign develops. 

We have already solved several serious problems by 
placing people in full-time jobs outside of their state. 
This can only be done in high priority situations, but if 
you have one, let me know and we will see what we can do. • 

Part-time positions are nore readily available. They come in two 

categories -- Presidential ^nd Departmental. 
• - Departmentals are more numerous. 

These are mostly honorary positions, but can have substantial 

stroking value. 

Placing a person on a board or a com-nission can give 
you credibility, or be the deciding factor in convincing 
someone to take on a major responsibility. 

I would suggest that you give this possibility some thought, and 

try to come up with a list of ten or so persons from your group 

that you would like to see placed. 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 14 



8378 

Perhaps the leader of a key organization -- we placed :r.e 

President of Sons of Italy of Queens on a Traffic Safetv." 

Board and he was ecstatic. 
When you have your list, send it to :Tie, in priority order, with 
biographical data, and Dan will see where they fit. 

All probably will not be placed, but we will do our best on 

the high priorities. 



8379 



COMMUNICA TIONS 



A final program ■which may be of interest to you is Communications. 
We conducted a major study of Executive Branch Communica- 
tions about nine months ago. 
We found four major problems (almost universal). 

(1) President infrequently mentioned in news releases, speeches. 

(2) No planning ahead. . ' 

(3) Poor service to electronic media. 

(4) Poor relations with minority media. 
In a report to the President, we recommended: 

(1) Increased highlighting of the President. 

(2) Improved facilities and people (Spotmasters, etc. ). 

-- -with background in minority media. 

(3) A planning and control system to ensure that they are doing what 

they should. 
The report was accepted and implemented -with spectacular results: 
a sevenfold increase in mentioning of the President in speeches and 
news releases since September (including Spotmaster feeds). 
While this does not affect us directly, it may well help the President 
get re-elected. 



8380 



Malek Exhibit No. 16 



. ..• ■34-7 



■ ■ J. •■ J' -' /v .'^.■-- -" - '""''■-''■ ^'.y-. Jane 7, 1972 
MEMORA^^DiJMFOR: .r;^:-,0?,-/"^: ^p^^'-U^R. HALDEMAN 
FREaM:'- - -'S^^ -->>; ■ -.-"L- ..^ ' '\.FBED MALEK 
SUBJECT:"-.. V' '*-]j-"^>?:r?'=^--^ '■-/•- .,'-'^e3ponsivene Program 

The piirpose of the attached paper is to report progress on the Responsive- 
ness Pro graxa,^ I ■will submit fnrther progress reports aroiiad the first 
of each month, : ' '? > i.**" " i Irl • --7 ' '''-■-'.^?,-ir"i";r' "' 

Attachment .r.' •r.r-.-Jt^'- .j' , '- - ~T- ' -^-u^i "-".-. - ";• . - 



8381 



CONFIDENTIAL 

EYES ONLY 



RESPONSIVENESS PROGRAM - PROGRESS REPORT 



This report is divided into three sections. The first describes institurional 
progress for the program in general. The second highlights the specific 
cases which have arisen as a resvilt of the operation of the program. 
Finally, actions planned in June are summarized. 

INSTITUTIONAL PROGRESS 



Thus far, the prograni is on schedule. I have now reviewed the program 
with each Cabinet Officer (except Rogers) and with the heads of the key 
Agencies (ACTION, EPA, OEO, SBA, GSA, and VA), In each session the 
following was covered: 

Emphasized need to make re-election support the top 
priority and the need to respond to requests in this regard 

Discussed which States, counties, and voting blocs are 
considered key and should be targeted by them 

Had them name a top official who would be the political 
contact for this program (generally the Under Secretary) 

Asked them to educate loyal appointees (including Regional 
Directors) as to priorities and expectations, thus forming 
, a political network in each Department 

Asked them to review all their resources and develop a 
plan for maximizing impact of these resources in key arear 

Indicated particular areas in their Departments that require 
special attention 

Established my office as the channel of communications wirh 
the campaign and stressed that we would work solely through 
Bill Gifford on grant requests 

In line with this last point, two members of my staff (Stan Anderson and Rob 
Davison) have been relieved of other responsibilities to concentrate or. this. 
They have now held follow-up meetings with the Secretary's designee ir. most 
Departments to discuss the program in more detail and begin development of 
the Department Action Plans. These sessions will be completed in the next 



8382 



I 



few weeks, it jiddition, IJiav£ held follow-up meetings with the top political 
appointee 8. and with the Regional Directors in several Departments. 1 will 
hold additional meetings of this sort over the next few weeks. 

The response to date has been fairly good, particvilarly at the second. echelon. , 
The reaction of some in the Cabinet (e.g., Romney and Hodgson) was that ' 
they were, of covirse, already considering political ramifications and'there 
is little more that can be done. Our approach here is to concentrate on the 
(foder Secretary and other -Presidential appointees, where the job gets done 
anyhow. C5thers, such as "Volpe, Peterson, and But z, have been quite 
receptive ajid should be real assets to the program. 

We have also briefed key people at 1701 on the program including John Mitchell. 
Each Voting Bloc Director and Political Coordinator has been asked to search 
his areas and develop ideas for projects with high political pay-off. 

• In svim, we are now pretty nnuch on track and have a political network, a 
receptive atmosphere, staff resources here, and S. system to make things 
happen. Let us now turn to the initial resultg^from our first few weeks' efforts. 

' SPECIFIC ISSUES ' 

to spite-of the fact that we just completed our first discussions with the Depart- 
ments, we already have dealt with twelve Responsiveness issues. All of them 
originated in the field and were channeled to us by the staff of the Com-mittee 
for the Re- Election of the President. A svimmary of the current status of 
the issues can be found in Tab A, and tlie key cases are outlined below: 

Three highly publicized Model Cities projects in the Mexican- 
American section of Los Angeles were not going to be fvmded 
because of lack of money and potential conflicts with the black 
teaders in Watts. The projects included a home for mentally . 
petarcted children,^ a Senior Citizens honne, and a media vo- 
. • catibiuil center. HUD has agreed to fund the projects and is 

formulating a plan so that it can be done without alienating. ,,. 
the-blaclcs. 

The Department of Labor ruled that Local 454 of the Dock and 
Wharf Bxulders Union in Philadelphia, whose steward is an 
•Ctive^cker of this Administration, was not responsible for 
the illegal actions of its President, This action was requested 
. ' hy the Pennsylvania Committee for the Re- Election of the Presi- 

dent, and they report that this action had a very strong inip^c' _ . . 
on the local ethnic union members. 



8383 



Most groups receiving funds under the Public Employment 
Program have been very concerned because the action year 
ends one week before the election. The fear in most big 
cities has been that there will be a large number of ad- 
ditional unemployed inner city residents on November I, 1972. 
Labor is verbally notifying key constituencies that the pro- 
grams will be refunded at this year's level. This action * 
is very important and should reduce possible tensions. 

We garnered from reliable sources in the Equal Employ - 
r nent Opportunity Commission that the Commission was 
preparing to sue the University of Texas for discrimination 
in the hiring of faculty. This could be disastrous in Texas. 
When queried, Bill Brown, C hairman of EEOC, agreed not 
to pursue it. I will continue to follow this situation closely. 

The Department of Labor was asked to award a $ 2. 2 million 
migrant labor program contract in Texas to a pro- Admin- 
istration group. Labor had already publicly committed 
itself to a consortium of anti- Administration CEO/CAP 
agencies. Lab or has reversed it s_st and. 

As yo4 can see, the issues handled to date have been reactive ones in which 
we haye been called upon to solve specific problems. About half of them have 
been important issues that will iinpact upon special interest groups in key 
counties. The remainder have not fallen within our political guidelines. They 
received courtesy consideration. 

FURTHER ACTIONS 



During June the following actions are planned: 

1. Follow up further with each Department and Agency in the 
development of their action pla ns,. Review these plans and 
make modifications where appropriate. 

2. Hold additional meetings with top political appointees and 
groups of Regional Directors to acquaint them with the 
priorities and ask them to take actions to meet these 
priorities. 

3. " Intensify our work with people at 1701, searching for the 

most advantageous projects. Particular emphasis will be 
placed on voter blocs in key areas (e.g., Chicanos in Texas). 

In addition each Departnient and Agency will continue to receive updated 
political information from members of my staff as it is developed at 1701. 
I anticpate that in the future, the Departments will be able to deal with many 
of the issues before they reach the problem stage. This should permit them 
to play a more active and forceful role in the future. 

You will receive our next monthly status report the week of July 2, 1^72. 



8384 



RESPONSIVENESS PROGRAM 
Week Ending June 2, '72 



HUD - 1 William Meehan, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; requested 3/29/72. 

William Meehan, Republican ward leader in Philadelphia, has 
requested that his Democratic counterpart, Michael Stack, be prohibited 
from receiving the substantial compensation he earns as a fee attorney 
for Fannie May. The impact of such action vs^ould not be of great 
benefit to the re-election. It is not possible for us to significantly 
change Mr. Stack's earnings as he is a close friend of Congress- 
man Barrett, a member of the key HUD committee that appro- 
priates funds for Fannie May. 

HUD - 2 Neighborhood Development Program, Cleveland Ohi o; 

req uested 5/4/72. Mayor Perk has requested the West Central 
Neighborhood Development Program Area be funded for $10 
million. The Administration would receive little benefit from 
funding a new town in Cleveland's inner city. HUD has contem- 
plated removing all funds from the City because of discriminatory 
housing regulations. This action has been stopped and HUD 
and Perk will be discussing specific problems in this regard 
within the next three weeks. 

HUD - 3 Model Cities, Los Ange les, Cali fornia; requested 4/28/72 . 

Lyn Nofziger requested that three highly publicized Model Cities 
projects in East-Northeast Los Angeles (Mexican-American) 
be funded for $2 million without alienating the leaders of 
Watts (Black). There is great potential for the Administration 
if the projects are funded as stated. The probability of meeting 
the request is high. HUD is preparing an action plan for funding 
the projects without causing tension in Watts. 

DOL-1 Local 454, Dock and Wharf Builders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , 

requested 5/10/72. Hernian Blooni, Spector's assistant at the 
Pa. CR P requested that the subpeonaed records of Local 454 
be returned. The Business Agent of the Union is a Republican 
supporter and could be very helpful to the Administration in 
impacting the blue collar vote in a key county. The books were 
returned on 5/23/72 and the Union given a clean bill of health. 

DOL-2 Recreational Support Program, Cleveland, Ohio; requested 5/4/72. 

Mayor Perk requested that $354, 000 be given to the City for its 
summer recreation program. The program is designed to impact 
inner city residents, and thus does not fall within our political 
guidelines. Parts of Perk's request are outside the scope of 
DOL's program, therefore the City will receive only $164,000. 



8385 



DOL-3 Neighborhood Youth Corps, Cleveland, Ohio; requested 5/4/7Z. 

Mayor Perk requested that his office, as opposed to the City- 
School Board, be given the responsibility for overall management 
and fiscal control of this program. The program hires inner 
city youth for sumjner jobs and would have no special impact on 
the re-election. Perk has been told by DOL that he can have the 
responsibility if he wants it. He is now reconsidering his request, 
given minimal benefits for a great deal of work. 

DOL- 4 F^jblic Emplo^n-nent Program, Cleveland, Ohio; requested 5/4/72. 

Mayor Perk requested that tlie program be refunded for $6.5 million 
in the next action year. There would be very little additional 
impact by creating additional jobs for inner city wo rkers, but 
there could be significant negative impact if the existing jobs 
were not refunded ($3 million). DOL told Perk that the program 
would be refunded at $3 million; he seemed pleased. 

DOL-5 Public Employment Program, California; requested 5/10/72. 

Lyn Nofziger requested $2. 1 million in additional PEP funds 
for this action year to hire and reward 225 minorities (blacks) 
who have supported the Administration. The potential of the 
program is low to medium, given that the people to be rewarded 
do not represent voting blocs that we could significantly impact. 
However, rewarding them might ease some existing black 
tensions. It is doubtful if there are any remaining funds for 
this action year, although DOL is checking. Nofziger was told 
that the program will be refunded at this year's level. 

DOL-6 Migrant Program, Texas; requested 5/24/72. 

Senator Tower's office requested that the $2. 2 million migrant 
worker program grant be given to the pro- Administration 
Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council as opposed to 
the consortium of OEO CAP agencies. DOL has already announced 
that the OEO groups have the best proposal. If the Development 
Council were to receive the grant, there would be a significant 
plus for the Administration, as OEO's negative voice would be 
silenced, and the Council's positive feelings towards the Adminis- 
tration could be stressed. DOL has told Tower that the grant will 
be awarded to Tower's choice. Tower will confirm his decision 
this week. 



8386 



SBA-l District Director, SBA, Los Angeles, California; requested 5/26/72. 

Lyn Nofziger requested that Milliard Ham, a black newspaper 
publisher, be named District Director, SBA, Los Angeles. If 
appointed, the potential impact is low, as Ham does not represent I 

a key California constituency. Seventeen of the California Congress- 9 
men have agreed that the job must be filled by someone meeting 
all the substantive qualifications. Ham did not qualify. SBA may 
create a highly visible job for Ham in the Regional office that 
better suits his background. SBA will let us know prior to June 9 



EEOC-1 EEOC suit of The University of Texas. 

Senator Tower was informed by Vice Chairnnan Holcomb that 
Ed Pena, Director of Compliance, had recommended to 
Bill Brown that EEOC sue The University of Texas. Brown 
appeared to agree. If such a suit took place, the result would 
be a serious negative impact in a key state. Brown denies that 
the suit is under consideration. This should be followed care- 
fully. 

DOT-1 Interstate 90, Cleveland, Ohio; requested 5/4/72. 

Mayor Perk requested that we expedite construction of Interstate 
90 within the City of Cleveland. Undersecretary Beggs, the 
Secretary's designee, has been to busy with TRANSPO to 
discuss the issue. Meeting scheduled week of June 5. 



\ 



8387 

Malek Exhibit No. 16-A 

March 29, 19 72 



CONFIDENTIAL 

MEHORAI.'DWI FOR: Frederic V. Malek 
PROM: . Harry S. Fleipjiing 



4i^ 



iU 



/ 

Re-election 



Our Pennsylvania Cornnittee for the Re-election of the President 
has brought to our attention that ?-fichael Stack, a Democrat Uard 
Leader, last year earned $58,000 in mortgage foreclosurer from 
Fannie May. Mr. Stack happens to be the ward leader in the sane 
ward as William Austin Meehan, x.'ho is the Republican leader in 
Philadelphia. Meehan can't understand why the type of work that 
Stack is doing has to be given to a Democrat ward leader who 
is working against our interests. Perhaps a qualified Republican 
could be found who could handle Fannie May business in that 
particular area. Any help your office can give rectifying this 
situation would be helpful. 



8388 



Malek Exhibit No. 17 



COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 



MEMORANDUM 



May 1, 1972 



TO FRED MALEK 

FROM AL KAUPINEN 

SUBJECT LABOR PROBLEM IN PENNSYLVANIA 



Mr. Herman Bloom, Arlen Specter's assistant with the Committee for the 
Re-election of the President in Pennsylvania, has had some problems with 
the Department of Labor. Could someone in your office call Herman Bloom 
to assist him with this problem. 



8389 

Malek Exhibit No. 18 
affidavit 

I, William H. Brown III, of the District of Columbia, depose and say: 

1. That I am the Chairman of the Equal Employitient Opportunity 
Commission and have served in that capacity since May 6, 1969; 

2. That as a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Coinmission, 
I have the authority to file " Cornmissioner Charges" against any respondent 
who may have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by 
the Equal Einployment Opportunity Act of 1972; 

3. That the confidentiality provisions contained in Sections 706 and 709 of 
Title VII, prohibit any officer or employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (including inyself) from making "public in any manner whatsoever 
any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority. ..." 

4. That because of the above-referred to confidentiality provisions, I am 
prevented from making public information regarding a specific respondent or 
potential respondent; 



8390 



5. That this affidavit is addressed to certain questions raised by nnembers 
of the Senate Committee regarding a proposed Commissioner Charge against 
a certain respondent; 

6. That the question has been asked as to whether or not any White House 
staff person or any member of Congress or their staff ever requested that I 
not sign a particular Commissioner Charge; that the answer is an unqualified 
No; and that any suggestion to the contrary is untrue; 

7. That an inquiry was made some time in early 1972 whether the Commission 
had instituted suit against this certain respondent; that I do not recall whether the 
request for information came from a White House staff person or from a Congres- 
sional staff member; that I advised the caller that we had not instituted suit and 
could not under the law since the respondent could only be sued by the Department 
of Justice; that I further advised the caller that to my knowledge no charges were 
pending against this respondent; that our Commission could receive charges, make 
an investigatory finding of cause, attempt conciliation and if it failed, refer the 
matter to the Attorney General for suit to be instituted; 

8. That the records of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission show 
that a letter was received fronn a Spanish speaking organization requesting an 
investigation of this respondent; that at the time the letter was received, the 
amendnnent giving the Commission jurisdiction over this respondent had not 
become law; that after the effective date of the aniendment, I did receive a request 
to sign a Commissioner Charge against the respondent; that a note written by me 
requested the charge be held until the Commission could determine if the organ- 
ization contacting us would file a charge on behalf of those persons they felt had 
been discriminated against; and that my note indicated that I felt the case could be 
stronger with them listed as charging party (copy of note attached as Exhibit A). 



- 2 



I 



I 



8391 



9. That my files reflect nothing further was done in this matter and that 
the charge remained unsigned in my files: that I was unaware that the unsigned 
charge was in my files until the inquiry by the staff members of this Committee. 

10. That at no time was I told or requested not to sign a Commissioner 
Charge either by a member of the White House staff or a Member of Congress 
or their staff; and that at no time did I ever refuse to sign a Commissioner 
Charge or conduct an investigation because of outside influences; and 

11. That while all five Commissioners are perrnitted to bring Commissioner 
Charges against a respondent covered under the Act, I believe the fact is that 
during iny tenure I have signed more Comrnissioner Charges than the other four 
Commissioners combined; and that the log which has been furnished the 
Coinmittee contains three Commissioner Charges assigned to me. 

I have read the above statement consisting of three pages and it is true and 
correct to the best of my recollection and belief. 



/^ 



^^2ti**^<-v- 






8392 

EXHIBIT "A" 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
NOTES FKC^Ji TME 0-2AlK.\aN 



TO: DATE: 






> 









(,^| - ..-■ 









y* ,^ (;'^' Transmittal Form 

/ L-' 

6SA-WASH OC 66-9582 
GPO 940.643 



8393 



Malek Exhibit No. 19 



OF JOHN E. CLARKE 



STATE OF FLORIDA ) 

) s.s. 
COUNTY OF DADE ) 

I, JOHN E. CLARKE, being first duly sworn, hereby state: 

When Fred Malek moved from the Wliite House Staff to the Committee to 
Re-elect the President, (CRP) , sometime in July of 1972, Dan Kingsley took 
over Malek's responsibility in the personnel area for the White House and 
asked me to assume responsibility for llason between the White House and 
half the departments and agencies of the federal government. In addition 
to my liason responsibilities, I was also to continue recruiting for 
Presidential appointees and assume responsibility for the Responsiveness 
Program. 

Responsiveness was conceived eitlier by Bob Haldeman or Fred Malek but I 
am not sure which one. I do not believe the President knew of its existence 
as I never heard that the President was ever aware of the Program. 

I had no real knowledge of or participation in the initial discussions 
which formed the genesis for the Responsiveness Program. However, when I became 
active in the Program, I was given responsibility for a number of departments 
and agencies and Rob Davison had responsibility for other departments and 
agencies. Included under my responsibility was Office of Economic Opportunity 
(OEC) , Office of Minority Business Enterprise (OMBE), Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) and General Services Administration (GSA) . My responsibility 
was to assure that the Administration was getting credit for what the Executive 
Branch was doing. Responsiveness, in essence, was our effort to stimulate the 
bureaucrats to performing their jobs in a timely and expeditious manner. For 
example, EDA would never mention the President in its news releases and it was 
my responsibility to correct that ridiculous oversight. Unfortunately, I cannot 
recall any specific Responsiveness Programs relative to OEO or OMBE. 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 15 



8394 



The Responsiveness Program generated activity with architectural engineering 
contract awards by GSA. Wtien contract awards were to be made, which are 
non-bid awards, the Architectural Engineering Contract Award Board would select 
3 to 5 firms who were technically qualified to fulfill the contract and these 
firms were recommended to GSA. I would then be contacted by Larry Rousch of 
the GSA and Rousch would give me the names of the firms who were being considered 
for an award. I would call Lee Nunn at the Finance Committee to Re-elect 
the President (FCRP) and ask Nunn if the Committee had any preference as to 
which of the firms should receive the award. It is my understanding that Nunn 
would then check with various sources on the Hill as well as other political 
sources who might be affected by the conttacts to be awarded and ascertain 
whether or not there was any preference as to the award. In a day or two, 
Nunn would call rae and state that there was no preference, if there was none, 
or indicate which firm was preferred if they had a preference. I would relay 
the message to Rousch at GSA. In relaying the message to Rousch, at no time 
did I indicate anything other than a preference. This is the extent of ray 
knowledge as to what action was taken on the preferences and there was no 
structured followup to see whether or not the contract was actually awarded to 
any particular firm. On occasion, I did ask out of curiosity, whether a par- 
ticular recommendation had been followed, but usually Rousch would not know. 
1 also recall two specific instances in which Senators Tower and Javits expressed 
some opinion relative to a contract award by GSA. That opinion was relayed to 
me by Nunn and I passed it on to Rousch at GSA. I do not know whether the 
Tower and Javits preferences were given the contracts. On occasion, I believe 
two occasions to be exact, 1 was asked by Lee Nunn whether it would be possible 
to recommend another architectural engineering firm to GSA other than the firms 
suggested by the Architectural Engineering Award Board. I investigated this 
possibility with Rousch but determined that the process involved was too cumbersome 
to be practical. It would have required the Architectural Engineering Awards 
Board starting all over again in order to Include an additional firm. The idea 
was dropped. 



8395 



The entire Responsiveness Program received perhaps 10% of my time and, 
In fact, I never really took it very seriously. During the course of the two 
or three months that I handled part of this Program, I doubt that I had more 
than 8 or 10 GSA contract awards. 

The Responsiveness Program contact at OEO was Stanley Armstrong. However, 
since he was fairly new, 1 had very few dealings with him. Those that I did 
have were limited to news releases and inquiries relative to the status of grants. 
As I mentioned, I cannot recall any specifics nor was 1 ever asked to push any 
projects with OEO or any other department or agency for that matter. 

The Responsiveness contact at EDA and OMBE was Cal Collier. I recall 
speaking with Cal on several occasions, admonishing him of the Administration's 
desire that the announcments for the awarding of grants be made prior to the 
election whenever possible. In fact, when all is said and done, this is what 
the Responsiveness Program was all about — to get the bureaucracy to get the 
job done. 

It is my understanding that the Responsiveness Program made some attempts 
to pick out key political areas to receive grants. However, I have no knowledge 
of who did this or how it was done. Rob Davi3on, in conjunction with Bill 
Gifford, was responsible for the grants operation. I was only vaguely aware of 
the specifics of his activities and I never met with or discussed any grants 
with Bill Gifford. Regarding documents or memoranda relative to the Responsiveness 
Program, I saw one or two progress reports but did not help prepare these reports. 
I reported to Rob Davison on what items had come up during the month in the 
departments or agencies assigned to me. Davison would prepare a memo which was 
really a progress report. I believe one of these reports was signed by Dan 
Kingsley but I am not sure. I never saw any documents from the agencies relative 
to their plans for implementing the Responsiveness Program. However, I do 
believe that such documents did exist. 

Dan Kingsley's activity in the Responsiveness Program was almost totally 
non-existent and primarily a protocol -related rather than a substantative 
administration of the Program. The day to day operation of the program was 
primarily the responsibility of Davison, myself and, I believe. Bill Gifford. 



8396 



The Responsiveness Program files and memoranda were turned over to 
Dan Kingsley and burned at his request. Kingsley contacted me either directly 
or through his secretary some time in September or October and asked me to 
deliver my single file folder containing the 15 or 20 Responsiveness records 
that I had. to his office for destruction. Included in my records was a one-page 
hand written list of 8 or 10 GSA contract awards, numerous news releases from 
EDA, OMBI and OEO. I assume that the files were destroyed because of their 
politically sensitive nature if taken out of context. 

At no time did I personally commit an illegal or unethical act while 
in the employee of the Federal government. None of the activities of the 
Responsiveness Program that I am aware of, were In any way, shape or form 
illegal or unethical. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. 



0^ ^ ^^^^^^^ 

><roHN E. CLARKE 



Subscribed and sworn to before me at Miami, Dade County, 
Florida, this -^/xg..< day of November, 1973. 



(SEAL) 




My commission expires: 

•^iv COMMISSION K"»".«^,tJSw«ia» 

^fO THRU OENEHAl INSUXANCI OHO€IW».— 



8397 

Malek Exhibit No. 20 

affidavit of larry f. roush 

AFFIANT LARRY F. ROUSH, first sworn, deposes and says 
as follows. 

1. Enquiry has been made of me as to my knowledge of 
a "proposed responsiveness program." 

2. My first knowledge of the possibility of such a 
program occurred in July 1972 when Stan Anderson, then of the 
White House Staff, briefed me. 

3. Shortly thereafter Mr. Anderson left the White 
House Staff. 

4. Further communication relating to the program was 
from Mr. John Clarke, then of the White House Staff. Mr. Clarke 
appeared to perform his duties differently from Mr. Anderson 
and the "responsiveness program" as described by Mr. Anderson 
was not implemented in any discussion to which I was a party. 

5. I answered comm\inications forwarded to me by Mr. 
Clarke or prepared or supervised preparation of responses. 
These communications related to personnel matters or to 
recommendations for possible selection of architectural firms. 

6. With respect to the latter, from time to time I 
called Mr. Clarke and provided him with a list of architectural 
firms recommended by the Public Advisory Panel as being highly 
qualified for a particular project. Mr. Clarke then would call 
me and advise me whether he had a recommendation from among 



8398 



those firms. Sometimes he had a single recommendation, sometimes 
several, sometimes none. Scsnetimes he communicated Senators' 
recommendations. Mr. Clarke's recommendations were accorded 
considerable weight. They were not always followed. 

7. No reporting system was established to inform Mr. 
Clarke of a selection. On occasion he would call to enquire. 

8. In November or December 1972 the foregoing 
procedure, such as it was, fell in disuse. At about that time 
Mr. Clarke left the White House Staff. 



Further Affiant sayeth not. 




District of Columbia ] 
City of Washington ] 

Subscribed and sworn to me before me, a notary public, 

this ■=^^ yC=<l day of November, 1973. 



.^^<-<^ 



.^t^^i'^^C^*^! .^^ m A. 



Notary Pviblic 



My commission expires ^j^/'z^-gy^.t^^C^-^V / 9'/ /97S~ 



8399 



Malek Exhibit No. 21 

united states of america ) 
district of columbia ) 

affidavit of richard a. goldstein 

RICHARD A. GOLDSTEIN, being first duly sworn, hereby 
deposes and says: 

1. From October of 1970 through March 1973, I served 
as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, Richard C. Van Dusen. 

2. I first met Robert V. ("Rob") Davidson at the end 
of 1971 or the early part of 1972 in a meeting with Under 
Secretary Van Dusen. 

3. At that meeting, Mr. Davidson identified himself 
as working on Fred Malek 's staff at the White House. During 
the course of this meeting, Mr. Davidson described how the 
White House desired to develop a network among the agencies 
in order that they might be more responsive to White House 
requests during the upcoming months. Mr. Davidson identified 
this effort as the "Responsiveness Program". In the course 
of that meeting. Under Secretary Van Dusen told Mr. Davidson 
that he should contact me in regard to any requests he might 
have that involved the Department of Housing and Urban Devel- 
opment . 



8400 



4. Over the next several months Mr. Davidson called 
me on approximately 20 to 25 occasions requesting information 
and favorable action regarding project applications pending 
with the Department. On those occasions I provided Mr. 
Davidson with a status report on the specific project. The 
projects were identified by number, name and location, how- 
ever, I have no recollection at this time of any specific 
project which Mr. Davidson inquired about, save for the Los 
Angeles Model Cities Program discussed infra, paragraph 7. 
None of those projects, however, received favored treatment 
by the Department as a result of Mr. Davidson's intervention. 

5. Sometime in the summer of 197 2, after Mr. Malek 
had left the White House staff to join the Committee to 
Reelect the President, I received a telephone call from 

Mr. Davidson in the course of which he asked that the Depart- 
ment set aside approximately $2-3 million that could be used 
in the State of California as part of the Responsiveness Pro- 
gram. Under Mr. Davidson's proposal, an individual whom the 
White House would designate, but who would not be an employee 
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development with an 
appropriate delegation of authority from the Secretary, would 



8401 



make the decision as to how those monies were to be committed, 
i.e., which cities and towns in California would receive those 
funds. I told Mr. Davidson that in my judgment such a pro- 
gram did not make sense; that it sounded illegal and certainly 
improper and that I felt confident that HUD would not parti- 
cipate in such a program. I further told Mr. Davidson that 
if he wanted a decision from a higher authority I would take 
the matter up with Under Secretary Van Dusen. Mr. Davidson 
suggested that I do that. At the conclusion of my conversa- 
tion with Mr. Davidson, I spoke with Under Secretary Van Dusen 
about this matter. He agreed and told me that HUD would in 
no way participate in such a program. 

6. On one occasion, Mr. Davidson called to solicit 
the Department's assistance with regard to a Mr. Stack from 
Philadelphia whom Mr. Davidson said was receiving substantial 
business as a fee attorney from the Federal National Mortgage 
Association. It was my impression that Mr. Davidson sought 
to affect Mr. Stack's compensation because of Mr. Stack's 
political affiliations. I believe I told Mr. Davidson at 
that time that the Federal National Mortgage Association was 
not a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 



8402 



and, therefore, the Department was not really in a position 
to take any action against Mr. Stack even if it were predis- 
posed to do so. The Department took no action with respect 
to this matter as a result of Mr. Davidson's request. 

7. On several occasions, Mr. Davidson called request- 
ing a status report regarding the Los Angeles Model Cities 
Program. As I recall, Mr. Davidson's interest in the Los 
Angeles Model Cities Program centered on the prospects of 
funding three specific projects in the Mexican-American 
community: (1) a Comprehensive Facilities Program, (2) 
a Senior Citizens' Building, and (3) a Community Media 
Educational Center. Mr. Davidson explained to me that it 
was politically desirable to satisfy the requests of the 
Mexican-American Community. On those occasions when 
Mr. Davidson would inquire I routinely called Mr. Robert H. 
Baida, the Department's Regional Administrator for Region IX 
which includes the State of California, and asked for a 
status report on those projects. At no time did I ask 



^ My recollection concerning this matter is extremely vague 
due to the fact that I was not involved in an earlier discus- 
sion between Under Secretary Van Dusen and a member of the 
White House Staff (not Mr. Davidson) during which the initial 
request for information regarding these projects was made. 



8403 



Mr. Baida to take any action with respect to those projects 
other than to inquire from the responsible City officials 
regarding their status in the Model Cities program. After 
receiving a status report from Mr. Baida, I would tele- 
phone it to Mr. Davidson. As a result of a request made of 
me on October 31, 1973, by Mr. James Hamilton, Assistant 
Chief Counsel, Senate Committee on Presidential Campaign 
Activities, I contacted Mr. Baida to determine whether any 
or all of these three projects had been funded. On October 31, 
1973, I spoke with Mr. Baida. At that time, Mr. Baida told 
me that he had no knowledge as to whether or not the projects 
had been funded but that he would find out and let me know. 
During that conversation, Mr. Baida reminded me that under 
the Model cities Program HUD did not fund any specific pro- 
jects; rather, HUD made money available to the community and 
the decision as to which projects were funded was made by 
the local community, not by HUD. Mr. Baida called me back 
on November 7, 1973, and provided me with the following in- 
formation on the three proposed Mexican-American projects in 
the Model Cities Program: 

"In April of 1972, HUD advised the mayor of Los 
Angeles that there were sufficient funds in the 



8404 



Model cities program to fund those three projects 
if the City wanted to re-program the funds. The 
mayor wrote back saying he didn't want to re- 
program the funds from the Black community to 
the Spanish-American community, but rather, he 
wanted additional money for the three projects. 
In May of 1972, HUD replied that no additional 
funds would be provided but authority would be 
granted for re-programming the funds . 

The City ultimately did re-program funds for the 
Com.prehensive Facilities Program and the Senior 
Citizens' Building and money was expended for plans 
and specifications. However, prior to construction 
HUD imposed a freeze on all construction in the 
Los Angeles program until the City created a resi- 
dent employment program for the benefit of minor- 
ities. This freeze is still operative. 

The City did not re-program any funds for the Com- 
munity Media Center." 

On November 7 or 8, this information was communicated to 

Mr. Hamilton in the course of a telephone conversation with 

my counsel, Mitchell Rogovin. 



Til CHARD A. GOLDSTEIN 



n -4 ^''^ 
Subscribed and Sworn to this /C-3 " day of November, 



1973, by Richard A. Goldstein before me. 



/not^y public. .irr<2 . 

My Commission expires April 14, 1976 




^jL O^a,.. ^ 



8405 



Malek Exhibit No. 22 

'Ct il'lS i''rG3*C.Crji" !-■>•' .-ri:r;iYlVAi;j/. /.Yir;U[. H.V/., V^/ iHJ'vGlON, DC. TC.DO^ (J03) 333.3710 

October 9, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLTTTtgeERIC MALEK 
FROM: ALEX ARMENDART^^,^^^ 
SLTBJECT: ZAVALA COUNTY GRANT 



Since you may be cal.led for an opinion on the subject grant, 
changes made by McGovern, and wisdom of au/ override, here is some 
background for your informa tion. 

Now that it has taken place, it is important for political reasons 
that Pliillip Sanchez' override prevails over Govern Preston Smith's 
yeto of the Zavala County Health Corporation grant. It is my 

'understanding that this is a good program. The grant is for Crystal 
City, the heartland of La Raza Unida, the recognized Mexican American 
tlilrd party in Texas. Raza Unida effectively took over the local 
government in Crystal City by fielding and supporting their own 
candidates. This year, they have 22 candidates on the ballot in 
Texas, and are also running in four other states. All Federal fund- 
ing activity in the Crystal City vicinity will be watched closely 

fby Raza Unida leadership and interpreted in purely political terms. 

At present. La Raza Unida is not fielding a candidate for the President, 
but is focusing on local races Instead. By steering a middle course 
_.|ln this Presidential race they are able to criticize both parties 
while using their potential endorsement as a bargaining tool. Party 
leader Jose Angel Gutierrez is advising his people not to vote for 
the President, but it is clear his position could change at any time. 

.'.-Should the poll gap tighten in Texas, the neutrality of La Raza Unida_ 
•will be important. Our studies indicate that there is 70 percent 
^approval of Raza Unida among Mexican American in Texas. The fact that 
there are about 1 million political Mexican American voters in Texas 
and that Humphrey won that state in 1968 by only 38,000 votes, sub- 
•^etantiate the possible importance of La Raza Unida neutrality in 
this election. 

We have no way of publicly supporting this group without antagonizing 
Republicans and making La Raza Unida look as though they had sold out. 
At the same time, neither do we want to antagonize Raza Unida supporters 
and drive them back to their old positions as Democrat voters. The 
Zavala County grant provides us with an opportunity to support 
the party indirectly in a positive and legitimate manner. Such an 
action is likely to strengthen their position of neutrality which 
is so politically beneficial to us. -.-... 



8406 



Malek Exhibit No. 23 



THi£ V/l-!irt-: HOUSE 

vV A 5 H I J-; c 1 ci N 






June 15, 1972 



CONFIDENTIAL 
MEMORANDUM FOR: 
FROM 
SUBJECT: 



FRED MALEK 

JOHN CLARI^^— — 

Black Vote^ield Plan (attac hed) 



Per our conversation, attached is the final plan as we discussed. 

Please note that I have reduced the field organization down to the 
city level and placed heavy emphasis on Black Leaders Conimittees 
and coordination v/ith the Nixon organization. 

I have talked with Bob Brown and Stan Scott regarding their roles 
in Special Projects/Speakers Bureau and PR, respectively. Bob 
is handling the planning and scheduling of Black appointees and has 
hired a full time girl to handle that aspect of the Speakers Bureau. 
He is also handling other Special Projects relating to OEO, SBA, 
IIUD, etc. Stan is responsible for developing a PR game plan for 
Blacks and hopes to continue using John Calhoun from Action to 
handle the implementation. Based on my conversations, I see no 
need to add to those organizations at present, with the possible 
exception of hiring Calhoun for the Campaign Committee. 

The entire plan has been discussed with Ed Sexton and he agrees 
totally. He has several candidates in mind for Field Coordinators 
so I have left out any specific recominendations as to people. Ed 
is also developing a specific plan for a so called Truth Squad utiliz- 
ing appro>;imat<;ly five elected Black officials as a traveling team. 

I have talked v/ith Paul Jones and Ken Rietz regarding the youth 
proposal. They are going to meet v.'itli Robert Brown of Shaw 
University and develop a boiled down version that is realistic 
in terms of money and organization. I v.'ill keep you posted. 

If you agree wit!i the plan, I suggest you meet with Sexton as soon 
as possible to discuss his role and work out any' remaining details. 

Please let me know. ... 



8407 



INTRODUCTION 

The atlached plan is a strategy for the development, organization 
and implementation of an effective field operation for securing a 
significant number of Black votes for the President. The plan 
only concentrates on the field operation since that is where the 
voters are located. 

The plan places heavy emphasis on the selection of key personnel 
immediately. If this is not done then no plan will accomplish what 
the President needs in the key cities and states. 

Tlie plan makes some specific recommendations regarding field 
organization and personnel. It also discusses how each area of 
the organization is to function, its specific responsibilities and 
duties, and assigns target dates for accomplishing the overall plan. 



SPECIFIC PLAN 

Attached at Tab A is a proposed organization chart covering the 
field organization. It is essentia] that the field organization be 
sufficiently detailed to enable each coordinator to cover a manage- 
able unit where he would be most familiar and effective, 

lilack Vote Chairman 



Paul Jones is currently in charge of the entire Black vote effort. 
He is not knowledgeable in politics b\it, if backed up by profes- 
sionals, can continue to occupy the role of front man. Due to his 
political naivete, it is essential that a strong organization be re- 
cruited to support his efforts and really get things done. This 
organization should include a man to head up all Field Operations. 

Field Operations Manager (1) 

Attaclu'd at Tab B is the resume on Edward Sexton whom I strongly 
rcconin-iond foi- this position. He has excellent credentials in poli- 
tics, hits oi r.a ni'/.od politically, knows numerous black leaders and 
would be a'/aikilslc. l!is present activity at the RNC can be com- 
bined with tlie Field Operations role. 



8408 



These committees wovild be responsible for recruiting volunteers 
in their area, establishing an organization of workers througliout 
their area, implementing plans and programs and generally reach- 
ing the Black voters throughout the city. 

These committee members should be prime movers in their com- 
munities and would have direct responsibility for establishing credible 
local headquarters, reaching the voters through speakers, literature, 
polling and canvassing, telephoning and all the techniques of door to 
door and people to people campaigning. 

Al) of the above activities must be closely coordinated Vvfith other 
members of the Nixon Campaign team at the State, City and local 
levels. 

At the present time I see the need for twenty-three City Coordin- 
ators. This number could change as more up to date polling becomes 
available. The nuinbcr of committees depends upon the Black vote 
concentrations in each city. In some cities - like Hartford, Connect- 
icut - one would be sufficient. In a city like New York - perhaps we 
would need three or four. 

Suininary 

This jjlan does not forinally recommend the establishment of an 
organization below the city level. However, through the City Co- 
ordinators, the Black Leaders Committees and the regular Nixon 
organization, I visualize this being accomplished. If the City 
Coordinators select the right coinmittee members we should be 
able to reach voters at the lowest level of organization. 



SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 



Grants and Government Resources 

At the present time. Bob Brown and his staff are handling the grants 
activity. To date, they have identified all Blacks who are receiving, 
or have received, money froin tliis Administration. These recipients 
aj-e being utilized as a source of campaign contributions and volun- 
teers and as a vehicles for getting our appointees invited to various 
Black cvoUs as speakers and participants. They also form an cxccl- 
joil gro\ii5 of \isil)k: BJark.i. and they are beinL; used to reach the voters 
i n Un' ; J .1 ii .; .s iij' inJluonc c. 



8409 



The responsibility of the Field Operations Manager would be to 
develop and implement all programs and plans for field operations. 
He would travel to tlic key states and cities assisting in setting up 
the field organization in all areas. (See Tab C for list of key cities 
and states). He would work closely with the Field Coordinators and 
State Black Vote Chairmen to set up the organization below those 
levels. He would also assist in the recruitment and training of 
volunteers at all levels who would disseminate information, identify 
voters and get out the vote. Finally, he would be held accountable 
for the success or failure of the field operation. This man would 
report to Paul Jones on paper but really to Fred Malek. 

In order for Ed to function effectively it is imperative that Paul 
be completely informed as to his responsibilities relative to Ed. 
If Paul does not cooperate and allow Ed to produce, then the organ- 
ization will fail. I strongly recommend that Malek have a "heart 
to licart" with Paul. 

The Field Operations Manager should be hired no later than tlie 
end of June. 

Field Coordinators (2) 

The Field Operations Manager, in conjunction with Paul Jones and 
Fred Malek, should immediately select two Field Coordinators. 
These men should have had excellent political experience and be 
skilled at organizing and directing the activities of others. The 
Field Coordinators should be selected by the Field Operations 
Manager since he would know the kind of people needed. Ed Sexton 
could accomplish this task quickly bvit Fred Malek must approve 
them before they are hired. 

The Field Coordinators and the F'ield Operations Manager would each 
be responsible for certain key states and cities (sec Tab D). They 
would work directly with the Stale Black Vote Chairmen and the mem- 
bers of the K'ixon Campaign team in setting up the organization, 
recruiting and training of volunteers and impleinenting plans, pro- 
grams and projects. The Coordinators would be responsible to the 
I'^ield Ojjcrations Manager. They could also employ special consult- 
ants on an at; needed basis witli tlic Field Operations Manager's 
approval. 

Tliese men should be hired by the end of June and the Field Operations 

\i.ui^ ■"•r sl-iiiuld iiiake the .si-lc-ctions v.ith Fred M.ilck'.s approval. 



32-18 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 16 



8410 



state Black Vote Chairmen and Black Advisory Committees 

It is absolulcly essential that these positions be filled by the end 
of June. Their selection in each key state should be the first 
order of business for the Field Coordinators and the Field Opera- 
tions Manager. The Nixon State Campaign Managers should not be 
asked to do the recrviiting! This should be handled by the Black 
Vote Chairmen, the Field Operations Manager and the Field Coord- 
inators. They should, however, be cleared with the Managers and 
report to them on a day to day basis. All State Chairmen will be 
volunteers; however, some key states will have paid Executive 
Directors. 

State Black Vote Chairinen should be selected for the Southern 
States. These men will be volunteers and, by working closely with 
the Nixon Campaign Manager, could be prime movers in establish- 
ing a network of volunteers to blanket the South. We have a real 
opportunity to influence large numbers of southern Black voters 
but this will depend on how agressively we move at selecting chair- 
men and the quality of the selections. Again, the Field Operations 
Manager would be invaluable in this activity. 

■Finally, each State Black Vote Chairman should select an active 
cominittee of State Black leaders to assist him throughout the state. 
The meinbers should be highly visible and respected Black leaders 
and charged with the responsibility for reaching the Black voters. 
These committees are critically important only in the South as we 
have no plans, at present, to establish a formal organization below 
the State level. 

