Getting Around the Rules

At a contentious Jan. 17 meeting with Justice Department employees and their representatives, DOJ officials found themselves explaining how to get around a law, participants say. Justice ruled recently that federal workers cannot lobby their own agencies on behalf of employee groups -- provoking a furious reaction from the organizations. The meeting, conducted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Janis Sposato and other officials, was held to explain the ruling. "There was a tremendous amount of hostility in the room because a lot of people thought the interpretation was unneccessary," recounts G. Jerry Shaw, general counsel of the Senior Executives Association. The officials explained ways for groups to get their ideas across despite the law, mostly by using non-employees to represent the organizations. For example, a federal employee could write a letter to his or her boss on behalf of an employee organization, then get an outsider to sign it. "It seemed like they were playing games," Shaw says. Justice officials argue that the law is intended to block employees from using their clout within the department, and that having an outsider sign the letter is a legitimate way to achieve that goal.

One last, just a quote from a 1987 National Law Journal article entitled "U.S. Officials Stole Software, Says Judge; Firm Driven Out of Business"

'Collective Amnesia'?

Judge Bason said he found the testimony of department witnesses generally unbelievable. Laurence S. McWhorter, now acting director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, "didn't remember anything" and had lent money to Mr. Brewer. Mr. Brewer's assistant, Jack S. Rugh, "had ambitions to carry on the project in-house and thereby build his own little empire," and suffered from the "collective amnesia" that afflicted government witnesses.

Judge Bason dismissed the testimony of William P. Tyson, the former director of EOUSA, as "ludicrous," after he said Mr. Brewer's attitude toward Inslaw was positive. It was "extraordinary" that an ethics officer such as Janis Sposato treated allegations of outrageous conduct so casually, he said.

On the other hand, Inslaw president William A. Hamilton's testimony was accurate, he said, as was that of Elliot L. Richardson of the Washington office of New York's Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. Mr. Richardson, who has a long involvement with the company, tried to negotiate a settlement with senior department officials. (NLJ, 5-20-85.)

Despite more than two years of adversary proceedings under the bankruptcy, the litigation between the government and Inslaw has not ended. Another trial is set to determine whether a department lawyer tried to improperly influence the creditors committee. The amount of the damages remains to be determined, as does the potential for a punitive judgment.

In the meantime, Judge Bason has enjoined from any dealings with Inslaw Mr. Brewer, his deputy Mr. Rugh, and the contracting officer on the project.

"We are going to appeal," said Mr. Brewer. "I can't say much but that Inslaw has succeeded through personal attacks and slander to avoid scrutiny of their performance. The ultimate losers are taxpayers of the United States."