USDA Staffers Were Targets of ’92 Clinton Fund Raising

In the frantic weeks before Bill Clinton’s 1992 election as President, high-ranking career employees working on a politically sensitive program in the Agriculture Department were invited to contribute to a political action committee that was raising money for the Arkansas governor’s White House bid.

Among those involved with the PAC were then-Rep. Mike Espy, who would later become agriculture secretary, and Grant B. Buntrock, a Democrat who would be Espy’s and Clinton’s choice to head the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the nation’s major domestic farm-aid program.

Implicit in the invitation, some of the Civil Service employees now say, was the suggestion that their careers would benefit if they helped elect a Democratic President.

Thirty-eight career employees--some of whom say they were approached at work--subsequently made the donations, most of $50 to $500. Much of the money was passed on to the Arkansas-based PAC by Buntrock. Many of the checks were delivered together on a single day in a much-criticized practice known as bundling.

After the election, Espy--a longtime Clinton ally--and, later, Buntrock got their appointments. Many upper-level management employees who contributed to the Farmers & Ranchers ’92 PAC, nearly all of them Democrats, also were promoted or given better job assignments. At the same time, career colleagues identified as Republicans or GOP allies were transferred to less desirable positions, according to records and interviews.

Espy, Buntrock and other Agriculture Department officials contend that there was no connection between the contributions--or the donors’ partisan allegiance--and the advancement of any employees at the ASCS, which recently became part of a new Farm Service Agency. Buntrock said all appointments adhered to the “very, very strict requirements” of the Civil Service process.

But critics--both within the department and outside it--insist that the unusual pattern of campaign contributions by career employees, combined with the post-election personnel shifts, represent an alarming case of politicization of a Civil Service system that is supposed to be based on merit, not political loyalty.

“This is an egregious example of abuse, of what money buys in politics,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks federal campaign money.

“Most government employees don’t make enough to give large contributions without their eyes on some prize in return or some kind of potential enhancement of their career,” Miller said.

Allegations of partisanship in government promotions are not taken lightly. It is illegal to promote or demote a federal employee for making or failing to make a political contribution.

Moreover, the nature of the fund raising itself raises legal questions. Under the Hatch Act and other statutes, federal workers may donate to campaigns. But nearly all solicitation or collection of campaign funds by civil servants is prohibited, particularly at government workplaces. Violations are punishable by suspension or dismissal of those involved with the collections.

The restrictions, a cornerstone of the federal merit system, are designed to preserve the professionalism of career employees and ensure the nonpartisan delivery of federally funded public services.

For their part, most of the employees who made donations to the pro-Clinton PAC said no one suggested that doing so would enhance their careers. And many who have since advanced said they did not believe that their contributions had any bearing.

But others see a link. Said one donor: “Being a Democrat, you might hope something might come of it.”

Another career employee, who declined to contribute, said he was approached at work by a senior associate who advised him: “If you’re going to send money to the Democratic Party, don’t send it through regular channels. You want to make sure it gets to a location where they would be able to recognize very clearly that you were in the Agriculture Department.”

The employee, who requested anonymity, said he felt the remark indicated that “if there was an opportunity for (the Democrats) to reward those who supported that particular ticket, they wanted to know who it was they should reward.”

A whistle-blower complaint provided by its author to The Times on the condition of anonymity alleges that the correlation between the donations and subsequent personnel changes represents a pattern that “is clear and blatant.” It was filed with the Office of the Special Counsel, which generally doesn’t disclose whether it is conducting an inquiry.

Assertions that the career personnel process has been politicized are being raised as Espy is under investigation by independent counsel Donald C. Smaltz concerning allegations that he improperly accepted travel and entertainment from agriculture concerns. As a result of the probe, Espy has resigned, effective Dec. 31.

Smaltz is also exploring whether Ronald Blackley--Espy’s first Agriculture Department chief of staff--improperly interceded to aid farmers who were his former clients by reversing lower-level ASCS decisions.

Espy, of Mississippi, was one of nine national co-chairmen of Farmers & Ranchers ‘92, while Buntrock, an ex-ASCS career employee, acted as Washington co-chairman. The PAC was set up--in the words of William Gillon, a National Cotton Council attorney who advised it--to “get farmers active in the political process.”