City Coordinators (23) and Black Leaders Cominittees 

Each key city should have a coordinator jointly selected by the State 
Black Vote Chairman, his Field Coordinator and tlie Nixon Campaign 
ChairiTian. He would be responsible for generally supervising all 
activities in his city by closely coordinating ■with the Nixon City 
Chairman. Each City Coordinator must, in conjunction with his 
superiors, select active committees of Black leaders to assist him 
in each major black area of his city. For example -- in Chicago, 
a committee could be established of leaders froin the Sovithside and 
one from tlie Westside. 



8411 



In addition to the above results, Botj and his staff are actively 
seeking out other projects that could be funded to the benefit 
of the campaign. They arc specifically looking for projects that 
will impact heavily on Blacks due to voter appeal and Black in- 
volvement. To date, they have been very successful. In this 
area, a local Black building contractor (Jack Crawford) has 
developed a program for identifying potential projects, getting 
them funded through Bob's office and, in return, obtaining a 
strong vote coinmitment for the President from the recipient. 
This plan is being actively pursued at present. Another specific 
project that is underway is the identification of all remaing grant 
and loan monies with a view to carefully allocating those funds 
to projects which will impact most heavily on black voters. 

Finally, Bob and his staff are working closely with Dan Kingsley 
to identify various advisory boards and commissions and job open- 
ings which can be filled by visible Blacks. 

Even with the accomplishments so far, inore work needs to be 
done in this area and plans are currently being drawn to more 
effectively develop and coordinate this activity. 

Speakers Bureau 

The Speakers Bureau is also handled in Bob Brown's office since 
Bob has direct contact and impact on the Black appointees. Each 
Black official provides Bob witli a 60-day schedule of his speaking 
engagements. These sclTcdulcs are analyzed, suggestions and 
additions made, and appropriate media coverage arranged through 
Stan Scott in Herb Klein's office and the appointees Public Affairs 
office. Stan has met with the various Pviblic Affairs officers to 
discuss the program in an effort to inaximize the results. 

A s in the grants program, more work is needed in this area. 
Therefore, a detailed action plan is being prepared, in conjunction 
with Stan Scott, to more effectively schedule our appointees, im- 
prove the media coverage and broaden the speaking invitations. 



CONCLUSION 



Coordination and cooperation between all levels of the Black 
organization and the regular Nixon team is essential to success. 
If coordination breaks down at any level between the Black 
organization, Bob Brown, Stan Scott and the regular Nixon 
organization then the effectiveness of the effort will be signifi- 
cantly reduced. In fact, the entire plan depends on it. 

Finally, this plan should be iinplemented by the end of June. 



8412 



TAB "A' 



COMMITTEE 



BEACK VOTE CHAIRMAN (1) 



FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER (1) 



CONSULTANTS 



FIELD COORDINATORS (3) 



[BLACK ADVISORY 
COXtAlITTEE 



STATE LiLACK ClLMPxMEN 



15LACK LEADERS 
COMIvHlTEES 



CrrY COORDINATORS (23) 



8413 



ED WIN' T. 'jy.xros, JU. 

lio-:.: Jm.'v 1/. 19?.3 

a-'.vci:l YvcLLc - 17 



TAB "li' 



Voni'ocr - SL. Paul A. \;. K. Cli'.ircii; V,' i c h i U , Kan:;a.>5 

Votornn - U. S. Avmy; W'oild V/?.r 11 (CAVJ -Siul Lt. ) 

!','cluc;' lion: ._ _ 

\'/ichita Public Schools 

Ci'ichialod - Ton>' \ranh.'\i-dt S'^eech School 

V'ichitn. l/uivci-ilty •- Business Adniinistrauion 

"o.vrnc i" i'^rp.nloy '"ncut: 

.'■.'f'itor :\rx\ PubliJ^hor of Ih.o 5' ,'i\'i5;hto no. r 

.^■'icld Konveseiilativo oT I'le P, c';)u'il ic;'. n ;\V'. '.ional Co)iiriiil,tcc's' 
Vl i n o !■ 1 1 1 (; s .Oi v i .■; io n 

P r c fi o 11 1 }■,' ni '">lo y ni.o u t : 



.S'';coiid Vice -P.vosiden.l of Soxton Clc?.i''-or i; r.'id Tailo'-iti^ Co:np£ip.y 
.Specia.l Cop.sul'-ant ap.d D.'.roc';or, .Special Groupc Aclivitios - >/itioril.ic£ 
l\c;>u':.>]'.ca!i \'.'',Monal Co'.T^ri'^iltcc 



I-"omi-:> V - Muniap. R clatiop.s: 

j;"oMP.dt:r ::nC. Ih.'ard Mc-inher of WichMa Urban Lcat^ue 

Moinbov of National At'\'i.';ory Urban I.ca'iae 

r.O'.rd 'Wirnbcr of riutco.e. .'T.oi'.' s 3\-p.yc.\\ Y..V.C.A. a.nd V/ont Central Arci". 

\'. a'. C. a. (five nlatoB) 
Nf'.ivib.- 1- - .V.ajof'f; S'.udy Coni'-ii's .'iior. or. Cify .\<a.]ia[;cr Fov:';i of Govoip.inont 
t'.fc-inb.'r •■ W'oi-ld Sc ivu:i.;s Cor.-'n :■ ! '.c;c Y. V.C.A. 
\<r'!n'ii-v ■• Vclcian. Aff.'.iri; Coip.ini ! Ico of Am-^c vica.n I\cd Cror.s 
Oepa.vUiiciiL Coiiu^iriuder - Arthur C"i0.s.soft Posl II 273 
Siair- K;a.i*.fr of A;t:Ki - fi'j'li- A.'Mor ica. n Lcr;ion 
.V'c i!0)c r - Sunf lov.or Hoy.'; S'.ufr- Dircc'-or, American Lofjion 
.V'ast.".- of Ancient Siiu'to /-odv'.c- I'" f- A\; 110 
Ciiai'-jiian-of !{.•:. •donl. Advif.ovy Co'.:ucil O. K. O. 
Cha.il !:ir>n and V iec-Ch,' i iitian W ic'iita Co'.i'imini i.y Action Govtvrninj! Hoard, O. 



■•1.^ 



8414 
Malek Exhibit No. 24 

June 26, 1972 
MSTMOruANOUW FOR: JOHN MITCHELL, 

FilO-M: FaSO MALEK 

i SUBJECT: Black Vote CampaJRa Plan 



As \\s have discussed, there have been ooo-ie problema In getting the Black 
vote campaign moving, ¥/fallo Paul Jones la hajidliag the public relaiiona 
anil programmatic aspects of his reaponsibility effectively, he lacks the 
political experience to rec/uU and dovelop an effective field operation, 
Thsr-sfoye. the Bl»ck Vote Division still does not have a field organization. 
Li addition, the Black team has not fully utilized the resourcea available to 
them through Government grant and loan programs. To correct these 
problema, I have developsed a three-part plan of action, which ia described 
beloT/, 

1. Support Jones With Aa Experienced F^Utical Origaa i zer. 

To cornpsasate for Jonas' lack of political e:<perience, I have arranged the 
adJition of Ed Sexton as Field Operations Manager. He v/lll report to Jones 
but v."ill take most of his direction from me. Ed has excellent credentials 
in politics, has organized politically, knows numerous Black leaders, and 
i3 immediately available. He ■will start this ■week with a first priority of 
finalizing the field plan. 

2, Establish A Field Organization Focused On Key Cities. 

Obcc Sexton Is on board, he can begin to balld the field organiration that v/e 
now lack. Onder hlsi, vie should have two Field Coordinators, responsible 
for ■working ■wiih the State Nixon organizations to establish effective Black 
organlzatioaa in key cities. The Field Coordinators and the Field Operations 
Manager would each be assigned responsibility for apociflc key states and 
cities. 

The first order of business for the now Black vote field team will be to vTork 
■with the Klxon State Chairmen to select State Black Vote Chairmen in those 
key stales ■where this has not been done. In some key states, full-time paid 
E^cecutive Directors should also be selected. 

The cities listed at Tab A will be the focus of the Black campaign. In each 
key city \ire will have a Coordinator who will be jointly selected by the State 
Black Vote Chairman, his Field Coordinator, the State Kfxon Chairman, and 



8415 



ths City Nl:-con Chairrr.aa. The City Coordiaalor v/oulJ bo responsible for 
f; c n re i.'f. 11/ suprrvlslag ail Black-rslated actlviiiea in his city, closely 
coorlinatinj v/ith tha Ciiy Nixon Chairman. Each Cicy Coordinator xvoa'.d, 
in conjuacfcioa with hla superiois, select active comrrjitteea of Black laadera 
to r.3si3t him In each nvAJor Black area of his cifcy. These corr.mitta<J3 
v?ai'.'-'i be r-aapoasibla for rscruiting vohintaers for the regular ls'i:«on orjani- 
E/itiDa in their area and for implementing programs designed to persuade 
Eiack voters throughout tha city to vot?> for tho President. 

Ji L"'-t o n 3 Lf y E f f o 'g ta T o Uti liae Goygrnmcat Cr a ats ^^d Loans. 

I f^;l chat our stroa;:sat selling point with Black voters is the economic 
nssistcinca thia Admintatration has provided to Blacks. To fully caplttilLze 
on this, wi have to do a bettor job of publicising the grants already giv?n, 
n-rii of iJcncifyLn-j n^w p.-oj-tct3 for v/hich we v/lll r-icclvs ma-ximum innpact. 

The mnjor porcion of chs respoasroility for this activity falls on ths 'Whita 
Ho-i3-j elds of the Dlp-ck team. Bob Bro-.vn and his staff have iJentiiicd all 
Blacks '.vho are rsceiviag, or have received, money from this Administra- 
tion, These recipicnta will be utilised as a source of campaign contributions L 
an] v-olunttera, and as a group of highly visible Blacks to be used to reach 
the Vetera in their areas of influence. 

r.ffjctivo allocation of n«w grants requires close coordination between the 
Whice House and the Campaign team. As a first step. I have asked Bob 
EroT-a to identify all major sources of grant and loan monies which could be 
allocac^'d to Blacks. Then, Jones and Sexton, working through their field 
or,canlaation, %5ill be responsible for finding recipients In key cities who 
v»'ill bo supportive of the rs-electlon effort. 

I beliove that by etrengthaning our field organisation and making better 
U3S of grants and loans, we can overcome the problems of the Black Vote 
Division, and make sonr^.e inroads on Black voters la November, I will 
keep you apprised of progress. 



Attachments 



8416 



PRIMARY STATES 
California 

Texas 

Illinois 
Ohio 

New Jersey 



"''; ni.ACK 
OF TOTA I- 
KEY CITIES VOTERS 



Houston 
Dallas 

Chicago 



Los Angeles 9. 5 

San Francisco/ 

Oaklajid 9. 2 



17.6 
13.9 



15.9 



Cleveland 


14. 


7 


Columbus 


10. 


6 


Cincinnati 


10. 


2 


Dayton 


10. 





N'ewark 


16. 


3 


Trenton 


13, 


8 



BI ACK \OT\:-\ 

AGE 
POPUJjN TION' 



438.325 

193,812 

215,071 
135, 281 

689,335 

195,639 
59,371 
83. 193 
53, 091 

198. 552 
26,939 



SECONDARY STATES 
New York 

Pennsylvania 

Maryland 
Michigan 
Connecticut 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

Missouri 



New York City 


14.4 


1, 127,703 


Buffalo 


6.9 


59,449 


Philadelphia 


16.0 


493,326 


Pittsburgh 


6.4 


100,981 


Baltimore 


21.2 


275,788 


Detroit 


16.9 


442,943 


Hartford 


4.8 


31,720 


New Haven 


6.2 


29,751 


Seattle 


2.6 


23,953 


Milwaukee 


6.1 


53,349 


St. Louis 


14.2 


211,830 


Kansas City 


12.7 


85,606 


(Kansas ft Missouri) 







8417 
Malek Exhibit No. 24-A 

ComiTiifi.TO for \\\c Re-election or tiie PresidKnf 
OPANDUM September 7, 1972 

^'J■■^!OrU'x^;DUl•I FOR: MR. FRED l-I/JIiC^ 

i/OM: PAUL R. JOKES/ . 

S'JEJECT: V/esk.ly Activity Report 

I 1.'\J0R ACCOMPLI Sin [EOT S 

Ilet aiid conferred with Washington Area Minority Contractors Association 
\;ho requested our support in securing Secretary Peter Peterson (Commerce 
Department) to address their convention (Sept. 22 - Uash., D.C.); arrange ■ 
forum for thein to support the President. 

Submitted revised surrogate list and schedule for Black Vote Division. 
Set up briefing session for all major surrogates — sent advance speakers 
material. 

Met with Cit.ir-ens Voting Blocs Division to coordinate efforts of Black 
special interests groups and to provide additional names for service on 
their various committees. 

Met V7ith field staff to solve problems. 

Rocornmendations made to the \7hite House for prominent Black educators to 
serve on various national educational advisory boards/comnissicns. 

Attended VHiite House OMBE -iseeting to clarify, statub of minority-oriented 
proposals that have been submitted by active supporters. 

Staff was interviewd by Arkansas Gazette , Life magazine, and Black oriented 
press and radio . 

Planned and held reception for Jim Broim who publicly endorsed the Presi- 
dent; and radio. Mr. Brovm v/as introduced to key Black persons on staff. 
Black Appointees and Washington area supporters. 

Shipped back orders of promotional materials. 

MAJOR ACTIVITIES PL^VNNED FOR THE COMING WEEK 

Announcing special interests groups/cotrjnittees and public endorsements. 

National Association of Black Athletes (265 members) are being worked 
with Co publicly endorsed tho President — who have interest in Sickle 
Cell Anemia. 

Arranj*,cd for hospitality suite in Kcw York during the Whitney Yoiin,^ 
Mcuiori.il (Gra-bling and Horg.in Game) to continue efforts in gaining 
support by Black opinion-naking. 

Meet v'iLh Black surrogates for briefing and travel scheduling. 

Staff meeting v;ith field operations on organization. 

Finalize volunteer program and participation in Canvas Kick-Off . 

TRAVEL 

(See attached) . 



8418 

Malek Exhibit No. 25 

committee for the re-election of the president 

/.EMORANDUM May 11, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. FRED ,MA 




FROM: PAUL R. JONE 

SUBJECT : Weekly Activity Report 

Senator Brooke has been requested to be featured speaker at the June 10th 
dinner. Awaiting reply to request. Invitations have been mailed out 
to 9,000 persons for dinner — to soon to estimate response. Coordinated 
with Angle Miller to have Black and White Nixonette participation at the 
kick-off dinner on June 10th. 

Interviewed by Joe Irvin of the Los Angeles Times and Julius Duscha 
of the New York Times regarding Black Vote Division activities. 

Attended Philadelphia briefing of key Black leaders. 

Addressed the National Association of Minority Certified Public 
Accounting Firms at their NAMCPAF's First Annual Meeting. 

' Coordinating and developing with Bob Brown s office a strategy for a / 
' 30 million dollar negotiation for the Dept. of Labor. ^_^ 

TRAVEL PLANS 

Occasion: Address key Black leaders who will serve on citizens committees 

Destination: Philadelphia 

Date: May 16, 1972 12 Noon 

MAJOR ACTIVITY FOR COMING WEEK 

Continue follow-through on dinner activity. 

Contact state chairmen and Black state chairmen regarding selection and 
proposed activity for their particular state. 

Implement plans to hold meeting of National Association of Black Manu- 
facturers Board Members. (Brief and discuss role in campaign). 
Continue follow through support to Mrs. Helen Evans, State Central 
and Executive Committee (Ohio); Jack Gibbs (Mich.); and Debbie 
Gingell (N.C.). 



8419 



Malek Exhibit No. 26 

;OiV,MITT(^E FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 

April 18, 1972 



CO.N'l'IDE.VTIAL 
>fEMORAKDU>[ FOR: 
FROM: 
SUBJECT: 



MR. FRED MALEK 

PAUL R. JONES 

Meeting with James Farmer 



In the Brown-Jones meeting with James Farmer, the follow- 
ing points of interest were discussed: 

1. Farmer's willingness to work in support of the 
President. (It was agreed he might better 
serve at this time by maintaining a "non- 
partisan posture.) Jim expects to build on 
the attitude coming out of Gary. 

2. His speaking engagements (he is to send a 
list of his engagements) . We will seek to 
arrange media interviews in connection with his 
key appearances. 

3. Farmer's interest in funding for his think tank 
proposal. He's seeking $200,000 seed money from 
HEW. (This should be moved on but should allow 
for a final Erotim-Jones check-off in order to 
re-inforce Farmer's involvement. Additionally, 
there is some need that the think tank initially 
focus on key issues of interest to Black voters. 



CONFIDENTIAL 



MZiVlORANDUM 



>tEMO?^JDi;M yox: 



8420 
Malek Exhibit No. 27 

Commi'tee for the Re-eiection of the President 
July 14, 1972 



MR. FRED MALEIC 



PAUL R. JONE^ 




SUBJECT: 



Weekly Activity Report 



>'AJOR accomplisk>!i:nts 

Conferred with Ohio Republican / Democrat representatives in a preliminary meeting 

prior to visit to Ohio for organizational purposes. 

>'et with head of CocEiitee for the Re-election of the President attorneys citizens 
group and local Blacr: attorneys (Ed Sexton also) and developed approach to be taken I 
at the upcoaing Katicnal Black Ear Association's Convention to secure Black attorney | 
for service on Black citizens cosaittees and on overall attorneys groups. ' 

Met vjith Executive Director of the Black Manufacturers Association on forthconing 
role in carapaigii and received their list of concerns. 

Visited by recently forced Rew Jarssy Black Republican delegation and spent con- 
siderable time discussing the role they vill play in the Kixon state operation. 

Contacted by Dr. J. K. Jackson, Presidi=nt, National Baptist Convention, and received 
stronger indications he i's beccning increasinglj' interested in receiving official 
recognition as v;ell as invitation to ?lay active rola in support of re-electing the 
Presicant. (Again, suggest you provide assistance in getting Presidential invite 
for Dr. Jackson). 

Hi Id iiL-.-.criiori rietin,; with Executive Director of Kational ^Tewspaper Publishers 
Associ;:Cion and received det.-'.iled briefing on political leaning of each, neciber 



Corresponded with all present Black State Chairr:ea. 

Received indications of interest fron Black Danocrats attending Kational Convention 
in Mian-.i Beach — wanting to support re-election of the Presidant. 

Tr.ru V.nite House contacts initiated nev; efforts to assist Charles VJallace, Presidant: 
V'nliaca & i.'allace Fuel Oils, in overconiing present constraints to expand b.is businasi 
This '.-.as, for the tiTne being, allowed us to assist a staunch Kixon supporter. 

« 
ilo^tid a delegation of 20 Black studar.ts (16-lS years old) frof. Green County Alabarsai< 
"w;-.o are piirticipating in the E>:perir-.antal School Program sponsored by HEW. Invited 
Ru-alection Con-jaittee's Youth Division to address the group. Distributed Black can- 
p2ign inforir.ation to each and hald a langthy briefing. Also arranged a tour of 
tl:e i-r.-.ite iiouse vjith Black V.'hite House intern. (Original contact case througU -•£-"•>. 
'.'hero we !;ave inside contact). 



8421 



I'ii nesting with various State Cbairmen established speciEic approaches for Black 
Stace orgaaization campaign plaa. 

Visited by Ed Gannon, SpeciaL Assistant to Charles Walker (Treasury Dapartnent). 
As.ilsted hitn in developnent o£ speech by V.'alker for the Black Bankers neati;-'.<» in 
Atlanta. In return x^as briefed on Administratioa's Black Sank Deposit ProScan. 

V.'eeks of negotiations with Tony McDonald and Stan Scotc concluded with agreercant 
to bring Calhoun onboard. It is, at last, a difficult, strained arrangenisnt. 



Concerned over the lack of budget for Black State/City operations is now Eore 
pronounced since the past weeks round of State conferences. 

The growing decaad for field visits to key areas intensifies our need to finalize 
field operations and field staff. We have good alternate candidates in air.d, 
organizational plans, which are now delinquent, are' not operable. All that is 
needed is your approval. 

KAjoRAcriViTies ?iJ^:b:zo 

timi developr-i3uc of specific action steps v.'ith targat dates are planned to iniple- 
r:int: 

1. Fomralattcn of special groups 

2. Mailings 

3. Surrogates prograa 

A. Dinners and recaptions in key cities 

5. Finalize Convention plans 

6. Meet with Mr. Malek 

7. Black volunteers. 



?>?..'..p3i>'-iif.-;; to Austin, Te---:as request of ^larci Snrl, staTf v-vr^on for S.ir\?.tor 
Toi.'ars to iiddress luncheon ceeting laadi-rsnip con.'erence (:;ee attached). 

Traveling to Detroit, Mich, to neet with key Black leaders thru request of 
Hichi<;an State Chairca;; durln° the State Riatings held iiero. 



8422 



■-r^ Please answer the following:- ^ r*:^..:. -'-■■• ^.•^''" -' •;-.''-^^^ ;"';•; 

' ":' 1) Do you support the President in his efforts to bring the 
:-.'". minority into the econo.-nic main stream? ...; 

'^-i-^'-'j'"- ^AA"-'/" -;;'-:^"Vl/': V ':•—-•• ^- Yes . ' No ' ' 

' ■■• 2) Will you get out and help the President be re-elected go 

V- ■*^ that he can continue this program? --'' . j . -- . .'. 

>- r-H- ;■ J •■ \ ^:V ^>; - .-V "-/■;; <V'/-:---'r-- ■ Yes . ' Ho ' 



3) ' Do you believe that the 8-A Program has done all it can to 
■ • help you? - - '. '. :• ■-. " ,- . .; . ' .. - :'• ." ^ " . ...■''. .". 
"--■" ■ ■' ' ■ ' ,--■/;- ""-I. -v;-^- ;--:---^:v... Yes - ■ *No " - . /-. ": ;- 

This questionnaire is .designed solely to poll the opinion of "• • ;- 
one of the most dynamic programs that was ever instituted to helpy' 
minorities. We wish to know your feelings on it. Your answers ^-.' 
will not affect your status on. the 8-A Program. _; y- ;r --'J; ..'.■.•"----• 

We obtained your name and address from public 'records. ,-;-;•".:':, .-'/,;'.r; 

Through businessmen such as ourselves, - this is the only way we will: 
ever be able to get our people out of the'ghetto. ; This is why it.'.,-i 
is important to me to know how all of you feel and how we can ira-- 
prove the program;:-.v_\.;v ;.:-._ '^\-:^.'-?^~'^.^''^.^'.-- ,^i: :- ., - ;- -.;c'^ "•:-:=/::_•:;■ 

We must keep any administration in pov;er that is dedicated to this 
program. '.;;-"Vy ■ ^-y.: '--J -■:,■/ - -. ._ - .'..'. ■ 



ivALLACE C WALLACE FUEL OIL CO., INC. 



'if your ansv?er is "ivo",; please let me knov/ so-th; 
attempt to solve your problem. . _■ 



8423 
Malek Exhibit No. 28 

Wallace ano Wallace 

f'uel KJU \J0. ^nC. commercial and ResldenUal 

205 28 MURDOCK AVENUE 
. HOLLIS. NEW YORK 11412 

212-464-3737 
464-3335 

u,^,^^ p tr- ' September 12, 19 72 

Sentlemen: v ..'"_ 

(o\x have, or soon will have, an 8-A Contract. The 8-A Program 

LS the most dynamic program that has ever been instituted for 

ninorities. It is essential that this program continue to grow 
i?ithout delay. - 

^hen the present administration took over in 1968, there were 
iight qualified contractors in this program, and seven contracts 
iwarded which totaled $10,493,524. Four years later, under the 
;ame administration, there ' is a- total of 1582 qualified contoact- 
)rs under the 8-A Program which totals $147,087,028. This program 
LS trying to reach a goal of over a billion dollars for its minor- 
ity citizens. 

C believe that you can understand the significance of such a pro- 
jram with the government spending trillions of dollars in contracts 
md other forms, and very little has been directed to the minority 
:itizen. Under the present administration, this has changed. 

[ have personal assurance from the President of the United States 
rsee attached letter) that he is behind this program, which he has 
>hown through his deeds and actions. 

[ cannot tell you how important it is that we go out into the field 
md try to get the President re-elected. It is too late for minori- 
:ies to take a chance on another administration at this crucial 
joint who may or may not be dedicated to our cause to bring minori- 
:ies into the economic main stream. We will never get out of the 
ihetto until we have st'rong minority businessmen in our community. 
fhe white community stays out of the ghetto through its businessmen. 



8424 



It is essential that we do not concern ourselves this year with 
problems such as busing and other minute problems. If we are 
economically strong, then eighty-five percent of our problems 
will disappear. 

I believe beyond a doubt that we should support the present ad- 
ministration one hundred percent. 



Very truly yours, 

WALLACE & WALLACE FUEL 
OIL CO. , INC. 




CW:bc 
Enclosures 



Charles Wallace 
President 



8425 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 



September 14, 1971 



Dear Mr. Wallace: 

Your letter of September 1 has come to my attention, 
and I want to assure you of my strong interest in the 
8 -A Program. While there have doubtless been some 
growing pains as this program expanded, it is good to 
know you share my belief that the 8 -A concept offers 
a unique and very desirable opportunity for minority 
enterprises - indeed, sonne 500 firms have taken ad- 
vantage of the program in the past fiscal year alone. 

I have asked my staff to look into your specific 
suggestions about making the program even more 
effective, especially in the area of appointments in 
the Small BuBiness Administration where responsibil- 
ity for the day-to-day administration lies. Your 
comments about the 8 -A program are highly valued, 
for it is our hope the program can continue to be an 
important means to bring minority businessmen into 
the mainstream of economic competition and, vdtimately, 
to build a firm structure of economic opportunity for 
all minority peoples. 



With my best wishes, 



Sincerely, 




Mr. Charles Wallace 

President 

Wallace & Wallace Fuel Oil Company, Inc. 

205-28 Murdock Avenue 

HolHs, New York 11412 



8426 



please answer the following: . 

1) Do you support the President in his efforts to bring the 
minority into the economic main stream? 

; ' --■ •; Yes No 



2) Will you get out and help the President be re-elected so 
that he can continue this program? i 

\ . ■. . . . 
Yes__^ No_J . 

3) Do you believe that the 8-A Program has done all it can to 
help you? 

; , /, .-/ . Yes *No 

This questionnaire is designed solely to poll the opinion of 

one of the most dynamic programs that was ever instituted to help 

minorities. We wish to know your feelings on it. Your answers - 

will not affect your status on the 8-A Program. 

We obtained your name and address from public records. 

Through businessmen such as ourselves, this is the only way we will 
ever be able to get our people out of the ghetto. This is why it 
is important to me to know how all of you feel and how we can im- 
prove the progrcun. • 

We must keep any administration in power that is dedicated to this 
program. 



WALLACE & WALLACE FUEL OIL CO., INC. 



*If your answer is "No", please let me know sol that we can 
attempt to solve your problem. 



8427 
Malek Exhibit No. 29 

memorandum ^^'i^^t^'^s^ ^- 

THE WHITE HOUSi: 

WASHINGTON 

June 30, 1972 

MEMORANDUM FOR: CHARLES W. COLSON 

SUBJECT: Weekly Staff Report 



^! 



►-v^ 



1. Jp:ie ice is finally broken on Williams' job at AoA. They accepted 
ja. job description which was written by Williams and myself, which, 
^-^mong other things, gives Williams the right to review all AoA 

grants and contracts, to serve as a liaison between the Connmissioner 
and all Federal Departnnents, voluntary agencies, /non-profit sponsers, 
to undertake Confidential assignments on behalf of the Commissioner 
and to work with non-government organizations. In addition, Williams 
has been given GS 15, Step 10. Rob Davison, of Malek' s staff, did a 
good job in helping gain this result. Apparently, even Mastrangelo 
even went to bat for us. We still must watch to make sure the second 
position, which was agreed tQ is filled. 

^^2. The HUD aging brochure has been finalized and is at GPO. This 
'3'brochure quotes the President extensively, includes pictures, and 
\]^P-^art work. HUD agreed to pay $25, 000 for its printing and $13, 000 
iJr^^ for its mailing. 



^,- 



C/^ 



DoA, OEO, ACTION, DoL, VA, and DoT, are all putting together 
their final galley proofs, which will be sent to GPO next week. As 
usual, I am having troubre^HEW- -AoA to conne up with a decent 
C~C C brochure. However, they have agreed to spend the money for print- 

\ f^ ing and distribution once we get something worth sending out. In 

addition, it appears we will get them to send out a rhetorical bro- 
■V / chure as well. FYI--Des Barkefsand John Carlson's efforts have been 
^ helpful, although time consuming regarding this project. You may 
want to give them well-done for their efforts in helping to get thcjse out. 

4. The print-up of the Project FIND brochure is included as Tab A. 
As usual, HEW--SSA have managed to deennphasize the President's 
quote and his involvement with this project. Still, since this message 
is going to 27 Million older persons, it is quite an achievement, and 
will be a good PR initiative on behalf of the President. , 



^k\ vonn^<r-C -^ {S^uw-:^ ^^v.ciSX^-1-^ 



(.A-V- 



8428 



Weekly Staff Repo rt Kji^ 



ti^ 



^O^' 

oiyAlso concerning Project FIND, I have just arranged for USDA. to ^-^ 

y' print up 120, 000 --17 1/2 x 22 posters which will be posted i\ all (S^^*''^ 

Q. Post Offices, Community Action Agencies, SSA offices, elderly 
\y housing projects, and Red Cross offices. This poster will featCtr.e 

.^ the Presidential seal and a quote by the President which will stand 

out as a result of its differing color. 



\ 



6. The final approval from DoL of the $1 Million grant to the new 
aging organization has come in. Regarding this organization, please 
see Tab B, which concerns free office space.^.^, Aa\L ^•AJijA ^-loSLcLi^J^ 

7. It appears that HEW has agreed to produce 60 copies of the \ U 
Richardson, Flemming, Rocha TV program tap^eing. This will then 

be distributed simultaneously to the top TV stations in all of our key 
states. It is a very political show which stresses time and time again 



^ 



J5^ A, the fantastic things the President has done for older people, which is 
5 why the need for simultaneous distrib-ation. This should be shown in 

late July or early August. In any event, it will be shown before the 
President is nominated. 

8. As mentioned earlier, I am in the process of putting together a 

speech kit. Unfortunately, upon adding Flemming and Van Rensselaer 

to the list of critics, the whole thing has had to be rewritten. My 

main problem here is getting speecii inserts written about each of 

^ major Presidential initiative areas. I will ask Rhatican to see if he 

7^ can get someone in Price's shop to do this now that you and Dick have 

1 Z?'^'^ apparently come to some sort of agreement with Price. 

CX 9. 1 am working with Harper to see if we cannot give the older voter 
a section in the platform, 1 will^lnot know where this stands until the 
end of next ■week. 



y 



10. I am working with Marumoto and Davison, of Malek's shop, to do 
t/lhenn a favor in funding a proposal for Spanish Speaking elderly. It 
appears that I will be able to get $100, 000 out of OEO for their purposes; 
and, needless to say, they are quite pleased. 



J 



11. Baird, of the Educational Research Council of America, has been 
'told by HEW that he will receive a $50, 000 planning grant. He met with 

them today, but 1 do not know the results of their meeting. 

12. 1 broke lot;^ grants to sLx counties in Illinois as a favor to Percy. 
These cai-ne from AoA. Dick Williams was instrumental in helping 
break them loose- -our first ^-.ay-off in getting him in AoA. Is there any 



\/ 



rv^' 



8429 



^ Wteekly Staff Report 

way we can get Percy to repay us, or any other Senator of Percy's 
ilk, for such favors? I got OUie Atkins to take a picture of Ronnney, 
Richardson, Blatchford, and K«nsey (President of NCVA) for some 
publicity for an aging agreennent they entered into. This will be 
released next week. 




13. I am having constant trouble with Parker's office concerning 
schedule proposals. First, he continually goes to Vicki Keller for 
proposals and, as you know, it has been agreed that proposals should 
be routed through your staff. Malek is on board concerning this one, 
Keller agrees, and from a management point of view, it does not make 
1 V^ss'^se having two people funneling things on the sanne subject into 

'T^\^ ^ cv j„ Parker's office. It would be helpful if you would get Parker to work 
^ /A ^ with me on this. Some of the problem may stem from that busing 

f^/r proposal when you and I got disjointed. Second, additional problems 

may have stemmed from Dick Howard and I not communicating regard- 
ing who should address the AARPs when they toured the White House. 
It would be helpful if you would make sure that Dick would inform me 
of any agreements he comes to with Parker so that I don't move out in 
any direction which gets Parker upset. 

14 & 15. The situation with Rocha is now under control and he will be paid 
by DoT and his travel expenses will also be paid by thena. It does not 
look good for making him a Special Assistaj^ but they will let us call 
him a Consultant to Volpe, which is helpful. "^An article and picture of 
\/~~- Julie's RSVP Philadelphia Project visit will be distributed to allACTION 
v> mailing list recepients, included in the ACTION publications, the NCVA 

publications, sent to the NCVA mailing list and was sent to all of the 
weeklies in key states. 

t'16. The mailing of the Volpe speech finally went out this week. 

17. I met with Malek concerning the new aging organization, and he 
was very impressed and very cooperative in getting his guys to move 
out in assuring us funding at our foe's expense. However, after hav- 
ing chatted with Todd, he raised cries of alarm that such an organi- 
\ zation would hurt us politically because we would cut funds to Demo- 
t^ ■ cratic groups, thereby leading k i atUng them to criticize us. As you 
( li~^ are well aware, groups like NCSC are going to criticize us anyway. 
^-p Unfortunitely, while I told Todd about the organization in confidence, 

^ he iinincdiately told Flcmming, who was particularly upset and called 

Malek. Malek seems to understand the value of the organization, and 

is still working with us, but I have had to do some shoring operations 

with Flemming. I don't think this requires any action on your part 

bul you should be aware of it. i / ., n ^ r-.. \ J \_ \ / 

V^O/^ pAoO:^ ^\^iSr'\ h^^CK..<sL/ 



^y 




8430 

Weekly Staff Report 

18. A mailing went out on Fr. Rocha's visit to a new long-term 
health facility for the elderly. 

19. Frank Troy will be brought on board on July 5 to act as Flem- 
ming's scheduling --advanceman from nov/ until the election. 
Flemjning is still not completely on board on (his one, but did agree 
to Troy's hiring. Malek has been very helpful in getting HEW to 
pick up the tab. 



Evans, Jr. 









8431 



Project FIND 



"To overcome the barriers which keep 
older Americans from JuU participation in 
food assistance programs, we are launching 
this year a major outreach campaign 
called Project FIND." 

— President's Special Message on Aging 
March 23. 1972 



The Social Security Administration is 
cooperating with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture in this Government-wide 
campaign. This leaflet, from the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, is part of the effort to 
locate older persons who are eligible for 
food assistance. 



A message about foo<I 
This leaflet has nothing to do with your 
Medicare protection, but thf :',"formation 
in it could mean a great deal to you or to 
someone you know. 

The leaflet tells about two Government 
programs that help people who don't always 
have enough money for food. In one 
program, people can buy food stamps worth 
more than the money they pay for them. In 
the other, surplus foods are given free to 
people in need. 

Just about every county in the United 
States now has one or the other of these 
food programs, but many older people who 
are eligible have not applied. The Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, which has the Federal 
responsibility for these programs, has asked 
us to send this leaflet as one way to help get 
the word out. 

Although you may not need help 
yourself, you may know people who do. It 
could mean a great deal to them if you 
would tell them about food assistance or 
pass along this leaflet, which describes how 
the food programs work. 



/■ / 



8432 



Food staitip program 

Most of the cities and counties in the 
United States provide food assistance to 
people through the Food Stamp Program. 
The program helps people living on small 
incomes to buy more and better food. 
They can get food stamps each month, 
paying less than the stamps are worth or, 
if they have very little money, they can get 
the stamps free. When they buy food at 
the grocery store, they pay with the 
stamps. 

Most supermarkets and grocery stores 
will take food stamps. People can buy a 
variety of foods with food stamps, 
including foods needed for special diets. 
In some parts of the country, non-profit 
organizations^deliyer meals to people who 
can't prepare their own food. Where these 
programs arc available, people over 60 
who are unable to prepare their own 
meals can use food stamps to pay for 
home-delivered meals. 

Whether a person is eligible for food 
stamps depends on how much his monthly 
income is and how much he has in savings 
or other assets. 

A person living alone can't get food 
stamps if he has assets of $1,500 or more. 
The $1,500 limit also applies to families, 
regardless of size, unless one or more of 
the family members is 60 or older. In that 
case, the family may have assets of up 
to $3,000. A home, life insurance policies, 
and personal property don't count as 
assets. 



The amount of income an individual or 
family can have and still get food stamps 
depends on the number of people in the 
household. A person living alone can be 
eligible if his monthly income is $178 or 
less. A couple can be eligible if their 
monthly income is under $233. 

The value of the food stamps a house- 
hold can get each month depends on how 
many people are in the family. The 
amount a family pays for stamps depends 
on their income, figured on a sliding 
scale. 

For example, a person living alone 
with a monthly income under $20 would 
pay nothing for food stamps worth $36 at 
the grocery store. If his income was $95, 
he would pay $16 for $36 worth of 
stamps. 

A couple with an income under $20 a 
month would get free stamps worth $64. 
If their income was $1 15, the couple 
would pay $26 for $64 worth of stamps. 

Here's a table that shows how the food 
stamp program works: 



Monthly For food 

income You stamps 

below pay worth 



One person $178 0-$26 $36 
Two people $233 0-$44 $64 
Three people $307 0-$74$92 

People with income above these limits 
may also be eligible for food stamps if 
they have unusual expenses such as big 
medical or hospital bills or high rent 
payments. 



8433 

June 30, 1972 

MEMORANDUM FOR: CHARLES W. COLSON 

SUBJECT: Office Space for New Organization 



I am told that the Cafritz Corporation would give us free office space 
if we can assure them that it is tax deductible. Apparently, they have 
had trouble getting a ruling from Treasury stating that they could 
deduct such donated property as a Charitable contribution. Do you 
know who in Treasury we could get such a ruling froin? 



L. J. Evans, Jr. 



A TRUE COPY 



8434 
Malek Exhibit No. 30 

AFFIDAVIT 



This day before the undersigned Notary Public in 
and for the District of Columbia, personally appeared 
Frank C. Herringer, who, being by me first duly sworn 
according to law, did on his oath depose and say as 
follows : 

I joined the White House personnel office staff 
in October 1971, reporting to Dan Kingsley, Vi?ho in turn 
reported to Fred Malek. In late 1971 and early 1972, a 
project called "Responsiveness" — to keep Presidential 
appointees informed of campaign strategies and priorities 
during the election year — was developed by Malek 's 
office. I learned of this project in January or February 
1972, when, along with other members of the Malek/Kingsley 
staff, I participated in some discussions regarding the 
form that this effort might take. 

Originally, I was told that I might personally 
participate in the project, but I did not, because 
shortly before it was to begin (April or May of 1972) my 
responsibilities changed, and I became Malek' s assistant. 
I have little knowledge of the project from that point on, 
with the exception of two incidents that I recall, which 
are described below. 

The project began with a series of meetings with 
Cabinet Officers. Out of curiosity regarding the 
direction of the project, and a desire to meet Secretary 
Richardson, I accompanied Malek to a meeting at HEW in 
May or June, 1972. 



8435 

I recall that Malek showed Secretary Richardson 
and his aides some maps of the U.S. on which "key states" 
were colored, and also maps of the key states in which 
"key counties" were indicated. It was suggested that 
Departmental activities, such as speeches, should 
concentrate on these areas to the extent possible and 
appropriate. I thought the discussion vague, and quite 
inconsequential. I recall feeling that the project was 
a waste of time. 



Shortly after the meetingswith the Cabinet Officers 
had been held, Malek became Deputy Director of the 
Committee to Re-elect the President (July 1972) , and many 
of his White House duties, including the Responsiveness 
project, were turned over to Kingsley. 

Sometime later (probably during September 1972) , a 
carbon or Xerox copy of a "progress report" on the 
Responsiveness project, from Kingsley to Haldeman, crossed 
my desk on its way to Malek. I do not recall any 
specifics of the report, but I believe it was similar to 
an earlier "progress report" which was shown to me 
recently and which is in the Committee's possession. I 
scanned the report, or part of it, briefly and I recall 
that I was generally disturbed by the descriptions in the 
report of some of the individual actions that supposedly 
had occurred in the Responsiveness project. While I did 
not believe that anything inappropriate had actually 
occurred, I felt that the exaggerated tone of the report 
(as is equally true in the earlier report) could cause 



8436 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



someone not familiar with the general staff practice of 
exaggerated writing to think that inappropriate activities 
were being carried on. 

I sent the copy of the Progress Report along to 
Malek, with a suggestion that he recommend to Haldeman 
that the project (or at least the reports) be discontinued, 
and possibly with a suggested draft memorandum for Malek 
to send to Haldeman, if he agreed. 

A fev; days later, Kingsley's secretary collected from 
my secretary materials in Malek 's and my files relating to 
the early stages of the development of the "Responsiveness" 
project. As far as I can recall, that was the last I ever 
heard of the project. 




Taken, subscribed and sworn to by Frank C. Herringer 
before me in the District of Columbia, this c^6 day of 
November, 1973. 



Witness my hand and Notarial Seal. 



I J s^ 



CX^^ 



Notary Public 
District of Columbia 



My Notarial Commission expires / K^j^i Z/Zi/l^^l 



TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1974 

U.S. Sexate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :45 a.m., in room 
G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 
Present : Senator Inouye. 

Also present: James Hamilton, assistant chief counsel; Gordon 
Freedman, staff assistant. 

Senator Inouye. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole tiuth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Evans. I do. 

Senator Inotjye. Would you state your name and address for the 
record ? 

TESTIMONY OF L. J. EVANS, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY ANTHONY 
LAPHAM, COUNSEL 

Mr. Evans. L. J. Evans, Jr., Warrenton, Va. 

Senator Inouye Is that all you need me for ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Evans, for the record, would you state your attorney's name ? 

Mr. Evans. Anthony Lapham. 

]Mr. Hamilton. And what is your present position in the Govern- 
ment? 

Mr. Evans. Presently I am a Deputy Assistant Director of the Office 
of Policy and Planning for ACTION. 

Mr. Hamilton. How long have you been in that position ? 

Mr. Evans. Oh, approximately 1 month. 

Mr. Hamilton And where were you before that ? 

Mr Evans. I was also in ACTION and I was an assistant general 
counsel. 

Mr. Hamilton, When did you assume that position ? 

Mr. Evans. About July, I think it was July 3, 1973. 

Mr. Hamilton. Before July 1973, where were you ? 

Mr, Evans. I was in the U.S. Marine Corps from January 6, 1973, 
through May 30, 1973. 

Mr, Hamilton. And before January 6 ? 

Mr. Evans. I was in the White House. 

Mr. Hamilton. As ? 

Mr. Evans. As a staff assistant to the President, and that timeframe 
was some place like July or August of 1971 through December of 1972. 

Mr. Hamilton. And before you came to the Wliite House, where 
were you? 

(8437) 



8438 

Mr. Evans. I was at the Department of Transportation. T don't know 
what it was called, but some lep'al title. I don't know. Not assistant 
fl^eneral counsel, but something along the lines of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. WTiile at the White House from — you said July of 
1971 until January of 197^^ — is that correct? 

Mr. Evans. January of 197-2, I mean, December of 1972. 

Mr. ITamii/pon. December of 1972. "\^^lile at the White House what 
were your duties ? 

Mr. Evans. Primarilv they related to senior citizens in terms of 
being their advocate within tlie White House and being liaison with 
all outside organizations that dealt with senior citizens in terms of 
trying to impact upon potential legislation that affected the elderly. 
Those were generallv the duties. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who was your immediate supervisor? 

