Federal Communications Commission personnel airing grievances, October 9, 1969

Speaker 1: Going by the way that [inaudible] Speaker 2: Okay. You're on. Speaker 3: Okay. We would like it on record as being disappointed at the nonfeasance of the commission. Speaker 1: Nonfeasance? Speaker 3: That's right. Speaker 1: What nonfeasance? Speaker 3: [crosstalk] would really rather talk to fugitive himself, let him see flesh and blood people. If it's part of the jurisdiction of the commissioner's [inaudible] to assure good operation of the commission, it has a little more weight on the seizure. Speaker 1: Well, of course the thing was that the last time he was here, when some people were here, and this time he couldn't make it. And Joe said, "You don't want him to anyway." He was backing out. Speaker 3: He didn't have to come. He told me he may or may not come. It turned out he had to go- [crosstalk] Couldn't take that chance. Speaker 1: But Joe said you wanted to come tonight, so... Speaker 2: That's yeah, don't quote me on that, I didn't say that. I said he told me that he may or may not come. I said we'd take our chances on whether he'd come or not. Speaker 1: It's what you had in transact something that you had to talk to him about? Speaker 3: Well, it has more effect. We could have as easily set our tape recorders to talk to his tape recorder. It just gives it more effect. Speaker 2: I think he has a gal tonight, what do you guys think? I think that's- Speaker 3: I hope. [crosstalk] Speaker 2: Of course, he'd have had it tape recorded anyway, even if he were here. Speaker 3: Well, he'd want it to be able to refresh his memory. Speaker 1: Well do you want to arrange to have to come back again? Speaker 3: I think for the purpose- Speaker 2: Yes, of course, if he were here. Speaker 3: And we don't have an update. Everybody says you got to come but then the day comes and they don't. Speaker 2: Why don't they come? Speaker 1: [Deanna] called and said she had a problem tonight. Speaker 3: Yeah, with something. The problem with last time was that we never... I don't think he even prepared the last time. We were more interested in finding out exactly what he wanted to hear from us, what some of the ground rules were and what he was going to do with the information. Speaker 1: How many people are interested in the same things you are? According to you, I know what Joe wants. What do you guys want? Speaker 2: We all work at the same place. [crosstalk] Speaker 1: Then paperclips throw- Speaker 3: Could use a lot more room than we have. Speaker 1: A [inaudible] transfer- Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: Are there people in other branches who are that interested? Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: Started broadcasting through them or they all talk individually? Speaker 3: They crewman's supposed to come [inaudible]. And developed- Speaker 2: Appliances? Speaker 3: Appliances. [inaudible] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's probably- Speaker 3: His friend was killed and still [inaudible]. Speaker 1: Are there in past the common carrier? Know any of them? Speaker 2: This is my first time. Speaker 1: Yeah, the last time we talked about the physical conditions, which if you ever saw them you'd know obviously. Speaker 2: Yeah, no I know. Speaker 1: We talked about the ideas... Any ideas that we had about the program. That's all the path to us. We're sort of [inaudible]. Speaker 3: I don't know what they do in maritime, but in maritime our man and trainees. When he was head of maritime commission, these were people all fresh out of college who worked directly for him in a training program. They reported directly to him, although they were assignment, they were eyes and ears for him. He met with them once a week. Just talked about what they talked about for an hour. There's nothing like that here. You are the creatures of the 42 branch chief of whoever you work for. That's who you work for. And there was an attempt of I need you to know about this. There was an attempt to begin some sort of young professional association organization. Far as I can see, it's blocked. Speaker 1: Well, it's blocked for a lot of reasons. Speaker 3: That's right. But there is nothing. There was supposed to be at least a recognition of government level that agency needs to do something special with these young people. The people who are fresh into the agency on a professional level instead of all us old people. Speaker 2: Can you generally say what areas you're in, besides physical and ideas is there any other areas you can- Speaker 3: You can talk about job description, but it's completely grossly misrepresented. They describe functions that equal Supreme Court Justice with all the hell we do. That's the whole interviewing process is a complete farce. When you go before seven people. Speaker 2: Is this for broadcast bureau or the true general consult for example? Speaker 3: We don't know. I think it's true general. Speaker 2: It's very easy to generalize a lot of problems. Speaker 3: I think the problems are