John Roberts on Comparable Worth, Part II
More John Roberts memos, including comparable worth memos, memos on FCC judgments, secret taping of telephone conversation, white collar crime, as well as the infamous “Meese-Mobile” memo…
… okay, there is no memo about the Meese-Mobile.† Gotcha!
The same conventions that held for part I hold for the analysis below. Some of the memos are on the topic of “comparable worth”, which I also covered in some detail in part I. Other memos are on topics completely unrelated to comparable worth, such as secret taping of telephone conversations and FCC judgments. (Lord only knows why those memos are in a section marked “Comparable Worth”.)
Executive Summary
Points of interest in Comparable Worth (3) (arranged by topic):
- Roberts gave a summary of the comparable worth situation, and suggested that while “[t]he Administration clearly supports “equal pay for equal work,” it would “be inappropriate for the President to express any views at this time.” (page 3)
- Roberts authored another memo, nearly exactly the same as the first, only advising Mr. Meese not to express any views on the issue rather than the President. (page 5)
- Roberts wrote cordial, nearly identical letters to Iowa State Representatives Dorothy Carpenter, Betty Hoffman-Bright, Betty J. Clark, and Rep. Sue Mullins. Representatives Carpenter, Hoffman-Bright, Clark and Mullins urged the President to intervene in support of AFSCME v. Washington (1985) (which was covered in part I.) Roberts explained that the White House does not, as a matter of policy, comment on pending legislation, and pointed out that the Justice Department was reviewing the case and that their decision would be based only on the merits of the case and not on “political considerations”. (pages 12-15).
- Roberts lauded “a major victory in the fight against sex discrimination.” (page 4)
- Roberts explained that there was no conflict of interest in a meeting between the head of the FCC, the President, and “several other Administration officials (including Mr. Meese),” since the meeting was requested by the head of the FCC to brief the President on “the issues surrounding the FCC syndication and financial interest rule.” It was not requested by the President in an attempt to unduly influence the FCC’s decision. (page 6)
- Roberts hastily typed up a memo concerning the facts of the Charles Z. Wick taping controversy, as well as recommendations to Edwin Meese on how to handle press questions. With a couple of spelling errors, Roberts accurately and succinctly summarized the relevant federal and state regulations on secretly taping telephone conversations without informing the other party of that fact, and pointed out that the Administration does not condone nor engage in making secret recordings of telephone conversations. (page 7)
- Roberts wrote a very brief memo pointing out that the “effort to expand the Justice Department’s role in the fight against violent crime in no way signals a lessened commitment to fighting white collar crime.” The memo gave several examples of the Justice Department’s focus on white collar crime. (page 8)
- Three documents requested through the FOIA were denied due to reason B-6: “Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (pages 2, 9, 10, and 11)
Analysis
Let’s go through this one page by page. You can follow along with the actual PDF if you want; it’s only 19 pages.
Page 1 is a blank sheet.
Page 2 is an FOIA request form, asking for three documents: “List of ‘not asked yet’ items”, “List of ‘need follow-up’”, and “Draft of possible subjects of questions in Meese confirmation hearings.” All three of these documents have been denied for reason B-6: “Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (Pages 9 - 11 are individual FOIA request sheets which seem to duplicate the summary FOIA request sheet on this page.)
Comparable Worth
Page 3 contains a summary memo on comparable worth. There is no author information on the memo itself, but since it was included in this PDF it was probably authored by Roberts. (At least it’s not obviously written with Microsoft Word. ;) The memo gives a summary of the issue, and touches on the difference between “equal pay for equal work” vs. “equal pay for work of comparable worth”. Roberts also writes in this memo that “The Administration clearly supports “equal pay for equal work”. (emp. mine)
Roberts then puts forth arguments for and against comparable worth, as well as a final paragraph with recommendations for the president:
The question of whether the United States should intervene in the case is currently being considered within the Justice Department. It would, accordingly, be inappropriate for the President to express any views at this time.”
On page 5 is a memo nearly exactly the same as the memo on page 3, only in this memo the person for whom it would be inappropriate to comment is Mr. Meese instead of the President, for slightly different but comparable reasons:
The question of whether the United States should intervene in the case is currently being considered within the Justice Department. It would, accordingly, be inappropriate for Mr. Meese to express any views on the matter, not only because it is the subject of pending litigation but also because any expression of views by Mr. Meese at this stage could disrupt the careful consideration of the legal issues by the Justice Department.”
Since there is no date on this memo, it’s unknown whether Mr. Meese was Attorney General at the time of the memo’s writing, or if he was still a member of the National Security Council.
Note that Roberts’ comments on Administration support of equal pay for equal work could be used to debunk the ludicrous notion that Roberts fought against programs which would provide equal pay for women (dealt with in part I). Unfortunately, the kind of folks who would readily believe that of Roberts aren’t likely to be swayed from their erroneous belief.
Grove City College v. Bell
On page 4 we have a memo from Roberts on the Grove City College v. Bell Supreme Court decision. Rather than summarize the case myself, I’ll just quote Roberts here (emp. mine):
The case raised the question whether Federal grants to students constituted “Federal financial assistance” to colleges attended by those students, thereby triggering the coverage of Title IX. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance.”
The Justice Department argued that Federal grants to students did trigger the coverage of Title IX. The Supreme Court agreed. The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the Justice Department’s position thus represents a major victory in the fight against sex discrimination, by establishing that Title IX coverage is triggered by student grants.
Here we see Roberts lauding a major victory in the fight against sex discrimination. Not exactly misogynistic.