Mr. Evans. Originally it was Geor.fre Bell. He died sometime in 1972 
and not too long before he died my immediate supervisor changed to 
Chuck Colson. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know when you started reporting to Colson ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't know the exact date. As I say, it was probably 
sometime before late spring of 1972. 

]\Ir. Hamilton. Why did your reporting chain of command change 
to Colson? 

Mr. Evans. Well, a couple of things. First, ]\fr. Bell had cancer 
and he could do less and less. Originally he headed up Mr. Colson's 
staff as far as senior citizens' needs were concerned and he T)hased out 
of that as he got sicker and he also picked up additional responsi- 
bilities in the small business and the labor field. And as he picked up 
more of those and he spent less time in the office because he was sick, 
then he threw more to me in the senior citizen area. 

Mr. Hamilton. So you were reporting to Mr. Bell and Mr. Bell 
was reporting to INIr. Colson ? 

INIr. Evans. Right. 

Mr. Hamilton. And after INIr. Bell left, you started reporting di- 
rectly to Mr. Colson. Did you have any reporting relationships to 
Fred Malek? 

Ml-. Evans. No; I talked with Mr. Malek at times, but T didn't 
rei)oi-t to him. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have any contemporaneous knowledge — 
and when I say "contempoi-aneous," I mean in 1972 or late 1971 — 
any contemporaneous knowledge concerning what is now known as the 
Responsiveness Program? 

Mr. Evans. No. First of all you would have to define what the 
Responsiveness Program is. The fii-st I ever heard of it was when 
Tony mentioned it to me the other day. So T don't know exactly what 
you inean by the Responsiveness Program today. So maybe if you 
define it? 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I think the best definition that T can give 
from the evidence and the testimony that we have received is that the 
Responsiveness Program was a program to make the depai-tments and 
agencies of Government responsi\o to the President's reelection needs, 
in othei- words, to make the departments and agencies think and act 
in political terms. 



8439 

Mr. Evans. OK. I guess that my answer would be, first, I didn't 
know that there was such an overall program, and second, that is not 
to say that I didn't, as I dealt with various organizations, attempt 
to gain their favorable consideration, whatever, for whatever the 
administration Avas doing. So it wasn't linked to anybody telling me 
that there was an overall program to do that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask the question this way. "WHiat projects 
did you work with Mr. INIalek on or with members of Mr. Malek's 
staff*? 

Mr. Evans. Well, we worked on a few things together in that we — 
I worked with Dan Todd, who I assume would be considered on his 
staff at that point in time, to attempt to get out the word as far as 
what the Government was doing on behalf of senior citizens. I worked 
with him as far as communicating with the elderly in terms of, they 
would do studies as far as what States were considered the most 
important and would let us know or would let me know, you know, 
which of the States they hoped we could get the most impact on as 
far as getting speakers. Now, that is another area in terms of they 
had that Speakers' Bureau, and when I could get a speaker to go 
out or if I could help get a speaker to go out and it would fit into 
their overall schedule, we tried to match the two schedules together. 

I don't know, Jim, I'm sure there were other things, but that is 
pretty much the parameters. 

Mr, Hamilton. Are you familiar with an organization called The 
Federation of Experienced Americans? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Hamilton. And are you aware that this organization has a 
contract from the Department of Labor ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; I was aware that they were given one. 

Mr. Hamilton. And were you aware that it was also given a grant 
from the Office of Economic Opportunity? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know of any other governmental grants or 
contracts that this operation acquired? 

Mr. Evans. No; I don't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if they received any type of grant 
or contract from AOA? 

Mr. Evans. I don't think so. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hamilton. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Back on the record. 

Do you know if they received, if this organization received any 
contract or grant from HEW ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't think so. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if any attempt was made to get a 
grant or contract from the Administration on Aging ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Hamilton. An attempt was made ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; I think it dealt with a communications plan, and 
the idea — and I don't think — in fact, I know it didn't go ver-y far — and 
the idea though was to attempt to get out the word to older people on 
what Government benefits were available to them. Thei-e was some- 
thing like — well, at the time there was slightly over $50 billion worth 



8440 

of programs tlie Federal Government was running on behalf of older 
people, and we found that a number of eldej-ly did not take advantage 
of those programs, and the thought was that if you could find some 
way to get the Avord out to them, more people would be able to utilize 
benefits which were available to them. 

Ml-. IlA:\rir/rox. So, a proposal was put to AOA to furtlu'r this goal. 
Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. E\ANs. I don't even know that it got into the proposal stage. I 
don't know what stage it got into. I don't know all of the details on it. 
I know that somehow there was a dialog, you know, that this was a 
possible thing that might be worthwhile to do. I don't know if that was 
in terms of a rough proposal, if it was in terms of memorandums, I 
don't remember the exact form of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me go back to the Department of Labor grant, 
I wonder if you would tell us what you know about this grant, how 
the — I am sorry, this was a contract, a Department of Labor contract. 
T wonder if you would tell us what you know about this contract, the 
process leading to its award, your partici])ation in this process? 

Mr. p]vANS. OK, that is pretty broad. I guess originally the Presi- 
dent at the White House Conference on Aging, which T think was 
November of 1971, pledged that he was going to either double or triple 
the funding of what was called Operation Mainstream, Operation 
Mainstream is that area of the DOL manpower programs which helps 
the elderly workers that are 55 and older. 

Then, sometime after that speech, Malcolm Lovell got in touch with 
me and said, "We got something like $15 billion worth of additional 
moneys and we don't know how we are going to spend them — ^ — 

Mr. Laptiam. Is that million or billion ? 

Mr. Evans. Did I say billion? I meant million. "Do you know of 
organizations which can do this job, which can help spend the money ?" 

I said, "Certainly, there were a number of them." They sent me a 
listing of the organizations which were presently doing that kind of 
work. Some of those were willing to accept additional moneys ; some 
were not. We worked across a spectrum of elderly organizations. 

And then I said, "There is a possibility of a new organization being 
formed which I had in mind, the Federation of Experienced Amer- 
icans, wdiich may be able to do this." 

And he said, "Fine, let us know." 

So then through a number of 

Mr. Hamilton. Can I interrupt a second ? How did you know there 
was a new organization being formed ? 

Mr. Evans. Because I had talked with people about getting a new 
organization formed for a number of reasons. For one, because it was 
my feeling that there was a need for fresh blood, new blood, vigorous 
blood that could come up with some new ideas and new approaches 
to help the old people ; and second, I thought there was a need to get 
into some of the minority ethnic areas, to help their elderly, which 
was not being done; and third, I felt that there was a need to better 
communicate to older people w^hat was available, that is, what we 
talked about before. 

So as a result I had talked with various aging leaders and said, 
"What do you think of the idea?" And a number of them i-esponded 
favorably. And through their efforts, and I helped coordinate their 



8441 

efforts, we pooled together a number of people and they ended up 
forming this organization called the Federation of Experienced 
Americans. So that was how I knew. 

Anyway, o\er the long run through a number of meetings and so on, 
eventually DOL issued that $1 million contract to the Federation of 
Experienced Americans. 

]\[r. PlAaiiLTON. You say, "A series of meetings." Are these meetings 
that you participated in ? 

Mr. Evans. I participated in a small number, and I don't remember 
the exact number. I think it boils down to two or three, but I don't 
know the exact number. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you issue any directive from the White House 
as to how any of this expansion money should be spent? 

Mr. Evans. There was no directive. It was very much a give and 
take. As I say, there was a need in INIalcolm Lovell's mind anyway, 
and the DOL to find a way to expand the additional $15 million worth 
of moneys before the end of the fiscal year. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe it was $13 million. 

Mr. Evans. $18 million ? OK. 

Mr. Hamilton. So, is it your testimony that you didn't direct that 
at least the $1 million of this money be given to FEA? 

Mr. Evans. No ; it was not— if you are saying, did I order them to 
spend $1 million for FEA, it wasn't that; no. It is my testimony that 
I didn't sa}', you have to spend $1 million. It is very different from that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you try to get the Department of Labor to cut 
back on its funding for the National Council on Aging and the Na- 
tional Council of Senior Citizens ? 

Mr. Evans. OK, now you get into a problem when you say "cut 
back." 

Mr. Hamilton. Or terminate. Cut back or terminate. 

Mr. Evans. Well then, the answer to that is, if cut back is analogous 
to terminate,, no. What I did try to do was to decrease their propor- 
tional increase in that funding. In other words, each of those organiza- 
tions received additional funding from that $15 million, from the 
original $13 million that they had, and certainly in getting more money 
to go to organizations which were not hostile, we attempted to cut 
back their proportionate share, 

Mr. Hamilton. "\^Tien you say "hostile" what do you mean ? Hostile 
to whom? 

Mr. Evans. Well, to the administration in terms of — let's talk about 
the National Council on Senior Citizens, for example. They were 
originally formed as Senior Citizens for Kennedy-Johnson in 1960. 
They later converted over to the National Council of Senior Citizens, 
funded largely by the AFL-CIO. 

They held a number of antiadministration political rallies. Their 
publications were continuously hostile. Certainly part of the overhead, 
which was supporting the staff to do that kind of work, was coming 
out of grants such as this. So that certainly led us to desire to cut 
their proportionate increase. 

Mr. Hamilton. But it is your testimony that, even though you 
wanted to cut their proportional increase, you didn't try to have them 
terminated? 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - IE 



8442 

Mr. Evans. No; as the facts indicate. 

Mr. Hamilton. What facts? 

Mr. Evans. The fact that they all got an increase. They weren't 
shut off from the additional amount of money. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your understanding that they got the increase 
that was internally recommended by the Labor Department? 

Mr. Evans. I don't know that. 

Mr. Lapham. Which organization does that question refer to? 

Mr. Hamilton. Both of them ; the National Council on Aging and 
the National Council of Senior Citizens. 

Mr. Evans. I don't know that one way or the other, Jim, because I 
wasn't privy to that information. 

Mr. Lapiiam. Internal, as used in that question, would refer to the 
Department of Labor? 

INIr. Hamilton. Well, to staff recommendations within the Depart- 
ment of Labor. 

I mean, I believe it was Mr. Evans' testimony that these organiza- 
tions got a proportional increase, and my question was, does he know 
whether they got the proportional increase that was recommended 
by staffers within the Department of Labor? 

Mr. Lapham. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton. And your answer? 

Mr. Evans. And my answer is I don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. As to this Labor Department contract, would you 
say that you were actively involved in attempting to get this award 
for FEA? Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. Evans. The fair statement, I think, is that in response to an 
inquiry by a fairly high Department of Labor official, T attempted 
to increase the amount of money going to groups that were not hostile 
to the administration amongst which was the Federation of Experi- 
enced Americans. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you communicate with Mr. Malek on this 
project? 

Mr. Evans. I think he knew at some point along the line, but 
certainly was not involved in the — ^T don't think he really knew the 
flow of the bids or anything. So I may have talked with him once or 
twice, but not often. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you take any other action on this grant, on 
this contract, besides talking with the Department of Labor? For 
example, did you attempt to get any type of a tax ruling as to the 
charitable status of this organization, any type of ruling as to whether 
contributions to them would be tax deductible ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't think we — no, there is no ruling. The only thing 
that I did was that a Mr. George Webster was recommended to me as 
someone who could do the papers and the articles of incorporation 
and could go to the IRS with all of the forms for getting a tax- 
exempt status, which he did, free of charge. But that is the only 
thing that was done with the IRS. 

Mr, Hamilton. Who is George Webster ? 

Mr. Evans. He is a lawver in Washington. He's a:ot a law firm in 
Washington. 



8443 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you contact anybody in the Treasury Depart- 
ment as to whether property donated to FEA— office space— could be 
considered a charitable deduction ? 

Mr. Evans. God, I don't know, Jim. I don't remember that, but I 
do remember that someone was going to donate office space. And I 
don't — and I thought that I probably would have talked witli George 
Webster about that, but I don't know if there was any contact with 
the Treasury Department or not. I don't think there was, but I can't 
be absolutely sure on that one. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask you some questions about the OEO 
grant. What do you know about that particular grant and what was 
your role in getting FEA funded by OEO ? 

Mr. Evans. OK. I guess what happened was on that, that I know 
of, because I talked with Mr. Binda and Mr. Phillips, the three of us 
talked about the fact that Senator Church had written about doing 
something to help the Spanish-speaking elderly. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is that Mr. Howard Phillips ? 

Mr. Evans. Right. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what was his position ? 

Mr. Evans. At the time, I don't know whether — I think his posi- 
tion was still — I guess, deputy assistant director or assistant director 
or something along those lines. I don't even remember exactly what 
his title was, but I think that was before he became director, Jim. I 
am not sure of the exact time sequence. 

Mr. Hamilton. What is Mr. Binda's full name ? 

Mr. Evans. Jeffrey Binda. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what was his position ? 

Mr. Evans. He was the head of Senior Citizens aftei- — well, I 
don't know the exact job, but his job was to head up all senior citizens 
programs. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you talk to anybody else over there ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, eventually we talked — I think I talked to a couple 
of people, but I don't remember the specific names. I know that — 
well, I am not sure whether I talked to, I think it is Mr. Ray Bachelor. 
I may have talked with him. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who is he ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't even know what his title is. I can't be absolutely 
sure on who all we did, but mostly I didn't talk very much with any- 
body else, and mostly I talked' with Mr. Binda— to some extent 
Mr. Phillips. 

Mr. Hamilton. Go ahead. 

Mr, Evans. But in any event, there had been a problem, which sev- 
eral people had raised, with NCOA contract at OEO, in terms of a 
publication they put out under it, which was funded by Government 
money, which took a very hostile position again towai-d the adminis- 
tration, which I got several inquiries from various White House staff 
on why that was being funded. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who were the inquiries from ? 

Mr. Evans. From Jeff Sheppard and Des Barker. 

So in looking into that I talked with both Binda and Pliillips. Phil- 
lips' response was that the NCOA contract had been a sole source con- 



8444 

tract and that next time it was definitely going to be open to some kind 
of bidding. 

Well then, I guess at some point along there, Mr. Binda was assigned 
to work with the FEA in terms of coming up with a proposal for 
Spanish-speaking elderly, which they did, and eventually that was 
funded. All the specific steps in there T am not aware of. 

Mr. Hamilton. What other participation did you have in the 
process ? 

Mr. Evans. T really didn't have much other than talking with the 
two of them. And as T say, I may have talked Avith one or two other 
people on limited occasions, but that is about it. 

]\Tr. Hamilton. Did you direct OEO to fund the FEA proposal ? 

Mr. Evans. No, again it wasn't a direction. It was a give-and-take 
as we talked it out between the various people. 

You couldn't direct a department or an agency to fund something. 
It just didn't work that way. You know, if you said you had to do this, 
the response was, "Baloney, we don't have to do anything." 

Mr. Ha]\iilton. Did you instruct OEO to limit the contract exten- 
sion with NCOA and upon completion of the contract to award — to 
grant the contract that they had to FEA ? 

Mr. Evans. Again, that was a give-and-take. T certainly said — you 
know — in my opinion that would be desirable. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Is it your testimony that you didn't give any 
instruction ? 

Mr. Evans. Well again, you know, I guess — how do you interpret, 
"Yeah, I think that is a good way to go ?" 

But it wasn't. "You have to do it that way." Because the response 
to that, as I said before, would be, "No we don't." 

Mr. Hamilton. Between the time that FEA first made the contact 
with OEO and the time the grant was actually awarded, did you make 
frequent telephonic contacts with OEO to check on the progress of the 
grant ? 

]\Ir. Evans. First of all, I guess you would have to define what "fre- 
quent" means. I would say that from time to time I talked with Jeff 
Binda and to a much lesser extent to anybody else. 

Mr. IlAivnLTON. Anybody else being whom ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, being Phillips or possibly Bachelor once or twice, 
you know. 

INIr. Hamilton. Who was Phillips' executive assistant? Was that 
Bachelor? 

]\fr. Evans. I don't think so. I — but I don't know, you know, one of 
the things I am not sure of is, the exact sequence of timing of this. I 
am not sure exactly what Mr. Phillips' position was. I mean, I don't 
know who he had as an assistant. You know, later on, he ended up 
getting a guy by the name of McKay or McCabe, but I don't think 
McKay was there at the time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have any contact with ISfr. Eitreim ? 

Mr. Evans. That name is familiar. Now whether I ever talked with 
him — I knew of him through Mr. Binda, but whether I ever talked 
with him, T am not sure. It was certainly limited. 

Mr. liAPiTAM. Do you know who he is ? 

Mr. Evans. Just as I say, I know the name because Mr. Binda men- 



8445 

tionod — used to mention it. He dealt with the eldeily stutl' in ()I{;0. T 
assiune he worked for Mr. Binda. 

jNIr. HA^rii/rox. What was Mr. Colson's role in the I)()L and OP'O 
matteis ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I don't think he had any role in C)EO. In DOL he 
may have — and I don't even know that he had — this is the case. He may 
liave called someone in DOL at one point in time. That is abont all. 

i\[|-. IlAJtii/roN. AVhom wonid he have called ? 

Mr. Evans, (lod, it conld have been any luunber of a nnmber of 
people. It conld have been Silberman, it could have been Lowell, and 
I ^iiess it could ha\'e even been the Secretary. 1 just don't know. 

I don't remember if he did, much less whom. 

]Mr. IlA^ni/roN. Were you awai-e that in the fall of 1972, FEA was 
prepai'ing radio spots featurinnj Ikirl Ives advertising certain adminis- 
tration j)rograms? 

Mr. P2vANs. I was aware that he was preparing or that they were 
pi-eparing radio spots; yes. I am not sure that that is what they did. 
And I would say again they talked in terms of overall elderl}- pro- 
grams. 

]\[r. Ha]mtltox. Was that being done undei- the auspices of the 
Department of Labor contract? 

Mr. Evans. No ; it is my understanding it was done out of a pi-ivatc 
contribution that they had received. 

Mr, Hamilton. Private contribution from whom ? 

Mr. Evans. Someone from the 3-M Corp., whose name I don't re- 
member. But they goth $5,000. They got a $5,000 donation. 

Mr. Hamilton." To do that ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, they got a $5,000 contribution. I don't know if it 
was specifically to do that. 

]Mr. Hamilton. So Department of Labor money was not used for 
that? 

Mr, Evans. That is my understanding. I didn't get involved in the 
day-to-day operation of the organization, but it is my understanding 
that they relied on the contribution that they received. 

Mr, Hamilton. Well, did you ever receive copies of those spots and 
recordings or transcripts of them ? 

Mr. Evans. I did. I received the final tape which, you know, if you 
like, I have no problem with making it available to you. It would 
probably drive you nuts because it is Burl Ives singing Mountain 
Dew, It is not one of the most exciting songs in the world. 

But in any event, they are interesting tapes, and you might want 
to listen to them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I am going to ask you to produce documents 
and records that 3'ou have in relationship to the things we have talked 
about and, in fact, in a day or so, I am probably going to serve you 
a subpena for this material. So I don't 

Mr, Evans. You don't have to give me a subpena. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I may do it just because it is the way we do it. 

Is it your understanding that these tapes were politically oriented'^ 

Mr. Evans. Xo; they are not. If you will listen to it, I don't think 
you will get that impression. The only thing you can say toward the 
political side of it is, that any word that gets out that is positive about 



8446 

what is bein^ done on behalf of older people obviously creates a favor- 
able impression that something is being done on behalf of people who 
are going to vote. So if you want to take that kind of logic, then you 
can say, "Yes, they are political." But they were certainly much less 
political than most of what was being done by the other organizations 
in terms of their own communications 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know what the distribution of those tapes 
was? 

INfr. Evans. No ; other than I know they were sent to a number of 
radio stations across the country. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know how it was decided what stations they 
were sent to ? 

Mr. Evans. I think the onlv thing I know about that — and this goes 
back to what I said about Todd — was that Todd sent over a list of 
priority States and I think that they were confined to those priority 
States, some number of them. I don't know what the number was. 
I don't know, you know 

Mr. Hamilton. So the FEA spots were sent to priority political 
States? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. So then, it is fair to say that the spots did have 
a political purpose? 

Mr. Evans. It is fair to say that, as I went through the step-by-step 
logic before, that any time you get something positive out that 
showed that something is being done on behalf of elderly people, it 
creates a favorable impression, which favors the administration that 
is in power. 

Mr. Hamilton. But the point that I was trying to make, the point of 
my question was, whether or not because the spots were sent to priority 
political States, they were used with a political purpose in mind by 
FEA? 

Mr. Evans. Well I don't know if I would go that far, Jim. I guess, 
you know, you can draw your own conclusions. 

Mr. Hamilton. I was asking for yours. 

Mr. Evans. My conclusion is that there was good that could be done, 
no matter which States they went to. They had a limited number of 
resources so they went to those particular States. 

Mr. Hamilton. And is it your understanding that the Department 
of Labor money was not used for this project ; it was 3-M money ? 

Mr. Evans. That is my understanding ; yes. 

Mr, Hamilton. I want to show you some documents. The first docu- 
ment T am going to show you is a document dated June 80, 1972.^ It 
is a memorandum for Charles W. Colson. The subject is "Weekly Staff 
Report." And it has L. J. Evans on the back page with Bud written 
over it. 

Mr. Evans. Signed by my secretary. 

Mr. Hamilton. Signed by your secretary? Are you familiar with 
this document? 

Mr. Evans. Well, it looks like a weekly report, and I assume it is. 

Mr. Hamilton. Ts the handwriting on the side Mr. Colson's? 



1 Sfp Malek exhibit No, 20. p. S427. 



8447 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

[Discussion off the, record.] 

Mr. Lapham. Are you going to ask him some questions about the 
contents of that ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Lapiiam. I wonder if I might have a copy of it, and if I could 
look at it ? 

[Discussion off' the record.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Back on the record. 

Now, I would like to focus your attention on item 6. It is on the 
second page. And item 6 says, "The final approval from DOL of the 
$1 million grant to the new aging organization has come in. Regard- 
ing this organization, please see tab B which concerns free office 
space." 

Now I will read you tab B,^ because you don't have it. It is not 
on the copy that we brought in here. But tab B was a memorandum 
from 3'ou to Mr. Colson, and it said this : 

I am told that the Cafritz Corporation would give us free ofBce space if we 
can assure them that it is tax deductible. Apparently they have had trouble 
getting a ruling from Treasury stating that they could deduct such donated 
property as a charitable contribution. Do you know who in Treasury we could 
get a ruling from? 

Do you remember writing a memorandum of this type to Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes ; I think that sounds like — I think this fits in with 
what I said earlier, in that he wrote in here, "Check with Webster" 
and I assume that is what I probably did. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you contact anybody in Treasury about it? 

Mr. Evans. Well, again I don't remember having done that, but 
you know, I can't say, "Absolutely never talked to anybody in the 
Treasury" kind of thing, but it looks to me like what I did was what 
I originally remembered, was talk to Webster. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now focusing on item 17, and I am going to read 
this into the record: 

I met with Malek concerning the new aging organization and he was very 
impressed and very cooperative in getting his guys to move out in assuring us 
funding at our foe's expense. However, after having chatted with Todd, he 
raised cries of alarm that such an organization would hurt us politically because 
we would cut funds to Democratic groups, thereby leaving them to criticize us. 
As you are well aware, groups like NCSC are going to criticize us anyway. 
Unfortunately while I told Todd about the organization in confidence, he immedi- 
ately told Flemming, who was particularly upset and called Malek. Malek seems 
to understand the value of the organization and is still working with us, but 
I have had to do some shoring operations with Flemming. I don't think this 
requires any action on your part, but you should be aware of it. 

I take it that the note at the bottom that says, "Keep Malek on 
board" is from Colson. Is that correct? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask you a question that I asked a little bit 
earlier and that is, what was Malek doing regarding the funding of 
FEA? 

Mr. Evans. To my knowledge he wasn't doing anything. You know, 
about all he was doing was saying, "Great." 

' See p. 84.'?.^. 



8448 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, this paragraph says that Malek was coopera- 
tive in getting his guys to move out and assuring "funding at our 
foes' expense." 

Mr. Evans. Well I don't even know what that means in retrospect, 
because I don't remember him really doing anything for us. I don't 
know. I just, you know, I can't give you an answer to that because I 
don't know. 

]\Ir. Hamilton. "Which foe are you talking about here? 

Mr. Evans. Well, in looking back at it, I don't know if I am talk- 
ing about a specific foe or if I am talking about organizations that 
were antiadministration in general, you know, that is — as I say, it 
looks to me like all I did was quickly dictate it and my secretary signed 
it, so I probably didn't even read it, you know, take stuff like that, you 
know, and then to get it into specifics. So I just don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, is it fair to say that you were working on 
limiting the funding to groups like NCSC because they were speak- 
ing out against the administration? 

Mr. Evans. Limiting, certainly, to the extent of trying to keep them 
from getting additional funding. 

Mr. Hamilton. Even if programmatically they were good 
organizations ? 

Mr. Evans. AVell this comes down to, if you have two organizations 
that are capable of doing the same work, and you have discretionary 
funds, are you going to, you know, and you have a choice on which one 
you are going to fund, someone who is out to make the administration 
look bad or someone who is out without that purpose, even if it is just 
a neutral purpose of not to do anything political, you take the non- 
political one obviously. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you think FEA came up to the standards of 
NCSC and to the other group, the National Council on Aging, the 
NCOA? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I think then you get into degrees, and I don't 
know how you answer that one. The question is whether they were 
qualified to do the work, and I think that they were qualified to do 
the work ; yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. What is your opinion as to why Todd was upset ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't know. One of the possibilities was that Flem- 
ming was the roommate of Cruikshank, who headed up the National 
Council of Senior Citizens. Todd worked for Flemming and Flem- 
ming was very upset and probably told Todd that he should be upset 
because this might impact negatively on Flemming's old roommate. 
You know, what is going on in Todd's mind I can't tell you. 

Mr. Hamilton. You don't know if Todd was upset with the caliber 
of the people who were running FEA ? 

Mr. Evans. I have no idea about that. We didn't talk about it. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was your connection with the people who 
founded and were running FEA ? Did you have some prior connection 
with them ? 

Mr. Evans. I didn't have prior connections with any of them with 
the exception of Dr. Baker, who is on the board of directors, who had 
started a nursing home and had been very interested in the elderly 
area. So I knew him. 



8449 

Mr. Hamilton. He was the only one that you knew ? 
Off the record for a minute. 
[Discussion off the record.] 
Mr. Hamilton. Back on the record. 

You said that you felt that FEA was a qualified organization. Arc 
you aware of the GAO investigation regarding 

Mr. Evans. I am aware of an investigation. I haven't seen the report. 

Mr. Hamilton. I am not sure that the report is public yet. I don't 
think we need to go into all their findings, but I think I should state 
for the record that GAO finds, both in programmatic and financial 
respects, that FEA was deficient and both DOL and OEO have now 
notified FEA that it would not be in the best interest of the Govern- 
ment to refund the present programs of FEA. 

Mr. Lapham. I wonder if that 

Mr. Hamilton. This is not a public document. 

Mr. Lapham. Would it be a public document by the time the tran- 
script of this session is made public ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't know. My information is that its publication 
is imminent, but I don't know when it will be published. 

Mr. Lapham. I wonder if it does become — if that document does 
go into the public domain, whether it might be made an exhibit to this 
executive session so its contents can speak for themselves? We haven't 
had an opportunity to review it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I think that is fair, and I am going to refer to 
it later on, so I think that is fair. 

I have another memorandum here, and I only have one copy of this, 
so we are going to have to share this, but this is a memorandum dated 
August 31, 1972 from you to Rob Davison, and it says : "Burn before 
reading; eyes only." 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 1.*] 

And I would like for you to look at it and, when you are finished 
looking at it, give it back to me for questions. First of all, who is 
Rob Davison ? 

Mr. Evans. He was a member of the personnel staff, I think, work- 
ing with Malek. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why would you be sending this memorandum to 
him? 

Mr. Evans. I think he was responsible for liaison with HEW out 
of Malek's shop. 

Mr. Hamilton. You didn't send this memorandum in his connection 
with personnel ? 

Mr. Evans. I assume that he had additional liaison duties with 
HEW. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did this have something to do with his role in 
Malek's shop, in making the departments and agencies more respon- 
sive to the President's reelection needs ? 

Mr. Evans. That is what this would indicate ; yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did you send this memorandum to him to get 
him to act in that regard ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes ; the idea was to motivate him. 

* See p. 8487. 



8450 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know what Mr. Davison did in response 
to this memorandum ? 

Mr, Evans. No; I don't know the specifics of it, but the proposal 
never went any place, so I assume that not much was done. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you familiar with a brochure entitled, "The 
President Cares," a campaign brochure ? I think I have a copy of that. 

Mr. Evans. Well, I think that was one that was done by the re- 
election committee. 

Mr. Lapham. What is the title of that again ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe it is "The President Cares." 

Mr. Evans. Well, I knew of it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you request that the campaign committee send 
copies of this brochure to FEA so FEA could distribute it? 

Mr. Evans. No; we talked about that. Todd and I talked about it 
and decided not to. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me show you another memorandum here, to you 
from Dan Todd, and the subject is, "1701 Brochures," and the date 
is August 18, 1972. Does this memorandum reflect your conversation ? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 2.^] 

Mr. Evans. That may reflect it, but we never sent those brochures 
to FEA and I don't think they ever got to me either. And in fact, 
which makes me think what happened was Todd thought we ought to 
use the FEA to distribute them and I thought that probably would 
not be a good idea in light of their nonpolitical status. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, Mr. Todd's statement to the committee staff 
was that you requested that the brochures be forwarded to FEA for 
distribution and that Todd forbade such activity. Now does that differ 
from your 

Mr. Evans. I think that is different from mine, but that doesn't 
surprise me that he would say that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why doesn't it surprise you? 

Mr. Evans. Well, because Todd and I never saw eye to eye and we 
certainly were not very close. So that kind of snip wouldn't sur- 
prise me. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to read you some pages from this 
GAO report that I have referred to and t think I should identify it 
for the record better than I have previously. 

This is a report to the Special Committee on Aging and Subcom- 
mittee on Aging, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. 
Senate, concerning an award of a contract and a grant to the Federa- 
tion of Experienced Americans, Inc., and related financial and pro- 
gram activities. The report is by the Comptroller General of the 
United States and the date of the report is May 14, 1974. 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 3.^] 

I would like to read to you page 13 of this report : 

The former Assistant Secretary 

Which is Mr. Lovell. 

advised us that the White House took an active role in directing the Labor 
Department as to how the expansion moneys were to be spent. The White House 



1 hee 1). 84S8. 
« See p. 8489. 



8451 

staff member involved was identified as L. J. Evans, Jr. According to the former 
Assistant Secretary, the White House wanted $13 million in expansion moneys 
to go to organizations considered friendly to the administration. I^abor's initial 
allocation plan did not satisfy this requirement and, according to the former 
Assisitaut Secretary. Mr. Evans and the former executive a.ssistant — 

And this is to the Assistant Secretary and it is Mr. Brad Reardon. 

worked out a compromise plan which called for awarding a $1 million contract 
to an organization to be selected by the White House. This occurred in February 
1972. 

Now does that passage comport with your recollection of what 
transpired? 

INIr. Evans. No; not at all. There was a positive effort made on the 
part of Mr. Lovell to determine how to spend that additional $13 mil- 
lion and there was a concern that it would not be expendable within 
that fiscal year and the effort was made in terms of getting a number of 
organizations additional money and FEA was just one of a large pic- 
ture which would include considerable increase for the National 
Retired Teachers Association and some others. So, no, that doesn't. 

Mr. Lapham. There was a good deal of material in that if it was a 
paragraph that you read. I wonder if it might assist Mr. Evans in 
responding to that question more fully if he could see that ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Lapiiam. If he could have that material in front of him to read ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes ; I think so. This is the paragraph I read there 
[indicating] . 

Mr. Evans. OK, there are a couple of things in that — first, on the 
directing, there was no way in the world that you could direct — that 
I certainly couldn't as staff assistant — direct Malcolm Lovell to obli- 
gate funds on behalf of organizations I told him to obligate them to. 
That was a fact of life. 

The second part, the part hero "The compromise plan was sup- 
posedly awarding a $1 million contract to an organization selected by 
the White House," in actual fact Reardon asked me if I didn't know 
of some organizations that could take more than $1 million. So there 
is a definite conflict in terms of that. 

They were searching for ways to allocate that additional funding 
and the object was not in them limiting to $1 million, it was just the 
other way around. 

Mr. Hamilton. So there was no compromise plan as this report 
states ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I guess, yes; there was a compromise plan. The 
compromise plan was that, as far as I was concerned, no new orga- 
nizations should get more than $1 million just starting off. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, actually FEA got more than $1 million. Did 
you know that ? 

Mr. Evans. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Hamilton. FEA got $li/2 million. 

Mr. Evans. As a matter of fact I did not know that. I thought they 
got $1 million even. That is the first time I heard that. 

Mr. Hamilton. $1,540,000 for services from 1972 to Januarv 31 of 
1974 

Mr. Lapham. Is that just the DOL contract? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 



8452 

Mr. Evans. They must have gotten a 6-month extension then. 
Mr. Hamilton. Well, they might have. I don't know. 
This GAO report continues on page 13: 

The former Executive Assistant told us the White House wanted Labor to 
cut back and/or terminate funding for two of the Oi)eration Mainstream national 
contractors — the National Council on Aging and the National Council of Senior 
Citizens. 

Now does that statement comport with your recollection of your 
discussions with Mr. Reardon? 

Mr. Evans. It corresponds, as T said earlier, we wanted a propor- 
tional decrease in their increase in funding. If you follow that, an 
additional $13 million on top of tho original $13 million. In working 
with that additional $13 million, it was hoped that their increase in 
funding would be of a lesser proportion than their original $13 million 
of funding. 

And I am not even sure how that finally worked out and whether 
that is the case but we certainly talked in terms of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is your testimony that you didn't ask Labor 
to cut back on the funding they now have? 

Mr. Evans. Now, not at all. 

Mr, Hamilton. Or to terminate their funding? 

Mr. Evans. Definitely not. 

Mr. Hamilton. So your testimony is contrary to the testimony that 
is reported here of Mr. Reardon? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I think as I road that it said "and/or" and as I 
read that "and/or" that doesn't say that I asked them to terminate. 
That says, that to his recollection, I either asked him to cut back what 
they were going to get in terms of an increase or to terminate. And he 
is not sure which. 

So I am not sure this is a conflict. 

Mr. Lapiiam. In fact, that sentence you just read doesn't refer 
specifically to Mr. Evans, does it? 

Mr. Hamilton. It says : "The former executive assistant." 

Mr. Lapiiam. But by that you thought that was a reference to 
Reardon ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I am sorry, it says : "The former executive assistant 
told us the "White House wanted Labor to cut back." 

Mr. Lapham. So it doesn't refer specifically to Mr. Evans? 

Mr. Hamilton. No, but the paragraph above it says: "The White 
House staff member involved was identified as L. J. Evans, Jr." I will 
be happy to let vou read those two paragraphs. 

Mr. Lapiiam. Looking now at the second full paragraph on that 
page ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, 

Mr. Evans. Well, as T read that, that may be a conflict if he doesn't 
mean in terms of cutting back on an increase, 

Mr, Hamilton. The sentence following the sentence that I just read 
states : "He stated that Labor — " and here the "he" refers to Reardon 
again. 

He stated that r>abor had no intention of reducing or terminating fimding 
with tliese grouT>s, primarily because an evaluation report hnd stated that the 
nationally run contracts were the best segment of the Operation Mainstream 
program in terms of accomplishments and meeting of program objectives. 



8453 

Were you aware at that time tliat the National Council on Aging 
and the National Coui\cil of Senior CitizeUvS had such high ratings 
regarding tlieir performance with Labor? 

•Mr. Evans. As a matter of fact my impression was that it was just 
the opposite; that tliey had placed on a permanent basis — of which 
the purpose of Operation Mainstream is — tliey had placed on a perma- 
nent basis a much lower percentage, of people after the contract expired 
than had other national contractors such as the National Retired 
Teachers Association. I believe we may — I believe you will find in 
the documents that we gave you a report from DOL to that effect, that 
they gave to me. 

ISIr. Lapham. Were you familiar, Mr. Evans, if I could interject a 
question 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Lapiiam [continuing]. With the evaluation report? 

Mr. Evans. No, I am not familiar with the specific evaluation report 
but I am familiar witli materials that they gave to me which showed 
that the National Council on Aging and the National Council of 
Senior Citizens had the worst placement rate of any of the national 
contractors under that Operation Mainstream program. 

Mr. Hamilton. If you would supply those? 

]\Ir. Evans. Sure. 

Mr. Hamilton. The GAO report has a section on White House 
involvement and there is a sentence on page 18 that reads as follows : 

Mr. Evans said his only preaward involvement concerning the Labor Depart- 
ment contract consisted of putting certain potential contractors, including FEA, 
in contact with appropriate Department oflScials. 

Now does that statement, one, comport with your recollection aa 
to this DOL contract and, two, comport with your recollection as to 
what you told the OAO? 

Mr. Lapham. Do you want to see that sentence before you respond 
to the question? 

Mr. Evans. This one here? [Pause.] No, one, that doesn't correspond 
to what I remember saying, because I remember saying that I talked 
with DOL officials regarding the overall Operation Mainstream con- 
tractor situation or granting situation. 

That is very tightly construed. 

Second of all, well, you better give me the second part of the 
question. 

Mr. Hamilton. Does it comport with your recollection as to what 
you told GAO's investigators? 

Mr. Evans. OK, that is the part of it I just answered. What was 
the other? 

Mr. Hamilton. Does it comport with your recollection of your 
involvement in the DOL contract award? 

Mr. Evans. Not the way it is phrased there. As I just stated, it 
doesn't. 

Mr, Hamilton. I am not going to read this into the record but on 
pages 18 and 19 of the GAO report there is a section entitled "Labor 
Contract" and I am going to ask Mr. Evans to read the section, which 
consists of five paragraphs and to comment as to whether the state- 
ments contained herein comport with his recollection of his involve- 
ment in the DOL contract award starting right here [indicating]. 



8454 

Mr. Evans. Yes, right here [indicating]. This conflicts with what 
you just asked me. 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't believe that is clear for the record. 

If something conflicts in there I wish you would read the offending] 
sentence and tell me how it conflicts. 

Mr. Evans. Yes, just a minute. [Pause.] Well, OK. First, I would 
ask if I said I first learned of FEA's contract through a direct con- 
gressional inquiry, how can it later say that I was contacted by FEA 
to discuss the proposed contract and whether they could obtain part 
of the expansion funds. You know, those two are obviously 
inconsistent. 

Mr. Lapham. Wait a minute. I am not sure there is a question 
pending. Is there? 

Mr. Hamilton. The question is, I wanted him to read this particu- 
lar passage, which I think we should insert in the record at this point. 

The passage reads: "Labor Contract" and states: 

Mr. Evans said he first learned of FEA's contract through a direct congres 
sional inquiry. He told us that his initial contact with Labor concerning the 
additional funds made available for the Operation Mainstream program occurred 
when he was telephoned by a Department oflScial (whose name he could not 
remember), who inquired as to how the additional funds were to be allocated. 
Mr. Evans said that he suggested that existing contractors be given the addi- 
tional money. 

Mr. Evans told us that sometime after the phone call from Labor two con- 
tractors — FEA and an existing contractor under the Operation Mainstream 
program — called his oflBce and asked how they could obtain part of the expan- 
sion funds. He said he directed the groups to Labor and later a Department 
official called him to ask how the contract with FEA should be developed. 

Mr. Evans told us that a meeting was arranged in his office between Labor 
and FEA representatives to discuss the proposed contract. He could only re- 
member one other meeting involving the Operation Mainstream program. This 
meeting, held later at the office of the then Assistant Secretary for Manpower, 
involved a review of plans for distributing the Operation Mainstream expansion 
funds. According to Mr. Evans, the meeting was requested by the Assistant 
Secretary. 

Mr. Evans said he never intended any of his actions to be construed as "apply- 
ing pressure" and responded negatively to our questions as to whether he ever, 
directly or indirectly suggested awarding a Department contract to FEA. He 
said that if Labor construed his actions as representing pressure to execute a 
contract with FEA, it was the Department's error since at no time did he intercede 
on behalf of FEA. 

Now what I would like for you to do is go through that passage 
sentence by sentence and if there is a misstatement in that passage, to 
point it out for the record. 

Mr. Evans. OK. Well, the first sentence is a misstatement. It says 
that he "first learned of FEA's contract through a direct congressional 
inquiry" and then down below 

Mr. Hamilton. That is a misstatement? You did not say that? 

Mr. Evans. No; the only thing I can think of — well, I don't even 
know how that relates to it. 

The reason I say that is a misstatement, is that inherent in what is 
written here, it says : 

Mr. Evans told us that sometime after the phone call from Labor two con- 
tractors — FEA and an existing contractor under the Operation Mainstream 
program — called his office and asked how they could obtain part of the expansion 
funds. 



8455 

Now those two, they don't seem consistent to me. INIaybe I am 

Mr. Hamilton, Well, they may not be. Which one is correct if either 
is correct? 

Mr. Evans. The latter, the one abont receiving a phone call regard- 
ing whether they conld obtain part of the expansion funds. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, may I have this back for just a second? 
[Pause.] Well, INIr. Evans, did you or anyone in the White House have 
anything to do with the organizing and setting up of FEA? 

Mr. Evans Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it would seem to me that this passage is mislead- 
ing in that situation, that FEA made some type of contact with you 
to find out how they could be funded by Labor ? 

Mr. Evans. Which they did 

Mr. Hamilton. But isn't the fact of the matter that you were in- 
strumental in having this organization organized to take advantage 
of the expansion money that was now available ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; that is not the fact of the matter. The fact of the 
matter is that I was interested in organizing a new organization for 
a number of purposes, which was set out at the beginning of this ses- 
sion and they include again the ability to reach minorities, elderly, 
the ability to communicate to the elderly in general, the ability to get 
new ideas from new people, young, fresh, vigorous people in the field. 
A number of different purposes. 

It had absolutely no relationship to this specific program. And the 
fact is that this — I don't believe this specific increase in funding had 
even occurred at the time that we originally started talking about 
forming some kind of new aging organization. 

Mr. Hamilton. The aging organization, FEA, was formed in March 
1972 and this increase in funding took place before that. Isn't that 
correct ? 

Mr. Evans. OK. Now this is correct. However, that does not change 
the fact that this organization was not organized to take — you know, 
for the sole purpose or even for the primary purpose of taking that 
funding into this organization. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that this organization was put 
together partially to have an organization friendly to the administra- 
tion in existence? 

Mr. Evans. It is fair to say that this organization was put together 
so that we — so that there would be a non-hostile organization and that 
the 

Mr. Hamilton. What is your distinction between "friendly" and 
"nonhostile"? 

Mr. Evans. OK, the distinction between those two is, that you can 
take an active role in being friendly and you can use specific political 
activities such as the National Council of Senior Citizens on behalf of 
McGovern, or you can have a neutral organization such as the Federa- 
tion of Experienced Americans, which did not do political things along 
the lines of the National Council of Senior Citizens. That is the situa- 
tion. It is just neutral. It is not a negative 

Mr. Hamilton. Your testimony then is that FEA was not to be 
friendly, in that it was not supposed to promote the present adminis- 
tration in a political sense ? 



8456 

Mr, Evans. Well, my testimony is that it, in fact, did not do many — 
or any, to my knowledge — of taking any of the political initiatives that 
the Council of Senior Citizens did. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that when this organization was 
conceived and set up that the intention was that it would take advan- 
tage of available Federal moneys? 

