"Coordination and developing with Bob Brown's office a strategy for a 30 million dollar negotiation for the Dept. of Labor." Neither Jones nor Brown were able to provide significant details to the Committee as to the subject matter of this negotiation (Jones 103-03; Brown 55) D. Solicitation of Contributions from Black Recipients of Federal Monies. There is evidence that campaign contributions were sought from Blacks whose firms held government contracts, grants and loans. The most prominent example of this -activity concerned the solicitations for a $100-a-plate campaign dinner for Blacks in Washington on June 10, 1972. (See Malek 144-5; Brown Ex. Sess. 66) Contributing to this dinner, for example, were Jack Crawford and Charles Wallace who have been previously identified in this Report as govern ment contractors. Another individual solicited was Sam Harris, who is president of the Trade Association of Minority Management Consulting Firms and also president of Sam Harris and Associates, a Washington-headquartered firm with government contracts. Harris, in a Committee interview, indicated that, in regard to solicitation for this dinner and other approaches in 1972 for campaign contributions by Paul Jones and others, he was made to feel that his continued success in obtaining government contracts would, in significant degree, be dependent on his contributing to the President's re-election. Harris testified that he did make several contributions to the President's campaign. He said he was also asked, in regard to the June 10th dinner, to assist in arranging the attendance of other Black government contractors. One incident related by Harris is particularly relevant. Harris states that the day before the election he was called by Norris Sydnor, an assistant to Brown at the White House, and told that his company was on an HEW list for a quarter million dollar HEW contract, a circumstance that surprised Harris since he had never submitted a proposal to HEW. Harris said Sydnor then asked for a $1,000 contribution to the campaign, which Harris subsequently made after Sydnor observed that the HEW award would more than cover the amount of the contribution. Several months later, having heard nothing from HEW, Harris asked Sydnor about the contract, but did not receive a satisfactory response. The contract never materialized. Sydnor, in a staff interview, denied calling Harris the day before the election to inform him he was under consideration for HEW funding. He also denied soliciting Harris for $1,000 on that day, although he admitted requesting contributions from numerous people—perhaps including Harris-at various times. 3. THE RESPONSIVENESS PROGRAM Mention has been previously made of the June 7, 1972 "Confidential Eyes Only" progress report on the Responsiveness Program from Malek to Haldeman. (Malek Ex. 16) While this report, in an attachment apparently written by Robert Davison,* details twelve separate "results" of the Responsiveness Program for the week ending June 2, 1972, the present discussion is limited to several of these specifics. A. EEOC-University of Texas Matter. Two paragraphs of the report deal with an EEOC investigation concerning the University of Texas; the first was prepared by Rob Davison, the second is Malek's summary of Davison's account: "Senator Tower was informed by Vice Chairman 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 carefully. * * * "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." Chairman Brown of the EEOC has submitted an affidavit to the Select Committee (Malek Ex. 18) denying the specifics of these paragraphs and presenting his account of the events that transpired concerning this matter. His statement * Davison, in a staff interview, admitted that the projects described in this attachment were his. See also Malek, 85. The Committee has learned that at least one other progress report was forwarded to Mr. Haldeman by Daniel Kingsley, who assumed administrative responsibility for the Responsiveness Program when Mr. Malek move to CRP in July, 1972. In fact, Mr. Kingsley, in a Committee interview, indicated that several other progress reports were prepared. The Committee has not obtained these documents and it appears that all copies were destroyed. See Section VII infra. is that the only contact with him in this regard was from someone seeking information. He states that he was not pressured by anyone to forego an EEOC proceeding. Malek has testified that the statements in this memorandum constitute "puffing" on his part and that he did not personally keep abreast of this matter as claimed. (Malek 99, 101.) In any event, several observations should be made. A contact of some nature was made with the EEOC. (It should be recalled that affecting "legal or regulatory actions" for reelection purposes was one of the goals of the Responsiveness Program set forth in the March 17, 1972, Malek to Haldeman memorandum.) (Malek Ex. 4) Malek claimed to Haldeman that his forces had squelched this proceeding. Both Malek and Haldeman testified that Haldeman did not express disapproval of this action or instruct Malek to cease endeavoring to influence proceedings before regulatory agencies. (Malek 57; Haldeman 16-17) * B. Dock and Wharf Builders Investigation. The progress report contains another apparent claim of interference with a regulatory proceeding, this time in the Labor Department. First Davison's statement of the matter in the back-up document, then Malek's: "Local 454, Dock and Wharf Builders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, requested 5/10/72. Herman Bloom, Spector's assistant at the Pa. CRP requested that the subpoenaed 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." "The Department of Labor ruled that Local 454 of the Dock and Wharf Builders Union in Philadelphia, whose steward is an active backer of this Administration, was not responsible for the illegal actions of its President. This action was requested 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.' The request for action in this regard came to Malek from Al There is no evidence that Haldeman expressly stated his approval of Malek's claimed actions in this regard. Haldeman does not recall discussing this progress report with the President. (Haldeman, 18) Kaupinen, a CRP staffer, in a memorandum attached. (Malek Ex. 17) While Mr. Davison did make contacts with Labor on this matter, the Select Committee has not established that his contacts actually produced the result claimed, at least by implication, in the progress report. But the evidence does suggest that an attempt to influence the Labor proceeding was made. Further, there is testimony that Haldeman. when this "result" was reported to him, did not criticize Malek for his actions nor order him to refrain from operations of this nature. (Malek 94-98, 107; Haldeman 17-18) C. Fannie Mae Inquiry. On March 29, 1972, Harry Flemming of CRP sent Malek the following "Confidential" memorandum: "Our Pennsylvania Committee for the Re-Election of the President has brought to our attention that Michael Stack, a Democrat Ward Leader, last year earned $58,000 in mortgage foreclosure from Fannie May. Mr. Stack happens to be the ward leader in the same ward as William Austin Meehan, who 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." The progress report to Haldeman supplies certain details of the response to this request. "William Meehan, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; requested 3/29/72. William Meehan, Republican ward leader in Philadelphia, has requested that his Democratic counter, Michael Stack, be prohibited from receiving the substantial compensation he earns as a fee attorney for Fannie May. The impact of such action would 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 Congressman Barrett, a member of the key HUD committee that appropriates funds for Fannie May." Further information respecting contacts by Rob Davison on this matter is found in the affidavit of former HUD official Richard Goldstein. (Malek Ex. 21; Malek 110) 4. GSA MATTERS A. Campaign Involvement in GSA Contract Awards. Evidence received by the Select Committee indicates that campaign officials were participating in the selection process for the awards of GSA architectural and engineering design contracts. The following passage is from an affidavit (Malek Ex. 21) obtained by the Select Committee from John E. Clarke, a former White House staffer who, as his affidavit confirms, had certain responsibilities relating to the Responsiveness Program. "The Responsiveness Program generated activity with architectural engineering contract awards by GSA. When 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 Roush of the GSA and Roush would give me the names of 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 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." Mr. Clarke told the Committee that there were 8 to 10 instances in which this procedure was followed. He also expressed his view that the Responsiveness concept respecting GSA worked well. Mr. Roush, in an affidavit submitted to the Committee (Malek, Ex. 20), admitted that "Mr. Clarke's recommendations were accorded considerable weight."* He could not recall during a Committee interview a specific situation where Mr. Clarke's recommendation was rejected. Mr. Roush gave the Committee a list of nine contracts where Mr. Clarke had an input. Mr. Nunn, however, could not recall any specific instance where the names of potential GSA contractors were submitted to him for comment, * In a Committee interview he used the term "great weight." even |