The PAC raised $93,100 in 1992. It spent $45,116 on behalf of Clinton, $1,093 against George Bush, and $9,252 to support nine Democratic Senate and House candidates from farm states.

Thirty-three career employees in the ASCS Washington office and five in a Kansas City office donated $7,225, Federal Election Commission campaign records show. A political appointee gave $200 and a former ASCS worker donated $1,000. Buntrock chipped in $400.

While the sum collected from ASCS employees was modest by private-sector standards, the fund-raising effort was notable because of widespread sensitivity to laws restricting most partisan activities by civil servants.

Twenty-nine of the donations were received on a single day, Oct. 14, 1992, FEC records show. Eight more arrived the next day. One donor recalled that a contribution deadline had been set because “the money was being turned in to one person to send it in.”

Bundling--or pooling small donations into a larger sum--is legal but is criticized by advocates of campaign-finance reform as a way to skirt limits on individual contributions. Campaign-finance experts said they were unaware of any previous case of bundling donations from federal workers.

Central to the effort was Buntrock, whom Espy appointed to the $120,000-a-year ASCS administrator post in October, 1993. Both Buntrock and Espy deny that the fund raising had anything to do with Buntrock’s selection.

Buntrock was appointed “purely on his qualifications” in conjunction with the White House, said Espy spokesman Tom Amontree, who added that Espy’s position with the PAC was merely honorary and that he had no contact with Buntrock in that capacity.

Buntrock, 57, was well-known to many veteran ASCS employees. He was assistant deputy administrator of ASCS during the Jimmy Carter Administration and left the agency in 1985. Recently, he directed the Washington office of the National Farmers Organization, an advocacy group.

Some of those involved in the fund raising said the money was channeled to the PAC through Buntrock--who, in turn, made sure that fellow Democrats knew he was responsible. Overall, Buntrock said his office at the National Farmers Organization sent 100 to 200 checks to Little Rock, Ark., over several months, forwarding packets “on an average of once a week.”

Several employees said that at the time the money was collected, Buntrock was rumored to be a candidate for a senior Agriculture Department post if Clinton was elected. Campaign fund raising is a time-honored way to enhance one’s prospects for a political appointment.

Jack Forlines, a friend of Buntrock’s who had worked for the Agriculture Department for 38 years and was deputy director of the ASCS’ tobacco and peanuts division in 1992, said he doubted Buntrock would have gotten the job if he hadn’t been “recognized as a supporter of the Administration.”

Buntrock insisted, however, that he had no idea a job might be offered to him until mid-1993. While acknowledging that he had been “a contact point” for the PAC, he denied seeking contributions from anyone at the ASCS.

Most of the donors said they gave to support Clinton or American farmers. Some donors said they learned of the PAC at the office--where it was widely discussed--and gave their checks to co-workers. Several employees said they were approached by specific colleagues: ASCS career veterans Jeffress Wells, Grady Bilberry, Jim Ray and Forlines.

One longtime employee said he was called into the office of his former boss before the 1992 election and told “there was an organization that was interested in getting Clinton elected, and would I contribute?”

He said he believed that if the Democrats regained the White House, this man might again be his boss. Therefore, he said, to his mind, “there wasn’t any choice.” He said he wrote a check and gave it to his co-worker in the office.

Forlines, a Democrat who contributed $100, acknowledged collecting funds from five to 10 co-workers who “found out through me” about the PAC. He said he could not recall whether he discussed the PAC with them at the office or received the checks at work.

In turn, Forlines said he passed the money to a friend at the ASCS, whom he declined to name. Forlines, who was made acting director of the tobacco and peanuts division after the election and who retired this year, said he was unaware of any suggestion that donating might enhance anyone’s career.

As ASCS administrator, Buntrock oversaw more than 12,500 full-time employees and a politically sensitive program that handled $9 billion to $10 billion in payments to farmers last year. He has similar duties during a departmental reorganization that is under way and is said to be a candidate to head the Farm Service Agency that has been formed by consolidating the ASCS with other programs.