Mr. Evans. The intention was, that if there were discretionary funds 
available and if it was held that this organization was qualified to 
obtain those discretionary funds, then in competition with a group 
that was hostile to the administi'ation it would be hoped that this 
organization would receive some degree of 

Mr. Hamilton. And was it the intention that the White House could 
take steps to insure that FEA would receive funding over adminis- 
tration enemies or at the expense of administration enemies ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, it was the intention of the White House that this 
organization would receive some funding to get off the ground. And to 
the extent that it impacted on hostile groups, then it did have a nega- 
tive impact, w^hich wasn't too great. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was your conception, in terms of what fund- 
ing should result, if one of the hostile groups like the National Council 
of Senior Citizens was performing better, or was able to perform bet- 
ter than FEA? Was it your intention that the FEA would get the 
money then ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, then you get down into degrees, and that is an iffy 
question in terms that the facts, as I knew them, as I stated earlier, 
were that NCSC was not performing well, contrary to what you read 
to me from the executive assistant level. So that didn't — so that was 
not a consideration at the time. 

Mr. Hamilton. What indication did you have in the spring of 1972 
that FEA was going to be able to perform well? What led you to 
believe it could ? 

Mr. Evans. Well I guess that, first, as I have been told by the De- 
partment of Labor, the subcontractor — the Human Resources Corp., 
I believe, was one of the subcontractors; the one out in California — 
was held to be very reputable and they felt it was very capable of doing 
the job. Second, the subcontractor in Florida, the Florida State Uni- 
versity, was also felt to be very capable of doing the job. 

I could only take what knowledge I had at that point in time and 
apply that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware of Dan Todd's views that this 
organization was dubious? 

Mr. Evans. I was aware that Dan Todd opposed the concept and I 
previously stated why I thought he opposed the concept. And I think 
it resulted from Flemming's close relationship to Cruikshank and 
Cruikshank's opposition to having any new organization, which would 
threaten his domain, come into existence. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware of any unusual procedures that led 
to either the DOA contract or the GEO grant ? And when I say "un- 
usual" I mean any types of procedures for processing the contract or 
the grant that were out of the ordinary. 

Mr. Evans. The only thing I knew of was the possibility that 
they pushed through the OEO contract rapidly. As far as abnormali- 
ties, no. I knew that certainly they moved very quickly. 



8457 

Mr. Lapham. I think that question presupposed knowledge on your 
part as to what ordinary grant procedures were. Did you have that 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Evans. No, I didn't. Good point. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you told by anyone at either DOL or OEO that 
the procedures that were employed were abnormal, unique? 

Mr. Evans AVell, with the exception of what Mr. Binda told me as 
far as the fact that they moved very quickly at OEO and he didn't 
realize that they could do it that quickly, no. 

Mr. Hamilton. What prompted OEO to work so quickly? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I think it was a combination of things. I had and 
still have a very close working and personal relationship with Mr. 
Binda. Howie Phillips had a very strong interest in limiting NC^OA. 
He didn't feel their contract should have been sole source in the fir-st 
place and he pushed very hard on that. 

I think a combination of those two factors and Mr. Binda's ability, 
just professional ability. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read you another passage from the GAO 
report, page 15 : 

OEO records show that FEA submitted an unsolicited proposal dated Au- 
gust 31, 1972, for the project. An OEO official advised us that a White House 
staff member, L. J. EvaiLS, Jr., directed OEO to fund the proposal for FEA, 
which was for a major project concerning elderly Spanish-speaking people. 

OEO officials told us that Mr. Evans also instructed OEO to limit its forth- 
coming contract extension with the National Council on the Aging to 6 months 
after which OEO would be expected to award a grant or contract to FEA to 
provide a full range of professional training and technical assistance for OEO 
aging programs that have been provided by the National Council on the Aging 
for many years with funds from OEO and other agencies. 

Now does that statement that I have read to you comport with your 
understanding as to what happened in regard to 

Mr. Lapham. Do you want to see it before you respond ? 

Mr. Evans. I probably ought to. There is one point I can respond 
to right oflf the bat and that is, and this is a point we already made, I 
think if you think about it, it is just inherently true. No staff assistant 
in the White House can direct, and that is a pretty strong term, any 
department or agency to do that. You just can't you know. It was not 
the realities of life and you know that just is not the reality of life. 

Mr. Evans. OK, now on the second part of that, this goes back to 
what I was saying about Mr. Phillips' interest. Mr. Phillips and I 
talked about doing this, and that was my understanding of what Mr. 
Phillips wanted to do and what we agreed would be done. However, 
that obviously is not what happened. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you read for the record the passage regard- 
ing what Mr, Phillips was interested in ? 

Mr. Evans. OK. This talks about "limiting the forthcoming con- 
tract extension with the National Council on Aging for 6 months after 
which OEO would be expected to award a grant or contract to FEA 
to provide a full range of professional training." 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your testimony that that was Mr. Phillips' 
idea? 

Mr. Evans. Well, it is my testimony that certainly, it was his idea 
that the National Council of Senior— no, the National Council on 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 19 



8458 

Aging had been given a so]e source contract and should not receive 
the sole source contract again. And that it was our agreement that one 
of the ways around it and the way that he wanted to approach the 
problem was through this mechanism. 

Mr. Hamilton. May T have that back ? 

Now as for FE A's qualifications, for the OEO contract, T would like 
to read to you from a memorandum dated November 17, 1972 by 
Irven M. Eitreim, chief, older ])ersons program. Office of Operations, 
OEO. 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 4.*] 

And in this memorandum Mr. Eitreim says : 

In summary, I have the following reservations about this grant : 
(1)1 consider the grantee to be totally unqualified to do the job ; 

(2) I think the grant can produce nothing that is not already well researched 
and tested. It is a weak, poorly designed plan and quite inappropriate for the use 
of section 232 funds ; 

(3) The budget of $399,839 is grossly excessive. A planning grant of this nature 
should not exceed $75,000 to $90,000 : 

(4) The urgency and secrecy with which the grant was pushed throuch were 
highly irregular. Never in my long experience in the Federal Government have I 
experienced anything approaching the impropriety of this grant transaction ; 

(5) I sense that I have been "used" as a professional program specialist and 
titular head of OEO's older persons programs, and as a veteran civil servant to 
give this grant some semblence of legitimacy and susi)ect that my professional 
reputation may be damaged as a result ; 

(6) I am appalled by the remaining possibility that we may have to awiard a 
grant or contract to FEA for highly complex and sophisticated professional T and 
TA services needed by our aging program grantees. FEA does not have and cannot 
within a period of several years, if ever, acquire an acceptable degree of com- 
petence to perform these functions. I am convinced this course would be utterly 
destructive to our aging programs. An award to FEA for this purpose would of- 
fend the entire aging constituency in the country, knowledgeable mem])ers of both 
parties in the Congress and our own CAA's and SCS programs. No service at all 
would be preferable to a contract with FEA both from the programmatic and 
political standpoints. 

Mr, Lapiiam. "WTien is that dated ? 

Mr. Hamilton. November 1972, November 17. 

Mr. Lapham. Who is it to ? 

Mr. Hamilton. A memorandum to the record by Irven Eitreim. 

Now my question is. Were vou aware in the fall of 1972 of such strong 
staff obiections in OEO to FEA's competence? 

Mr. Evans. Not in any way. 

Mr. Hamilton. This is totally new to you? 

Mr. Evans. That is the first time I ever heard of it. As a matter of 
fact, as it was related to me, if I remember it, Mr. Binda told me that 
while this particular person had some reserv^ations at first, he was — ^he 
had expressed support of the way the proposal had been written in 
the end. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you talking about Eitreim ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. "Which surprises me. I mean, this surprises me. It 
is totally contrary to what 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever have any personal conversations with 
Eitreim ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't remember if I did, and I would judge he cer- 
tainly didn't circulate that if it was on the record. 

• See p. 8530. 



8459 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask you again and this is redundant to an, 
earlier question, but do you have any evidence that the way this grant 
was handled at OEO was "highly irregular" to use Mr. Eitreim's 
term ? 

Mr. Evans. The only thing that I knew of was what Mr, Binda told 
me about, you know, it had really moved through very quickly. You 
know, that seems to go to one of the points of that memorandum but 
that is all I remember. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now Mr. Evans, there is a statement in the GAO 
report on page 18 under the heading, "White House Involvement" and 
the statement reads : "Mr. Evans denied any prior knowledge of the 
OEO grant award and any involvement in the grant's proposal phase." 
Is that a true statement of what you told the GAO ? 

Mr. Evans. It doesn't sound true to me at all. You know, I don't 
know what it goes on to say, but I certainly talked to Mr. Binda and 
I am sure I told them that I talked with Mr. Binda. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read you the entire GAO statement as to 
your participation in the OEO grant. Let me read the statement as to 
what you told them about your participation in the OEO grant : 

Mr. Evans denied any knowledge or involvement in the award of the OEO 
grant to the FEA. He did acknowledge that he had complained to the Deputy 
Director of OEO— 

I take it Mr. Phillips? 

Mr. Evans. Yes ; I guess so. 

Mr. Hamilton [continues reading] : 

about the lack of OEO assistance for programs for Spanish-speaking elderly. 
He said that he had received an inquiry from a U.S. Senator concerning the lack 
of assistance programs for the Spanish-speaking elderly. Mr. Evans said that 
the OEO Deputy Director called to advise him that a grant had been made to 
FEA for a program to aid the Spanish-speaking elderly. He said he tDld the 
OEO oflBcial that he was pleased since it was, in his view, something that would 
help the elderly and would also satisfy the inquiry from the Senator. He denied 
having anything to do with the approval. 

Mr. Evans. Well, I didn't have anything to do with the approval. 
I still deny that. 

Mr. Hamilton. But you don't deny now 

Mr, Evans. I don't deny that I talked to Mr. Binda and I am sure 
I told them I talked to Mr. Binda and I don't understand why that 
is not in there. In fact, they even asked me specifically, I think, whether 
I talked to Mr. Binda and the specific reponse was, "I did." I think 
they went beyond that and asked a number of specific other people 
because I talked with them 

Mr. Hamilton. There is a passage on page 17 of the GAO report 
that is contrary to the statement on page 19 that I just read to you. 
This passage on page 17 recounts what the GAO was told by the 
executive assistant 

Mr. Evans. The executive assistant to whom? 

Mr. Hamilton. Just a second. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Frankly this is not clear in the GAO report, exactly 
whom we are talking about. That is why I ashed you a minute ago 

Mr. Freedman. It doesn't refer to Reardon ? 



8460 

Mr. Hamilton. It says : "Executive Director for the former Asso- 
ciate Director for Proirram Review." That was Phillips; he was the 
executive assistant to Phillips. 

Mr. Evans. Is that Binda? 

Mr. IlAsriLTON. I am not sure. He is not named in the GAO report. 

Mr. Evans. It mav be Binda. 

Mr. Hamilton. Anyway let me read the passag^e to you : 

The executive assistant told us the FEA proposal was first brous:ht to his 
attention by the OEO Deputy Director, and that he met FEA's President at the 
initial meeting at Mr. Evans' office. He said that, after OEO received the pro- 
posal, Mr. Evans telephoned him to express his support for FEA and then had 
frequent contact with him until the grant was awarded. 

Does that statement comport witli your recollection as to what 
happened ? 

IMr. Evans. It compoi'ts to the extent that I talked Avith Mr. Binda 
a number of times, if that relates to Mr. Binda. Of course there was 
a lot in there, and I am not sure I have that all down so that everything 
comports to it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have frequent contact with Mr. Binda? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; frequent in terms of possibly once a week. 

Mr. Hamilton. For what period of time ? 

Mr. Evans. God, I don't know. I talked — Mr. Binda, as I said, was 
a close personal friend as well, so I talked with Mr. Binda, you know, 
quite a while for a long period of time, not necessarily about this. So, 
you know, I can say that I still talk to him. 

Mr. Hamilton. And again, what is perhaps a redundant question, 
but the nature of these contacts was what ? Were you urging that the 
matter be pushed further for the FEA ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, it wasn't, you know, it was a matter — I guess as 
that is told, and this may be right, I may have talked with Phillips 
first. I am not sure and then Phillips and I made an agreement. And 
I think Phillips told Binda to go ahead. And I think I certainly, when 
Binda called me or something, I said, "Yes, I think that it is a good 
idea" or something. You know, I — we talked and I certainly would not 
have said "don't fund FEA" if asked, but where you go from there I 
don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. But your testimony was that you were not instruct- 
ing or directing OEO to fund FEA ? 

Mr. Evans. As I said, you know, you couldn't in reality do that. It 
was always a give-and-take, and it had to be for exactly the reason 
that came out in that letter from Eitreim, and I was not aware of that, 
and that was, you know, certainly you hope that, as you just had a 
give-and-take with it, it would work out in a natural, you know, logi- 
cal, normal way of process 

Mr. Hamilton. Was your intei'view or interviews with the GAO 
recorded by a recorder making a verbatim transcript ? 

Mr. Evans. No, it wasn't. And I am surprised that they don't have 
in there that I talked with Binda, because T think they asked me a 
direct question about that. In fact I remember telling them point blank 
that Mr. Binda was a personal friend of mine. 

Mr. Hamii>ton. How many times did you speak with GAO 
representatives ? 



8461 

Mr. Evans. Once. 

Mr. Hamilton. When ? 

Mr. Evans. About 45 minutes, I guess. 

Mr. Freedman. Was that in person or by telephone ? 

Mr. Evans. It was in person. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know of any pressures put on the AOA to 
get this other project funded ? 

Mr. Evans. To the extent that I think that Mr. Colson called 
either — I think he called Jonathan Moore over there, over at HEW, 
special assistant to Richardson. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what was the nature of that conversation ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't know. I wasn't there. I wasn't privy to it. I don't 
even know if they actually ever talked. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know why the matter was not funded ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, no, I just assumed that they decided that they 
couldn't do it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know why they decided they couldn't do it ? 

Mr. Evans. No, I don't know the specifics. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if Mr. Davidson made any specific 
contacts with HEW on the matter ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to show you a document dated Octo- 
ber 3, 1972, to David Brody, who is the president of FEA and from 
Hugh Brenneman. Who is Mr. Brenneman ? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 5.*1 

Mr. Evans. I believe he was the director of the Michigan Profes- 
sionals Association, I think. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me read this letter into the record : 

Enclosed is a budget which I think will permit us to prepare and distribute 
401 radio programs as iper the attached schedule. 

Because of the time element we are proceeding on the basis of the budget so 
if you disapprove in any respect, please call me instantly, if not sooner ! Also you 
are receiving either with this mail or separately a copy of the scripts being used. 

As soon as we have the first complete set of dubs made, we will send a couple 
copies to you and one to Bud. I have only scheduled 390, which will give us an 
extra seven for any si)ecial stations who request use of the program. 

My question is, first of all, why would copies of these dubs be sent 
to you? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I received the tapes, as I told you earlier. 

Mr. Hamilton. That is right. Why did you receive the tapes? 

Mr. Evans. Well, because I was very interested in communicating 
what was available for the elderly to the elderly and that is what this 
does. And I wanted to see, you know, how it did it. It is a good idea. 
I still think it is a good idea. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have any discussions with either Mr. Brody 
or Mr. Brenneman about the beneficial political fallout of these tapes ? 

Mr. Evans. I am sure I said "This is great," you know, "the more 
we get older people to know about what the benefits they had available 
to them, the more favorable" — you know. 

Mr. Hamilton. What do you think the primary purpose of these 
tapes was? 

* See p. 8533. 



8462 

Mr. Evans. The primary purpose was to inform all the older people 
of what their benefits were. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your testimony that the primary purpose was 
not political ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. As you understood it ? 

Mr. Evans. I think that was a secondary purpose in terms of how 
positive an impression that makes upon people. 

INIr. Hamilton. Gordon, I think I am about through on this. Have 
you 2:ot any questions ? 

Mr. Freedman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why don't we take a little break of, say, 10 minutes? 

[Recess.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Lapham had a statement about a document. 
Whv don't you identify it ? 

Mr. Lapham. It is a document previously referred to by Mr. Hamil- 
ton dated August 31, 1972, and it is a memorandum for Rob Davison 
from Mr. Evans, a one-page memorandum.* It started with the sen- 
tence : "Attached is a proposal which the Federation of Experienced 
Americans submitted to Commissioner Martin of the Administra- 
tion on Aging today." And according to my notes, before that document 
was exhibited to Mr. Evans, he was asked whether or not he recalled 
that there was an FEA grant proposal made to HEW or to any one of 
HEW constituent agencies. And according to my notes, again, his 
answer was that he remembered that there was an idea for a com- 
munications proposal but he doesn't recall whether that idea reached a 
proposal stage. And I now want to ask Mr. Evans whether, having 
seen that document which I just identified, his recollection is refreshed 
as to whether the idea did, in fact, reach a proposal stage ? 

Mr. Evans. The answer is it must have reached some form that he 
could call a proposal. It is still my recollection that it mostly is a 
preliminary proposal, not a full formal one. But call it what you 
might, we can say it was a proposal in light of this memo. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe it was your testimony that you did not 
recall or do not now recall what happened to this proposal and why 
it was rejected ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Evans. That is correct, yes. I just know that there was a lot 
of opposition to it in HEW and we just dropped the matter. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, do you know the nature of the opposition? 

Mr. Evans. No ; other than — now they felt that it would be con- 
sidered political at that late date, but I don't know any other more 
specifics on it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if the people at HEW had any ob- 
jections as to the qualifications of FEA ? 

Mr. Evans. They didn't mention it, at least not to me. Actually 
I didn't talk with them, so I don't even know — no, I don't. 

Mr. Freedman. Was Dr. Flemming opposed to funding FEA? 

Mr. Evans. Dr. Flemminjr was not at HEW at that time. Dr. Flem- 
mins: was opposed to fundinsr of FEA. particularlv in terms of im- 
pactinar upon the National Council of Senior Citizens for reasons 
already stated. 



* See Evnns exhibit No. I. p. 84R7. 



8463 

Mr. Hamtt.ton. The next subject I want to talk to you about concerns 
a number of brochures that were published in 1972 by various depart- 
ments and atjencies of Government. And it is my understandinjr that 
a brochure was published by HEW — SSA; one by the Department of 
Agriculture ; one by the Department of Housing and TTrban Develop- 
ment; one by the Department of Labor; one by ACTION; one by 
OEO; and one by the Veterans' Administration, and pcniaps there 
were others. Do vou know of any other brochures that were published 
besides the ones that I have just mentioned by departments or agencies 
of Government? 

Mr. Evans. Jim, no; to the extent that I am not sure of the specific 
lists of agencies or departments that published them and I am not sure 
as to specifically the Social Security Administration brochure men- 
tioned in there. 

ISIr. Hamilton. That involved Project FIND. 

Mr. Evans. OK ; I know that thev did that. I didn't have too much 
impact on that one. That was handled mostly by Dr. Flemming and 
Vicky Keller. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think the best way to get into my questions about 
these brochures is to let you tell us generally what you know about 
these brochures, how the ideas for these brochures originated, who 
originated the ideas, what were the purposes behind the brochures 

Mr. Evans. OK. 

Mr. Hamilton. How they were used, where they were distributed to, 
who paid for them, what the total costs were, if you remember, et cetera. 

Mr. Lapham. There are quite a few questions there. 

Mr. Hamilton. It is a lot of questions, but the reason I pose it this 
way is that I think the fairest thing is to let him tell us, basically, what 
he knows about these brochures and then I will ask him specific ques- 
tions. I am just trying to give him a general framework in which to 
talk. I can ask specific questions, but I think this is probably the 
fairest way. 

Mr. Evans. Basically this goes back to my thought on — there has got 
to be a better way to tell older people what is available to them in the 
Government. That is what Project FIND was all about and it located 
in excess of 50,000 isolated elderly. I don't know what the final figure 
came out to be, but a large number of isolated elderly were nc^t taking 
advantage of benefits that were available to them. 

The same thing applied to a number of aging programs and a num- 
ber of other agencies and departments. And we attempted, in the White 
House, to take sort of a coordinating role and try to make sure that 
this kind of information did get circulated to older people. And that 
led to a number of brochures. I don't remember which specific agencies 
or departments put them out but there was a number of brochures. 

I took a lead role in trying to make sure, as a sort of the head of the 
senior citizens' effort at the White House, or trying to make sure that 
these kinds of words did get out to older people. That is sort of a basic 
overall framework. I will let you take it into specifics. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, my initial question, is it your testimony that 
the principal motivation behind these brochures was informational 
and not for political purposes ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; my testimony is that that is the prime motive. 
That is not saying that you don't have a political impact as a result 



I 



8464 

of getting out the word on what is available to older people. In addi- 
tion, I think, it is fair to say that while there were a number of good 
substantive reasons for that, when you are working within the con- 
straints of the White House staff — at that time you often needed to try 
to convince other people to work with you and motivate them. And in 
order to motivate them you had to use political reasons because a 
number of the people were political. So, I often used both substantive 
and political reasons when talking to various White House staff mem- 
bers or anybody on the administration's staff. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you originate the ideas for the brochures? 

Mr. Evans. I don't remember how exactly they originated. I may 
not have originated it. Someone else may have mentioned it to me as 
being a good idea. But I probably pushed harder than anyone else who 
had a bearing on it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall that the idea for the brochures was 
originated at the campaign committee ? 

Mr. Evans. Oh, no, we started working on this in October of 1971. 
I think that was before the campaign committee was even formed, 
wasn't it? 

Mr. Hamilton. No ; the campaign committee was formed in May of 
1971. 

Mr. Evans. OK ; but it definitely came long before. There wasn't 
anybody looking up senior citizens in the campaign committee at that 
point in time and if there was, it didn't come out of there. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is your testimony that the request for the 
brochures did not emanate from Dan Todd ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes ; that is my testimony. 

Mr. Hamilton. And you would hold to that testimony if I would 
tell you Todd's testimony was to the contrary ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes ; I would. I don't know what he bases his testimony 
on but I certainly don't remember a specific request from him dating 
back before October, or it may even have been sooner, when George 
Bell and I first talked about this. So, you know, I guess to my recol- 
lection at this point in time — no, he didn't. I didn't remember any par- 
ticular request from him. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was there an attempt to make the contents of the 
brochures as political as possible ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; there was an attempt to quote the President, as far 
as using a quote that showed that older people should be utilized as 
an asset and not looked on as a drain to the country. And he had some 
very good quotes ; T don't remember what were put on the brochures, 
but I know that there were some quotes on the brochures. But other 
than that, I don't think there is any way that they would be con- 
strued as being political. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did the brochures inform the recipients as to the 
programs available to them, or did they just state 

Mr. Evans. Very much so. 

Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. State that the President was interested 
in the elderly? 

Mr. Evans. No : thev stated them verv much. As T recall them, they 
listed the programs that were available and they also gave addresses 



8465 

on where to write to get additional information on it. I wish I had 
those. Do yon have copies of those ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Actually I haven't got copies of the specific bro- 
chures yet, but I will be doing that soon. 

Mr. Evans. Well. T tliink you will find them very nonpolitical. That 
is certainly my recollection of them. I think they are quite good. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, my question is, Was an attempt made to make 
them as political as possible and still 

Mr. Evans. Not beyond the extent of having them quote from the 
President. 

Mr. Hamilton. Quote from the President ? 

Mr. Evans. That is right. 

INIr. Hamilton. Was any attempt made to stage the distribution of 
these brochures for political impact? 

Mr. Evans. We tried to distribute them as far and wide as we 
could. It wasn't limited to anything to my recollection. It was just as 
many as they had mailing lists to distribute to — they distributed them. 

Mr. Hamilton. But was it staged? In other words, would you dis- 
tribute one in August, one in September, one in October? 

Mr. Evans. That was only in terms of the production schedule as it 
came out of those department agencies. Some department agencies 
were more efficient than others and got them done quicker. As I say, 
we started in October of 1971 and most of them didn't come out until 
summer of 1972. It took us like 6 months to get the damn things 
through the agencies and departments. And as I said, I was working on 
that one when I still reported to Mr. Bell. It was just a long, hard, 
tedious job and I think it was a good one. 

Mr. Hamilton. But is it your testimony that these documents, these 
brochures, were not staged in regard to their distribution for political 
impact ? 

Mr. Evans. They certainly were not staged as far as time and it is 
my recollection that they were not staged in terms of distribution 
either. 

Mr. Hamilton. What I am talking about is the time of distribution. 

Mr. Evans. No ; that was just a factor of — we wanted to get it out 
in the winter of 1971 and it took so long to get the damn things through 
the bureaucracy until they didn't get out until the summer of 1972 and 
that is not out of any conscientious effort. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is your testimony that the fact these brochures 
were put out in the summer of 1972 was only due to production sched- 
ules and not due to political purposes ? 

Mr. Evans. It certainly wasn't due to any conscious effort on my 
part and I assume there was no one else that was controlling that in 
any place that I didn't know about. As far as I know, no. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I am going to show you some documents. The 
first document I want to show you is a document which is dated 
April 14, 1972, labeled "Confidential." And the title is "Proposed 
Communication Support Program for the Older Americans Divi- 
sion, Committee for the Re-Election of the President." There is hand- 
writing up here that I believe is by Dan Todd. Is that correct ? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 0.*] 

♦ See p. 8536. 



8466 

Mr, Evans. It looks like it could be. I am not able — it looks like 
his "T". 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he make a "T" like that ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. First of all, have you ever seen this document 
before ? 

Mr. Lapham. There are a number of pages attached in that. Is that 
all one ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is all one document. 

Mr. Evans. Yes. I think I did see this at times when it was 

Mr. Hamilton. The document doesn't indicate who the author was. 
Do you know who the author was ? 

Mr. Evans. No; I was not the author. I assume it was drawn up by 
Todd. The other person that worked in that area was Rhatican. 

Mr. Hamilton. Wlio is Rhatican ? 

Mr. Evans. Bill Rhatican, I think, was a staff assistant to the Presi- 
dent. And I think he worked on — he worked along these lines too, but 
I don't know that. There may have been two of these put together also. 
One by Rhatican and one by Todd. 

Mr. Hamilton. But this is basically a campaign document. You 
would agree with that, by the title ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And page — actually, the document that I have 
doesn't have a page number, but I believe it is page 18 — there is an 
item there and that item is entitled, "Brochures/Direct Mail," and 
under this heading is another heading entitled "Government Agen- 
cies," and the entry under that reads : 

Each agency who has senior citizen programs will be asked to produce an infor- 
mational brochure stating just exactly what the agency can do for older Ameri- 
cans. One will be released every 2 weeks beginning September 1. The agencies 
who will be asked to participate are : Action ; HEW ; HUD ; DOT ; OEO ; Agri- 
culture, Labor. 

This document indicates on its face, I think it is a fair reading, that 
the plan to distribute these informational brochures was essentially 
campaign strategy and it also indicates on its face that the distribu- 
tion of the documents would be timed so as to have campaign impact. 
Now I believe that both of those indications are contrary to your 
previous testimony. I wonder if you would comment? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; certainly I disagree with your statement, No. 1, 
in that that is what this document says. But the fact that this docu- 
ment says it — released on April 14, 1972, a full 6 or 7 months after we 
started working on getting out informational brochures to older 
people — doesn't mean that that is the way that it was planned, con- 
ceived, thought of, or the reason behind any action that occurred in 
October of 1971. And I would say that this looks like an effort on 
Dan Todd's part to take credit for something that had been started 
7 months earlier that he had nothing to do with except knowledge. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your testimony that Dan Todd had no partici- 
pation in the production of these brochures ? 

Mr. Evans. The only participation that I remember was that he 
knew about it and it happened to turn out that it was going to bo 
coming out during the late summer of 1972, but we could no more have 



8467 

scheduled the production of these brochures to have been 2 weeks from 
each agency and department than a man on the moon could have. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now let me read you another memorandum dated 
April 11, 1972, a memorandum for Bud Evans from Dan Todd, sub- 
ject "USG materials" which I take it is U.S. Government materials : 
"On March 30 at the meeting with myself and Bill Novelli'' — who is 
Bill Novelli? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 7.*] 

5lr. Evans. He was at the reelection committee and dealt with PR 
kinds of things. 

Mr. Lapham. Do you have the date of that? 

Mr. Hamilton. April 11, 1972. 

It states: 

On March 30 at the meeting with myself and Bill Novelli, you committed to 
providing us with : (a) A draft memo to all agency PIO's" — 

Which I take it is public information offices — 

outlining your brochure program and setting forth guidelines for same; (b) a 
master timetable for the preparation and release of the brochures; and (c) some 
samples of work in progress. To date, we have received nothing. It is diflBcult, if 
not impossible, for us to proceed on our overall plan, which, per our discussion, 
is designed to incorporate and politicize your efforts, absent these materials. 
When may we exi)ect them ? 

Would you comment on that in light of your previous testimony ? 

Mr. Evans. OK. My comment still is as I remember — let me see that 
memo again, [Pause.] Now taking April 11, which is still 7 months 
behind or after we started the effort to get the materials out, now the 
fact that the materials were not still out at that point in time was a dis- 
appointment to me ; OK ? Because I thought they would be out long 
before then because I didn't want them to look political. Now, the fact 
that they weren't out was thought to be very advantageous in terms of 
getting them out during the campaign, I am sure, as is obvious by this. 

I am sure they communicated that to me and I am sure I, in turn, 
in order to keep them motivated in supporting the whole project, said : 
"Yes ; you know we will try to do anything that we can to get them out 
as soon as possible." The object at that point being to get them out 
within the next couple of months, which still didn't happen. 

I don't remember when the first one went out but I don't think it 
went out until the end of June or July sometime. I guess what I am 
saying is, any of these efforts didn't, because of bureaucratic inertia, 
impact on what happened within the bureaucracies; and it couldn't 
have an impact upon what happened within the bureaucracies even if 
I wanted them to, because there was no way to change those wheels, 
which were slowly grinding away, and certainly that was not the 
reason that they were conceived of in the first place. You know, they 
just weren't. 

They may have happened to fit into that overall plan, and I certainly 
wouldn't have turned them off in light of that but that wasn't the origi- 
nal conception. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think it was your testimony before I showed you 
this memorandum that Todd was not involved in the production of 
this material. 

* See p. 8563. 



8468 

Mr. Evans. He wasn't. I still would say that. The only thing that 
I can think of is he may have tried with Novelli to change the produc- 
tion of whatever brochure the campaign committee issued — not to be 
competitive with what the government brochures were coming out with 
on a factual basis. 

Mr. Hamilton. I have another memorandum here that I would like 
you to look at and it is your memorandum in response to Dan's. It is 
a confidential memorandum, dated April 13, 1972, for Dan Todd from 
Mr. Evans, subject, "USG materials." It responds to the memorandum 
that was previously entered into the record. 

Why don't you read this? I've got a couple of passages in here that 
I would like to ask you questions on. 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 8.*] 

Mr. Evans. This basicallv supports what I said. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you through with it ? 

Mr, Lapham. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Go ahead. Take your time. [Pause.] 

There are two sentences in here I would like to read into the record 
and ask you to comment on them. You write — actually three sentences. 
You write: 

As you know, the draft memorandum to agency PIO's is being sent by Des 
Barker, and therefore requires his approval. It is his feeling that we shoidd not 
set forth guidelines for development of these brochures in the memorandum, or 
even request that a brochure be developed therein, because it would giv« the 
PIO's grounds for not giving the information we desire. 

Then skipping down — 

In light of Barker's insistence that we not request brochures for the PIO's 
until after they have completed their compilations and write-ups, I did not, and 
do not, feel that it would be helpful to any of the parties involved to review 
the draft memo. 

I don't understand what this means that "we shouldn't set forth 
guidelines for development of these brochures in this memorandum 
or even request that a brochure should be developed therein, because 
it would give PIO's grounds for not giving information required." 
"Wliv would that be so ? 

Mr. Evans. In other words, that is basically going to the political 
or nonpolitical point. And I had worked for a long time, long before 
this came up to make sure that brochures which helped older people 
got out to older people. And I was attempting in a political way, with 
a little "p," to tell them that we were not going to politicize those 
brochures and they could talk about any guidelines or anything else 
they wanted to put on them, but that wasn't the way they were going 
to go. They were already in process and they were going to come out 
the way they were in process. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it it is not your interpretation of the passage 
that you wrote that because the brochures might turn out to be politi- 
cal, you would not give the PIO's a reason to object to their 
preparation ? 

Mr. Evans. But thoy were preparing them. We didn't prepare the 
brochures. They prepared the brochures. They did all the work. And 
what I was saying there, I wasn't going to give Novelli a chance to 

• Spe p. Sr)fi4. 



8469 

review the preparation, not that I wasn't going to give the PIO's a 
chance. 

Mr. Hamilton. Right ; I understand. I am not going to ask you any 
questions about this next item, but I would like for you to identify it. 
It is a document that is undated and is entitled "General Brochure 
Guidelines." Have you ever seen this document ? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 9,^] 

Mr. Evans. I think this was done b^ Barker's shop. And, yes, I think 
I saw it. I think it was done in conjunction with Barker's shop and, 
you know, I guess that was the general overall outline. Again it doesn't 
show the political side. It just wasn't political. 

Mr. Hamilton. I've got another memorandum I would like to show 
you dated June 7, 1972. It is a memorandum for you and Webster 
Todd, who was Dan Todd, I take it ? 

[The document referred to was marked P^vans exhibit No. 10.^] 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. From William D. Novelli. The subject is "Govern- 
ment White Papers and Brochures on Older Americans." I would 
like, I think — before I ask you any questions on this, I would like you 
to look at it. I'm sorry I don't have more than one on these things. 

Mr. Evans. Which ? The whole thing? 

Mr. Hamilton. Why don't you look at the whole thing? [Pause.] 

Are you ready? I believe you testified that Mr. Novelli was in the 
campaign committee. 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe he was with the November group. Isn't 
that correct ? 

Mr. Evans. OK. 

Mr. Hamilton. The first line reads: "This is to review the status 
of this project and to suggest how we might proceed." 

Why was Mr. Novelli of the campaign committee interested in the 
status of your Government brochures project and involved in sug- 
gesting how to proceed ? 

Mr. Evans. Well I think that was in terms of, you know, how they 
were still trying to make an impact on the brochures. And on June 7, 
which was the date of that, it was way beyond making an impact. I 
don't know when — as I said, I don't remember exactly when the first 
brochure came out, but it was sometime around the end of June or 
July, someplace in there. And that means it already was in press. So 
the impact of that is nil. 

Why was he doing this? Well, he had, I guess, contracted with the 
reelection comrnittee to come up with a good PR plan and everybody, 
I guess, was trying to jump on the bandwagon on it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, under the heading "Background", the first 
item, there is this statement : 

We are all in agreement that brochures produced and distributed by govern- 
ment departments and agencies will be important in persuading older Voters to 
re-elect the President. These brochures will be non-partisan enough to break 
through the election year aversion to iwlitical rhetoric, but will be strongly sup- 
portive of the President. 



' Sep p. S.56.-.. 
= See p. 85fi6. 



8470 

As you would interpret that passage 

Mr. Evans. That indicates that he thought it would be. 

Mr. Hamilton. That these brochures would have a strong political 
purpose ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I think you have to look at the brochures, and you 
will see them soon, I hope. The political impact of those brochures is, 
as we have stated, the more people know that there are positive things 
that are available for them to take advantage of, obviously, the more 
people are favorably disposed toward the incumbent. Other than 
that, I think the political impact is minimal. And I think you will 
see the way they are written ; it is very nonpolitical. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Novelli, in the second section of this memoran- 
dum, which is entitled "Next steps," sets out the structure of the 
brochures. Why was Novelli involved in the structure of the brochures 
or setting out steps as to how the brochures should be produced? 

Mr. Evans. Probably at Dan Todd's request, but you saw the struc- 
ture thing. Now, was there a date on that structure thing? 

Mr., Hamilton. Right here — June 7. 

Mr. Evans. No ; I am talking about this one right here [indicating] . 
I don't know what the date on this was, but I believe you will find that 
this, which is called "General Brochure Guidelines," went out long be- 
fore this [indicating], and if that had already gone out and the l3ro- 
chures were already being printed on June 7, which I assume you will 
find most of them were, I question the impact that he would have had. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, this memorandum [indicating] was sent to 
you. Did you take his suggestions and pass them on to various agencies ? 

Mr. Evans No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Or did anybody in the White House pass them on 
to the various agencies ? 

Mr. Evans. I certainly doubt it, because I think the guidelines had 
already been sent out long before that. 

Mr. Hamilton. On page 3, under section 3, which is entitled "Dis- 
tribution, Timing, and Coordination," this sentence appears : "We can 
indirectly check copy and also stagger the release of the brochures to 
insure a steady stream between now and late September." Why was 
Novelli involved in scheduling the release of the brochures? 

Mr. Evans. Well, as I testified, you couldn't schedule the release of 
the brochures, so that was whistling in the wind. 

Mr. Hamilton. And it is your testimony you made no attempt to 
schedule the release of the brochuies ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. T tried to schedule them as soon as they could 
possibly get them out. 

Mr. Hamilton. But not staggered for political impact? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I don't think T ever contacted an agency or de- 
partment, I think I thought it would be nice if they came out that 
way and that great 

Mr. Hamilton. It is your testimony you took no steps to get them 
to come out? 

Mr. Evans. To the best of my recollection, I didn't call any agency 
or department. 

Mr. Ha]milton. I have a June 14, 1972, memorandum for Bud Evans 
from Dan Todd ; subject "USG Brochures." It states : "In order that 



8471 

my field people can obtain adequate numbers of the afjinfj brochures, I 
have advised them to use incumbent USS and MC as vehicles." 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 11.^] 

Mr. Evans. What is that ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I was p^oing to ask what does USS and MC stand 
for ? Do you have any idea ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; I don't know. It is for me— USS and MC ? No, I 
don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. You have no idea what those terms refer to? 

Mr. Evans. No. 

Mr. Hamilton [continues reading] : 

So that I may tell them what to ask for, can you please provide me with a 
schedule showing: Title, agency, publication date, GPO number, and subject? 

Again, doesn't this memorandum show that Dan Todd was 
involved ? 

Mr. Evans. It sure shows he was trying to be involved. I don't think 
he had much impact. You know, if you've got something to the con- 
trary that can refresh my memory, I would like to see it. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that memorandum does indicate to you that 
these aging brochures were going to be used for political purposes ? Is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; I think that what that indicates is that Dan Todd 
felt that this would be something that would be nice for him to take 
credit on. 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 12.^] 

Mr. Hamilton. But the memorandum says, "In order that my field 
people can obtain" 

Mr. Evans. OK, the question then becomes: Did they obtain it? I 
don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. The memorandum indicates that Todd planned to 
use these Government brochures for campaign purposes. Is that a fair 
reading of that memorandum ? 

Mr. Evans. That he would like to? Yes. That he would like to. 

Mr. Hamilton. Then on July 24, 1972, Mr. Todd writes you under 
the subject "Various," that: "The following items are still pending 
from your shop," and No. 1 is : "Production schedule information on 
U.S. Government brochures." Again this indicates that Mr. Todd was 
interested in and in some degree participating in the production of 
these brochures. Doesn't it? 

Mr. Evans. Or trying to. 

Mr. Hamilton. Or their distribution. Now on the same date, July 24, 
1972, I have a memorandum here to "Dan," which I take it is Dan 
Todd, on White House stationery from you and it says, "The attached 
is per your request." And the second page is entitled "aging brochures" 
and there are three categories : follow-up dates and under that is listed 
various agencies and departments; the next category is labels, under 
which there is a date and the third category is mailing, under which 
there is a date. And there are label dates and mailing dates given for 
seven departments and agencies. Would you look at that ? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 1*].^] 



1 See p. 8569. 
= See p. 8570. 
3 See p. 8571. 



8472 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is that your secretary's signature? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you dictate that particuhar memorandum? 

Mr. Evans. I think I probably told her to send something over to 
them, yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is this a schedule for the distribution of the 
brochures ? 

Mr. Evans. That is a schedule in terms of my best guess and when 
they were going to come out. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now I notice that I think 

Mr. Evans. But I think you will find that they didn't come out. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think the record should show that the schedule 
is staggered so that there is approximately 10 days between the distri- 
bution of the brochures. Now why was the schedule set up with the 
10-day stagger? 

Mr. Evans. Probably to get the pressure from them off of me but I 
think you will find in actual fact that is not what occurred. 

Mr. Hamilton. What did occur ? 

Mr. Evans. I think you will find that it is helter-skelter as far as 
when those brochures came out. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did they all come out before the election? 

Mr. Evans. I think all but one. I am not sure but one may have 
come out afterwards. Again I don't remember exactly when they came 
out and it was more a matter of bureaucratic inertia than any planning 
on anybody's part. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you saying that you did not plan that these 
brochures come out in 2- week intervals or 10-day intervals ? 

Mr. Evans. Right. I hoped that it might work out that they would 
fit into that schedule but it never went to a planning schedule. Cer- 
tainly to my recollection it never went to the stage of talking to any 
of the departments or agencies. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well let me show vou another memorandum, dated 
July 27, 1972, for Dan Todd, subject: "brochures", from L. J. Evans. 
Is that your signature there ? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 14.*] 

Mr. Evans Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. The memorandum reads: 

I thought you would be interested in seeing our first aging brochure. You can 
get the title, agency, GPO number, and subject from the brochure itself. This one 
will be sent out next week. I have also attached a distribution list ; and as you 
can see, the first mailing will include approximately 950,000 brochures. Please let 
me know what your people will be doing to get copies of these and how many 
they will be requesting. We are still planning on having the remaining seven 
brochures go out in 2-week intervals. I will forward these to you as they come 
off the press. 

Mr. Evans. Question? 

Mr. Hamilton. Doesn't that document indicate that you had planned 
to stagger the release of these brochures ? 

Mr. Evans. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. And how do you explain the sentence "We are still 
planning on having the remaining seven brochures go out in 2-week 
intervals."? 

• .See p. 857.^. 



8473 

Mr. Evans. I explain it in two ways, Jim. First, it looked like they 
might come out that way so that was nice and, second, since it looked 
like they might come out that way, the simplest thing to do was to just 
tell Dan Todd that so, you know, he could do whatever he w^anted to 
do, that that was the way they were going to come out. 

Basically, just taking the pressure off. And in actual fact as I said, 
and I will again, I don't think they did come out that way. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now I have another memorandum dated July 27, 
1972, from you to Fred Malek and the subject is "Brochures" and it 
reads : 

Attached is the first government aging brochure to come off the printing press. 
It still has a slight bureaucratic flavor to it, but I think it gets across the Presi- 
dent's concern as well as emphasizing his help in solving the problems of older 
persons. The original mailing will distribute 950,000 of these brochures. This will 
leave us 550,000 remaining brochures for distribution to Senators and Congress- 
men, field organizations, and other groups we may want to reach. We will be 
sending out seven additional brochures at a rate of approximately one every 
2 weeks, and I will forward these to you as they come off the press. 

And Malek writes at the top : "Bud, this is really great work and 
should have major impact. I will look forward to seeing the additional 
brochures." 

fThe document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 15.*] 

Mr. Hamilton. First of all, why would you send a copy of the 
brochure to Malek? 

Mr. Evans. Because Malek, you know, followed all of that. I don't 
know. He was sort of liaison guy between the White House and the re- 
election committee. 

Mr. Hamilton. On July 27, wasn't Malek at the reelection 
committee ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't know what the exact relationship was. He seemed 
to be both places. 

Mr. Hamilton. I will tell you that officially on the 1st of July he 
was the deputy to the campaign director. 

Mr. Evans. Well, I buy that, but that doesn't change the fact, I 
think — as I recall it, I think he was sort of the contact man from the 
White House to go to the reelection committee. But I don't think 
that changes the essence of what we are saying here. 

Mr. Hamilton. When Malek says : "This is really great work and 
should have major impact," what do you think he means — impact 
where ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I don't know what was going on in his mind. I 
think that goes back to the point we were talking about earlier, that 
this certainly has a major substantive impact and it certainly, in terms 
of having a major substantive impact, can't help but favor the in- 
cumbent. 

Mr. Hamilton. You think Malek was talking about political impact 
or impact as to helping older Americans when he wrote this comment ? 

Mr. Evans. I guess my personal opinion of what he thought was, 
he was probably talking in terms of political impact. 