all agencies. I don't think it was anything particular with- Speaker 2: Do you think the responsibility was- Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: Like the cool ones are already arguing cases. [inaudible]. Nobody really listed anything, that one of the virtues of this kind of discussion. Speaker 3: One of the main categories that lends itself to applications throughout the whole branch, and probably throughout all government agencies is lack of business like conduct. Everyone here has taken a summer job in business or work at other jobs and got used to it a business like way of doing things. It just doesn't pertain to government agencies in general because I've never been to another one where this doesn't pertain to this one. Speaker 2: Finish it. Speaker 3: The way things are done. You don't go through channels. They have a great dichotomy for configuring a new branch for transfer. Renewal people are responsible directly to everyone who goes to Mr. Lawson. Where as we are responsible to Mr. Hawthorn and then Mr. Lawson comes back to us. It's a short circuit there. That's just one petty thing, really. Speaker 2: Which also completely undermines the leadership. Speaker 3: Right, because any effect that you can think of it happening. Speaker 1: And to show you the effective leadership, the renewal branch ever since I've been here is a very carefully constructed organization. They have specialists who strip away all the garbage, speaking for a lawyer's point of view. By the time anything comes through a lawyer there, he handles nothing but legal problems. In the same kind of an area, same kind of analysis required, it's the complete opposite in our place. We handle everything. We write the dumbest lawyers you ever saw in your life. We can't write because they are so dumb. And it's a question of leadership. The reason is obviously I'm a leader. Speaker 2: Do the guys have gripes in renewal? Speaker 1: No, they all seem to be pretty happy there. And it just shows you the usually analysis on the subject is simply because of the structure of it and personalities. The work is very simple. Speaker 3: Would you all be happy in renewal? It's just a question of transferring branches or I mean- Speaker 1: That's another problem because the work can get very boring because... It's a pyramiding effect, we can't express ourselves. But we write a letter... You write the letter they way they want it written. Speaker 2: Even in renewal branch. We still have the conduct we have no authority once we let a memo get out of our hands. We send it up to Mr. Lawson and he decides against the remarks people are making and makes his recommendation to the commission. Our complaint a lot of times, is forgot. It's never mentioned [inaudible] and discover what we discovered. Speaker 1: Seems to me there are two kinds of areas. One of the areas is simply in which you could inelegantly, it's called working conditions, problem with them is competence of leadership, the branch, the ways in which it works, where they're located, way the job is structured, your chance to do anything beyond journeyman kind of activity. And in the other side is this business is policy. I talk to guys and no branch is special. Our directive is to write... Not to write up a case and in a way that explains the case. But to write a brief on the case to come out a particular way. That's the way it's handled. That seems to be very difficult and very bad impact on anybody who comes and wants to do something. That they're here for a reason to try to change that. Speaker 2: That same thing applies to the orientation program which has been announced. A girl came in the other day and she was telling us she was organizing it. She was doing this under [inaudible]. She thought that the best way to run an orientation program would be small seminar type groups who could discuss problems and raise questions. And hear from other young people about what it was like. Well, Schlosburg put the lid on that. He said that he felt students were getting too much of this participation stuff. It's like adversity [inaudible] get electric on him. That's where the program stands right now. With the orientees being told the way things are and the way they're supposed to do things, the way things are done rather than the orientees being solicited for various reasons which I think could be quite valuable. Speaker 1: Something is wrong. I think all you need to do is look for a turnover at the agency. Problem is how do you put pressure? How do you get it regular or effective. One of the very serious problems to me is, it's true in all agencies to some extent, and that is [inaudible] and the career civil servants essentially want to exercise a thought. It is infinitely exacerbating in an agency where you've got seven heads, where the guy who is not only the chairman simply does not exert any kind of leadership in the branch. Even if there had been any concern about his response in court. It's just very difficult in a seven head agency. That's one of our problems. Our general orientation is not involved in