He goes on to explain that the SC ruling limits Title IX coverage (in the case of student grants) to the student financial aid program, not the institution as a whole, because of the “program specificity” requirement that Congress wrote into the statute. He then has a couple of recommendations for the President:
If asked about Grove City, the President can state that he was pleased that the Supreme Court agreed with the Justice Department that student grants triggered coverage of Title IX. That was the main issue in the case. While some women’s groups are upset about the Court’s decision limiting coverage to the financial aid program, that limitation is compelled by the program specificity requirement in the statute.
If asked if he would support an effort to overturn the program specificity requirement in Congress, the President should be non-comittal, saying he would have to wait and see what Congress proposes before commenting.
I don’t see how this could be used against Roberts, unless a person were to argue that he should have disparaged the Supreme Court for making the limited ruling and should have championed the cause of women’s rights by pushing for expanded coverage for institutions under Title IX.
FCC Syndication and Financial Interest Rule Controversy
A memo with this title is contained on page 6. In the early 80s, the FCC was considering repealing the syndication and financial interest rule. This rule prohibited the three television networks from financing production of television programs or otherwise becoming involved in program syndication. [How quaint! –ed.]
On September 28th, 1983, the chairman of the FCC, Mike Fowler, met with the President and several other administration officials (including the ubiquitous Mr. Meese.) Foes of the Reagan administration suggested that the meeting was improper and was used to pressure the FCC into repealing the rule (as the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the FTC all supported repeal.)
After a brief summary, Roberts pointed out that there was nothing improper about the September 28th meeting, since it was requested by Fowler himself and was not requested by the President; furthermore the meeting “was not used to pressure the FCC in any way.” Roberts claimed that “no fair observer” could claim that the meeting influenced the FCC decision, since the FCC had already announced a tentative decision in favor of the repeal before the meeting had taken place. Roberts also pointed out that the FCC finally did repeal the rule, but the Reagan Administration supported a legislative moratorium on the repeal to “provide an opportunity for further study of the issues.”
In this memo we see Roberts just performing his job. Nothing spectacular, nothing interesting.
The Wick Taping Controversy
Charles Wick was the head of the United States Information Agency. In early 1984 Wick was found to have taped telephone conversations without telling the other person that he was taping their call. Roberts wrote a hastily typed, brief memo stating the facts of the issue:
Wick explained that he recorded conservations (sic) solely to facilitate appropriate follow-up and ensure accuracy, and that the recording was an outgrowth of his practice of using a dictaphone to record his own thoughts and directives to subordinates. He has ceased the practice and apologized to all concerned.
Recordingly (sic) telephone conversations without the consent of the other party is not illegal under Federal law, nor under the law of the District of Columbia. It is illegal in a minority of States. Such recording on government telephones is, however, a violation of GSA regulations, except in certain limited circumstances. USIA and GSA are now working on means of securing effective implementation of the GSA regulations.
The memo ends with a paragraph of recommendations to Mr. Meese:
Mr. Meese can state, if asked, that he does not approve of the practice of recording conversations without the consent of all parties, and that he neither has engaged nor would engage in the practice. The Administration has announced that it does not condone such recording. This policy, of course, does not apply to legitimate law enforcement or national security activities (such as wiretaps) conducted within the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment and other applicable guidelines.
Interestingly enough, it appears that Reagan received a memo with similar information to the memo Roberts wrote for Meese, as this exchange between the President and reporters on the South Lawn of the White House might indicate:
Q. Mr. President, do you condone the taping on the telephone by Charles Wick?
The President. I’m not going to comment further other than to say that I don’t think that Charles Wick is a dishonorable man in any way. And the nature of the things that he was recording and that — I can understand his forgetting sometimes when he was talking to people particularly that he knew — but the purpose of that was different than it is from someone that is trying to keep a record on other people’s conversations. What he was actually trying to do was be able to immediately transcribe so that he could provide the suggestions that were being discussed to the people that would have to implement them.
And I’ve heard there are some rumors around. Let me just say this. He has done a splendid job. I think the Voice of America, the whole United States Information Agency is far superior to anything that has ever been, and he’s going to continue there.
White collar crime
On page 8, Roberts wrote a very brief memo in response to criticism of the Justice Department that it was lessening its focus on white collar crime by increasing its efforts at combating violent crime. Roberts points out that the “effort to expand the Justice Department’s role in the fight against violent crime in no way signals a lessened commitment to fighting white collar crime.” He then gave several examples of the Justice Department’s focus on white collar crime, including organized crime cases, high-level drug cases, as well as “criminal prosecution of contractors for bid-rigging” and public corruption cases.
FOIA requests
Pages 9-11 are individual FOIA request sheets, as mentioned above.
Thank you letters
Pages 12 - 15 contain nearly identical letters which Roberts wrote to Iowa State Representatives Dorothy Carpenter, Betty Hoffman-Bright, Betty J. Clark, and Sue Mullins. Representatives Carpenter, Hoffman-Bright, Clark and Mullins wrote a letter to President Reagan urging him to intervene in support of AFSCME v. Washington (1985) (which I previously covered in part I.)
Roberts cordially explained that the White House does not, as a matter of policy, comment on pending legislation, and pointed out that the Justice Department was reviewing the case and that “[a]ny decision reached by that Department will of course be based on the merits of the case without regard to political considerations.” (As noted in part I, the Reagan Administration never got involved in this case. The Ninth Circuit ultimately overturned Judge Tanner’s decision requiring Washington State to implement a policy of comparable worth in paying state employees.)
Page 16 contains the White House correspondence tracking worksheet for the above letters.
Anti-comparable worth essay published by the Washington Post
Pages 17-19 contain an anti-comparable worth opinion essay by William French Smith in the Washington Post (ironic considering their recent round of Roberts bashing on this very issue.) Roberts appears to have had nothing to do with the opinion piece itself.
And that’s it for Comparable Worth (3).
† But wouldn’t it be cool if there was a Meese Mobile? Oh wait, there already is. Stupid internet always comes up with things before I do.