Mr. Hamilton. The last sentence: "We will be sending out seven 
additional brochures at the rate of approximately one every 2 weeks." 



• See p. 8574. 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 20 



8474 

It is still your testimony you had no plan to stagger these brochures 
for political impact ? 

Mr. Evans. We couldn't plan them. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is still your testimony that there was no plan ? 

Mr. Evans. That is my testimony, that it couldn't have been planned 
even if we wanted to. 

'M.'^ Hamilton. All right. 

Mr. Evans. All right, let's take it one step further than that. One 
of the things you've got to say about that, Jim, is that everybody 
within the White House and at the reelection committee wanted a 
plan, and from my perspective as staff assistant, it looked to me like 
they were probably going to come out close to the 2-week intervals 
and so, therefore, I just took advantage of that fact to say : "Hey, you 
know, we did what you wanted." I think you will find this is the way it 
happened. But, in fact, it didn't come out in 2- week intervals. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you make arrangements for distributing these 
brochures up on the Hill ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, I think we did, but I think then that was aban- 
doned. I don't think — I think very few of them got distributed up 
here. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why was it abandoned ? 

Mr. Evans. Because they didn't have the means of distributing 
them up here. 

It had to do with an office problem of where you stored them until 
you got them distributed and that kind of stuff. 

Mr. Hamilton. I asked you a question earlier about the use of these 
brochures for campaign organizations. 

Let me ask you a related question. What was your knowledge as to 
how these brochures were used in the campaign by the field organiza- 
tion itself? 

Mr. Evans. I didn't know anything about how it was used in the 
field. In fact, I didn't know if it was. I never knew if they even ordered 
them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you take steps to see that it was distributed to 
field organizations ? 

Mr. Evans. No, field organizations being elected organizations ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Evans. No, the only thing that I know of that I did was to tell 
him he could get the number off of the brochure. 

Mr. Hamilton. On this September 14, 1972, memorandum for Dan 
Todd from you entitled "Brochures", is that your B ? Did you do that ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Lapham. What is the date ? 

Mr. Hamilton. September 14, 1972. It states : 

Enclosed are the 55 copies you requested of "Opportunities For Older Amer- 
icans in ACTION." • ♦ • Arrangements have been made for distribution to 
Republican Senators and Congressmen. The remaining brochures are available to 
field organizations and other groups we may want to reach. There are two 
remaining brochures, which will be forwarded when they come in. 

And attached to this is a brochure distribution list. What did you 
mean by "field organizations" ? 

[The documents referred to were marked Evans exhibit No. 16.*] 

* See p. 8575. 



8475 

Mr. Evans, Well, I am sure I was referring to his previous memo, 
that if his people wanted to order them, they could order them. I didn't 
take any steps to get them to field organizations. 

I don't even know what their field organizations was to tell you the 
truth. I don't think it was very effective. 

Mr. Hamii>ton. But I take it you interpret "field organizations" 
here as political field organizations, in other words, Todd's 
organizations ? 

Mr. Evans. I assume that it was it ; yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, I've got another memorandum here and I don't 
know the authorship of this. Maybe you can help me. It is dated 
August 3, and it is to "Fred" which I take it would be Fred Malek, and 
it states : 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 17.*] 

Danny called this a.m. and said that Evans told him at breakfast today that 
"Colson is having second thoughts (cold feet) about the seven additional bro- 
chures." Apparently Volpe called Colson and said DOT didn't want to do a 
brochure, too political with a quote from the President on the cover, etc. This 
must have gotten Colson thinking. Danny is quite alarmed. Just wanted you to be 
aware of the above in case he makes a desperate plea to you to put in a strong 
call to Colson to get him to back off. 

And Malek writes a note : "Please keep pushing on this." — part of 
this is cut off but I am sure that is what it says — "and keep me advised." 
Signed "Fred." 

Then there is a note up here that apparently is by Todd and it says 
"Bud says all OK." Frankly I can't read the rest of it. Maybe you can 
read the rest of it. It is a handwritten note. 

Mr. Evans. Well, one thing it shows is the kind of pressure that I 
was getting if you can't get anything else out of it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Pressure from whom ? 

Mr Evans. From all of the people here; Todd, Malek, whoever else 
wrote the memo. I don't know who wrote it but he was obviously 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you have any idea who might have written that ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Could it have been from Rob Davison ? 

Mr. Evans. It could have been. 

Mr. Hamilton. How about Frank Herringer? 

Mr. Evans. Could have. 

Mr. Hamilton. But you have no idea ? 

Mr. Evans. No; I really don't know which one it is. Jim. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have any conversations with Colson along 
the line that he was getting cold feet because these brochures were too 
political ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; I certainly never put it like that to Colson. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he put it like that to you ? 

Mr. Evans. Did he put it like that to me ? 

No ; I think factually what he did was say that Volpe had problems 
with it and I think what happened was we agreed not to go ahead with 
the DOT brochure. So that was never an issue. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why, because it was political ? 

* See p. 8577. 



8476 

Mr. Evans, I think that in Volpe's opinion it was not an advanta- 
geous point in time to issue the brochure, I just don't know what was 
in Volpe's mind. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, didn't a lot of these brochures have a quote 
from the President somewhere in the brochure? 

Mr. Evans. Yes ; they did. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it fair to say that Todd and Malek were inter- 
ested in keeping these brochures in production because of the political 
fallout? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I think it is fair to say that they were interested 
in keeping them in production for whatever reason was going on inside 
their minds at that time. 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't think anybody would disagree with that 
statement. I am asking you whether or not they imparted to you any 
indication that they were interested in keeping these brochures in 
production and putting them out for political benefit ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, just about anything that was talked about then 
was talked about in political terms. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, their primary interest, is it fair to say, was 
political ? 

Mr. Evans. If I had to say, in my perception, what their interests 
were, they were political. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was your perception of what Mr. Colson's 
primary interest was in the brochures ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, we talked about both the substantive and the polit- 
ical side of it. So, you know, I guess I would say that he had both 
interests in it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you categorize one as primary ? 

Mr. Evans. You are a tough man, Jim. I don't know. I guess that I 
would back off on that and say they were both interests, that is all I 
can say. I don't know which was primary. 

Mr. Hamilton. Which one did he talk about the most ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, he didn't talk about either one that much at all, 
I just don't know. I am not going to let you pin me down. 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't mean this to be facetious, but isn't Mr. Col- 
son the one who allegedly said he would run over his grandmother to 
get the President reelected, which might indicate that his primary 
interest was political and not focused on older persons, assuming his 
grandmother, was an older person ? 

Mr. Evans. That is not the real man, so I am not goin^ to say, 
because of that comment, that that is what was motivating him. 

Mr. Hamilton. I don't want to ask repetitive questions, but I am not 
sure if I asked you about the specific contents of your conversation 
with Colson as to the DOT brochure. 

Mr. Evans. If you ask, what is the question ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, this memorandum that we are talking about 
indicates that you had a discussion with Colson, and Colson indicated 
that he had second thoughts or cold feet 

Mr. Evans. No, I think he indicated that Volpe had reservations. I 
think that got turned around into that kind of phrase, you know, did 
Volpe 



8477 

Mr. Hamilton. The memorandum does not talk about just the DOT 
brochure. It said : "Colson is having second thoughts (cold feet) about 
the seven additional brochures." 

Mr. Evans. No, I don't think that was the case. It is in terms of 
that, that we talked about the substantive impact of — in what this 
might have told people in general . 

Mr. Hamilton. Off the record a second. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Why don't we go back on the record and Gordon 
will be back in a little bit. 

Did you furnish the various departments and agencies a list as to 
who should receive the brochures ? 

Mr. Evans. Part of it. They had their own lists and I furnished 
whatever departments and agencies that they didn't have. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you furnish them preprinted mailing labels? 

Mr. Evans. To the extent they didn't have them on their own mailing 
lists. 

INIr. Hamilton. Where did you get those preprinted mailing labels? 

Mr. Evans. Normally from other departments and agencies. 

Mr. Hamilton. How about telling me about Project FIND? 

Mr. Evans. Project FIND was very much designed, very much 
pushed by Mr. Flemming. It was sort of his baby. It was designed to 
find isolated older people and to try to tell them about what rights 
and benefits they could get under various agency programs. 

Mr. Hamilton. This Project FIND, as I take it, was something 
really different from these agency brochures? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. A different project? 

Mr. Evans. Definitely. 

Mr. Hamilton. And was it your opinion that there was any political 
motivation behind Project FIND? 

Mr. Evans. I don't think so. In fact, I got a lot of negative inputs 
from around the field from Project FIND. Conservatives didn't like it. 
They felt it was trying to give away Federal money. 

Mr. Hamilton. In this weekly staff report* that I showed you that 
you have a copy of, there is a paragraph, No. 5, that reads : 

Also concerning Project FIND, I have just arranged for USDA — 
Which I think means U.S. Department of Agriculture — 

to print up 120,000 liy^ by 22 posters, which will be posted in all Post Offices, 
Community Action Agencies, SSA Offices, Elderly Housing projects, and Red 
Cross offices. This poster will feature the Presidential Seal and a quote by the 
President which will stand out as a result of its differing color. 

This particular passage only speaks about the quote from the Presi- 
dent and the Presidential seal. It doesn't say what the posters were 
about. What were the posters about ? 

IMr. Evans. Project FIND, and I think some of them were printed 
in Spanish for Southern California and Texas, and the object being 
the number of people that needed help that probably went to the post 
office, and particularly in rural communities and that this would be a 
good place to reach them. 

• See Malek exhibit No. 29, p. S427. 



8478 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, according to this passage, you were the moti- 
vating factor behind the posters. Is that correct? You say you have 

just arranged for USDA 

Mr. Evans. Yes, but I was the last link in the chain. 
Mr. Hamilton. Last link in the page ? The second paragraph ? 
Mr. Evans. I guess I was the last link in the chain and Flemming 
had requested them and Keller had been working with some PR guy — 
T dont' know who it was — to define them and then finally they asked 
me to make sure that the Agriculture Department would distribute 
them. 

Mr. Hamilton. As to this poster, as opposed to the rest of Project 
FIND, what was your principal motivation for putting it out ?" 
Mr. Evans. To help make Project FIND successful. 
Mr. Hamilton. Is it your testimony that this particular poster, 
which featured the Presidential seal and a quote by the President, 
which would stand out as a result of its differing color, was not pri- 
marily a political poster ? 

Mr. Evans. No, I don't think it was, although I have never seen the 
poster and you would have to see the poster to see what its primary 
thrust was, but I think you will find that the primary thrust of that 
was to talk in terms of the good that Project FIND could do for the 
elderly. And that was certainly the basis on which the Agriculture De- 
partment distributed them. The fact that the Presidential seal was on 
there is something that I think probably happens to a number of 
things. It has been happening throughout the years of history. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Colson writes next to this item, "Excellent." 
You think this comment was directed toward the Project FIND bene- 
ficial results to the aging or toward the political benefits of the poster ? 
Mr. Evans. Probably both, 
Mr. Hamilton. How about telling me about the HEW film that had 

Richardson and Flemming having discussions 

Mr. Evans. It was presented pretty well in the memo, but, after I 

saw the tape, I was disappointed 

Mr. Lapham. Are we referring to the same status report again ? 
Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 
Mr. Lapham. What paragraph ? 
Mr. Hamilton. Paragraph 7. 

Mr. Evans. In fact, it was so bad that the White House refused to 
distribute it. But the thrust of that was a TV show again showing some 
of the things that were available for the elderly and how they could 
take advantage of them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who paid for this film, HEW ? 
Mr. Evans. I don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. It savs HEW "has agreed to produce." 
Mr. Evans. Maybe they did. I don't know. It was a TV show, I 
think, and I don't think it was ever filmed. I think it was just a taping. 

They would normally do a video tape and 

]\ir. Hamilton. Was the purpose of the taping and the distribution 
to aid the elderly or was it for political purposes ? 
Mr. Evans. Both. 
Mr. Hamtt,ton. Which primarily ? 

Mr. Evans. Basically to aid the elderly. Political purpose was pretty 
poor. I mean even if you looked at it from the most partisan viewpoint, 
you wouldn't find much political purpose. 



8479 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, you write here 

Mr. Evans. I know what I wrote. 
Mr. Hamilton. You state : 

It is a very political show which stresses time and time again the fantastic 
things that the President has done for older people. * ♦ • This should be shown 
in late July or early August. In any event it will be shown before the President 
is nominated. 

And by this Mr. Colson writes, "Good." 

Mr. Evans. That is what I was told it did. When I viewed it, I was 
told it didn't, and because it didn't do it very well, it was never 
distributed. 

Mr. Hamilton. It was never distributed ? 

Mr. Evans. That is right, to my knowledge it never was. 

Mr. Hamilton. My question was, what was the primary purpose for 
this production ? 

Mr. Evans. Primarily to inform older people what was available to 
them. The very fact we had Flemming was a good indication of that. 
"What it did, again as you inform people of what is available to them, 
you have a political impact. And in terms of memos that I write, try- 
ing to motivate White House types to back you or anybody else in the 
administration, you tend to talk in terms of the political side. 

Mr. Hamilton. So it is your testimony the reason you wrote in polit- 
ical terms here was to get Colson on board and it didn't express your 
true interest in the film ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, actually, once I saw the film, I didn't have an 
interest in it. 

Mr. Hamilton. We have a number of documents here that weren't 
prepared by you but do indicate that this film was shown or may indi- 
cate that this film was shown in Wyoming. 

[The documents referred to were marked Evans exhibit No. 18.*] 

Mr. Evans. That is interesting, I didn't know that. I didn't know 
they even had a copy of it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who is Eleanor Callahan ? 

Mr. Evans. Never heard of her. 

Mr. Lapham. What was the last name ? 

Mr Hamilton. Eleanor Callahan. The reason I ask that question is 
there are memorandums here to Mr. Todd from Callahan regarding 
HEW film prints, which may or may not be the same film. 

The Richardson-Flemming film entitled "May the Last Be Best"; 
is that the title ? 

Mr. Evans. I dont' know. Is the title in there ? 

Mr. Hamilton. No. 

Mr. Evans I don't know 

Mr Hamilton. Well, I tell you what. I think the best way to handle 
this is to let me give you this series of memorandums, among cam- 
paign people it appears, and ask you whether it is your opinion these 
memorandums relate to the same film. Here, let me give you this one. 

Mr. Evans. I dont' know. I don't see how you could tell from what 
this says here. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I don't know either. And my question was 

IMr Evans. I don't know, 

Mr. Hamilton. You don't know either? 

INIr. Evans. No. 

* See p. 8578. 



8480 

Mr. Hamilton. You have never seen any of these memorandums 
before ? 

Mr. Evans. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you aware of any other HEW film besides the 
one referred to in the staff report ? 

Mr. Evans. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Hamilton. I want to ask you a few more questions about this 
weekly staff report.^ By the way, do you have copies of your other 
weekly staff reports? 

Mr. Evans. I don't think that I do. You know, I can look again, but 
I don't think so. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like you to. 

Mr. Evans. By the way, I wrote very few staff reports. I was one of 
the few people, I guess, who was very strong about saying, I have too 
much work to worry about putting together staff reports about what 
has been done. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you saying you did not write one weekly ? 

Mr. Evans. Oh, I definitely did not. 

Mr. Hamilton. It says, "Weekly Staff Reports." 

Mr. Evans. I would say definitely not. And I guess if I wrote one 
every 6 weeks — even though in terms of what they called them it 
was weekly. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, we are going to want you to produce for us 
any documents you have that relate to the matters we talked about 
today, any weekly staff reports that you have, and anything as to what 
I define as The Responsiveness Program. 

Mr. Evans. Fine. 

Mr. Hamilton. Looking at paragraph 1 of this weekly staff report, 
which I am not going to read into the record, but which refers to Mr. 
Williams getting a job at AOA, would you describe what that is all 
about ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, I don't remember all the background of what 
Williams was doing before he got into AOA. The background on this 
was that the Administration on Aging had one or two appointments as 
deputy administrator or whatever he is called in the Administration 
on Aging, who were longtime Democrats and they had to — as a top 
job, as an executive job — they had to clear it through the "White House. 
The "White House was unwilling to clear that. The compromise was 
that if that person were made the deputy, that Williams, who was a 
Republican, would be made special assistant — I guess it is Commis- 
sion on Aging — so this other person would be made deputy commis- 
sioner. The "VVhite House cleared him and Williams was then brought 
on as the special assistant. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why was Williams going to be given the right to 
review all AOA grants and contracts ? 

Mr. Evans. Well, in actual fact that never happened. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, why was it proposed that he have the right 
to review that ? 

Mr. Evans. "\Yell, it was proposed in terms of the fact that this 
deputy commissioner was a Democrat and they wanted to have a 
check and balance on him. 



' See Malek exhibit No. 29. p. 8427. 



8481 

]\Ir. Hamilton. Is it fair to say that Mr. Williams was put in there 
for the purpose of making sure that administration friends got grants 
and contracts and administration enemies did not ? 

Mr. Evans. It is fair to say he was put in there to counter balance 
the deputy, who we were sure would award grants and contracts to 
groups that were hostile to the administration, 

Mr. Hamilton. This passage talks about a second position which 
was 

Mr. Evans. Never happened. 

Mr. Hamilton. It never happened ? On page 2, item 10, the passage 
reads : 

I am working with Marumoto and Davison, of Malek's shop, to do them a 
favor in funding a proposal for Spanish-speaking elderly. It appears that I will 
be able to get $100,000 out of OEO for their purposes, and, needless to say, they 
are quite pleased. 

What does that refer to ? 

Mr. Evans. No. 1, Marumoto headed up the Spanish-speaking at the 
Wliite House and he was concerned, as a result of the congressional 
concern mentioned earlier, that nothing was being done for Spanish- 
speaking elderly. And he said, "Why?" I being in charge of the 
elderly, he came to see me and said, "Why isn't anything being done 
for them ?" and you know, my response was, "I don't know. I will have 
to find out." That in turn led to some contacts at OEO which eventu- 
ally ended up coming out with the FEA. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was this $100,000 related to FEA funding? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, but it obviously didn't come out that way and it 
didn't relate to FEA at that point in time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, it states : "It appears that I will be able to get 
$100,000 out of OEO." Do you mean you had some type of arrange- 
ment with OEO to give you $100,000 without a specific grantee ? 

Mr. Evans. No, the object was to find some way to help Spanish- 
speaking elderly. And at that point there was no specific grantee, 
right. I believe this is June, isn't it? Yes, June. I don't believe there 
was any specific grantee at that point in time. It was a matter, as 1 
said, as you evolve through the conversations with the various people 
at OEO, it eventually took the slant that we can find the necessity for 
doing something for Spanish-speaking elderly with the Federation ot 
Experienced Americans. 

Mr. Hamilton. So, it is your testimony that this $100,000 at this 
state did not relate to a grant of that amount to any specific grantee ; 
it is just that OEO thought they could make that amount of money 
available for some program to help the Spanish-speaking elderly ? 

Mr. Evans. Right. I believe that was the stage we were at at that 
date. 

Mr. Hamilton. OK. Now item 11 says : 

Baird, of the Educational Research Council of Ajmerica, has been told by HEW 
that he will receive a $50,000 planning grant. He met with them today, but I do 
not know the results of their meeting. 

What was the planning grant for ? 

Mr. Evans. This had to do witii a. overall education — you see, his 
group is the largest private education group in the country and they 
have been working totally with private money for the last 12 or 15 



8482 

years and they came up with an idea to try to integrate the educational 
curriculum, both horizontally and vertically, from kindergarten all 
the way to 12th grade and cross all of the subject areas, so that you had 
a scientific repetition of various educational points across subject lines 
and throughout grade levels. Pretty exciting idea. And eventually they 
did get the $50,000. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who is Mr. Eocha ? 

Mr. Evans. Father Rocha ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Rocha. 

Mr. Evans. He is a Catholic priest and also was a special assistant 
to the Secretary of Transportation on Aging and he went around and 
did some speaking for the Secretary of Transportation around the 
country, and I talked with him quite a bit, became a very close per- 
sonal friend. He is presently over in Portugal working on a combina- 
tion HEW and State Department grant. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were any of his activities political ? 

Mr. Evans. No, except to the extent that when he talked, he favored 
the President. 

Mr. Hamilton. But, he wasn't out making political speeches? In 
other words, was he a surrogate speaker for the campaign? 

Mr. Evans. No, he was never classified as a surrogate speaker, but 
he certainly did go around during the fall and talk to the elderly. He 
told them that he thought that the President was doing a good job, 
as he talked about elderly matters. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he go to political meetings ? 

Mr. Evans. No, not to my knowledge. You know, I can't account 
for every minute of his time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Apparently, he was in this Richardson-Flemming 
film? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. So he was engaged in matters that were political 
if your characterization, "It is a very political show," is correct. 

Mr. Evans. Oh, if that characterization in here — I don't know if you 
got a copy of the film, but I don't — but it would be worth seeing. I 
think you would agree that it is not very political. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Mr. Flemming served as a surrogate speaker, 
didn't he? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, well I don't know if he was ever technically on the 
surrogate list, but he certainly did a lot of speaking around the 
country. I don't know whether he spoke at political rallies or not. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Frank Troy was his advance man ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Troy was paid by HEW, is that correct ? 

Mr. Evans. He was with the White House Conference on Aging. 

Mr. Hamilton, Well, was he paid by the White House Conference 
on Aging? 

Mr. Evans. I gathered the "White House Conference on Aging was 
funded from HEW moneys, 

Mr. Hamilton. Is that right? 

Mr. Evans, Yes, that is what my understanding of it was, but I 
don't know all of the technicalities of that, so I can't 



8483 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Troy work out of, or have a connection 
with, the reelection committee? 

INIr. Evans. He definitely didn't work out of it. I think he knew 
a few of the people over there, but I don't know what other connection 
he had with them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Paragraph 19 of this memorandum talks about 
Troy's being brought on board to act as Flomming's scheduling and 
advanceman from now until the election, with HEW picking up the 
tab. 

I take it that Troy's activities were to be primarily political, since 
he was working as an advanceman until the election? 

Mr. Evans. Well, Troy's activities, as I understood them, were to 
make Flemming more effective in whatever he spoke. Now, I don't 
believe he ever got into political forums, but you would have to look 
at his schedule. I don't know what his schedule was. I think they were 
pretty much nonpartisan forums and certainly as he was more effec- 
tive in relation to those nonpartisan forums, it had a positive effect. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it your opinion that Troy's activities should 
be tied in with the reelection to office ? 

Mr. Evans. I don't think that they were, because I don't think that 
Flemming was ever on the surrogate list, but I can't give you a specific 
on that. 

Mr. Freedman. I am not sure either. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, let me show you a memorandum here dated 
June 19, 1972, from you to Fred Malek. Subject, "Flemming's Schedul- 
ing — Advanceman." 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 19.^] 

Mr. Evans. Yes; I don't think he ever was. 

Mr. Hamilton. The paragraph I was going to read is this one: 

As Dr. Flemming stated, he would like Troy to be tied in with the Tour OfiBce 
at the Re-election Committee. I reali^^e this may present a problem, but hope- 
fully not an insurmountable one. ♦ * * The Tour Ofiice should be alerted that 
Troy is on board and should be told * * ♦. 

1 take it that the purpose of this memorandum was to plan the use 
of Troy for Flemming on political trips? 

Mr. Evans. I guess I don't bite off on that the way you did, in that 
I am not sure, and I think actually that — ^^I think to the contrary ; that 
Flemming was not involved in political trips. I think what we are 
saying there is that he be coordinated with the political trips that 
other people were taking. 

Do you see the distinction there? 

Mr. Hamilton. I see the distinction, but Troy was being hired until 
the election. 

Mr. Evans. The other thing on that, I don't know how long he did 
work. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, that is what you say in your memorandum to 
Colson:^ "Frank Troy will be brought on !)oard on July 5 to act as 
Flemming's scheduling — advanceman from now until the election," 
indicating that Troy's activities were going to be primarily political, 
if he was just going to be there until the election, that is. Do you think 
that is a proper use of Government resources, to have somebody as a 

' See p. 8584. 

2 See ]\ralek exhil)it No. 29, p. S4:W. 



8484 

consultant to HEW paid by Government money to be an advance- 
man for political purposes ? 

Mr. Evans. I guess I don't think it is proper if he was an advance- 
man for political purposes. I guess I am not sure I agree with the 
contention that he was. No. 1, I think he was paid out of the White 
House Conference on Aging, which is to an extent separate from 
HEW. He certainly worked with the White House Conference on 
Aging. 

Mr. Hamilton. It would still be Government funds being used. 

Mr. Evans. No. 2, I don't think he was ever tied into the Tour 
Office, and No. 3, I think there are Government funds used in the 
White House. That doesn't mean that people in the White House 
can't go out and talk about the President in positive terms. And if 
that is part of the White House Conference on Aging, that is tied 
to the White House. Therefore, where you are headed I think is a 
little bit off base. 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me go back to the brochures for a minute. This 
is a brochure — actually w^ e have t wo brochures here that were put out 
by HEW. One is entitled, "The President Speaks to Older Americans," 
and the other one is entitled, "The President Speaks to Older Ameri- 
cans Again." 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 20.*] 

Mr. Evans. In light of that, one of the things that you might want 
to know, the first one was done before I got there. So, all I did was 
see it in final form. The second one I worked on to attempt to get it 
printed. You know, I don't know all of the steps that led up to it 
and I don't remember exactly who all was involved, but it was just 
a followup to the original one. 

Mr. Freedman. Did HEW print it? 

Mr. Evans. I believe they did. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, let me just ask a couple of questions. Is this 
one of the brochures that we were talking about before? 

Mr. Evans. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. This is an entirely different brochure? 

Mr. Evans. This was just a followup to what was already out. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was your notion of the purpose of this 
brochure ? 

Mr. Evans. I think that shows a number of concerns of the President 
of the United States on behalf of older people. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know when the second brochure was put out? 

Mr. Evans. I think that came out early 1972. I think that came 
out 

Mr. Hamilton. It says: "Excerpts from the I'resident's speech to 
the White House Conference on Aging, his special message on older 
Americans in his State of the Union message. 

Mr. Evans. That could have been May 1971. That depends on what 
year. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Why was this brochure printed? 

Mr. Evans. To show that the President of the United States was 
concerned with the well bcinfr of older people. 

♦ See p. 85S5. 



8485 

Mr. Hamilton. Was it printed for political purposes? 

Mr. Evans. Again, as that has an impact on older people favorable 
to the incumbent, it has political purpose. 

Mr. Hamilton. Neither one of these has a great deal of informa- 
tional value. In other words, they don't just tell you about programs. 

Mr. Evans. No, but they say that the President is going to do some- 
thing on behalf of older people. They say that there is concern at the 
highest level of the Federal Government on their behalf. I would 
think that would be something that older people would want to know 
about. 

Mr. Freedman. Did you work with Dan Todd in the preparation 
of the second brochure? 

Mr. Evans. No. Well, I better not say that that definitely. I don't 
know that Dan was involved in that, but he may have submitted some 
quotes or something. I don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, I might add that this document came out of 
his files. 

Mr. Evans. That could well be. It looks to me like he was attempting 
to make his efforts look as good as he could, based on what everybody 
else was doing. That is what I am gathering from what you are show- 
ing me here. 

Mv. Hamilton. I think I ought to show you this memorandum. It 
was sent to you by Todd referring to a second OA brochure. I guess 
that means Older Americans. I take it what is being referenced here 
is an actual campaign brochure. Is that correct? 

[The document referred to was marked Evans exhibit No. 21.*] 

Mr. Evans. From the date, it looks like it. Yes, I think there was 
one that came out along those lines. Again, I don't have any of those 
brochures. I don't remember exactly what form they took, but that is 
what it looks like. 

jMr. Hamilton. We have been over a number of things here and I 
would just like to ask a further tie-up question, whether you know of 
any other instances besides the ones we have talked about here where 
Government funds were spent to produce fihns, brochures, or any way 
whatsoever primarily because of the political benefit that the expendi- 
ture of the funds would have ? 

^Ir. Lapham. That I think presupposes an earlier answer that some 
of the material that Mr. Evans has talked about were produced pri- 
marily for that political purpose. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, let me say, I don't expect Mr. Evans to accept, 
in answering the question, my assumption of that nature. I think there 
may be conclusions drawn contrary to Mr. Evans' conclusions as to 
why the money was expended by some people, but I don't think that 
for the purposes of the question that he has to accept my assumption. 
I would be happy to rephrase it. 

Mr. Lapham. I don't think you need to rephrase it so long as we 
don't have to accept your premise. 

Mr. Evans. That is fine. Now, my immediate reaction is no: I don't 
think of any other instances offhand, but I guess my feeling is that I 
would certainly want to reflect on that one at considerable length 
before I gave a flat no to it. I don't know if you would like me to 

* See p. 859.^. 



8486 

answer it in the letter that has materials that we well send to you. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think that is a good idea. When you send those 
materials to us that we are going to ask you for, respond to that ques- 
tion as best you can. 

Mr. Evans Good. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would hope that 

Mr. Lapham. I wonder in that connection, if we are going to be 
called upon to make a response to a specific question which is rather a 
long question, if you can include in your letter to us the text of that 
question so we can have it before us when we are trying to put together 
a response to it ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I think the question is pretty simple and that is — — 

Mr. Lapham. I will take the question down. 

Mr. Hamilton, Why don't you let me give it to you right now ? The 
question is basically, Do you know of any instances where U.S. Govern- 
ment funds were expended for the primary purpose of benefiting the 
President's reelection campaign^ And in this answer, you need not 
refer, one way or the other, any of the items talked about hei'e as 
to which I think Mr. P^vans is now on the record. 

Mr. Lapham. So, the question excludes any of the documentary 
materials that Mr. Evans has testified about today ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Any of the documentary materials or the subject 
matters. 

Mr. Evans. The testimony. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, let me say that the subpena we will serve will 
ask for documents relating to these matters that he has testified to. 

Gordon, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Friedman. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think we can adjourn. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Lapham. I would like to make one comment if I could. 
Mr. Evans, you have been shown a number of documents today and 
you have been examined about these documents ; some in memorandum 
form and some in other forms; some prepared by you and some pre- 
pared by others ; some dated and some undated ; some consisting of one 
page and some consisting of several pages. Have you seen any of those 
documents since you left the White House ? 

Mr. Evans. No. 

Mr. Lapham. To the best of your knowledge. 

Mr. Evans. To the best of my knowledge; no. 

Mr. Lapham. That is all I have, except to state on the record my 
understanding that you will be giving us within a matter of days a 
subpena for documents which you will more particularly describe in 
the subpena, and that along with our response to that subpena we will 
make an effort to answer — Mr. Evans will make an effoi-t to answer 
the question that I have noted, that you recited a moment ago. 

Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. 

[Whereupon, at 2 p.m., the committee recessed, subject to the call 
of the Chair.] 



8487 
Evans Exhibit No. 1 

A^xyJ.st 31, 197 2 



: lyz5 only 



A!:ta.:h^d 13 a :3rooodal %v;;icli th^i IT -j-iirt rati on oi iiccprjrianciid A.m<jri'jr-a3 
,5'-ibrrii:tdd to Coraraia jionar Marfciri oi. !:ha Admini3tr?.:ion on Ajin'^ ;q- 
iA'/. rii-3 is th--i "P'-iblic A--v?.r^nrt:)i'' p-jopo ixl, -/liiah I mantionecl to 
70a y-sr.srd;iy. Il i.noiud=e* o:;'avijsioa foir iha ioil.jw;.T.o; PH. appoi''ru»-ii-.i:2s 
bar-v-i-in no-'.v and Novs.-nb-ir 7: 

5 cDlumi-\3 o<3r '^/■i^k for ■lAiii.a.^ 
1 coVo^rm pv?r TV'^r^k for ^.'■^n\<lisd 

3 3-xzairxij.:s stidio tap»3cJ par -vewk for i-:.'.o.io jiaiionsi 
i lO-minu-ce JV .ip'^cial.-i ;or c^ver^/ t-,vo -;v.i=3k3 
1 new-slacr-93" 
"?, l/3-io>xr TV jpeciai-i in Ja.;; 14 key ■i.:a.::.53. 

.Aj yovi ■.zc'.n bell> this couid b'j a bi ^bi/ ctb'octiv.-i cool b-^i-w^-ia no'v and 
Nov^-ih-sr 7^ and I v/ould urj^ 'ih-'t'c you -would .v;ix'-:i it z'n^; bi -^^h-j: _^ .'; priD-rir,- 
possibi^ v/ban talking v/iuh Mn:;tran ^yalo, 

Pl.^ase lee me ^cno'v ii vhar? ia any way ir. which I caa a^c^iji your -^.ifort-j 
and ii iny 3na;^3 arisa concernin-:^ iha iundinJ oi chia pnpo-jal- V?":^ VvTOMld 
like ;o bavs the proposal funded by Sopi^mber 3 no 'iba: 'v^ cin bave l-.vo 
;--ion':h3 oi ^ood ?3. abou: the 33 pr^rconi af tb;^ vocors ^oin 5 ;:o i."a.j ■oclii^ 
11 NDvgrDDar_ i*.' ''-« ,^-<-i t' - 






::.ic.imrt'ric 



Ilbarlri^ //, Coison 



:i ;;j"D-^:i: :^2add:g 



8488 
Evans Exhibit No. 2 

Au;-;udt 18, 197i 



:0.>ri?'ID2NTI. 



ME^xORANDU\l tor B'JD EVANS 
F:.?.<J\x: DJ^i:^ TODD 

SUBJECT: 1701 Brochur-j 



In i-.^w of ihi polLticiil r-atvlctionj i:i 
F.Si\ encorpuration paptji-o, I am hiiving 
hrochur-.;3 a nt to you p-,- roOnally. 



8489 



Evans Exhibit No. 3 






T5-.'!5 is a irr.TcrJ: ct; the ras«;!ta r;f W;'-;!; p^r/crsrisd 



REPORT TO THE 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGING, 

COMMITTEE ON LABOR 

AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 



Award Of A Contract 
And A Grant To The Federation Of 
Experienced Americans, Inc., And 
Related Financial And 
Program Activities B.U3922 

Department of Labor 

Office of Economic Opportunity 



BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL 
OF THE UNITED STATES 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 21 



8490 




COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 
WASHINGTON, D.C. lOSU 



B-163922 



The Honorable Thomas F. Eagleton 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aging 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 
United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

We are reporting on the financial and program activities 
under a Department of Labor contract and an Office of Economic 
Opportunity grant to the Federation of Experienced Americans, 
Inc., of Washington, D.C, This review was made at your request 
and at the request of the Chairman, Senate Special Committee 
on Aging, on March 5, 1973, and June 29, 1973, and this report 
summarizes the results of our review. 

As your office requested, agency officials, the 
contractor/grantee, and other affected parties were not given 
an opportunity to formally examine and comment on this 
report. This fact should be considered in any use made of 
the information presented. 

Copies of this report are also being furnished to the 
Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. We 
do not plan to distribute this report further unless you 
approve or publicly announce its contents. 

Sincerely yours. 



/^. 



Comptroller General 
of the United States 



8491 



Contents 

Page 

DIGEST 1 
CHAPTER 

1 INTRODUCTION 3 

2 FEA ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS 4 

Organization 4 

Operations 6 

3 LABOR CONTRACT AND OEO GRANT 7 

Contract 2607-99 7 

Grant 30064 9 

4 PREAWARD ACTIVITIES 12 

Contract award activities 12 

Grant award activities 14 

White House involvement 18 

5 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS 20 

Activities and results under the OEO 

grant 20 

Activities and results under the Labor 

contract 20 

6 FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES 29 

Results of review 29 
Summary of questioned expenditures 
under Labor's contract and OEO's 

grant 32 

7 SCOPE OF REVIEW 35 



APPENDIX 



Letter dated March 5, 1973, from Chairmen, 
Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate 
and Subcommittee on Aging, Senate Com- 
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare 36 



8492 

Page 



APPENDIX 



II Letter dated June 29, 1973, from Chairmen, 
Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate 
and Subcommittee on Aging, Senate Com- 
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare 37 



ABBREVIATIONS 

DHRD California State Department of Human Resources 
Development 

FEA Federation of Experienced Americans 

GAO General Accounting Office 

HRC United States Human Resources Corporation 

JOA Jobs for Older Americans 

OEO Office of Economic Opportunity 

RJI Retirement Jobs Incorporated 



8493 



COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT TO THE 
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 
AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGING 
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND 
PUBLIC WELFARE 
UNITED STATES SENATE 



AWARD OF A CONTRACT AND A GRANT TO 

THE FEDERATION OF EXPERIENCED 

AMERICANS, INC., AND RELATED 

FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

Department of Labor 

Office of Economic Opportunity 

B-163922 



DIGEST 



WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE 

At the request of the Conmittees, GAO 

— reviewed the bases on which a con- 
tract and a grant were awarded to 
the Federation of Experienced 
Americans (FEA) by the Department 
of Labor and the Office of Eco- 
nomic Opportunity (OEO); 

— identified persons involved in the 
awards and their activities; and 

--reviewed financial and program 
activities of FEA through June 30, 
1973. 

FEA administered a program for the 
Department of Labor under a cost- 
reimbursement contract amounting to 
$1,540,000. The program was designed 
to enroll and provide subsidized work 
to 350 individuals who were at least 
55 years of age and who had been 
certified as "poor," by Labor's defi- 
nition. Seventy-five percent of 
the 350 were to be placed into unsub- 
sidized employment. 

FEA also administered a program for 
the elderly poor under an OEO grant 
amounting to $399,839. This was de- 
signed to assist in the development 
of new approaches and methods for 
overcoming special problems of the 
Spanish-speaking elderly poor. 

GAO discussed its findings with of- 
ficials of Labor, OEO, and FEA. How- 
ever, these officials and other 



affected parties have not been given 
an opportunity to formally examine 
and comment on this report, as agreed 
with the Committees. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Preauard activities 

The grant and contract awards were 
processed outside normal procedures. 
Officials of Labor and OEO said that 
both the grant and the contract had 
substantial White House backing. 
(See p. 12.) 

Program activities and results 

GAO did not review FEA's program 
activities under the grant since OEO 
was in the process of doing so. (See 
p. 20.) 

Under Labor's contract FEA operated 
an Operation Mainstream program in 
California— Oakland and San 
Francisco— and Florida. The Florida 
component was managed effectively. 
Some minor deficiencies were brought 
to the attention of the project 
director who agreed to correct them. 
(See p. 20.) 

The Oakland component was not effec- 
tive in achieving its primary 
object! ves--training and placing dis- 
advantaged elderly persons in unsub- 
sidized jobs. 

Many of its enrollees, claimed as 
unsubsidized placements by the 



Tej' Shegt. Upon removal, the report 
cover date should be noted hereon. 



8494 



Oakland component, actually had been 
working for the same employer or in- 
dustry before, during, and after 
their enrollment. They had also 
earned amounts above the poverty 
level income criteria used by Labor 
in determining eligibility. 

Neither the enrol lees claimed as 
placements by the Oakland component 
nor their employers had been made 
aware of the program's objectives. 
(See pp. 22 and 24.) 

Almost all the enrol lees participat- 
ing in Oakland were placed in private 
for-profit concerns--primarily in 
the garment industry--which was not 
in accordance with contract provi- 
sions that subsidized placements be 
with public or private nonprofit in- 
stitutions. (See p. 26.) 

At the FEA component in San Francisco, 
program goals generally were being 
accomplished, although the record- 
keeping activities and internal con- 
trol procedures needed improvement. 
The project's director subsequently 
advised GAO of actions taken to 
overcome these problems. 

Finanaial activities 

Lack of appropriate checks and 
balances rendered FEA's accounting 
system and related internal controls 
inadequate. 

Appropriate controls had not been 
established to encourage compliance 
with contract and grant requirements, 
to insure that contract and grant 
funds were used only for authorized 
purposes, or to check the accuracy 
or reliability of accounting records. 

As a result of the deficiencies 



noted, GAO questioned expendi tu'es 
of about $184,000 under the contract 
and about $30,000 under the grant 
(See pp. 33 and 34.) 

In several instances FEA used con- 
tract funds for expenditures under 
the grant and vice versa. Contract 
and grant funds were also used for 
personal expenditures of FEA's 
president. 

FEA employees traveled outside pro- 
gram areas without authorization 
from Labor and OEO officials. Trips 
were made without documenting the 
purposes. No reports were made of 
the business conducted. GAO ques- 
tioned about $23,700 of travel ex- 
penses for these and other reasons. 
(See p. 30.) 

FEA made a large number of equipment 
and supply purchases amounting to 
$3,807 through private suppliers with- 
out first obtaining written permis- 
sion from the contracting officer as 
required under its contract with 
Labor. (See p. 31 .) 

AGENCY ACTIONS 

Both Labor and OEO have notified FEA 
that after weighing all pertinent 
available facts and considerations, 
it would be in the best interest of 
the Government not to refund present 
programs with FEA. 

Labor and OEO will make the final 
determination of the allowability 
of costs questioned by GAO under the 
contract and grant, respectively. 
In addition. Labor auditors will 
audit FEA's financial transactions 
for the period from July 1, 1973, to 
the end of the contract and the grant 
periods. 



8495 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Pursuant to joint requests from the Senate Special 
Committee on Aging and the Subcommittee on Aging, Senate 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, dated March 5, and 
June 29, 1973, (see apps . I and II), we reviewed selected 
aspects of a contract and a grant awarded to the Federation 
of Experienced Americans (FEA) by the Department of Labor 
and the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) , respectively. 

The initial request involved verifying certain informa- 
tion provided by the Labor Department in response to a joint 
inquiry from the Committees concerning the contract awarded 
to FEA. 

Subsequently, the Committees requested that we: 

--Determine the bases upon which the contract and grant 
awards were made and identify persons involved in the 
awards and their activities. 

--Conduct a full financial audit of FEA activities. 

--Examine the manner in which the federally funded pro- 
grams were being carried out. 

We did not evaluate FEA's overall effectiveness in ac- 
complishing the program objectives for which OEO funds were 
provided because OEO was evaluating this matter at the time 
we completed our fieldwork. 

We discussed the results of the program and financial 
aspects of the review with FEA, Labor, and OEO officials. As 
noted in subsequent chapters. Labor and OEO will resolve the 
financial questions raised in the audit and both agencies 
have decided to discontinue funding FEA programs. 



8496 



CHAPTER 2 

FEA ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS 

ORGANIZATION 

FEA is a nonprofit corporation, incorporated in the 
District of Columbia on March 29, 1972, to, according to the 
articles of incorporation, (1) carry on educational activi- 
ties by establishing a network of business and professional 
people with a special interest in aging and a willingness to 
support sound programs and policies on behalf of older per- 
sons, (2) develop the expertise to use Federal funds appro- 
priated on behalf of experienced Americans, (3) develop 
services, including those for pensions, medical help, housing, 
employment, education, transportation, vocation, and recrea- 
tion, which will benefit older persons, and (4) create a 
communication network to inform older Americans of programs 
and services available to them and to help them articulate 
their desires. 

FEA's constitution and bylaws in effect during fiscal 
year 1973, the period covered by our audit, state that FEA 
management is to be vested in three executive directors. 
According to the FEA president, who was also the founder of 
FEA, the executive directors and their functions were: 



Position 



Director 



Principal 
functions 



Chairman of the Board Dr. Theodore Klumpp Advisor and con- 
sultant . 



President/treasurer David W. Brody 



Directs all pro- 
grams and is per- 
sonally responsi- 
ble for program 
content and 
quality. 



Corporation secretary Dr. James P. Baker 



Advisor and con- 
sultant . 



FEA's organization chart shows that it is governed by a 
four-member board of directors which includes, in addition to 
the three executive directors mentioned above, Mr. Hugh W. 
Brenneman. 



8497 



The board is required to meet annually by FEA's charter. 
FEA's president is responsible for developing, designing, and 
implementing relevant programs for older citizens. We did 
not ascertain the extent of the other board members' involve- 
ment in the direction or management of FEA. 