personnel areas, they do not try to get involved very much in the branch agency. It's impossible area. One area that that gives me great concern is [crosstalk] that's the most fundamental, that's the way you get change in the personality, how fast the agency adapts to new people. Speaker 2: It seems the problem with transfer branch is simply complete, utter incompetence. Speaker 3: What could he do beyond the... Someone's calling our line. [inaudible] I was on the tape recorder. Speaker 2: Well, that's something that I think about. To some extent the the YPA was not our idea but it's not our idea consistently. We're thinking about it, making an order out of it. It's supposed to be a program for the agency. Speaker 3: [inaudible]. Speaker 2: Yeah, hi, bud. How are you doing? Can't you come in at all? Speaker 1: We know a little bit about it, right off the bat we don't think you're going to help us that much but maybe they can. Speaker 2: Not clear. It's certainly not clear. The crucial one is the chairman, which is Burch. He's 41, which is like 25 years younger, [crosstalk]. Three years younger, he has been involved plenty in our organization. And simply it's not clear how he's going to react in this area. He's going to keep Cahill on for six months. That's not terribly encouraging in one way. It's smart, I think. I don't know how Cahill will operate, his manner of style. His style's very much different than Hyde's and he's been locked out. So Cahill's a smart guy. The agency is supposed to have some sort of organization program for young people in the agency. They're supposed to be involved in policy making consults, [crosstalk]. That's one of these government, executive orders that comes out all the time. Johnson sent it out just before he left. Maybe what you're looking for is some kind of formally recognized organization which has the ear of either the chairman or commissioners as someway of reviewing personnel policies and someway of putting pressure on bureau chiefs that perform in grossly bad ways. Speaker 1: My point is this. Maybe we can help you and you can help us. Because if we do present some ideas, let's say we did get an audience and we did indicate that followed or adhered to many of Johnson's ideas. It would seem maybe we could kill two birds with one stone, right off the bat. Obviously, we're not going to accomplish much for Johnson's benefit, but if it were combined in such a way, it would certainly enhance our stand. Speaker 2: We depend very much on being able to talk to people on the staff that we trust on matters regarding the agency. We do it all the time and I suppose every other commissioner does. But I don't on particular policy area occasionally somebody all the time to get into it. All you can do is call them back and say, "Look, this is on the agenda and you've got problems with it and what do you know about it?" You work on this item, do you think this is the way it'll come out? Because all the items are signed or listed by a guy who doesn't. I don't have a problem at all calling a guy up and saying, "Do you think this ought to come out? This, this and this?" Speaker 1: So, that's very helpful. Also, there's no doubt at all it takes a tremendous amount of difference on the way the staff comes up on an item. The commission does not like to go over it's staff, particularly, although they'll do it. They just don't like to do it. When an item comes up that is tough on an application, I think the commission is likely to go along with it, and if one or two commissioners are picking around, trying to figure out why it ought to be cut. You're going to get in a broadcast [inaudible]. Oh my goodness. I think that's the big difference there. Speaker 2: What do you do if you have something that you feel very strongly about and it goes up and it comes back and they say, "We don't like this, change it." Do you just say, "Okay, I'll change it." Or do you get- Speaker 3: I had a case about two week ago. I don't think anybody knows this. Russell never understood the fact, he hadn't the faintest idea what was going on in this case. He went up, apparently spoke for about five minutes before our commission. The commission didn't understand the case because if they had they would have questioned what Russell said. Russell then came down and told me what I had in my write up was completely wrong because I didn't agree with what he said. So I asked him to tell me if there was an error. And he attempted to and I showed him that he was completely in error himself. And that scares the hell out of you. If the commission doesn't pick it up, you're not going to... You can't know everything, I guess, that goes on. But the point is- Speaker 1: Did he tell you all this stuff? Speaker 3: The commission has maybe 80 items each week. Speaker 1: Yeah, we understand that. But obviously Lawson is the one who should be looked at here. But we get to a point where we just don't give a damn. Because why should we give a damn? Speaker 2: After a while your bumping your head against a brick wall. You get tired of it. Speaker 3: The commission