Background of FEA officials 

Data submitted to Labor before the contract was awarded 
shows that Mr. Brody did undergraduate work at the University 
of Connecticut and Boston University from which he received 
bachelor of science degrees in industrial management and 
mathematics, respectively. According to the data, Mr. Brody 
also received a master of business administration degree with 
a major in business administration from Boston College in 
1965". 

Mr. Brody's resume showed that since 1955 he has worked 
as a program coordinator and as a planning director for con- 
tractors with defense contracts; as a project engineer, an 
assistant director of marketing, and in managerial positions 
with various private consulting firms; and, immediately prior 
to his presidency of FEA, was an independent consultant to 
the Health Maintenance Organization Service, Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare. His resume does not indicate 
any involvement in the area of gerontology, and our discus- 
sions with him confirmed this. 

Data submitted to Labor shows that Dr. Klumpp, chair- 
man of the board, was a 1928 graduate of Harvard Medical 
School and had been associated with various activities deal- 
ing with the aged and rehabilitation. It showed that he was 
a member of the Governor's Council on Rehabilitation, State 
of New York; Committee on Aging, Council on Medical Services 
of the American Medical Association; Panel on Aging, (Depart- 
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare) Washington, D.C.; 
and the State Vocational Rehabilitation Planning Council, 
New York City. The data showed that Dr. Klumpp was also the 
chairman of Winthrop Laboratories, a division of Sterling 
Drugs, and was the director and vice president of Sterling 
Drugs, Inc. 

Labor's data showed that Dr. James P. Baker was a 
practicing surgeon in Virginia where he had formed a partner- 
ship to construct a 60-bed nursing home. He was a charter 
member and vice president for Medical Affairs of the American 



8498 



Society for Cybernetics and was conducting research on 
problems of the elderly under the auspices of the Albert 
Lundy Baker Memorial Foundation and Ecosystems Research Corp- 
oration of which he was president and chairman of the board, 
respectively. 

Mr. Hugh W. Brenneman, according to Labor's data, was 
a Michigan public relations consultant who had worked for 
various organizations, including many Michigan health associ- 
ations. The data showed that he was executive director of 
the Michigan Association of the Professions and president of 
the American Association of the Professions. 

OPERATIONS 

In administering Labor's contract, FEA worked through 
its project-type organization, known as Jobs for Older Amer- 
icans (JOA) , which had three offices--one in Tallahassee, 
Florida, and two in the San Francisco, California, area. 

Dr. Robert G. Turner and William M. Whitaker III were 
the Florida project director and Tallahassee project director, 
respectively. In charge of the San Francisco JOA operations 
was Beatrice Gartz, a retired educator. Dr. Edward K. Chook 
managed a third JOA office in Oakland, California. The JOA 
San Francisco office handled most administrative matters for 
the Oakland office, but the Oakland office was independent 
with respect to program activities. 

FEA's subcontractor under the OEO grant was the United 
States Human Resources Corporation (HRC) , a for-profit organ- 
ization also in the San Francisco area. HRC has organized, 
planned, and developed a number of programs for public and 
private agencies and community development corporations. 
The president of HRC is Herman Gallegos. 



8499 

CHAPTER 5 

LABOR CONTRACT AND OEO GRANT 

FEA obtained a contract from Labor's Manpower 
Administration and a grant from the Special Programs Divi- 
sion of OEO as follows. 

Contract 

grant Period Statutory authority 

number Amount From To and program 

Labor 

2607-99 $1,540,000 6-30-72 ^1-31-74 Title IB, Economic 

Opportunity Act of 
1964, as* amended 
(42 U.S.C. 2740) 
(Operation Main- 
stream) 



OEO 

30064 399,839 11-1-72 *^2-28-74 Title IIC, Economic 

Opportunity Act of 
1964, as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 2825) 
(Research and pilot 
programs) 

a 
Expiration date of June 30, 1973, extended to January 31, 

1974, and funds increased from $1 million to $1,540,000. 

b 
Expiration date of October 31, 1973, extended to Febru- 
ary 28, 1974, at no increase in funds. 

CONTRACT 2607-99 



The contract with FEA was initially for the period 
June 30, 19 72, through June 30, 19 73, and was made under 
title IB of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, 
which authorized "financial assistance in urban and rural 
areas for comprehensive work and training programs or com- 
ponents of such programs * * *." 



8500 



The specific objectives of the project authorized by 
the contract were "to provide work opportunities for elderly 
disadvantaged workers in California and Florida," and to 
"provide an expansion of existing needed services by creat- 
ing additional employees to work in current programs where 
there is a shortage of personnel." 

The contract provided that FEA would (1) enroll individ- 
uals who were 55 years old or older and certified as poor by 
Labor's definition and who were chronically unemployed-- 
meaning unemployed for more than 15 consecutive weeks, 
repeatedly unemployed over the prior 2 years, or employed 
less than 20 hours a week for more than 26 consecutive weeks 
and (2) enroll 350 persons and place 75 percent of them in 
unsubsidized employment. The enrollees were to be employed 
in Northern California and in the greater Tallahassee area 
and to work no more than 20 hours a week for 50 weeks . They 
were to be paid between $1.60 and $3 per hour. 

On June 28, 1973, Labor extended FEA's contract from 
June 30, 1973, to December 31, 1973, and increased the total 
amount of the contract by $540,000. Labor decided to extend 
all the Operation Mainstream national contracts to Decem- 
ber 31, 1973, to put them on a uniform contract cycle. 
This, according to Labor program officials, would enable the 
Labor Department to uniformly implement program changes. 

On December 14, 1973, Labor notified FEA that, after 
carefully weighing all available facts and considerations, 
it had concluded it would be in the Government's best in- 
terest not to refund the FEA contract. Labor has taken 
steps to transfer FEA enrollees to projects operated by 
other Operation Mainstream contractors. To allow for an 
orderly closing out of the contract and to insure that FEA's 
Operation Mainstream enrollees would have a smooth transi- 
tion to other Operation Mainstream programs. Labor extended 
FEA's contract for 1 month, to January 31, 19 74. 

The following schedule shows the budgeted contract 
costs for the original contract period and for the extension. 



8501 

Budgeted FEA Costs For Labor Contract 2607-99 

Total JOA FEA 

Enrollee costs : 

1 year contract $ - $ 799,386 $ 

Extension - 464,170 



Total T ,265,556 1,263,556 - 

Administrative costs : 

1 year contract - - 48,842 

Extension - 9 ,950 18,096 

Total 76,888 9,950 66,938 

Staff costs : 

1 year contract - 64,032 58,960 

Extension - 44,123 32,441 

Total 199,556 108,155 91,401 

Total contract 

costs $ 1.540.000 $ 1.381.661 $ 158.339 

GRANT 30064 

The grant was awarded for the period of November 1, 
1972, through October 31, 1973, under title IIC of the 
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, allowing the 
Director of OEO to 

"provide financial assistance for pilot or demon- 
stration projects conducted by public or private 
agencies which are designed to test or assist in 
the development of new approaches or methods that 
will aid in overcoming special problems * * *." 

This subsection also permits OEO to fund research pertaining 
to such approaches or methods . 

The grant-funded project, "Outreach Program for the 
Elderly Poor", was described in OEO documents as having 
these objectives: 



8502 



1. Develop in-depth demographic data on the 
characteristics and needs of the elderly poor. 

2. Ascertain whether distinctive problems exist for 
the Spanish- speaking elderly poor and whether 
special techniques may be available to deal with 
these problems . 

3. If other special groups among the elderly poor 
appear to have such distinctive problems, attempt 
to identify and recommend further research on 
these problems . 

4. Establish three prototype resource centers for the 
elderly in communities of predominantly Mexican- 
American, Puerto Rican, and Cuban ethnic composi- 
tion. 

5. Establish a National Information Center to assemble 
information on federally sponsored programs aimed 
at benefiting the elderly poor and to disseminate 
this data to the three prototype resource centers. 

FEA contracted out most of the work under the grant to 
HRC, a San Francisco based corporation with a history of 
service in programs dealing with Spanish- speaking Americans. 
HRC had submitted the original proposrl for the outreach 
program to OEO; HRC was not awarded the grant, however, be- 
cause of OEO's policy to award grants of this type to non- 
profit organizations. According to OEO program officials, 
FEA was invited to participate in the project because of its 
nonprofit status and it was agreed that HRC would serve as 
the subcontractor for the grant. 

On November 2, and December 3, 19 73, OEO notified FEA 
that the grant would be extended for 1 month at no additional 
cost. An OEO program official told us that the Director of 
OEO (1) had decided to extend the grant for November and 
December and (2) wanted to have a complete review of the 
grant made before he decided whether to terminate funding. 

On January 18, 1974, OEO notified FEA that, after care- 
fully weighing all pertinent facts and considerations, it 
had concluded it would be in the Government's best interest 
not to refund the present FEA grant, but it gave the grantee 
until February 28, 19 74, to phase out the grant. 



10 



8503 



The budgeted costs for the OEO grant are set forth 



below, 



Budgeted Costs For OEO Grant 50064 
Total FEA 



Staff costs 
Administrative cost 

Total grant 
costs 



$241,231 $ 93,743 
158,608 29,394 



HRC 

$147,488 
129,214 



$ 399.859 $ 123.157 $ 276.702 



11 



I 



8504 



CHAPTER 4 

PREAWARD ACTIVITIES 

The committees requesting the review were particularly- 
interested in the activities leading to the award of Labor's 
contract and OEO's grant. According to the information pro- 
vided by Labor and OEO officials, there was substantial White 
House backing for both the contract and the grant and both 
awards were processed outside the agencies' normal processing 
procedures . 

CONTRACT AWARD ACTIVITIES 

In keeping with President Nixon's promise to the White 
House Conference on the Aging in November 1971 that the jobs 
program for older persons with low incomes would be doubled 
to $26 million, then Secretary of Labor, J.D. Hodgson, an- 
nounced on April 19, 1972, that the additional $13 million 
had been allocated to help about 5,000 older workers. 

Secretary Hodgson said that $10 million would be used 
to increase funds for five existing national contracts. An 
additional $2 million would be used in local older worker 
projects negotiated and approved by Labor's regional manpower 
administrators. A decision on how the remaining $1 million 
was to be allocated was to be made before June 30, 1972. 

The five national contracts awarded, according to Secre- 
tary Hodgson, were to (1) National Retired Teachers Associa- 
tion, (2) National Farmers' Union, (3) U.S. Forest Service, 
(4) National Council of Senior Citizens, and (5) National 
Council on the Aging. 

All opportunities under the expansion program were for 
persons 55 and older. Enrollees were to work in locally 
sponsored projects that provided needed public services or 
improved the physical or social environment. 

We discussed pre-contract award activities with Labor 
off icials- -both current and former--who were involved. In- 
cluded in our discussions were the former Assistant Secretary 
for Manpower and his former executive assistant, the former 
chief, Division of Work Experience, Manpower Administration, 
and other officials involved in various aspects of the 



12 



8505 



contract. We also reviewed documents dealing with preaward 
activities available from Labor files or from the individuals 
involved. 

The former Assistant Secretary advised us that the White 
House took an active role in directing the Labor Department 
as to how the expansion moneys were to be spent. The White 
House staff member involved was identified as L. J. Evans, Jr. 
According to the former Assistant Secretary, the White House 
wanted the $13 million in expansion moneys to go to organiza- 
tions considered friendly to the administration. Labor's 
initial allocation plan did not satisfy this requirement and, 
according to the former Assistant Secretary, Mr. Evans and 
the former executive assistant worked out a compromise plan y 
which called for awarding a $1 million contract to an organi- 
zation to be selected by the White House. This occurred in 
February 1972. 

The former executive assistant told us the White House 
wanted Labor to cut back and/or terminate funding for two of -/ 
the Operation Mainstream national contractors- -the National 
Council on the Aging and the National Council of Senior Citi- 
zens. He stated that Labor had no intention of reducing or 
terminating funding with these groups, primarily because an 
evaluation report had stated that the nationally run contracts 
were the best segment of the Operation Mainstream program in 
terms of accomplishments and meeting of program objectives. 

According to the former executive assistant, he met with 
Mr. Evans and FEA representatives three times in Mr. Evans' 
office and with FEA representatives and lower level Labor 
program officials in the office of the former Assistant Secre- 
tary for Manpower. A Labor Department chronology of preaward 
activities provided details of the latter meeting, as well as 
subsequent meetings, and notes that Labor officials were in- 
structed to assist in developing an older worker project using 
$1 million of Operation Mainstream's expansion moneys. 

Labor records show that the initial FEA proposal, while 
considered fundable, contained certain weaknesses and required 
revision. A second proposal was submitted to the Department 
and program officials decided to meet with the FEA president 
to clarify a number of issues, including the matter of FEA's 
capability. The program official primarily involved said 
that the purpose of the proposed meeting was the subject of 
telephone inquiries from both the former Assistant Secretary 
for Manpower and his executive assistant. After some 

13 



32818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 22 



8506 



discussions as to the level at which the meeting should take 
place, they decided that it should be at the program offi- 
cial's level. The executive assistant ultimately directed 
the program official to pursue all matters with the FEA presi- 
dent, except FEA's capability, which the executive assistant 
said he would handle personally. 

The executive assistant told us that he requested the 
FEA president to supply additional information regarding the 
capabilities of FEA and the FEA president. On June 15, 1972, 
the FEA president provided Labor with four reference letters 
regarding his character, integrity, and ability as an or- 
ganizer, as well as background data on the members of the 
board and copies of FEA's articles of incorporation, consti- 
tution, and bylaws. 

Labor Department records show that the above-mentioned 
meeting was held on June 7, 1972, and the FEA president 
agreed to revise the proposal and resubmit it by June 9, 1972. 
The revised proposal was submitted on June 10; the Department 
expedited processing of the proposal and records show that on 
June 30, Labor officials called the FEA president to come in 
and sign the contract document. 

The former Assistant Secretary told us that he was re- 
sponsible for the Department's action in funding FEA. He 
stated that, in his opinion, the $13 million was not allo- 
cated unreasonably in that only $1 million had gone to a new 
organization reportedly friendly to the administration. Some 
$8 million had gone to existing contractors reportedly un- 
friendly to the administration, an additional $2 million went 
to the U.S. Forest Service, and the remaining $2 million was 
set aside for locally sponsored projects. He did not believe 
undue pressure had been exerted on him to fund FEA. He summed 
up his position by saying that he had merely responded to 
White House requests for consideration. 

GRANT AWARD ACTIVITIES 

FEA files contained a copy of an HRC proposal to esta- 
blish 24 centers for the Spanish-speaking elderly. The pro- 
posal was submitted to the White House on June 9, 1972, and 
was also submitted to OEO . According to OEO officials, HRC 
was not awarded the grant because it was a for-profit consult- 
ing firm and FEA was subsequently invited by a White House 
staff member to participate in the proposal as project 



14 



8507 



coordinator and HRC was to become a subcontractor to FEA. 
OEO records show that FEA submitted an unsolicited proposal 
dated August 31, 1972, for the project. An OEO official ad- 
vised us that a White House staff member, L. J. Evans, Jr., 
directed OEO to fund the proposal from FEA which was for a 
major project concerning elderly Spanish- speaking people. 

OEO officials told us that Mr. Evans also instructed 
OEO to limit its forthcoming contract extension with the 
National Council on the Aging to 6 months after which OEO 
would be expected to award a grant or contract to FEA to 
provide a full range of professional training and technical 
assistance for OEO aging programs that had been provided by 
the National Council on the Aging for many years with funds 
from OEO and other agencies. 

The former Chief of the Older Persons Programs, in OEO's 
Office of Operations, stated in a memo dated November 17, 
1972, on his review of the proposal that he had been given 
FEA's proposal for review on or about September 18, 1972. 
He said in the memo that he was "shocked at the weakness" of 
the proposal and wrote "a devastating" critique, which stated 
in part: 

"* * * the proposal as now written is an extraordinary 
weak, unfocused, uniformed and unprofessional job. 
It is without a doubt the weakest proposal of this 
magnitude that I have ever reviewed. It is really 
an unbroken chain of mundane cliches, uniformed 
statements of purported fact and immoderate condem- 
nation of all existing agencies and programs as they 
relate to the Spanish-speaking elderly* * *." 

The former Chief's memo said that he was later given a 
copy of a letter dated October 20, 1972, from the FEA presi- 
dent which contained some modifications of the work plan and 
a "loosely constructed" budget for about $400,000. OEO program 
officials told us that despite their disapproval the former 
Associate Director of OEO's Office of Program Review in- 
structed the former Chief to get the project funded and gave 
the Older Persons program staff 24 hours to produce a signed 
grant document. 

The former Chief's memo stated that he was (1) told the 
grant was to be completely processed and signed by the end of 
the following day, (2) instructed to serve as the project 



15 



8508 



manager for the grant and in that capacity to sign as its 
originator and to prepare in draft all the necessary technical 
grant papers with the help of a technician in the Grants Pro- 
cessing Branch, and (3) told that the work program and budget 
were to be accepted as presented with no further opportunity 
for negotiating work or budget provisions. 

OEO officials said that, at a briefing session held 
October 31, 1972, they were advised by the executive assistant 
to the former Associate Director for Program Review that the 
normal agency requirement for Project Review Board approval 
had been waived, that normal approval of the Mayor of 
Washington and certain governors would be handled informally, 
and that standard procedures for annouricing the grant were 
to be bypassed for the time being. 

A set of special conditions was prepared v/hich, accord- 
ing to the former Chief, would have provided the Government 
with some control over the conduct of the work program. The 
former Chief said he was told by the former Associate Director 
for Program Review that the special conditions were considered 
to be too harsh and perhaps illegal. They were later consider- 
ably revised. All the other grant papers, according to the 
former Chief, were typed on October 31, by an FEA secretary 
who was sent to OEO for that purpose. 

The former Chief, in his critique of the grant, stated 
the following reservations: 

1. He considered the grantee totally unqualified to 
do the job. 

2. He thought the grant could produce nothing that was 
not already well researched and tested. He stated 
also that it was a weak and poorly designed plan. 

3. He believed that a planning grant of this nature 
should not exceed $75,000 to $90,000. 

4. He sensed that he had been used to give the grant 
some semblance of legitimacy. 

5. FEA had not, and could never, within several years, 
acquire an acceptable degree of competence to perform 
training and technical assistance functions which 
would be required if FEA took over other grantees' 



16 



8509 



responsibilities and that no service at all would 
be preferable to a contract with FEA from program 
and political standpoints. 

We discussed the preaward activities leading to the OEO 
grant with the former Associate Director for Program Review, 
who became acting OEO Director in January of 1973, and with 
his former executive assistant. They said the former Asso- 
ciate Director was aware of FEA's proposal and was in favor- 
of executing a grant to FEA. The former executive assistant, 
however, was the OEO official most involved in the preaward 
activities . 

The former Associate Director advised us that the FEA 
grant had White House backing and that he believed the grant 
award was valid. He also stated that, if the grantee was 
qualified and if the funds could be used effectively in a 
nonpolitical manner, he believed he was justified in recom- 
mending that the award be made. The former Associate Director 
said FEA's White House support was not unique since it had 
expressed support for other specific grants or contracts. 

The former executive assistant told us that, to the 
best of his knowledge, the former Associate Director had ac- 
companied him to the White House to meet with Mr. Evans, but 
that after the initial White House meeting, the Associate 
Director did not get involved in the day to day activities 
involving the proposal. He said he perceived the fact that 
the former Associate Director had taken him to the White 
House and introduced him to the former White House staff 
member as a directive to cooperate with the White House. 

The executive assistant told us the FEA proposal was 
first brought to his attention by the OEO Deputy Director 
and that he met FEA's president at the initial meeting at 
Mr, Evans' office. He said that, after OEO received the pro- 
posal, Mr. Evans telephoned him to express his support for 
FEA and then had frequent contact with him until the grant 
was awarded. The executive assistant said he attempted to 
get the proposal approved within OEO in the shortest possible 
time and that this effort, coupled with the fact that he was 
the executive assistant to the Associate Director for Program 
Review, may have caused lower level OEO officials to construe 
his activities as being directed by the Associate Director 
when in fact they were not. 



17 



8510 



OEO program officials advised us that the former 
Associate Director had not been directly involved in any 
specific preaward activities and that, in all likelihood, 
he had not been aware of how the FEA grant was processed. 
The former Associate Director advised that he was surprised 
to learn that shortn'ts had been taken in the grant-processing 
procedure. He tolo us that he had directed his executive 
assistant to insure that any activity undertaken be absolutely 
above board. 

WHITE PiOUSE INVOLVEMENT 

During our inquiries into purported White House involve- 
ment in preaward contract and grant activities, we interviewed 
L. J. Evans, Jr., the former White House staff member who 
served as Project Manager for the Elderly. According to 
agency officials it was this staff member who allegedly in- 
tervened in preaward activities. Mr. Evans said his only 
preaward involvement concerning the Labor Department contract 
consisted of putting certain potential contractors, including 
FEA, in contact with appropriate Department officials. 
Mr. Evans denied any prior knowledge of the OEO grant award 
and any involvement in the grant's proposal phase. 

Labor contract 

Mr. Evans said he first learned of FEA's contract 
through a direct congressional inquiry. He told us that his 
initial contact with Labor concerning the additional funds 
made available for the Operation Mainstream program occurred 
when he was telephoned by a Department official (whose name 
he could not remember) , who inquired as to how the additional 
funds were to be allocated. Mr. Evans said that he suggested 
that existing contractors be given the additional money. 

Mr. Evans told us that sometime after the phone call 
from Labor, two contractors- -FEA and an existing contractor 
under the Operation Mainstream program- -called his office and 
asked how they could obtain part of the expansion funds. He 
said he directed the groups to Labor and later a Department 
official called him to ask how the contract with FEA should 
be developed. 

Mr. Evans told us that a meeting was arranged in his 
office between Labor and FEA representatives to discuss the 
proposed contract. He could only remember one other meeting 
involving the Operation Mainstream program. This meeting, 

18 



8511 



held later at the office of the then Assistant Secretary 
for Manpower, involved a review of plans for distributing 
the Operation Mainstream expansion funds. According to 
Mr. Evans, the meeting was requested by the Assistant 
Secretary . 

Mr. Evans said he never intended any of his actions to 
be construed as "applying pressure" and responded negatively 
to our questions as to whether he ever directly or indirectly 
suggested awarding a Department contract to PEA. He said 
that, if Labor construed his actions as representing pressure 
to execute a contract with FEA, it was the Department's error 
since at no time did he intercede on behalf of FEA. 

GEO grant 

Mr. Evans denied any knowledge or involvement in the 
award of the OEO grant to FEA. He did acknowledge that he 
had complained to the Deputy Director of OEO about the lack 
of OEO assistance for programs for Spanish-speaking elderly. 
He said that he had received an inquiry from a U.S. Senator 
concerning the lack of assistance programs for the Spanish- 
speaking elderly. 

Mr. Evans said that the OEO Deputy Director called to 
advise him that a grant had been made to FEA for a program 
to aid the Spanish-speaking elderly. He said he told the 
OEO official that he was pleased since it was, in his view, 
something that would help the elderly and would also satisfy 
the inquiry from the Senator. He denied having anything to 
do with the approval. 



19 



8512 



CHAPTER 5 

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AiND RESULTS 

ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS UNDER THE OEO GRANT 

On November 1, 19 72, OEO awarded FEA a grant for 
$399,839 aimed at developing in depth demographic data on 
the characteristics and needs of the elderly poor. One ob- 
jective was to identify special groups among the elderly 
poor who may have distinctive problems which are not being 
met by existing Federal programs and to suggest ways of 
dealing effectively with those problems. 

A project goal was to determine whether the Spanish- 
speaking elderly poor are among those special groups not 
benefiting from Federal assistance programs. There was to 
be a followup demonstration phase for the establishment of 
prototype resource centers. The centers were to be located 
in communities whose populations were predominatly of 
Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, and Cuban ethnic backgrounds. 

Once underway, the resource centers would be furnished 
information on all federally sponsored programs to help the 
elderly poor. The information was to be assembled and dis- 
seminated by the grantee through a national information 
center established in Washington, D.C. 

We did not review FEA's activities under the grant since 
OEO was conducting program reviews at FEA headquarters and 
the three resource centers and a financial review at the 
subcontractor's HRC offices in California. The OEO report 
on program activities was not available at the time we con- 
cluded our fieldwork. A November 20, 1973, interim report 
on the review of HRC's financial activities states that 
costs of about $37,000 had been questioned. 

ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS 
UNDER THE LABOR CONTRACT 

Labor's $1 million contract with FEA was for the man- 
agement and coordination of a program to provide work op- 
portunities for elderly disadvantaged workers in California 
and Florida. The contract was extended and increased by 
$540,000. Enrollees were employed in the San Francisco- 
Oakland area and in the greater Tallahassee area. FEA is 

20 



8513 



responsible for overall management and coordination of the 
program. To administer the programs provided by the con- 
tract, FEA subcontracted in July 1972, with two groups, 
Retirement Jobs, Incorporated (RJI) in San Jose and Florida 
State University, Tallahassee. By July 1973 FEA had termi- 
nated its subcontractors choosing instead to have the pro- 
gram administered by its project-type organization. Jobs for 
Older Americans (JOA) . 

As discussed below, the Florida project seems to have 
been managed properly but it did not meet its placement 
goals. The San Francisco operation was generally accomplish- 
ing its program objectives although recordkeeping and in- 
ternal controls needed improvement. The Oakland operation 
was not effective in achieving its primary objective of 
training and placing disadvantaged elderly persons in un- 
subsidized jobs, in that many of the enrollees claimed as 
unsubsidized placements by the Oakland office had actually 
been working for the same employer or industry before, dur- 
ing, and after their enrollment. 

FEA's Florida activities 

The Florida project began operation in July 17, 1972. 
Under this segment of the contract, the university was re- 
sponsible for locating work opportunities for 100 enrollees. 
In addition, the project was to provide guidance and coun- 
seling to new enrollees, train or orient individuals requir- 
ing those functions, provide liaison between the worksite 
agency and the enrollee, and to place no less than 75 per- 
cent of the_ pro ject ' s enrollees into unsubsidized jobs. 

Although the university's involvement with the project 
terminated on June 30, 1973, JOA continued to operate the 
project. Through September 16, 1973, 197 persons have been 
enrolled in the Florida project. Of these, 33 were placed 
in unsubsidized jobs, 63 were terminated from the program, 
and 101 were working in subsidized jobs. The project also 
placed 12 individuals who were not enrolled in the program 
directly into unsubsidized work. 

We found no major problems in the management of the 
JOA Florida activity. We noted some minor deficiencies- - 
problems in enrollment procedures, enrollee counseling, and 
paycheck handling procedures--which we brought to the project 



21 



8514 



director's attention. He concurred and agreed to take 
corrective actions which we believe, would be adequate to 
prevent the reoccurrance of the types of deficiencies noted. 

FEA's California activities 



The California project began operation in July 1972. 
Under this segment of the contract, RJI was initially re- 
sponsible for locating work opportunities for 250 enrollees. 
This was to be accomplished partially with staff from RJl's 
five existing offices in northern California and from three 
new offices which were to be opened v;ithin 90 days of the 
contract award. RJI was also to assume responsibility for 
finding permanent positions for 75 percent of the enrollees. 

In September 1972 FEA notified RJI that all management 
responsibility for the JOA program was to be transferred to 
Masato Inaba (a consultant who was to later become a prin- 
cipal in HRC) and Beatrice Gartz , who was to become FEA's 
California State Project Director. The president of FEA had 
previously informed RJI that he seriously doubted whether 
RJI could place 250 people in jobs during the entire per- 
formance period of the contract. 

By October 10, 1972, the transfer was complete. Shortly 
thereafter FEA's president informed RJI that it had no 
further responsibility or obligation for the program. 

The California JOA segment consisted of a San Francisco 
office and an Oakland office. Ms. Gartz, the State Project 
Director, was also in charge of the San Francisco office. 
Her staff consisted of five enrollees working about 4 hours 
a day. The Oakland office operated, for the most part, in- 
dependently. It was staffed by a manager and two job 
counselors- -one for Chinese-speaking enrollees and one for 
non-Chinese-speaking enrollees. 

JOA records indicate that 648 individuals were enrolled 
in the California project through September 20, 1973. 

Oakland activities 

The Oakland office, which began operation in February 
1973, was located at the headquarters of the Oakland Chinese 
Association and the Oakland project manager. Dr. Chook, was 
also the executive secretary of the association. 

22 



8515 



Dr. Chook told us that he had developed and negotiated 
a program with local employers to provide job training to 
Oakland office enrollees at 'Government expense. Under the 
agreement, employers were to provide training for about 
4 weeks and would then hire the enrollee. The training pro- 
gram, according to Dr. Chook, was conducted at the employer's 
place of business. 

Dr. Chook stated that he determined when an enrollee 
was to move from subsidized to unsubsidized employment. 
Dr. Chook said he evaluated the enrollees' ability to pro- 
duce an acceptable product in making his decision rather 
than adhering to a rigid 4-week schedule. Dr. Chook said he 
believed employers did not gain any advantages by hiring 
enrollees, primarily because JOA determined when an enrollee 
was ready for transition and also because employers were 
donating the use of equipment and supervisors' time during 
the training period. Dr. Chook told us that without the JOA 
program employers would not have hired these elderly Chinese- 
speaking individuals. 

Dr. Chook said that, under the program, enrollees were 
paid stipends by FEA while learning the job and understood 
that the employer would hire them as a regular employee at 
the end of the training period. 

When we advised Dr. Chook we intended to interview en- 
rollees, employers, and former enrollees placed in unsub- 
sidized employment. Dr. Chook requested we not go to em- 
ployers' premises because employers were afraid of "Federal 
people" and would probably fire the employees we inquired 
about. We agreed not to talk to enrollees, employers, or 
former enrollees at the outset, since we could get the re- 
quired information through State records. Data obtained 
from the State pointed out possible problems in eligibility 
of enrollees and validity of placements. We ultimately 
visited employers and former enrollees at the worksites. 

Of the 297 California enrollees placed into unsubsidized 
jobs from July 20, 1972, to September 20, 1973, 236 had been 
placed since February 1973 through the efforts of the FEA 
Oakland project m.anager. We randomly sampled 79 of the 297 
reported placements and examined individual wage earning 



23 



8516 



records available from the State. ^ Oakland reported placing 
59 of the 79, and San Francisco reported placing the remain- 
ing 20. The earnings data for the 79 placements for the 
5-quarter period ending March 31, 1973, showed that almost 
three quarters of the individuals claimed as unsubsidized 
placements by the Oakland project had recent work histories; 
some had earned amounts above the poverty level income cri- 
teria used by the Manpower Administration in determining 
eligibility. Data for the 59 Oakland placements is shown 
b e 1 ow . 

Number Percent 

Number of enrollees claimed as 
placements whose eligibility 

was questionable: 43 73 

Enrollees placed in the same 
industry in which they had 

worked within the past year -17 -29 
Enrollees claimed as placements 
who had, based on employee 
wage earning records , worked 
steadily within the same com- 
pany or industry as placed -26 -44 
Enrollees who were eligible based 

on employee wage earning records jL6^ 27 

Total 5£ 100 

Program objectives not conveyed 
to enrollees or employers 

In our attempts to ascertain why such a large number of 
Oakland enrollees appeared ineligible, we learned that in- 
dividuals were attracted to the Oakland office through leaf- 
lets distributed by JOA personnel within the Chinese commun- 
ity. The leaflets indicated that both unemployed and em- 
ployed individuals were eligible to participate. 



California requires employers to report quarterly on em- 
ployee earnings. It does this to be able to determine the 
amount an individual applying for unemployment compensation 
is entitled to receive. 



24 



8517 



Oakland applicants were interviewed twice before being 
accepted into the program- - firs t when they applied at the 
FEA Office in Oakland and then by a representative of the 
California State Department of Human Resources Development 
(DHRD) ^ office in Oakland. 

At the two interviewing processes, applicants provided 
all information asked of them, including whether they were 
currently employed. The interviewers were not aware of the 
actual criteria for enrollment. DHRD officials at the Oak- 
land office told us that they were not aware that FEA was 
operating the program as part of Operation Mainstream. 
Also, they said they understood that they were merely fill- 
ing job orders from the Oakland project manager requiring 
Chinese-speaking people who were at least 55 years old. 

Neither the enrollees nor their employers had been made 
aware of the program's objectives. We contacted 9 of 37 em- 
ployers listed by the Oakland project manager as worksite 
employers. Eight maintained they were never contacted about 
training elderly persons to develop sufficient skills for 
regular employment. The ninth employer said she was visited 
by two women who discussed the program but that her firm was 
never a participant. All nine said they did not know the 
Oakland project manager or his assistants nor had they been 
contacted about work programs for their firms' elderly 
workers . 

We reviewed worksite employers' records for 18 former 
enrollees claimed as unsubsidized placements. Sixteen of 
these 18 individuals were paid by the employers for periods 
before, during, and after their enrollment in the program, 
in addition to receiving about $140 each in stipends from 
JOA for 4 weeks of subsidized employment. 

We interviewed 12 of the 59 Oakland enrollees selected 
in our sample. The enrollees interviewed generally stated 
they were unaware of the program's purpose and that friends 
had encouraged them to apply for the program; one told us 
that she was told by a man from the Chinese Association to 



1 
The California component of the Federal/State employment 

security program. One of DHRD's primary functions is to 

accept job orders from employers and try to fill the orders 

with individuals who had filed applications with DHRD. 



25 



8518 



sign up for "free money." Following is a summary of the 
interviews with former enrollees: 

--10 said they had learned of the program from friends. 

--9 said they were told that to qualify for the program 
they had to be at least 55 and 6 said they were told 
they had to be employed . 

--11 stated they were employed at the company listed as 
the training worksite at the time of their alleged 
enrollment . 

The Oakland project director said he was unable to 
spend time checking each applicant's eligibility and was 
forced to rely on enrollees to do the screening. He also 
stated he had never contacted any businesses where enrollees 
were supposedly trained and placed, but he said he had con- 
tacted supervisors. However, as pointed out earlier, em- 
ployers we contacted were not aware of the progr; 



'am, 



Work experience project not 
limited to public and/or private 
nonprofit institutions 

According to the special provisions of the contract, 
programs established under the contract were to be limited 
to enrollees working in public and/or private nonprofit in- 
stitutions. Almost all the enrollees participating in the 
Oakland segment were placed in private for-profit concerns, 
primarily in the garment industry. 

During our review, the California State Department of 
Industrial Relations investigated the garment manufacturers 
in the San Francisco Bay area for compliance with wage laws, 
The investigation included four employers FEA listed as par- 
ticipating in the program. State investigators found three 
of the employers violating State labor laws in the area of 
working conditions, overtime payments, and time card 
preparation. 

We discussed our findings with the Oakland project 
manager who initially accepted them and agreed with our con- 
clusions. Subsequently he took exception to the manner in 
which we described his involvement in the Oakland project. 



26 



8519 



By letter dated January 4, 1974, we provided him with a 
summary of our understanding of his involvement and activity 
and asked for any clarification he might wish to offer. As 
of March 30, 1974, he had not responded. 

San Francisco operation 

Although program goals in San Francisco were generally 
being accomplislied in terms of assisting the elderly poor, 
the recordkeeping activities and internal control procedures 
needed improvement. The following problems existed. 

--No documentation to support about $60,000 of in-kind 
contributions and certain expenditures. 

--Time cards were not properly prepared for 32 (40 per- 
cent) of 79 sampled enrollees who received pay checks 
on September 20, 1973. For the most part worksite 
supervisors had signed time cards for enrollees and 
some time cards had not been signed by either the 
supervisor or the enrollee. 

--33 (42 percent) of the 79 had no record of DHRD eli- 
gibility certification on file at the JOA San Fran- 
cisco office. 

When the eligibility certification problem was brought 
to the attention of the California project director, she 
visited two local DHRD offices involved in screening appli- 
cants and obtained written statements verifying the eligi- 
bility of some of the sampled enrollees. She also sent five 
other enrollees to DHRD offices to obtain certification 
cards, which they did. These actions reduced the number of 
individuals not having a DHRD eligibility certification to 
21 (27 percent). We were unable to arrive at a reliable 
estimate of the number of ineligible enrollees in our sample 
or in the California program. 

An indication of the possible magnitude of the problem 
of enrollee ineligibility based on income can be obtained 
from the results of a Labor- instituted study of family in- 
come data for all active Operation Mainstream enrollees. 
Labor directed all Operation Mainstream contractors to re- 
screen family income data for all active enrollees. FEA' s 
final report on its California project showed that about 



27 



8520 



20 percent of the enrollees had income sufficiently exceeding 
the maximum to require termination from the program. 

JOA reported that from July 20, 19 72, to September 20, 
1973, 61 enrollees had been placed in unsubsidized jobs 
through the efforts of the San Francisco office. We selected 
a random sample of 20 enrollees claimed as placements by the 
San Francisco office and found that 2 enrollees had been 
placed in the same industry in which they had worked within 
the past year. The two cases were brought to the attention 
of the California project director who stated that the en- 
rollees in question had been recalled to work by firms that 
had laid them off earlier in the year. As a result, all 
20 appeared to be eligible based on a check of earnings 
records . 

The various deficiencies were pointed out to the proj- 
ect's director and she subsequently advised us of actions 
being taken to overcome the problems, which included hiring 
a bookkeeper. 



28 



8521 



CHAPTER 6 

FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES 

The Committees asked that we review FEA's financial 
activities under the Labor contract and the OEO grant. We 
reviewed transactions covering the period from the inception 
of the contract and grant through June 30, 1973. 

RESULTS OF REVIEW 

FEA maintained a double-entry accounting system to record 
receipt and expenditure of Federal funds; however, the manner 
in which these records were maintained and the lack of ap- 
propriate checks and balances rendered the accounting system 
and related internal controls inadequate. Appropriate con- 
trols had not been established to encourage compliance with 
prescribed Labor and OEO requirements and to insure that grant 
and contract funds were used only for authorized purposes or 
to check the accuracy or reliability of accounting records. 

When reviewing financial activities, we questioned ex- 
penditures of about $184,000 under the contract and about 
$30,000 under the grant. Labor and OEO will make final dis- 
position of these questioned expenditures. On February 19, 
1974, Labor began an audit of FEA transactions from July 1, 
1973, to the end of the contract period. It will also audit 
FEA transactions under the OEO grant from July 1, 1973, to 
the end of the grant period. 

No separation of duties to insure 
proper internal control 

The duties and responsibilities for receiving cash and 
check disbursements were not divided among employees to in- 
sure proper internal control. 

The president received all moneys for the corporation 
and also deposited the funds and directed his accountant as 
to recording the receipts in the accounting records. Either 
the president or his secretary prepared and signed all checks 
without requiring a counter signature by another officer of 
the corporation. 



29 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 23 



8522 



Adjustments recorded without explanation 

FEA's accounting records contain numerous adjusting 
entries made at various times during the year to reclassify 
transactions which were apparently incorrectly recorded. 
However, the adjustments were not explained to permit a de- 
termination of the propriety and allowability of such costs. 

Inadequate travel procedures 

FEA employees traveled outside the program area without 
prior Labor and OEO authorization. Employees did not docu- 
ment the purpose of the trip and did not report on the busi- 
ness conducted. Travelers were reimbursed on an actual 
expense basis rather than in accordance with the per diem 
limitations of the Standard Government Travel Regulations as 
required by the grant and contract. V/e questioned about 
$23,700 in travel expenses because of a lack of documentation 
to support the travel or because the travel was unathorized 
or the cost claimed exceeded the maximum allowed. 

For example, FEA paid $1,313 to a travel agency for four 
air fares for FEA personnel to Las Vegas to attend conference 
meetings, however, there was no documention present that the 
trip was connected with contract or grant business. 

The president of FEA and his wife traveled to Hawaii in 
April 1973 and submitted expense reports totaling $1,325 al- 
though no contract or grant activity was being conducted 
there. He did not prepare a report on the business he con- 
ducted, when we questioned him about the trip, he advised 
us that he went to Hawaii to observe a day care center for 
the elderly and that his wife provided secretarial service 
and accepted transporation in lieu of salary. 

Allowability of staff salaries and 
use of leave could not be verifed 

OEO instructions provide that no employee shall, without 
OEO approval, be hired at a rate of compensation which exceeds, 
by more than 20 percent, the salary he was receiving in his 
immediately proceeding employment. Salary increases of more 
than 20 percent, or $2,500, whichever is smaller, within a 
single 12 month period must be approved by OEO. Since FEA 
did not maintain individual personnel files or other records 
indicating earnings prior to employment under the Federal 
programs, we could not verify if amounts paid to employees 
were within OEO guidelines. 

30 



8523 



We did note, however, that FEA employed one individual 
as a director of Federal Aging Programs at a starting salary 
of $7,200 at January 2, 1973 and that by June 1973 FEA had 
raised her salary by 56.5 percent to $11,267, without OEO 
approval . 

We also could not ascertain the accrued annual and sick 
leave balances for staff employees because FEA did not main- 
tain these records. 

Inadequate procurement practices 

A large number of equipment and supply purchases under 
the contract were made through private suppliers without first 
obtaining written permission from the contracting officer. 
Under Labor's general provisions for cost-reimbursement- 
type contracts, contractors are to use the procurement 
sources available through the General Services Administration 
to the extent possible prior to considering private source 
procurement, unless otherwise authorized in writing. FEA 
paid $5,063 from contract funds for equipment and supplies, 
of which $3,809 were purchases made through private suppliers. 

Unauthorized charges to Labor and OEO funds 
for personal insurance and medical bills 

From Labor and OEO funds FEA paid $15,000 for life and 
disability insurance for FEA's president and his wife and 
paid $1,670 for medical bills for FEA's president and his 
family. The beneficiary of the president's $300,000 whole 
life and $40,000 term policy was his wife. The first bene- 
ficiary of the wife's $100,000 whole life policy, according 
to letters from an official of the insurance company, was 
FEA or the U.S. Treasury for premiums paid. The FEA president 
and his two sons were the beneficiaries for remaining death 
benefit proceeds. 

Our review also showed that the insurance company re- 
funded $270 of the premiums paid for life and disability 
insurance discussed above which was not redeposited. 

Rental of an apartment as 
additional office space 

FEA paid $281 out of OEO grant funds in May 19 73 for 
1 month's rent for an apartment in Washington, D.C., and 
classified the expenditure as rental expense for additional 

31 



8524 



office space. We were informed that the apartment was used 
by visitors and employees of FEA. We visited the apartment 
and found it to be an efficiency-type (1 room an'' bath) con- 
taining two day beds, a table, four chairs, and chest of 
drawers. At the time of our visit in August, the apartment 
was still being rented by FEA, but rent payments were 
2 months in arrears. The rent payments were ultimately made 
after the end of the period covered by our review. 

Grant and contract funds used 
for wrong purposes 

In several instances FEA used contract funds to pay for 
grant expenditures and grant funds to pay for contract ex- 
penditures. 

For example: 

--FEA paid $2,045.50 from Labor funds for staff salaries, 
accounting fees, and travel under the OEO grant. 

--FEA paid $1,800 from Labor funds for consulting 
services relating to the OEO grant proposal. 

--FEA paid $1,500 out of OEO funds for legal fees in 
defense of a suit brought by a subcontractor under the 
Labor contract. ^ 

FEA also paid $4,722 from Labor funds for an automobile 
purchased by FEA's president for his personal use. He re- 
imbursed the Department account the next day. 

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONED EXPENDITURES 
UNDER LABOR'S CONTRACT AND OEO'S GRANT 

We reviewed FEA's expenditures under the Labor contract 
for the year ended June 30, 1973, and under the OEO grant 
for the 8 months ended June 30, 1973. Summarized in the 
following schedules are the expenditures incurred under 
Labor's contract and OEO's grant for the periods. The 



^FEA was involved in a law suit with its initial subcontrac- 
tor RJI over termination of RJI's subcontract. 



32 



8525 



schedules also contain those costs which we believe were 
inadequately supported or which either were not supported or 
not properly authorized. Labor and OEO will make the final 
disposition as to the allowability of the various questioned 
expenditures. 



/ 




Labor 


Contract 








/ 


Expenditures questioned re 


latlng 






to Transactions 


Between June 30, 1972 


and June 


3t), 19 73 










Total 


In- 












ques- 


adequate 


No 


Unauthor 


Account 


Budgeted 


Actual 


tioned 


support 


support 


ized 


Enroll«e wages 


$700,000 


$635,597 


$ 5,655 


$ - 


$ 5,655 


$ - 


Enrollee fringe 














benefits 


85,000 


62,078 


1>61,175 


- 


61,175 


. 


Other enrollee 














costs 


14,386 


13,456 


13,456 


. 


5,220 


8,236 


Staff salaries 


83,279 


86,874 


36,689 


. 


31,031 


5,658 


Staff fringe 














benefits 


10,793 


13,096 


7,433 


- 


1,806 


5,627 


Consultants 


26,200 


23,249 


22,669 


10,975 


8,894 


2,800 


Accounting 


2,720 


2,847 


1,681 


. 


1,383 


298 


Rent 


12,682 


13,044 


7,139 


- 


7,139 


- 


Telephone 


5,600 


5,876 


2,893 


- 


1,860 


1,033 


Office supplies 


2,717 


1,550 


«2,383 


- 


2,353 


30 


Travel 


17,870 


17,308 


16,097 


- 


16,097 


- 


Reproduction 


920 


677 


677 


- 


677 


. 


Equipment 


3,272 


3,513 


2,027 


. 


2,027 


- 


Postage 


1,200 


1,095 


626 


- 


626 


. 


Insurance 


2,003 


1,985 


1,108 


. 


319 


789 


Florida State 














University 














overhead 


2,544 


1,302 


1,302 


- 


1,302 


- 


Bank charges 


34 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


Miscellaneous 


- 


815 


715 


76 


639 


- 


Total 






expendi- 














tures 


$?71.?20, 


$884,362 


mi.7il 


tll.o?i 


$148,203 


w^^n 



'Excess of questioned over actual expenditures represents account adjustments 
which were not identifiable. 

^This item questioned because the CPA firm handling FEA's accounts had not 
provided requested data at the time this statement was prepared. 



33 



8526 







CEO Grant 












Expend: 


itures questioned re] 


Latinc 






to Transactions Between Novemb 


er 1 


, 1972 and June 


30, 1973 










Total 


In- 












ques- 


adequate 


No 


Unauthor- 


Account 


Budgeted 


Actual 


tioned 


support 


support 


ized 


Salary and wages 


$127,875 


$ 75,545 


$ 1 


,586 


$ - 


$ - 


$ 1.586 


Teaporary as- 
















sistance 


- 


3,555 




- 


- 


- 


- 


Fringe benefits 


19,182 


15,550 


9 


,501 


- 


- 


9,501 


Consultants 


32,000 


18,823 


6 


,150 


3,150 


1,275 


1,275 


Travel 


44,788 


23,327 


7 


,593 


- 


- 


7,593 


Rent 


4,200 


2,681 




281 


- 


- 


281 


Other direct costs 


77,444 


15,000 




- 


- 


- 


- 


Overhead 
















HRC staf£ sala- 
















ries 


- 


42,547 




- 


- 


- 


- 


HRC fixed fee 


- 


8,958 




- 


- 


- 


- 


FEA advertising 


- 


18 




- 


- 


- 


- 


PEA promotion 


- 


1,629 


1 


.603 


- 


- 


1,603 


FEA telephone 


- 


1,109 




- 


- 


- 


- 


FEA conference 
















° lunches and 
















meetings 


- 


108 




108 


- 


- 


108 


FEA equipment 


- 


2,197 




707 


- 


- 


707 


FEA accounting 


- 


917 




918 


- 


- 


918 


FEA dues and sub- 
















scriptions 


- 


446 




264 


- 


- 


264 


FEA insurance 


- 


190 




190 


- 


- 


190 


HRC miscellaneous 
















costs 


- 


1,847 




- 


- 


- 


- 


FEA miscellaneous 
















costs 


- 


402 




377 


- 


7 


370 


FEA supplies 


- 


1.732 
62.100 


_5_ 


942 
,109 


- 


16 
23 


926 


Total overhead 


94.350 


. 


5.086 


Total expendi- 






tures 


J29?.9??, 


<?i^.?81 


<»."g 


<?.l?g 


$lJi9JL 


^".772 



34 



8527 

CHAPTER 7 

SCOPE OF REVIEW 

We began our review under the initial request in 
March 19 73 and the review under the second request in 
June 19 73 with fieldwork substantially completed by Novem- 
ber 30, 1973. 

Our work was done at FEA headquarters offices; the 
Department of Labor; and OEO, Washington, D.C.; the offices 
of Florida State University; Human Resources Corporation in 
San Francisco; and FEA's JOA in San Francisco and Tallahassee. 
We examined policies and procedures of the Federal agencies 
and FEA, contract and grant provisions, income and expendi- 
tures from inception of the contract (June 30, 1972) and the 
grant (November 1, 1972) through the end of fiscal year 1973, 
and the system of accounting and related internal controls. 
We visited FEA, JOA, and HRC offices, selected enrollees' 
worksites, and a prototype resources center. 

We also examined certain facets of the operations of 
the Florida State University and the Human Resources Corpora- 
tion. These organizations were affiliated with FEA as sub- 
contractors to carry jDUt activities under the contract and 
the grant. 

We made random statistical samples of current enrollees 
and those that were reported placed into unsubsidized employ- 
ment by the JOA California programs. As of September 20, 1973, 
there were 237 active enrollees in the JOA California project. 
We selected a random sample of 79 enrollees to determine in- 
dividual eligibility for the program. To determine individual 
eligibility and placement of enrollees terminated from the 
program after being placed into unsubsidized employment, we 
randomly selected 79 of the 297 individuals reported by JOA 
as being placed into unsubsidized employment as of Septem- 
ber 20, 1973. 

We interviewed employers, enrollees, and former enrollees 
who had participated in the JOA California project. We ob- 
served the enrollee pay check distribution process used by 
the California and Florida JOA projects. 



3S 



8528 



APPENDIX I 



eOMUND E. MUSKIG. MAINE 



UWTON CHILCS, n-A. 



JOHN OVr HILLCK. MINCMTTY STAFF C 



QlCntieb ^Utie» Senate 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

CfVRSUANT TD ■■ RE*. t1. HO OONOWESS) 

WASHINOTON. D.C. Z05I0 

March 5, 1973 



Honorable Elmer B. Staats 
Comptroller General 

of the United States 
General Accounting Office 
441 G Street, Northwest 
Washington, D. C. 20548 

Dear Mr. Staats: 

Enclosed are copies of letters sent by us to the Department 
of Labor in regard to a contract awarded to the Federation of Experienced 
Americans . 



We have not received a reply to either letter. 

We would like, therefore, to request the Government Accounting 
Office to make inquiries into the issues raised in that report. 

May we ask, therefore, that you ask the appropriate person at 
GAO to get in touch with William Oriol of the Committee on Aging staff 
and James Murphy of the Subcommittee staff to discuss objectives and 
methods for ^^ch a study? 

Sincerely, 




r'3nk cSi 




rch 
Chairman 

U.S. Senate Special 
Committee on Aging 



Thomas F. Eagleton 
Chairman, Subcommittee o 
Aging, Committee on Labo 
and Public Welfare 



Enclosures 



37 



8529 



APPENDIX II 



SPECIAL COMMITTE^'6M>6^|rf^Q 



irvmmiMiT to ■ 



June 29. 1973 



Honorable Elmer B. Staats 
Comptroller General 

of the United States 
General Accounting Office 
441 G Street, Northwest 
Washington, D.C. 20548 



Dear Mr. Staats: 

On March 5, we requested that the General Accounting Office 
make inquiries with regard to certain federal contract and grant 
awards to the Federation of Experienced Americans. At this time 
we would ask that the scope of the investigation be expanded to 
include a full financial audit of the Federation of Experienced 
Americans. 

The objective of the investigation, in addition to the audit 
of financial transactions of FEA, would be to determine the basis 
upon which the contract and grant awards were made and the identi- 
fication and activities of persons involved. 

We appreciate the attention which you and the staff have given 
is matter. 




Frank 




Sincerely, 



Church 
Chairman 

U.S. Senate Special 
Committee on Aging 



/-ffc-^-*\' 



CC 



LI 



Thomas F. Eagleton ' 
Chairman, Subcommittee 
on Aging, Committee on 
Labor and Public Welfare 



38 



8530 



Evans Exhibit No. 4 



1/, l;)72 



s^.,,„^ 






■nis gECOrD 



All 3'2 the circLi-jtnrces surrounding tl'.a processing ar.d av-r.rdir.g 
of the r.bova <;;ro.nt h = vi t:sr. ao irregular thst I sa ci^il^ins c'uis 
sne.-jp.s to ihicoid ar.d doc-— ";nt scr.ia of thosa circuEstaiicas to 
protect aysclf sr.i perrips scr.?. othar psople vitKin tha sgei-.cy 
in the avar.t of possible future cn:barrassir;g disclosureso 

I -iv?.3 iuformf.d by a staff ccnbcr of the Office of I'ro^rsa Reviaw 
in tha early prrt of 3ept-i.ib=r that: 

1) The igancy hid bear, crdarcd by a junior TJliite House Staff 

r.e-bir to fund a proposal fro.-n the Fedsration cf Esparianced 
Americans {zt. outfit of vhich I had nevar heard daspita- ny 
intit:ata fainilisrity r.-ith all recognized natio:,.-.! orgaiiizitions 
ia tha aging .fiald) to cor.f'.ict a najor projact concerned viith 
cld&riv Soari.is'.--i::2aV.ir:r; veopleo 



\"--:' 



2) That the sane -.'hits :ious?. Scaff riEinbar had ip.str"jctad O-IO to 

Unit its forthcoming contract extension (eff.3Ctiva Sapto.'T.bar 2'- 
T.'ith the National Ccuncil on the. Aging to a six-nonth period 
after '../liich ve x.-ould be a;-:p&ctsd to avard a 2r.-;r:t or contract 
to the Fadareticn of Zxperianced Acaricans to provide tha 
full range of professional training and technical assistance 
for our aging prograrr.s that hava been provided by uCOA.ovec a 
oeric-d of vaar=c 



Two or thrse days before I i.'as scheduled to leave for a vacation 
in Europa on Saptezibar 20. I -,.\=3 given a copy of t':\t Sp;:niri;-;- 
speakin^ proposal and instructed to cot::.;2nt fr2".V:ly on it ai'.d to 
propose constructiva ch.irjas that would iu.prova tha t.-ori; prcgran 
and EaV;a the pr:>r.c3al core trrofcssiontlly credibliD 



i ■..-S3 shocitac at t.-.e '..•== Lines ses ot taa prcposa! 

to o-.ir OP?, cont.-ct n:rscn> I did. .?.s rac'.ir^c. 
bisic; 3i.'^;je3t ions tor s trin^^jth^inin^ tha prtt:.;;; 

I undart-t-.uit . all !;raoarad ne'.jtive rejDcnscso 



2-^.va a copy 



8531 



:-•; so.i poiac d,.:r5.-:g :;y !:•!;;■ -^-ir^jok sr:;o!;ce on vzod tior. 2 s-i?.ll 

a plr.rr.inj grc.r.t, zr.csld 03 conisidered lp.i;;icLLl;>"» 

Lji:-,: on i.:i3 F.^Lomoon of Oo'cobjr 'jO I ',.-25 give-i a cop7 of a 
letter fro.T 3-rcdy ca'^^sd Cscobar 20 '..•hich cono'tir.jd so.t.-;; nodiricaticns 
of thc3 iforl: ploji and a iccaol^,' conijtrij.Goed budgst ar:oun ci'.ig zo a 
fev; dollars iiridcr $1:00, GGO, I \.;zs told th-s grant ■luat ba co:T^.p.l3 telj- 
proco3s-jd and signed 07 •;-r:-3 ond of th j folIo-./in;; ds;,"-, Oc~^obor 3X3 
I "was ins triic cod to servi- ss ;h-3 -oro.itict nsj.iagar for "che grant and 
in idiao capacitrv" lo sign 23 its orit^inator nnd to prepar^^ in draft 
all of the necer.oEiy ^ociii'-LojJ. grant prioors x-rith t'.xs holp pf c 
tochnician in cha C-ranto rrocsosing Hronch, I v,m3 inforp-od that 
tha work prograri and budget wsr^ za 00 acccp tod as presented with 
no furihcr opport'.initT for nago oiating -.-.'ork or budget provisions. 

At a S-Tisll briefing session on oho r.oming- of Octobor 31? conducted 
in an atj^iosphere of cor^pijracy and act^indad by Brod/, '-ro vrara told, 
that ths nonnal agoncj rscuire.-ant for Rovicr Z3oar'i appro'.'ol had 
bscn vaived. that normal appro7=l cf 'ai^ Mayor of vi'ashinjit'on and 
cei'cain governors '.rould 03 handled irJi'omalj.y and parhaps by 
telephone and zhat sturidard procedur^jj for a:i::o'ancing tho ^rant 
KOi-e to he by-passed at least for ths uL:-a bsingo 

I has tily filled in pencil draft t'no t-2chnic3l gr:-int f cr::is sjid 
prepared a draft highli^hr, r.e'norandvjn, Moanvhilo John Siuochison 
workod on a set of spscial conditions vfhich vz agreed v.-ould give 
ths agency ;Sora normal decree of control over the conduct of ths 
vork prograri, I was told that tr.2 special conditions '.rare con- 
sidcrad to 05 too harsh and perhr.ps illegal, 'TiHy v/ara consi-ifirably 
revised wi-xhout. my s-ssing than until tha grant was anno'inoed on 
October 11; and I -.ras given a copy cf trie co.Tspla tad grant package. 
All of cr.o-othar grant -i-.pers ware x.;'"pad on October 31 by a. 
3scr-3tary of Mr. Brcdy's ..•o.o carta over to GEO for ziis-t purposaa 

In suTTjiry, I have ihe follcring resarvations about this grant: 

1) I consider tiie grantas to be to'-ally unqualified to do t.-'.s job, 

2) I thirdc the grant can produce no tiling that is not already 
v/ell researchad and tes^^sd. It ia a weak. Tocrl" ■'' .d 
plan and qui to in^ppropria ta for iha V:i;-:J of v^_.j» ^s~ iunds, 

3) Tho budgat of 3399,^33; i- g:-^-5'.:_-:-^- -: ^ ^- '■ ..---- 
of this nature shcud noo axcoad .j;5jC0J lO uK'i'-^^o 



8532 



m t"ft 



■■.icit Z\ct grsn. 






5> I c--;p'so that I hive bser. '■■v'..s=d" as a pro£e:;sional pro;jr=a 
scocL.-.list .r>:-.d titular h<i-d o£ O':0's Oidar Parsons Progrr.ns 
aril! as a v;;tarari civil s^rt-int to givi this grar^t souia 
ssKblence of lagiticacy sr.d suspact that ny professional 
reputation nay ba daG'.a^"^'^ -is a rasulto 

5) I ?,2 af-pallad by the rec-aininj, possibility that v;2 cay aava 
to ai?ard a grant or contract to 1?aA tor tha highly cocaolex 
and sophisticated professional T S; TA services r.a-ided by 
our a^inj progrnc grai-tees, IFP.X do23 not have and cannot 
within a period of several years if ever acquire an 
acceptable degrea of cozpotar.ce to p"'.rfonB thase functions. 
1 ar, convinced this coursa would be uttorly dastr-ictiva to 
our aging prograzis. An a'^-ard to ?HA for this purposa would 
offend ths sntire aging constituency in tha country, knou-ledgeabla 
c.erabars of both oartias in tha Congrass and our o-.rn O^^s and 
SC3 prograns. ii'o sarvice at all would be preferable to a 
contract with Fiv\. both fro'- tha piro^raaatic and political 
standpointSff 



/ 



77. 



..—y 



■'Irven' M. Sitrai''', Chiaf 
Older Persons Programs 
Office c£ Oparatior.ff 



8533 



Evans Exhibit No. 5 



AKCMI1U;[L'K£ 

CnRTIIifD rUDUC 

ACCOUNTANf 

Dr.NTISTKV 

rOUCATlON 

ENGINEERING 

LAW 

MEDICINE 

OPTOMFTRY 

PHARMACY 

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 

VETERINARY MEDICINE 






I20 WEST SAGINAW, EAST LANSING, M ICUIGAN 48823 
TELEPKONB 337-1725 / AREA CODE 5I7 



October 3, 1972 



David W. Brody, President 
Federation of Experienced Americans 
1625 K Street, Northwest 
Washington, D.C. 20006 

Dear Dave: 

Enclosed is a budget which I think will permit us to prepare 
and distribute 401 radio programs as per the attached 
schedule . 

Because of the time element we are proceeding on the basis 
of the budget so if you disapprove in any respect please 
call me instantly if not soonerl Also you are receiving 
either with this mail or separately a copy of the scripts 
being used. 

As soon as we have the first complete set of dubs made, 
we will send a couple copies to you and one to Bud . I 
have only scheduled 390 which will give us an extra seven 
for any special stations who request use of the program. 



Yours truly. 



Hugh if. Brennemnn 
Exec/tive Director 




P.S. I've asked my secretary, Miss Hart, to enclose a memo 
requesting the stationery needed. 



8534 



Budget for Preparation and Distribution 
of I'EA Radio Tapes 



Studio program recording (5) 

Editing and mixing (5) 

Recording announcement for open and close 

Master dubber 

401 - 7 inch duplicate with reel and box 

($6.80 each) 
Packing, inserting and labeling - typing 

label for reel - preparation for shipping 
Mailing sleeves 

First class mail ($1.22 per box) 
Duplicate and mail introduction letters to 

401 stations 
Prepare envelopes and labels for introduction 

letter and mailing sleeve 
Duplicate mimeographed insert 
Talent for program (other than Burl Ives) 
Secretarial services, travel, phone, and misc. 

TOTAL EXPENSES 



1. All services of Mr. Hugh Brenneman involved in the 
writing and editing of scripts and all letters, 
production, arrangements, etc., etc. are donated 
to the Federation of Experienced Americans. 

2. All bills will be submitted for approval to Mr. 
Brenneman and forwarded to F.E.A. Payment is to 
be made directly to providers of service. 



c:^ 



175.00 


-. Zi 


190.00 




50.00 


•Z 


50.00 




2,720.00 


z:.!'-'---' 


74.60 


.' /.- r 


45.00 
488.00 




100.00 


' 50 


60.00 


vf 


10.00 


'-'• 


225.00 


/ , 73 


300.00 


1 . O/i 


4,487.60 





8535 



Schedule of Radio Statiqas 



State 
California 
Connecticut 
Florida 
Illinois 
Indiana 
Michigan 
Missouri 
New Jersey 
New York 
Ohio 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Texas 

Washington 
Wisconsin 



Number to be Used 
45 
10 
30 
30 
30 
25 
20 
10 

30 

30 

15 

35 

45 

15 

20 



TOTAL RADIO STATIONS 



390 



8536 



Evans Exhibit No. 6 



CONFIDENTIAL /!_, 



PEOPOSEU CO&njNICATIOMS SUI'PORT PROGRA-M 
rOR THE OLDER AI-IERICANS DIVISIOls' 
COM!-!ITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 







April 14, 1972 



CONFIDENTIAL 



8537 



I . lNTKOI)l)CT:tON 

The Older Aniiiricann Division of the Coimnittcc for tlic Re-election of the 
President lias not received iimcli publicity toJr.tc. This is a voter bloc that should 
not be lf,no;cd for publicity value, but should be promoted. 

There are almost 30,000,000 eligible older American voters. Of those, 86 percen 
are registered and they comprise 2k percent of the total electorate. 

In both of tlie I'residont's previous cauipaigns for the Presidency, this voter 
group supported him indicating that this is a "friendly" division. Here, also, is 
a wealth of talent and nanpower as most of these senior citizens are retired and 
have a great deal of spare time. 

Just as the Youth Division is separate and distinct v.'ithin the general campaign 
structure, the aging division should be treated in a like manner. Angela Harris 
will serve as project m.anager and will co-ordinate her efforts in behalf of the 
elderly with the general public relations plan to insure against conflicts of time 
and emphasis. Included in this plan are many n-.^sU-Qda areas in which publicity 
efforts may be directed. 

The communications office will be able to service this program through ulitizing 
the inhouse audio operation, the nev,-s bureau including writers, the photographers, 
the publications f andlity , mailing apparatus, and through contact with the state 
committee's press and public relations directors. 

Because of the conq^lcxity of this voter bloc , efforts will generally be directe 
toward tv/o distinct groups of older Americans. 

o The 2'i,000,000 senior citizens who respond to issues concerning the problems 
of the elderly, but do not belong to senior citizens organizations, and 

o ' Those belonging to membership organizations. One fifth of all older American 
do belong to these organizations. The three largest groups are relatively 
young, and none has been in existence for over fifteen years. Every organiza 
has newsletters, and three of the four publish monthly ncKSiJ.RktEi: magazines. 
This is a publicity apparatus that reaches almost six million persons directl 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 24 



8538 



and has an indirect effect on the outlook of tlie other 2^ million -- this is 
jilinoot two million more that Time Magazine. The four major organizations are: 
- The Aire rica n As:;ociati on of Retired Persons 

It has a membership of three million dues-paying members. AARP is basically 
middle class, middle road (in comparison to tlieir more liberal rival. 
National Council of Senior Citizens) , and is extremely prosperous due to a 
health insurance and cutrate drug s'ervice offered their members. AAIU' is 
(^extremely; friendly to the Nixon cause. They are now distributing a film 
of the President's visit to Chicago to all of their chapters. Last year 
their membership increased by 780,000. Their publications are: 

a. Modern Maturity 

a bimontlily magazine to all three million members. 

b. A/JJ' Kev7s Bulletin 

a monthly bulletin reaching three million people 

c. D >'n ami c Maturity 

_ a bimonthly magazine directed to employees approaching retirement in 
700 companies. Circulation is 25,000 

d. Better ".etireriient G uides 

these are avilable on request and deal with consumer-oriented issues 

(food, housing) and retirem.cnt life. 
Th e National Retired Teachers Association 

This is an affiliate of AARP. They have a Hi£X5{(gX2 membership list of 
290,000. Th?ir publications ^re : 

a. NRTA Journal 

a bimonthly magazine reaching all members 

b . NKTA News Rulletin 

monthly nev/sletter reaching all members 



8539 



-The KaLionaT C'ourtcil of Senior Citizens 



ThiB f.roiip claims LId'cc; million r'.e:abers throiip.h Lhoir 3,000 affiliated 
clubs. i;C'^C in inorc if suc-oriented, much r:\ore political, and not as 
financially powerful as AARl' . They are presently hostile to the Admin- 
istration, but not considered a lost cause. They are an off-shoot of 
the old Medigaro lobby force and their first conraitr.is'nt is to tlie aging 
issue, not politics. We have strong support in the individual clubs at 
the grass roots level. They have one publication. 
Senior Citi zen Kcv7s 

reaches all dues-paying ir.cr.bers and is sent for distribution to all 
affiliated clubs. It is generally a six to eight page nev.-spaper 
which "roasts" us regularly in a professional and persuasive manner. 
They do not release the nurebcr of names on their mailing list. 
The Natio nal Association of Retired Federal Employees . "r, \Z AJ 

This organization has 148,000 meir.bers and is well V;nown on the Hill. 
Their publications include: 

a . Retireiiient Monthly 

a monthly magazine reaching all KAAK.FE members. 

b . New s letters 

four or five yearly to all members depending on congressional 
legislation. 



8540 



11. OBJKCTJVES 

The. objccLlvor; of Lh.-= Oldei' American campaign plsn arc: 

o Kstt'liXish a stronf',, positivo attitude on the part of older A7iic-.ricans in 

their reaction to Tresidential jnitiatives; 
o dcnoiiGtrntc the President's concern for the elderly;. 
o create the feeling that the President "cares" for thani; 
o and r.x'tivate the elde7ly to vote for the President. 

Tlic presG and pubJ.ic relations objectives v/ill support the above mentioned 
older A;:)cricans campaign objectives through nev.'Spaper releases .and features, 
i;iagazir.e feature stoj^ies, syndicL'ted columns, television, radio, senior citiztms 
organi<;ations publications, and speakers prograuis. 
Through these devices we v;ill: 

c publicize i/nat the Nixon Ad:-!inis tration has done for the elderly of this 
country specifically and coi'municate the Nixon record V7ith emphasis on 
those issues popular among the nation's senior citizens, though not 
necessarily oriented to\.'ard the group 
o establish the fact that there are thou.sands of elderly people v;orking for 

the re-election, of the President 
o co^mumicate the idea that the President "cares" about the older /jnericans 



8541 



III. Ti;ii:TAnLC 



Thi'- crocram ^^ partially in efCcct. It is a program of comraunications 

lartin^; tlirough the Koveniber elections, v/ith extra emphasis on the 
period after tlie Convention. K.!ITiiCi«j'L'i:iIlI add Additions to enhance this 
program v.'ill be f orthcoirang. 



8542 



XV 



IV. THE PROCRA.'-! 



I A. old::r a:;lvRtxaks foIv the vrksid k nt co>r;iTTi:E 

I The purpoce of this committee would be to get older people actively 

■ involved in the re-election of the President and to relieve some of 

the boredom of the mature years. The campaign staff would invite 

f people over the age of 60 to actively work in the campaign. 

/ o Activities 

-X. 
V ._ \ - telephone canvassing where senior citizens are calling other 

senior citizens in behalf of the President. This would be 

effective after the convention and during the final weeks 

of the campaign. 

~ visitation programs can be effective by using census tract 

inforir^uion to pinpoint houses in v;hich elderly people reside. 

In target areas (TAB__A) squads of energetic senior citizens 

would go door to door for the President's re-election. They 

; V70uld distribute literature and have friendly chats vjith 

'• their peers regarding v;hat's being done for the elderly in 

\ America and specifically v.'hat PJ.chard Nixon is doing. 

i - election day activities (car pools, poll v;atching, baby sitting) 

', o Members 



The Older Americans for the President Committee would include a 
volunteer force, celebrities. Congressmen, Senators, and appointed 
state chairmen and county chairmen for targeted areas. For the most 
part these people are famous in their own right and have their o\m 
following. They should have a distinct and active part in the 
campaign, 
o Pub.1 j cil V 

The publicity plan would be to organize extensive media coverage for 



8543 

the announcement of the initial con^mittee, co-ordinate media activity 
around the tjtate and county chairmen announcements, arrange advance 
publicity for the Coup.ressmen and Senators v;ho will serve on a Cong- 
i-essional Advisory lioard capacity and who will travel and speak in 
behalf of the President to senior citizen organizations, publicize the 
volunteer efforts among members of the press, and gain maximum coverage 
for the announcement of the celebrity committee. 

- Appearances 

Selected members of the OAPC \jill be asked to speak in behalf of 
the president. The project manager v/ill be kept informed as to 
where these speakers are going in order to organize media activity 
around their speeches. In addition to the coverage of the actual 
event, she will attempt to schedule the speeker onto local radio 
and television talk shovjs and arrange for the speaker to be inter- 
viewed by members of the press. 

- Feature Articles for Magazines 

An attempt ^;ill be made to interest editors of selected m.agazines 
in intervievjing members of the celebrity committee and Congressional 
Advisory Committee. In addition. Dr. Arthur Flemming and certain 
Cabinet officials v;ill be offered for interview by these magazines. 
In some cases, the project manager will arrange to have an article 
by-lined by one of these v.'ell knov;n personalities to be placed in 
a major publication. 
PROJECTED DATE PERSON PUBLICATION 

Flemming Reader's Digest 
" Parade 

" Life 

Richardson Pension and Welfare News 
Look 



8544 

Time 

National Observer 

Kcwsvjeek 

U.S. Nev7s and World ReporL 

Modern Maturity 

NRTA Journal 

Ketireraent Life (139,000) 

VFW Magazine (1,450,000) 

Mamie The Workbasket(l,400 ,000-f or 

Eisenhov;er worcen, average age 55) 

Butz Farm Journal (2,150,000) 

Christian Life (100,000) 

The Tablet (110,000) 

Presbyterian Life (1,080,000) 

Fea ture A rticles for Syndicates 

As in the case v.'ith magazines, similar stories will be offered to 

writers affiliated vjith syndicated news services 

PROJECTED nA TE PERSON SYKDICATE 

North American (Theodore 
Schuchat's retirement column) 

Nev;sday Specials (Nick Thimmesch's 
"Eye oa the Presidency" 

Feature syndicates for veteran's 
ncu's — At Your Service, G. I. 
Memories, National Security 
Affairs. 

Copley News Service - "Wiat About 
Retirement" by FranVi Corrich 

News Portraits — Y.L. Tiajcliff s 
"Have you Met?" 

Past Sixty by Meg Hale 

Radio and Televisi on 

A special effort v/ill be made to place elderly spokosmen on talk programs 



8545 



Tlie bettor known spolvosiiicn wilJ. be offered to national talk shows, 

V7hile the others v;.lll be placed on local programs. Tlieir topic 

vjill be what the Precidcnt Is doiug for older American?;. 

PROJE C. Ti:r) DATE PERSON' PROGRAM 

Fleming Face the Nation (CBS) 

" Issues and Answers (/vllC) 

" ■ Meeting of the Minds (WRC) 

" Meet the Press (NBC) 

Richardson Monitor (NBC) 

" Today (KBC) 

Public Affairs Programs (UTIX 
NY) 

Natural P i ibljcity Opportunities 

Many of these people have natural publicity opportunities generated 

by their own unique car£;ers. They will be briefed and should be 

willing to "put a plug in for the President" v/henever tliey have 

occasion to be interviewed by members of the media. 

Older America ns Cam paig n Staff 

\le have here a unique situation of four young people running the campaign for 

the support of senior Americans. Dan Todd, Jim Mills, Christie Todd, and Ruth 

Croom are all close to age 30 or under. This v;ould be a natural for publicity 

value . 

° l^'ftJ ona l Interviews 

These young people should be offered to selected television talk shows, 

and news intcr-views. They are articulate and quite knowledgeable. The 

two girls \;ould be place on woivon's programs. It is conceivable that 

major i:iagai;ines (Parade, Time) would be interested in doing a stoi->' on 

the contrast of ages. 



8546 



o These people v/ill nil be traveling, during the campainc. As their 
schedules are arranged, the project manager v;lH co-ordinate local 
media activity while they are in the field. Every attempt will be 
ir.ade to place them on local radio and tv talk programs and have 
them intcrviev.'ed by the local media. 

C. STATi;- ORG.VnZATlONS (TAK C) . . 
o State Chairman announccmntes 

In selected states, there will be an official announcement of the Oj\PC. 
The initial announcement will be made at a press conference associated 
vjith an event of interest to older citizens (opening of new senior citizen 
center, speech). The project manager v;ill work with the state public 
i^elatioas director to set up the press conference, put out press releases, 
arrange for members of the press to attend the event - if one is scheduled. 
o Events 

V.'hen the local organizations begin having rallies and voter registration 
events, the project manager v.'ill co-ordinate media activity. 

D. SPEAK ERS 'BUREAU 

The Older Americans division should stand ready to provide speakers for senior 

citieen activities JiE V7hen tViey are requested to do so. Besides using staff 

people and Dr. Flemming, these people vjill be urged to speak. 

o The President 

The follov/infis a list of proposed appearances by the President - tentative. 

\ 
See attached sheets 

o The First Kami ly 

The folloi7ing is a list of proposed appearances by the First Family -tentative. 



8547 



tJ 




u 




■C;' 


u 


K 


d 



ft£ Fi 



u £: " ^ 



o 


n 


«-■ 


^ 


K 


"Si 


C. 


^-* 


fj 




;i 


o 




i 


o 




r« 


ij 


VI 




o 






^'- 




(•j 


t) 


'■": 


•X-^;^! 


^1 






t 

H 


•a 
«t 
o 



o 

« 51 



o y ^ 



o 



t. *• _ .-, 



« 
o 
U 
o 

CI 

ri 


-3 
O 


■J 

a 
a 

*•! 
O 


rj tj 





Q 

V. 

li 




O ^ 

gi 




^ 'J 


o 
o 


C 
fi 


n 
r. 






u 

M 
'J 

<; 






o 




t-" 




ft? 
















CI 




C '^ 












CJ 

o 




0. 




JZ 


o 


S 


6 ^ 


JC! 


C* 


a 


c 




O 


r- 




?-. 








o 
o 




p 






a, o 


o 

O 

cJ 





"2 ''^ ii 



c 


v. 


»^ 


•-» 


o 


s> 


J- 




<» 


u 


o 




o 


7;' 






9-« 

o 


f 


n 


1-4 


> 


*r- 


O 


jn 


w 


q 


o 


H 







r: 




fi 


^ 










.rt 


(-. 


^ 


o 
o 


j^ 


o 


c^ 




b 






<; 



■c; 


^ 


c 


"3 


f. 


o 


S 


I. 










O 




Q 




s< 


,_, 


CI 


Ji 


^il 


'^ 


<» 


y 




•J 


Vr 


Cj 




"* 


t:/ 


y 


^X} 


,<. 




^< 


O 





rt 






^K 




Gt 












c 


'-< 


u 


-^ 


!- 


q 


,C1 


N. 




■— 


O 












o 




r-» 



''> 1^ 



ri [-; fy U 







.., 


^^ »J 




-.-♦ 


o 


•2i ra ^ 




o 




5 ^^* 




•^"7 




o h a 




p 












u 


rJ 


n 


s^-^ 


p 


-J 

o 


5 


?^ -a " 






•••1 


•i:'^ i; 




11 




— •' 



^ ^ H 



-7! 

~: "k cu 
L- o o 
.W ri J: 



8548 






< 



»-5 



"a s 



o ^ 





u 






^ 


-^ o 


t-! 


ni 


T) > 




.a 

r1 




w 


« 


-^ 3 



•f! 2 



« W 



-r- " 



c! (s^ 



B 


3 




rJ 


q 




U 


^ 




^ 


r-< 




C) 


ri 




M 


i« 






o 




<; 


> 




(3 


o 




.'I 


M 




J- 


** 




O 


o 






s 




Ts 


ri 




o 


j^ 










fi 


n 


-3 


o 


13 


i; 




R 






a 




•3 




•^ 


_o 




H 


"5 


tl 


.rt 






(J 


O 
(J 




a 


o 


J3 


V 


a 

u 




-a 




*-* 


■a 


n3 


•^ 


•^ 


ri 








d 


ij 


C 


n^ 


> 


cl 


o 


A* 


to 


!-. 


cl 


cJ 


O. 


o 


O 




•n 


f? 


O 




j^ 


o 


(J 


o 


^3 


t-. 




-J 



S, G ■- " 



^ ? 






> '^ 



'1 g -^ S 

t: ^ :^ « 

§ ? '^ ^1 
< " -; "•> 



u j^ 



o 



y 



O I-- r) 



«^ ^ 



10 

o 






o 

> 




-,; 


i) 


a 










.r* 




U 


Ti. 




"ri 


C) 


"i- 


a 


rJ 


.0! 


o 




^.'-t 






s> 


u 
o 


g 


c. 


T< 


rt 


;J 


*» 


P. 


tj 


j: 




c 


r> 


u 





-a S > 



^ S S i3 



°3 --5 J: 2 



rJ 


r! 


t;. 


o 


V, 


^ 


« 

«» 


3 


o 


^ 




**! 


O 


jrj 


> 


'J 


13 


'C 


»i* 


^ 


n 




j:: 


cT 


M 


a. 




Ci 










O 


a 


■■cJ 






ta 


"b 


o 


o 


<3 


t> 



ri ^ ^ y 



o ri o O 

^^ "1j *» V-l 

o 'fi ri M 

r^, ^- O > 

? o J'." 

^ t^j^; -•' 

„ c r; ^-^ 

■^ '-■> *^' ji 

n ^ " si 

'^ ^-^ !- p4 

^ O ^ 

J< O /; ^ 

'd "^ ;• O 

'J C i; "J 

o -J c o 

r n J' o 



8549 






n 


f* 


f: ^ 


rj 




;^ 


<i f* 




}: o 


«i 



•w A 


S 


«v 


> 


I-: M 


- 




*3 

o 


C; 


o 


"tn '- 


s 

Q 






O- 








CJ 




o 


•^1 


(} 




F^ 

o 


J- 

o 






C3 
r) 

C 
O 


1 ^ 


o 


t^ 


£ 


c. r.i 


u 




*«^ 




J'', o' 




• r* 

fi 










s--^ 


2 






^ 


13 


!« '. 


o 






O O 




c.*3 


y 






> ^-^ 


.3 



" ^ 



.n 


o 


« 


,> (-• 


♦.-» 


'6 "J 


-n 


^ 'I 


E:i 


^ « 






a 


si. .-; 



^i o y 



U o 



w 




G 




< 


o 


i-i 




cu 


cT 



i> 


1- .* 

o o r,-> 


•g 



u 




r-.-?;^; 


tj 


iX. 








a 


"^ 


C ,1 « 


f4 


S 
o 


trJ 


,^ o> 


•; 





P w 



^ 


.i! ci o 


•j 


t-. 


ja 


tl> 


n 


^ 


■^ ^ 


■" 


n 


»-< 


e 




^ 


§'^5 


o 


I 


'C 


2 


O 


o 


►-" o :^ 


fi. 


^■i 


,r: 


o 


g 


rt 


sir- 






■^ 


tC 


:3 


>- 


•^si^-g 


•V 




"r- 


o 


o 


> 
u 


fi^a 






v^ 


- 


a 



•a " 



o 



^, "< -^ l■^. 



"< *J o, 
o H t: ,'S 



5» 


^4 


•fi 






<^i 






d 




a 










•.-^ 


t> 






/f 


R 


tr; 


'j 


o 


^ 


^ 


^ 


•-^ 


«»^ 


n 


, 


'At 


r." 


> 


fi 


"3 


r. 


Ji 


V 






CS 




*.-^ 






'•J 




J^ 


*^ 


I- 


,\j 


•"c? 


l^j 


'C> 


o 



t^ r*. -^ 



t."i i: *' 



o « o 



5 « h '7 



t! C% 



^ o 



tj 


n 


'J 


<J 




tj 


> 


-i 


r: 


to 


"t:^ 


:j 


o 




'j^ 


J- 


U 






fl 


««H 


r\ 


t' 


W 


J. 


>i 





•^ ri l~l 






lU V 



f'l i' '> :•:■, 






8550 



5! 5 t. 





' J 


y 


s 


. 


O" 


r; 


? 


^ 


^ 


o 


fj 








r" 


H 


1- 


*i 


C 




o 


(. 


A) 






o 






fj 


^t 


■-» 




J-. 


t1 


I>i 




1 




^ 






&' ^ 



fcU S 








c 


u n g 


S 


('. 


P( tl 5 


^ 


).i 


-. C) ^ 






'" .«£ tl 








f-j 


n 


ui -^ » 


t> 


< 


- rc-^ 









t-st 




« u 


C 




o -^ 


^.-^ 


o 


tK s 


^■j 


"TI 


ej 13 


PM 


O 


1. fe<4 
Xi !. 




*o 


r: *J 




a 






■^--^ 








"S-G 




*-"j 


-p rt 




6 


o H 



O H 



o 


3 


11 


t- V 








tj ^"^ 


R 


q 


f-i 






^ 




O 1- 




J-* 


- 


^ £^ 




O 


vl 


O fJ 




■ XI 


o 


n£ 




o 


o 


« ». 


<j 




> 


1-1 u 




1} 


[; 


„ o 




w.. 


nj 




*I 


H 


'o 


t:J y 


O 




*.* 


c <~, 


O 


<1 


o 


t) o 



l.-J 


it* 










>H 


*-. 


i? 


o 


t- 


1- 


o 
U 




u 


w 


o 


-J) 


* J 




^> 


n 






vl 


"<-i 






<1 


'2 


TJ 


}4 


f-i 


o 



is 



8551 



a 





£-< 


n c t- 


t- 


5. -^ ° 


o 


fc' - -?, 


• o 






c 




^ ^ ^ 




*J o o 




^ g -^ 




^ c -< 




•n: , '^ 


^J 



^ £1^3 





It 


ci e. p. S 






1^ ^c 2 


H 


6 
U 


i- o ^, ^ 


IS 


< 


o ^^^-^ 


t-J 


H 


f) tl " T 


»^ 


el 


^"^ £ - 


Ui 


2i 


=i s*":: 



,-. '^ -S 






H o 



c 


)- 


rt 


o 






»-i 


M 


•J 


c. 


\A 


d 


(3 




a 


d 


w 


-.^ 


o 


>, 


•> 


c~» 






P. o 



U <i 



H .o 



o P o 



a C! o 



o 




^i O 


-. r; 




•S 5 






*n ^ 






"r; o 


■" n 


F' 


o ■" 


S S3 




y o 




•r-* f- 


Z I- 


Pi 


E 6 



^ 



.'■•. r- <l 



tl 



<■> 



o 



> ':S 





^ ^ o 








'1 




M tj ^ 


u 




tl C v-i 




^ n « 






^•' ;;; o 




t^ 




,^r 


1-3 


-J" c> O 





■i" ^^ 



::; p4 



>> 4^. 



c 


a 


o 






% 


V- 


<i 






3 


TJ 


(^ 


^d 


r; 


a 


O 


^ 


Jv, 


a 


'O 


a 




if 




'J 


c3 


f. 


•i' 


xl 


»-4 




■a 


It 




**-* 


J 


u 


'\ 






»-» 


i^ 


^ 


a 


:J 


< 


{1. 



Z'2 



^Y 



8552 



o 



w 


U Zt 


o 


V ^ 


^3 


'-. -S 


ri 




a 


t3 




«iH 




o o 








Sii 




ri M 




rf.» --♦ 




a i. 




S ^ 




. ■-< 




oV. 



•i) 






'T 



^^ 


^ 


ji 




1 


H 


a 
o 




a 


•a 


i4 






o 


*^ 




Q 


.Ti 








d 


C) 














c 








o 








o 


j^ 






j^ 


o 






tJ 


o 






« 


d 






o 


• J 








»*5 






n 


o 

a, 


_r^ 




<-• 


u. 


r; 






•-i 




J, 


o 


t! 


G 




^t 


r? 


O 


^0 


L>. 




K 


.5 


^ 


w* 


« 


n 


^. 


o 



^6- 















E 8 





r! 


u 


r) 


<■> 


.^i 


.a 


r! 


■a 


i:;J 


c5 


o 


•3 


o 
^ 


->* 


tl 


o 




> 


, 


o 


t) 




o 


•T! 





c^I 






i'-. o 






" -vi fi 



vO 


r; X o 


^ 


7t ':^ > 


g 


^ «ci 






H - 




ri 


-T^il 



.•! B?t: 



.■-T 


u 


j^ 


H 


o 


<5 




*, 1 


<J 








H 


.:^ 


O 

> 


r: 


'Xj 






13 
rJ 


f) 



8553 



o Other Spe al cors 

The project manager will work with the staffs of these speakers to 
assure ir.axiiauin media coverage. 