has 80 items on... Well regardless, the point is it's a heavy workload and it's up to people like Russel to read this stuff. Speaker 2: Exactly. Speaker 3: Now, I sent an item forward about a month ago. It was a sale of a station to a Richard D. Buckley, so he said to me, "Well what about this guy's other stations that he just bought?" And I said, "No, no no. It's not William F. Buckley. It's Richard D. Buckley. An entirely different guy." I suppose he never even read it or made an effort to figure out who's who. Just goes off, sees one word and shoots off. Speaker 1: There's an item on the agenda this week where, last week, it's an Atlantic State's case, I don't remember who's working on it or how it's working on it. And they're fooling around with the financing and they discovered that there was 200,000 dollars escrow in the contract, a nine million dollar contract. So they subtracted 200,000 dollars on the one side of the application. The sales price is only 898. On the other side, they then added in the 200,000 in escrow saying that's cash available. Double counted it. Speaker 3: They also missed the tax angles on the whole thing. Speaker 1: That's right. They know about it also. They know about it once you bring, "Oh yeah, there's that problem, that problem." But- Speaker 3: I mean, I can only sympathize with it because I'm sure we've all made mistakes and we really have. And the point is we don't give a damn. Speaker 1: Don't use the imperial 'we' there. Speaker 3: I don't give a damn. Speaker 1: The whole point of our coming here is because we obviously do care. Or we wouldn't be here in the first place. Speaker 3: Well the point is- Speaker 2: You did once. Speaker 3: Yeah, I did once but it's been sapped and I freely admit that I'm looking for a job at the moment simply because- Speaker 2: How long have you been here? Speaker 3: I've been here for seven months and this is it. Speaker 1: You getting out of government? Speaker 3: No, I'd like to get with justice if I could get something that would be interesting. I'm going to be a hell of a lot more careful just taking he job. You read my job application, it looks pretty exciting. Like you've really learned something. But you know, I'm a dumb kid from Texas, what do I know? Speaker 1: All goes by luck, I tell you. Speaker 3: No, I just spent two weeks working on an application that probably in the third month I could have finished with maybe three days, it took me two weeks. That's how long it takes. But I don't care. Speaker 1: That's just terrible. Speaker 3: I would say last week they paid me for vacation because I didn't do much. Speaker 1: But that is like you're throwing your life away. Speaker 3: Fortunately, I'm not. I'm looking for another job, another profession. It degrades you. The whole job humiliates you. You can't read when you get home at night. I have no confidence in anything that I do. Speaker 2: What's happened to the other tape? Did the commissioners from the other tape? Speaker 1: Commissioners? Speaker 2: Other commissioners besides Johnson. Speaker 1: He wants to talk to you. What should I do with it? Speaker 2: There's some stuff on there that- Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: How would [inaudible] to hear what Jett's got to say? Speaker 1: He'll probably write your office. Speaker 2: That's the problem. I don't even care. In some ways, the [crosstalk] kinds of feelings we have instead of dealing with the commission. The really don't give damn. Speaker 1: -would understand, I would think. Speaker 3: I understand that they weren't even willing to participate in the, again this is hearsay, but they wouldn't participate in the orientation thing. The girl who was planning it suggested that they come down and meet the new crew. Speaker 1: I'm sure Nick wasn't around for that. Speaker 3: Again, I say, that's hearsay. I'm not sure. Speaker 1: No, but it's... I just don't know. It's hard to be very optimistic about it. About how it is you get this HQ turned around. [crosstalk] Speaker 3: I'm convinced that it's a management problem, it's personnel, it's people lying to other people. I mean, just outright lying. And I can't work for a man who lies whenever he's in a corner and has to defend himself. And won't admit that he's ever wrong. He just outright lies. And you can't expect anybody to work under those- Speaker 1: What do you do, Carol? Speaker 4: What? Speaker 1: What do you do? Speaker 4: You think we can turn that off? Speaker 1: Would you tell us what you do if we turn it- Speaker 4: No, I don't have anything particular to start with to say or anything, but is there any point to recording? Speaker 1: No, I don't care. Speaker 3: See, we don't. Nick wanted to hear it and you know, he's not going to be able to hear it if you turn it off. Speaker 4: That's true. Speaker 3: If you want to turn it off, okay. Speaker 1: Just push the little button. Speaker 4: Well, as I say, I don't have anything to start with to say, but I just as soon not have it recorded to the... You'll probably remember it anyway. Speaker 3: Sorry, Nick.