- Adainistration officials 

Dr. Arthur Fleiniiiinj; 
Secretary llichardsor. 
Secretary Roiiaiey 
Secretary Volpe 
Secretary Butz 
Secretary Hodgson 

- Celebrities (see TAB ) 

- Congressional Advisory Committee (See TAB ) 
r,. BROCUUm::S /DIRECT MAIL 

o Campaign - The project manager v;ill work v.'lth the November Group to produce 
at least two good caii^paign brochures. Direct mail or/and as handouts, 
the first will be an action brochure with lots of pictures. It v/ill 
prime the people for the follow-up brochure which will be 
extremely factual. 
o XfiMililjiXii Government Agencies — each agency who has senior citizen programs 
will be asked to produce an informational brochure stating just exactly what 
tlie agency can do for older Americans. One v;ill be released every t^^jo weeks 
beginning September 1. The agencies who will be asked to aprticpate are; 

- ACTION 

- HEW 

- HUD 

- DOT 

- OEO 

- AGRICULATURE * 

- lABOR 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 25 



8554 



o Domestic Coimril Cor:ini'.-|:cG on A/.i n?; 

It is proposed that the Domestic Council Committee on Aging put together a 
dot>t)n.rint on "Growing Older in America - A Declaration of Rights". This would 
be written in sii.-plc terms and x-^olld be extremely factual, but easy to read. 
It could be utilized in a nuniber of I7ays : (non-political) 

■c" direct ir;ail 

•6» distribution to senior citizens organizations 

w. distribution to doctor's offices for v/aittng room reading material 

•&» distribution to senior citizen centers, nursing hoines 

o ?Hrect Mail ■ ' . . 

axr^h letter from the President could be inserted in all Social Security recipients 
pay envelopes. It would explain some of the new initiatives and uxtr promote the 
then.c that "ue \.'ant to make government more responsive to your needs" inviting 
correspondence from them. 

•"*- Working \;ith Repul)lican congressmen and Senators, we can urge them to send letter: 
to all the elderly people in their constituentcy praiding the Ptesidential initatives 
and explainsng v.'bat this Administration has actually done for the older American. 



8555 



F. HISCEfXANEOllS PRO.IFXTS 






1. WJIil-Tclevision Station in Lansing, Michigan has requested that we participate 
in a half-hour or hour long interview program on the Administration's aging programs. 
Dr. Fleiaming and Secretary Richardson would be the featured guests Q4t=i.!-.e~=p'?»&2Y acn . 
The arguments for participating in this program are: 

o The program itself \jill be telecast at prime television time in the Lansing 
area (7:30 to 8:00 p.m.) . 

o VJe would be able to control the program becauseVoa^-^>-3T-'i'd"T?r<>'«.-^™~t--&^=!te 



^CO v>Ci:^Ui \- 



questions for the interviev.'er to able, 
- the biographical information on the par ticipafits ,' 



- sad,, whatever visual;;we think would enhance the program including 
film clips of the President at the VThite House Congecence on Aging 
and with older Americans . t?--.-i.v. 

- w-y«»i«^i2^;ii-\^a-;j» a final script in advance of the Siaping so the participants 
will be prepared for the program. 

o The video tape of this program can be transferred to sound, color 16 mm 
film. This film could be utilized ina nueber of ways: 

- distribution to senior citizen centers for showing, 

- distribution to nursing homes, 

- distribution to senior citizen organizations in lieu of speakers or 
for general showing at their club meetings and conventions. 



8556 



/j^. Tor (;l'i-at n:e<li;i .ittontloii uc slioiild £;clicilulc a g»'ila rally soiu^' time atLcr 
Au2u.>t fcaturinj; .ill cenior citizens — ppcakciG and celebrities — and attracts n[; 
an elderly audience. This v;ould be Ji>:nii);i'.>:;i3; of special publicity value. It could 
be done on on "apjjreciation" theme. The celebrities would hci odd the touch of 
glir.ii;or to inakc it a fun event ;ind display the "nev; vitality in growing old in 
AiT.eric.V . Mamie Eisenlioi.'er, Kuby Kcoler, and Bob Hope vjould add a groat deal to 
this program. 
./ 'r, A "Ta'ce Your l');;;-j)l Trobleirs to the President" could be established and \;ould 
have a ]ot. of publicity merit- in addition to being a service project. A whole 
publicity campaign could be designed around this theme \7ith campaign phaiiiplets, 
posters, and pins saying sinplp "take your pro^tems to the President". Activities 
would be: . . 

o KiillKXiiJiJIiiiiX?; Senior Citizen Forums - this could be organised around a road 
shot/ consisting of Administration officials (including Dr. Flemming and Secy 
Richarddnn) , n.embers of the celebrity committee, local meiribcrs of the Older 
Americans for the President Committee. They \70uld go into a target area, 
visit senior citizens centers, nursing homes and invite local senior citizesn 
to "take their proljlems to the President" by attending the forum or "hearing" 
and asking questions and propose problems that the representatives of the 
President v;ill convey to him when they return to VJashington. 
o Toll Free Teleplione number - This \.'ould be an extravagant program, but would 
be of extrcr.e value both publicity vise and service wise. VJe would establish 
a national toll free number where the elderly can call if they have problems 
or if they have had trouble with local official.s. They vould be given advise 
end/or local numbers of the Social Security Information and Referral Centers. 
A follow-up letter from the President v.-ould be sent to the person with a copy 
to the Republican Congressman or Senator to enable them to lend their help 
to the constituent. This 'program would be of greater value if it were kept 
ocparatc fro.i the campaign. Tt would then become a public r.ervice feature 
of this administration. 



8557 



^li". The CO inniiinic.itions division and/or the Dopicslic Council Coinmittce on Agiiic can 
provide a series of editorials by-lincul by Ur. I'leiraning j:n[!xS;K!:):al;ai:):;sKii:hx}:i!i.rr^ Cabint 
memborc v.'hose aj-.ency deals with programs of the jigr.iug aging. They would explain all 
of the programs v;ithin their agency v;hich are designed to be of help to- the elderly. 
Tlicse would bo distributed to newspapers across the country and the story idea could 
be given to the v.'irc services. 

Ji'tS. A betters to the Editor Program. These letters to the editor v;ould be in response 
to local news concerning senior eitizens. In each target area the Chairman ox: ^"Zi-'^ 



8558 



current ncv;G stones 
■ coungy cU.iirnian would clip/articles of interest to senior citieens in their area. 

These clippinss would be sent to the regional staff members who v;ould review them 

and pick meaninGful articles . a.^:lx These v/ould be fon-;arded to the project manager 

v;ho would be responsible for having an appropriate letter written and returned to 

the local representative who vjould have it signed by one of his people. 

/^. Klil'.nZ]lZ U'lViZYM Senior Citizens Month - Kay of this year is set aside to honor 

Ainarica s senior citizens. During this month we must make an estra effort to 

publicize the good thin;_;s the Administration is doing for che elderly. Some events 

are: 

o a Presidential proclamation over national aadio aad/— or television S-txi->\«ec«vV" 

o a Presidential appearance at a major league baseball game on Senior League 

All-star Day (T/i;),^ 

o a dedication of a new senior citizen center by a member of the First Family 

or Cabinet official 

o the inauguration of a nevj Social Security Information and Referral Center in 

a targeted stafe. 

o a direcfmail project 

S''j„ "National Employ Older Americans Week" v;as held last year in May also. It is 

felt that v.'c can gain doi:ble exposure by having this special week held in early fall 

with many publicity-lending activies centered around the week. 

'..1". The Domestic Council Conimitteeon Aging is planning a cabinet-level "road show" 

to Florida in order to offset some of the "badmouthing" that was occuring by the 

Democrat contenders during the primary. The road show v.'ill consist of at least three 

top Cabinet Secretaries (Uichardson, Ronney , Volpe) and Dr. Flemming. It will be a 

three to four hour tour including visiting a public housing unit, senior citizens 

center, nursing home preliminary to holding an "open hearing" ±d which all senior 

citiznns of t'lic area are invited to attend and liear the Cabinet heads talk. 



8559 



Road Sliow in wtiicli tlic President visit', ulccted cities in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinoii, 
Included v?ill be nursing lion;e tours, senior citizens center visits, inspeciton of a 
Project FIND, touclied off by informal tlilks by the President at all stops. 
'A y^'Zi- the AARP has requested that we prepare an article for publication in both their 
newsletter (AARP BuJ.letin) and their magazine (Modern Maturity). Itieir circulation is 
thiiEK 3,500,000. The theme of the article v.'ould be the election process and the part 
older Americans can play in the campaign. V/e will be able to slant this article to- 
ward the Administration and can put in a plug for our Older Americans for the President 
Committee. This should be done immediately. 

/ 

//. C i Q*^ some point after the convention, ue should sta^e an event employing both 

members of the Young Voters for the President and the Older Mericans for the President 
Committees. This would be a natural for national magazine coverage, wire service 
stories, and network television coverage. It v;ould deplict the image of the old and 
the young bridging tlie generation gap to VTorktogether for a common goal — the re- 
election of the President. 



8560 



Thus far, the governr.ient has not done a complete job of publicizing the existing 
a<;encies that tlu have services for the elderly. The Project Manager should v;ork 
with these agencies to urge then to plan piajcxxjirKgraKSxciS a major effort tolet 
the nation V:now what they are offering the older people. Agencies needing to work 
in this area especially are : 

o HEW - The President announced in the "Special Message on Aging" that Social 
Security Information and Referral Centers would be provided to assist the 
senior citizens with their problems. Not much has been done to get this 
program undenvay and publicized. The same goes for Project FOND — the 
nutritional program offered for older people, 
o A.CTION - They need to stage a massive effort to publicize the community seri-iee 
programs and the folunteer programs that would get senior citizens involved 
and leading busy lives. For exanrple: 

- Foster Grandparents. This is an excellent program and well accepted. It 
needs to be publicized to the elderly so they will know they are wanted for 
participation. 

- RSVP. This is a volunteer progra-n for retired persons who are still 
energetic and want to devote their time to cotnnunity service projects. A 
great deal of publicity value. Feature story material. 



8561 



'j Conventio n : 



o Convention participation - A menibcr of the Older Americans for the President 

Coinmittee t;hould be called upon to participate in the opening ceremonies of 

tlie convention by giving tlie "Pledge of Allegiance" or one of our celebrities 

could sing the "Star Spangled F.anner". 
o delegates - we v.'ill con.pile a list of the delegates over the age of 60 v;ho 

\7ill be attending and publicize them. 
o Reception - to be held during the convention v/ith a presidential drop-in. 
o Seminars - each day at a specified time the Older Americans group v;ill hold 

seminars on the problems of the aging. 
o Mock Voting - the day befoi'e the actual voting, the Older Americans group 

will have a voting which will be publicized nationwide. . 
o Platform - one week Before the convention, the Republican platform is 

generally drav7n up. Every effort will be made to include a special "plank 

for the elderly" which can be publicized. 



8562 



V. CONCLUSION 



This proposed program will utilize tlie talents and resources available 
to us during this campaign. It is ambitious, but realistic, and far from 
being coinplete. Additions vj 11 be ir.ade as the ca^npaign gear shifts into 
high gear. 

This pcoposed program will insure the most prudent use 6f the media 
in an organized manner. On a day to day basis the comr.iunications department 
will stand seady to react to unforsecn occurances. 



8563 
Evans Exhibit No. 7 

Conimiltee foi- the Re-election of the President 
MEMCKAHDUM April 11, lVV2 

" MEMOPvANDUM lOR BUD EVANS 
FROM: DAN TODD Q/i^ 

SUBJECT: USG MATERIALS 



On March 30, at the ineeting with inyself and Bill Novelli, 
you commilted to providing us with: 

a) a draft mejno to all agency PIO's outlining your 
brochure prograin and setting forth guidelines 
for same. 

b) a master timetable for the preparation and release 
of t!ie brochures. 

c) some samples of work in progress. 

To date, we have received nothing. 

It is difficult, if not iinpossible, for us to proceed on our 
overall plan, which, per our disciission, is designed to 
encorporate and politicize your efforts, absent these 
inaterials. 

When may we expect them? 



cc: Mr. Novelli 
Mr. Malek 



8564 



Evans Exhibit No. 8 



MEMORANDUM 



CONFIDENTIAL, 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 



THE WHITE HOUSE 



SUBJECT: 



April 13, 1972 



DAN TODD 



USG Materials 



Concerning your memorandum of April 11th 
regarding the meeting between yourself, myself, and Bill 
Novelli: 

a-As you Icnow, the draft memorandum to Agency 
PIO's is being sent by Des Barker, and therefore requires 
his approval. It is his fseling that we should not set forth 
guidelines for development of these brochures in the memo- 
randum, or even request that a brochure be developed there- 
in, because it would give the PIO's grounds for not giving 
the information we desire. Therefore, we have requested 
a compilation of all programs which benefit older persons in 
each Department, and a write-up which would be suitable for 
inclusion in a brochure. 




b-The Master Timetable, such as it is, consists of 
having all compilations and write-ups submitted to me by 
April 27th. This, as the draft memorandumi (Tab A) manifests, 
will be followed up by meetings between myself and the PIO's 
from each Department and Agency, 



c-Samples of work in progress obviously are not 



available 



I will be in touch viith Bill Novelli concerning the form 
he believes these brochures should take before I meet with the 
PIO's. In light of Barker's insistence that we not request bro- 
chures from the PIO's until after they have completed their com- 
pilations and write-ups, I did not, and do not, feel that it would 
be helpful to axiy of the parties involved to review the draft rrE mo. 
As far as when the material needed for the Citizens panphlets will 
be available, I believe that the compilations and write-ups, once in 
final form, should provide the required information. We should not 
have any trouble in meeting our June deadline for that material. 

L. J. Evans, Jr. 
cc: Bill Novelli 
Fred Malek 



8565 



Evans Exhibit No. 9 



\)nv- 



GENERAL. I'.ROCHURE GUIDEEINES 



I. Type Brochure 

A. Six panels --foldt-d (e.g. attaclied) or 8 panels (e.g. attached) 
1, 000 - 1, 500 words per pamplilot. 
II. Format 

A. Introduction: Emphasize the heavy cinpliasis your Agency 

is placing on programs to improve the quality 
of life for older Americans. Then bring out 
llie general theme of this brochure. (Tlie gen- 
eral theme to be utilized is on the attached 
sheet). 

B. Outline special programs and initiatives (^vith examples), 

Wiiich illustrate this cinphasis on programs to 
ijTiprove the cjuality of life for older Ainericans. 
(The prograins you should stress are outlined 
in the attached). 

C. Close-out sumniatioa. 
111. Structure: 

A. Cover Headline: For example, "The Administration on Aging 

Reports to Qdcr Americans. " 

B. Cover Quote: Quotc(s) from the President to illustr<T.te the 

general theme of the brochure (a recommended 
quote is attached). 

C. Tv/o Pictures: Included in the appropriate jilaces. 
lY. Writing Styls 

A. This brocluirc should be "humanized" by gi\dng specific inter- 

esting exainplcs of hov/ the prograins mentioned liavc or will 
iiTiprovc the qu.ili ty of life of older Americans. 

B. The brochure should be v/ritten as if directed solely toward 
older Americans. Thu;;, it should be "personalized" by the 

v.::c rif "you" iiiid "your" wlien referring to older persons and 
how the programs mentioned help them. 



32-818 O - 74 pt. 18 - 26 



8566 



Evans Exhibit No. 10 



CONFIDENTIAL 



MEMORANDUM 



Committee for the Re-election of the President 

June 7, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 
CC: 



FROM: 
SUBJECT: 






L.J. EVANS, JR., WEBSTER B. TODD 

PETER H. DAILEY 
ANGELA HARRIS 
PHIL JOAIJOU 
MICHAEL LESSER 
,_iBERNA8£^VAN^JEKSSAl^^ 

WILLIAM D. NOVELLI^*^ 

Government UTilte Papers and Brochures on 
Older Americans 



n^d/ 



This is to review the status of this project and to suggest how 
we might proceed. 



I. BACKGROUND 

1. We are all in agreement that brochures produced and 
distributed by government departments and agencies will be 
important in persuading older voters to re-elect the President. 
These brochures will be non-partisan enough to break through 
the election year aversion to political rhetoric, but will 

be strongly supportive of the President. 

2. Bud Evans and others have followed a step-by-step plan of 
having the departments and agencies gather available infor- 
mation, then structure this information in "white papers" 
for our inspection. 

3. We now have the "white papers". Although I agree with 
Bud's corriraents on how these papers may be improved, this 
can be done while moving to the final stage - brochure 
development . 

II. NEXT STEPS 

1. Based on the material in hand, you may wish to request that 
each agency and department begin inmediate development of a 
brochure along these lines: 

a. The brochures might take the form of a status report . 
In this context, each agency or department would have 
a legitimate reason for distributing large numbers of 



8567 

co^??IDE^^^IAL -2- 

Committee for the Re-election of the President 

MEMORANDUivl : L.J. Evans, Jr., W. Todd June 7, 1972 

these "reports" to Older Americans; for example: 

Headline: The Office of Economic Opportunity Reports 
To Older Americans 

Subheadline: A status report of OEO's progress and plans for 
improving the quality of life for older persons 
in America 








The brochures should be short (perhaps four to eight pages) 
and readable (crisp prose, avoid bureaucratese, large 
type, plenty of white space). 

The structure of each brochure might be: 

(1.) President Nixon has placed heavy emphasis on this 

agency's programs to improve the quality of life for 
Older Americans. 

(2.) In response to the President's priorities, here is 

a brief summary of what we are doing and our plans fro 
here. 

(3.)' We (the Agency or Department) would like to have 

your (the older reader's) reaction to these programs/ 
plans. Please use the attached card to let us know 
your opinion. Your comments will be answered. 




The Administration on Aging might develop a capstone brochure 
which is more extensive, and which summarizes all the agency/' 
department leaflets. This AOA summary might take such a title 
as: 

A Report From V^ashington On Program.s for Older Americans 

As a final effort, A8^ might also publish a leaflet which 
briefly discusses the Administration's plans stemming from the 
White House Conf ersrcs on Aging: 

Six Months After the Uliite House Conference on Aging /- 
A Status Report to Older Americans 

This leaflet would adhere to our strategy of discussing plans 
for qualitative improvements, especially: 



8568 

CCSFIDENTIAL -3- 

CommiftGe for the Re-election of the President 

MEMORANDUM ; l.J. Evans, Jr. , W. Todd Jun^ 7, 1972 



a. Overall quality of life 

b. Effort to change the attitudes of younger America towards 
the elderly 

These three categories of " non-partisan" brochures, coupled 
with the material that will be developed by the Kovember Group, 
should provide a strong cotninunications effort for the re-electio 
campaign for Older Voters. 



III. DISTRIBUTION, TIMING AM) COORDINATION 

The agencies and departments should be requested to develop the 
brochures immediately, along with a plan for nass distribution. 

We can indirectly check copy and also stagger the release of the 
brochures to insure a steady stream between now and late 
September. 



8569 

Evans Exhibit No. 11 

CommitfoG tor the Re-election or the Piebio'ent 

MEiiOi'iANDLJM 

July 14, 1972 

A/,EMORANDUiM FOR BUD EVANS . . .,^.:> 

FROM: DAN TODD 

SUBJECT: USG BROCHURES 



In order that my field people can obtain adequate 
numl^ers of .the; aging brochures, 1 have advised them 
to use incumbent USS and MC as vehicles. 

So that J. may tell them what to ask for, .can you please 
provide me with a schedule showing: 

Title 
Ageiicy 

Publication Date 
GPO Number 
Suljject 



8570 

Evans Exhibit No. 12 

Conimltioe for the Re-election of the President 

MEMOFVANDUM 

July 24, 1972 

MEMORANDUM FOR BUD EVANS 



FROM: DAN TODD-;^. ijl^; 

SUBJPJCT: VARIOUS 



The following items aie still pending froin your shop: 

1. Production schedule information on USG brochures. 

2. Schedule proposals for Mr, Nixon, 

3. Film froin TV interviewes of ASF, ELR, Rocha, 

4. ASF's advance man and integrated schedule. 

Also, may I have a firm date for bringing my National 
Advisory Committee to D. C. to ineet with the President? 

Thanks . 



8571 

Evans Exhibit No. 13 
The White House 

V/ASHIHGTON 

July 24, 1972 



Dan: 

The attached is per your request. 

^/ L. J. Evans, Jr, 

'■^ ^^' /■ ,/ 




8572 



AGiiNT':; M;.ociTiiR!;:s 



Fo1U.v.--l);) D.Mo- Tor: 



L,r.bc:];: 



Mnilinr 



Jiun 



July 1 1 



July ?.f) 



US13A 



July 21 



Avt;'u£-.L 4 



lyADC 



TRANSPORTATION 



/iur'usl 1 1 



Aureus t Z: 



YA 



Aiicrusi ZZ 



Scpi;CM";"llK;l- 



ACTION 



SepLv;!i^oor li Scpteuil 



OEQ 



Sc-pieviibcr Zl 



Oclol 



t:L<;)r>c!' 'j> 



8573 



Evans Exhibit No. 14 




July 27, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR: DAN TODD / 

SUBJECT: Brochures * 



I thought you would be interested in seeing our first aging brochure. 
You c -n get the title, agency, GPO number, and subject fr"om the 
brochure itself. This one will be sent out next v/eek. =' 

I have also attached a distribution list; and, as you can see, the first 

mailing will include approxiinately 950, 000 brochures. / 

i 

/ 
Please let me know what your people will be doing to get copies of 

these and how^ many they will be requesting. J 

We are still planning on having the remaining seven broch\ires go out 
in two week intervals. I will forward these to you as they come off 
the press. ,^„„__ ' 

> L. J. Evans, Jr. -^■■^ 

Attachments \ ^,--' 



8574 



Evans Exhibit No. 15 



/? 



Th M ,cj:i.M' 






SIJI^J JCCT 



FOR: /^ /0/^xn);:j5 .m'ai,'':k^ /? ^^^ ^>/ ''^ 

Bro chures ^^'~^ ^ 

-7 --22^ 



/.it.ic]"ied is {^ac fivf.t i',ove:i-;!rr.cii'i; a^^ing broclrui-e to come off the jjrint- 
iw^, iii-css. It s,':il] 1 :^ ;. a r. ] 1 ■';]it IjUfcraicratic flavor to it, h.it I th;!r.]<: 
if (;-■-'■> i'.crrv^s I'ic Pj-c; ■(](■!!':' s coiicerii as well as en")p]iasi;-:cs his ];c-)p 
in yo•^i,-i;; Iho :->roh'lemrf of older j^crsons. 

i 
The oi-igiiial mailing v/iU' distribute 950, 000 of these brochures. This 
v.'ill hoavc us 5!S0, 000 rcjnainir.f^ broclnires for distribuiion to Senators 
and ConyrcssiTien, field organi>-:r.L.ior,s, 'o-XiA other groups v/c may want 
to reach. 

AVe v/jll be sending out seven addJlJor.al brochures at a rate of approxi- 
joately' eVcry ivvo weeks, and I v.'ill forward tlicse to you as thoy come 
off tlie press. 



Attaciirncnts 




%.S 



Jj. J. Evans, Jr. 



8575 
Evans Exhibit No. 16 

September 14, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



DAN TODD 



¥ 



L. J. EVANS, JR. Jp^ 
Brochures 



Enclosed are the 55 copies you re'^uested of Opportunities for 
Older Americans in ACTION. Distribution in the original 
mailing will be approxiinately 1, 115, 057 brochures. 

Arrangements have been made for distribution to Republican 
Senators and Congressmen. The remaining brochures are 
available to field organi^.ations and other groups we inay want 
to reach. 

There a?'e 2 remaining brochures, which will be forwarded 
when they come in. 



Enclosures 




.-V 



¥ 



y 



8576 



BKOCMURE DjSTIMi^ r.[OM T.TS 



TOTA fj DISTiai'lj i'lON: 1,155.0^7 



Tor 3 J. 



1, Ly3 Soaicj' Citizen 



100 



1 19,300 






100 



37.4 00 



ta I- y O r gani zation 
Servi n,; Oider 
AiTic^ficans 



10 



1, 9-H) Niirr^irig IIonieG 
for Lcuiy- Terra 
Care Facilities 

5 Stato Agcsicics 
Cop.ccrnod wivh. 
Older Aii.ericans 

1, 000 Social Socurily 
Discric!: Oxfices 

1, i9B AARP Ci.npfcer 
Prcsid-,-!.s 

1. 2 3:3 PresldcaLs of 

vS-jciiur Ciiiaons 
Club 3 



100 



iOO 



190,000 



?-5, 000 



534, 000 



5,99 



6 , 265 



9. 10 2 Senior Cllizca 
C o 11':' in \i 1 ) i c a ;: or,; 

10. 74 Pcadc-rn in cho 

Senior Ci'.y/.c.n 
F If; 1(1 

li, 4 32 AA UP Lciiirila!r. <• 

C:''airn-icn 
12. 3,330 DaU::^a!;c;; \ypCoA 

! 1, 152. 212 KARi'L; Wo>nln-rol;ip 



510 
37 

Z,!*^' 

16,65 

1^2,212 



8577 



Evans Exhibit No. 17 



'^ ^vc- aL^.£^ — 



8/3 



'' Re tb3>~attacTi>Qd?,-.^F<p.'riny called this a.m. and said 
that Evans tcji,-d, l>im at" ."breakfast today that "Colson is Iia 
secQ^rd t^rpt-i.ghts,.(r;3'd feet) about the seven additional 
i^, ba'ochurei?'"y kp^arently, Volpe called Colson and said 
w DQ"^' didrr't^i-'ant '.to do a brochure, too political w/ a quo 

Cfb.din, tbc_;P on.th >cov:ei- etc. - and this niust have potte 
\!«^ Cqlson thinking. ,-'v *^) 

P^ fv/D'anny is quite alarmed - and just wanted yoii to be 
.^vaS\e of the above in case he makes a desperate plea to 






fryou to put in a stron." call to Colson to got hjin to back oJ 






8578 
Evans Exhibit No. 18 

Comrnit'ee for ihe Re-eiection of t'ne Preoiden; * '^^ i'f'i ] '-\ 



O /. 



'i£^.•^ORA^!OU:vi July 27, 1972 

/ 

/ 

MEMORAl^iDUM FOR: / I'ffiRSTER B. TODD, JR. 



/ 



t- 



FROM: / ELEANOR CALLAHAN 

SUBJECT: / "\ H.E.W. Film P Lints 



i/" 

This is to confirm my message to Polly this aftprnoon regarding 
your request to reduce your film order from 100 to 50 copies. 

The entire order of 100 films have already >jeen produced, and 
are now in transit and are scheduled to arrive here on Friday, 
July 28th. Therefore, I regret I cannot make an adjustment in 
your order at this time. 



8579 

Committes for the Re-election of the President 



MEN50RANDUM 



August 3, 1972 



MEMORANDUM FOR OLDER AMERICAI>I CHAIRMEN / . \ 

. /^.,V^i.,_._ 

FROM: WEBSTER B. TODD, JR. l/]//'^ 

SUBJECT: FIRST OLDER AMERICAN FIL>I 



The enclosed is your copy of "I-Iay the Last be the Best". The film 
runs 28 minutes and is a 16ram color projection that can be used at 
Older American meetings and forums . Since this is an informational 
film on the problems of aging it also has potential on public service 
television. 

Please let us know if you have any problems. 



8580 

Jiiiy 25, 197: 

kemor.yndum fop. bill NOVZLLI 

i'HCM: DAN TODD 

SUBJECT: liEW FILM 



This will confirni my verbal request of lAonday A. M, 
to cut our filrr, (HEW) order from 100 to 50. 

\7c- r-'iay '■v^.nt to reduce it further if it continues to be 
ba.dly received. 



8581 



Committee for the Re-e!eciion of the President 



MEf/iORANDUiVI 



July 17, 1972 



MEflORT^DUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



WEBSTER B. TODD, JR. '^-- -\ \ 
ELEANOR K . CALLAHAN ' \J \ 
Prints of HF,;; Film 



Production of 100 prints of the 28-minute H.E.W. 
film, began last Friday. The first shipment is to be 
airmailed from California this v;eek, to be delivered 
not later than Monday, July 24th. 

The balance of your order should be in your hands by 
Monday, July 31. 



cc: Peter H. Dailey 
Phil Joanou 
William D. Novelli 
Steve O'Leary 



32-818 O - 74 - pt. 18 - 27 



8582 

Juae 19, 1972 

. ^v£^iOri.\l•.DuM FO:i: BILL. :^-ov::l.li 

3U3JZC7.'; rJ:'-"'.*/ ITilm 



Aa you luio-iv, Uan Toiid i3 u^';-','ini:ly ;.- = auedj:Ln;^ that i:h>3 Zloy^iiiiber Grouo 
i-ioro'iuce 100 copi«3 of a 2'3-iTiLnu'ce H2W tilm. This ia pari: of an -i^^en- 
Lial rjrogram they hope to iinder'':3.ke noon. Dan tsUa me that the»e ;:a3 
been ioaia delay wlchin the I'viovefnoer Group on undertaking thia project. 

In my .nind fchar-e is no quasbion on fchia decision, VIq muss hav«3 che film 
a*id prrtiarabiy 3ooa, The funds can be provided wiihin the Oldar Amsricaas 
budgsc unlaaa you would prefer to laclude it in ths promotion budget. liow- 
2ver, ---^ do have hhft money to pay for it and would be ^.^lad to appropriate 
it ia our budg'jt. 

J. '.youlJ ripprfcciafca your -Laxpedlting repi'oduc'.ion o'i i;hl3 film. Lot me know 
ix theirs are :ijiy sinavja. 



c-c-'^ Daa Todd 



8583 



Jvm 14, 1972 



I\ll:::.iOK/«NDUM FOR FT.'ZD M.\i_,EK 
FROM: lyj'ili TOiiD 

SUBJECT: HHI'.v FIL,M 



The 23-rr-.Liuta HZV/ i"iim, ">vjay The Last 3e Ths Best", is 
now r-i^ady for distribiition. This haa baeu aa integral part 
of our campaign plan from the beginnlag and ic was coordiiiited 
v;i.th everyone, Ca the basis of past at^reeinenia (to use the 
fllrri erct^nsivjly) we have made corrxmiimeats to oar /ield troops 
on this iterri and have r^iqusHted J.OO copies from the November 
Groijp five or six weeks ago, I was told this would conie out of 
th.;ir budget aad, therefore, I have rriade no separate request. 

V/e are no'.v in the position of having onr field people aaklng us 
where the film is. 

Upon checking with the November Group, I'm now told it will 
bc: ":".t least another 10 days" oritil they even "decide whether to 
buy it or not' ' ! 

I'd appreciate your h'='lp in ohaldng this loos^i 30 I can begin 
getting the prints out. 



MKMOR.WDUM , 



8584 



Evans Exhibit No. 19 



THE VVHl'IT. HOUSl' 

WASIIINC. ION 

June 19, 197?. 



MEIVtO.RANDUA4. FOR: •. ^^.y-'' , .FI^'eD MALEK 



K -/ 



S U B J" E C 1' : \ / ; ,J-- y^F lemming's Sclieduling 



AdvanceniP-n 



As nientioned at our meeting Friday, June l6th, Dr . Fiernniing has 
finally agreed to work with a scheduling -advanceinaia. Both Dan and 
I have been trying to get hiin to agree to this for months. 

Ths person Dr. Flemming agreed to work with is Fraiflc Troy, who is 
a strong Republican, Black, and a nien^bcr of the Ohio Civil Service 
Comi-iission. tie was a delegate to the "^.\'^hite House Conference on 
A-ging aad is now a member of the Post-Vvhite House Conference on 
x\ginv, Plan.ning Board. In addition, he has been v/orklng closely with 
Paul Jones. 

As Y>): , Flemining stated, he would like Troy to be tied in with the 
Tour Office at the R.e-election Coinn-iitteo. I realise this may pre- 
sent a problem but, hopefully, not an insurmountable one. I think 
your suggestion that Troy work for Flermriing, with close Lies with 
tlie Tour Office is a good one. The Tour Office should be alerted that 
Troy is on board and should be told to co-operate fully with him, so 
that Ills schedule is co-ordinated with other Administration spokesincn. 

Dan and I still bcieve that Flemm.ing should be added to the Tour 
Office's list, and perhaps Troy's addition will inake them less hesitant 
to do so. It sliould be rexrieinbered that Fleinming is the primary 
aging spokesin.an. 

The iinmcdiatc action required to implement the above is the hiring 
of Troy as a Consultant at HEV/, with a detail to the V/hitc House Con- 
ference on Aging. The ideal tiane for him to be brovight on board-- 
both frona Flemming's and iny viewpoint would Ije July 5th, the first 
v/urking day after the July 4th weekend. I have attached Troy's resurae 
for your \ise. 

Please lei. nae know if 1 can be of any help regarding this niatter. 

1/ cc: Dv.n Todd ^ 1,. j. Evans, Jr. 

Attac;bnu;nt 



8585 



Evans Exhibit No. 20 





Old Age should not be a time of endings, but 
a time of new beginnings — not a time for stopping, 
but a time for new starts. 
••• 

What we must build in this country — among 
all of our people — is a new attitude toward old 
age; an attitude which insists that there can be 
no retirement from living, no retirement from 
citizenship. 

••* 

There is one thing I know about the older 
generation in America. They believe in this coun- 
try. They have faith in this country. They have 
the moral strength and character that we need, 
that all Americans need. 

••• 

. . . old age which should be a time of pride and 
fulfillment — pride and fulfillment looking back 
and looking forward — is too often a time of isola- 
tion and withdrawal. Rather than being a time of 
dignity, it is often a time of disappointment. And 
the growing separation of older Americans also 
means that we are not taking full advantage of a 
tremendous reservoir of skill and wisdom and 



8586 



moral strength that our Nation desperately needs 
at this moment in its history. 
••• 

... we need you. We need your experience. We 
need your perspective. Above all, we need your 
sense of values, because you know this can be a 
strong nation militarily, it is the strongest nation 
in the world; it can be a strong nation econom- 
ically. It is. We are the richest nation in the 
world. And it can be an empty shell if we forget 
that those moral and spiritual values, to which 
your generation is so deeply committed, are also 
there. 

••• 

. . . the generation over 65 is a very special group 
which faces very special problems — it deserves 
very special attention. 

••• 

... we are making determined efforts to improve 
the financial position of our older citizens. 

••• 

... we have proposed that the Federal Govern- 
ment place a floor under the income of every 
senior citizen in America. We have proposed that 
Social Security benefits for widows be raised. We 
have called for an automatic cost of living increase 
in Social Security to make certain that monthly 
payments will keep up with inflation. 

The fact that many older people may not be 
active members of the labor force does not mean 
that they should be denied a fair share of our 
growing produaivity. 

••• 

Only through revenue sharing, where the Fed- 
eral Government shares its revenues with the 
States, are we going to stop the rise in local pro{>- 
erty taxes in this country, which is eating into the 
budget of every retired person who owns his own 
home. 



We have to stop discrimination in this country 
against older people who want to work. The time 
has come to raise the ceiling on how much a 
person can earn while receiving Social Security. 
The time has come to increase the amount of 
Social Security he can keep when his earnings 
exceed that ceiling. 

• *• 

... if there is any single institution in this country 
that symbolizes the tragic isolation and shameful 
neglect of older Americans, ... it is the substand- 
ard nursing home, and there are some. Some are 
unsanitary. Some are ill-equipped. Some are over- 
crowded. Some are understaffed . . . 
••• 

... we should take notice of this problem. . . . 
I have asked the White House Conference to give 
particular attention to it. One thing you can be 
sure, I do not believe that Medicaid and Medicare 
funds should go to substandard nursing homes 
in this country and subsidize them. 

••• 

I am confident that our Federal, State, and local 
government, working together with the private 
sector, can do much to transform the nursing 
home — for those who need it, and of course, there 
are those who do not need it or want it — transform 
it into an inspiring symbol of comfort and hope. 

••• 

The time has come for a new attitude toward 
old age in America. -The time has come to close 
the gap between our older citizens and those who 
are not old. The way to do this, I believe, is to 
stop regarding older Americans as a burden and 
start regarding them as a resource for America. 
••• 

... I am particularly looking forward to the 
White House Conference on Aging later this year. 
. . . This conference promises new and fresh ideas. 
We want your ideas . . . 



8587 



All who take part in this conference and in the 
State conferences . . . can be sure that we will 
welcome recommendations. We are going to give 
them our closest consideration. 

••• 

The ancient Greeks said that we could count 
no man's life happy until the end of it. For if any 
man is to live a good life in the most complete 
sense, then his later years must also be years of 
fulfillment. As we pursue this goal and break 
away the barriers to full participation for those 
who are old today, we will also break them away 
for those who will be old tomorrow. 

••• 

I call today for a new alliance in this country 
between Americans who are under 65 and those 
who are over 65. 

The American community will be incomplete 
without the full participation of every American. 
For each generation has its unique role to play 
in the unfolding drama of America. 

Let us then put aside the things which would 
divide us — suspicion, condescension, resentment 
and indifference. Let us join together across the 
Nation and make ourselves an even greater 
America as we move forward together. 




Excerpts from remarki by the President at the Joint Confer- 
ence of National Retired Teachers Association and American 
Association of Retired Persons. Chicago, Illinois — ]une 25, 1971 ■ 




8588 




S-49 



U.S. DEPARTAfENT OV 

HEALTH, EDUCAIION, AND WELFARE 

Social and Rcliabilitation Service 

Administration on Aging 






'6C^l/ld 



t- 



"Unless the American dream comes true for 
/our older generation, it cannot be complete 
Vfor any generation. 

-At/-. 
'\ > * * * 

When matters which affect the interests of 
^Ider Americans are being discussed, I am 
ietermined that the voice of older Americans 

ill be heard. 

* * ^ 

[? . . the entire Nation has a high stake in a 

better life for its older citizens simply because 

it needs them. It needs the resources which 

they alone can offer. 

We are speaking, after all, of a proven 
generation, one that has brought this country 
through the most turbulent period in human 
history. Its skills, its wisdom, its faith — these 
are among the most valuable resources this 
Nation possesses. 

* * * 
The time has come to stop talking iibout 
the impact of property taxes on older Ameri- ■ 
cans and to act in tlieir behalf . . . 



8589 



ti?, 



The most important tiling we can do t< 
hance the independence and sclf-rch'anc 
older Americans is to help them protect t 
income position. 

* * * 
would encourage more of our older i 

zens to remain active in the economic lift 
our country . . . Those who Ccin work i 
want to work should not be discouraged fr^ • 
working ... By reducing the barriers to wo 
we can increase the sense of participati 
among older citizens and at the same time t 
their energies and experience more effcf 
tively. h. 

In December 1971, I met with 3500 del| 
. gates to the White House Conference ca 
Aging. I told the delegates that I did nd 
^ want their recommendations to gather duJ 
■ on storeroorn shelve^i,^ 1 

•■ Since that Hnie, "we have b^e'ri reviewfri, 
' those recommendations — and a number d 
: action steps have already been taken. For ex 
ample^ we have increased the budget for tht 
Administration on Aging tenfold. I havt 
signed into law a new national nutrition pro 
gram for older people. We are working to 
ensure that needed transportation services 
are included in service projects for the elderly. 

* * * 

We plan to give special emphasis to serv- 
ices that will help people live decent and^ 
dignified lives in their own homes — services 
; such as home-health aides, homemaker^and 
nutrition services, home-delivered meals 



K 



'r 



'^ 



Thought that any older citizens — after a 
lifetime of service to their communities and 
' country— may suffer from hunger or mal- 
nutrition is intolerable. . . . The tfme has 
come for marshalling all our resources in a 
comprehensive campaign to meet the nutri- 
tion needs of older Americans. 

* * * 
Programs to involvc-older people in volun- 
tary service to others are growing. And we 
are moving with other, earlier efforts — such 
as our campaign to reform nursing home care 
and our program to provide hundreds of in- 
formation centers for older persons at the 
local level. 

(^ 7- " 

^-^ The quality of life for older Americans 
depends to a large extent upon the respon- 
siveness of 'the marketplace to their special 
needs. It is estimated that elderly persons now 
spend over $60 billion for goods and services 
every year — and they will continue to spend 
billions more if my proposals for increasing 
their income are enacted. Our economy 
should be responsive to the needs of older 

Americans . . . 

■7-7^ 

We often hear these days about the "im- 
patience of youth." But if we stop to think 
about the matter, it is the elderly who have 
the best reason to be impatient. As so many 
older Americans have candidly told me, "We 
simply do not have time to wait while the 
Government procrastinates. For us, the future 
is now." I believe this same sense of urgency 
should characterize the Government's re- 
sponse to the concerns of the elderly. 



'Vx' 



8590 



It is important that we give sufficient atten- 
tion to the things our Nation should be doing 
for older Americans. But it is just as impor- 
tant that we remember how much older 
Americans can do for their Nation. 



* * * " 

Discrimination based on age . . . can be as 
great an evil in our society as discrimination 
based on race or religion or any other char- 
acteristic which ignores a person's unique 
status as an individual and treats him or her 
as a member of some arbitrarily-defined 
group ... it destroys the spirit of those who 
want to work and it denies the Nation the 
contribution they could make if they were 
working. 

-M- * * 
The state of our Union is strong today be- 
cause of what older Americans have so long 
been giving to their country. The state of our 
Union will be stronger tomorrow if we recog- 
nize how much they still can contribute. The 
best thing our country can give to its older 
citizens is the cfiance to be part of it, the 
chance to play a continuing role in the great 
American adventure. 




Excerp:s ]rom ihe Presidenl's speech lo the White 
House Conference on Aging, his sprctjl message to 
Congress on Older Americans, Stjte of the Union 
Address, and ProcUmation of Senior Citizens Month. 



r<^% ' 


























■■"niiiii''T'i- ■fiir ^^ ti\-^M,e^\r-'^-=^^^ 



8591 






I \..: 




'-r% 



^%j:^7. 



^ .^ 



,v 









W 



•:3^^*^- 






^^ _^..^ 






/felt ^-i^;^; ^' -■.■:■'-:-;■•"- 



i 



!^: ^^.jL^ * _i^ ■' i.y.«-< j s.tjj i« ywjj^ij^ ^ 



^.J.^^^-,,,.^,,.,:,^^^^^ 



r."^>=-^- -•r-yjfria 



8592 









i);. V 



y^^^ 






Z^r-" I 



.^^ 



\ 















»^L--,j« «piqg<W J«>t.v ' -Hy i .;-i,y i ui j*Lj! « e ' ^Wi^^i i ^M^ ' ^i - i4U^»t^i^ 






■^ .rt "-* !-"- - , '-«•'"■' fti>-.. ^^t*. -^--»A-' 



8593 

Evans Exhibit No. 21 

committee for the re-election of the president 



ME,MOr?ANDUM 



August 16, 1972 p^^ ^^^ 



MEMORANDUM FOR ARTHUR S. FLEMMING 

BERNARD VAN RENSSELAER 
VICKI KELLER 
BUD EVANS 






IzZPVr^^^^L 



FROM: DAN TODD 

SUBJECT: SECOND OA BROCHURE 

As you know, we are planning a second printed piece for 
distribution to the older voters in late Septembe r /early 
October. Tljis will take the form of a six or eight panel 
folded brochure similar to those prepared by USG. 

Would you please review your files for material to be 
included in this piece along the following lines: 

1. New initiatives announced sincc' our first brochure. 

2. Additional points we want to make not included in first 
brochure . 

3. Points we want to reemphasize. 

4. Posture of Administration vs. Congress. 

5. Pictures £c quotes which should Ise used. 

Please have your ideas back to me by Monday, August 27th. 



8594 



Scptcrnbc-r 6, 1972 

KIEMOR^-NDUM FOR ELEANOR C/vLLAHAN 

FROM: DAN TODD 

SUBJECT: 2ND BROCHURE 

Will you plci,:se ha.vi2 lhc3e distributed as follows: 

(These arc to go to St.^te Older American Chairmen, c/o State CREPs) 

Total 
California 150.000 150,000 

Florida 50,000 200,000 

Illinois 100,000 300,000 

Indiana 50, 000 350, 000 

Michigan 50,000 400,000 

Minnesota 25,000 425,000 

Missouri 50,000 475,000 

New York 150,000 625,000 

New Jersey 50,000 675,000 

Connecticut 50,000 725,000 

Ohio ' 65,000 790, 000 

Pennsylvania 100,000 890,000 

Texas 50. 000 940, 000 

Virginia 25,000 965.000 

Wisconsin 25,000 990,000 

1730 10,000 1,000,000 



Wyoming 



o 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 0631 



3 333 2