Overall, Buntrock said he has made a “very minimal” number of personnel changes.

But under his leadership, 21 of the 38 career employees who donated to the PAC were promoted or given more desirable temporary or permanent positions, according to records and numerous ASCS employees. The moves have afforded beneficiaries one or more of the following: greater visibility, enhanced authority, improved potential for advancement or higher pay.

Agriculture Department records show that seven PAC contributors are among the 17 career employees who have been promoted permanently at the upper Civil Service ranks--grades 14 and 15--in the ASCS Washington and Kansas City offices. Three more donors received temporary promotions; five have been assigned temporarily to more high-powered jobs; four have been moved laterally to higher-profile posts and two were transferred to ASCS offices outside Washington at their request.

Conversely, only one donor has been moved to a position considered less desirable. Numerous non-donors--many of whom were known Republicans or had close ties to Republicans--say they have experienced such a transfer. Although no employee has been demoted or received a pay cut, the new jobs have less prominence and prestige, employees say.

One individual who lost out in the process has filed a grievance with Council 26 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; two filed discrimination complaints with the Agriculture Department and a fourth filed the whistle-blower complaint. These matters are pending.

Among the major beneficiaries have been Wells and Jack Webb, Democrats who each gave $500. Both have been temporarily assigned to the influential office of deputy administrator for state and county operations.

Their positions are important because they involve policy development and contact with politically appointed ASCS state and county committees that administer farm programs. While such temporary assignments don’t bring higher pay, they can provide valuable experience that leads to future promotions.

Wells, a 40-year ASCS veteran and friend of Buntrock’s for 25 years, said that while he and Buntrock discussed the PAC in 1992, his friend never asked for a donation. He also denied that he had solicited PAC money but acknowledged that friends from North Carolina and possibly “a friend or two in the Washington area” asked where they could make a contribution. He said none worked for the ASCS.

Webb said he contributed because he supported the PAC’s goals but never discussed it with Buntrock.

Ray, a former Democratic political appointee and 29-year ASCS employee, has been temporarily promoted and is acting as director of the Kansas City office. He gave $500 to the PAC but said he had “absolutely not” approached any associates about it. He insisted the contribution had nothing to do with his move.

Also promoted was Bilberry, a 25-year employee who contributed $125. He said he could not recall how he heard about the PAC or to whom he gave his check. He initially said he didn’t remember how many others gave him donations but later denied soliciting at all.

A decision to reassign Sandra Penn was particularly controversial. A 15-year ASCS employee who won the Agriculture Department’s distinguished service award in 1992, Penn had been deputy director of the cotton, grain and rice division for seven years.

Though said to be abrasive at times, Penn was well respected. She oversaw a staff of about 50 that implemented some of the department’s highest-profile programs, involving billions of dollars.

In August, Penn was shifted to the job of assistant to the deputy administrator for management and was moved from a spacious office in the Agriculture Department building to an outpost in Virginia. She said the job had “no staff, no office, no specific responsibilities.” She was subsequently assigned to produce an internal report.

Penn recently filed a sex discrimination complaint with the Agriculture Department. It is still pending.

Penn said her new boss, Rashid Nuri, the deputy administrator for management, “told me he was given a list of Republicans when he first came there and my name was on it.”

Penn is a registered Democrat, but she is married to Bill Penn, a former Republican political appointee at the ASCS, and had flourished under GOP administrations.

Nuri denied having a list of Republicans and said he had told Penn that he would do everything possible “to find her substantial work.”

Buntrock said no career employee, including Penn, has been given a less desirable job. He called every job “critical.”

Top-level political appointees are routinely replaced when a new Administration takes office, and these government managers have broad discretion to reassign career bureaucrats on the basis of compatibility or who will best implement their policies. But it is prohibited to consider partisanship in deploying Civil Service employees, personnel specialists say.

“It was never the expectation that partisan affiliation would influence decision-making for career civil servants,” said Constance Horner, an expert on federal personnel practices at the Brookings Institution. “In fact, it would be unusual for partisan affiliation for civil servants to be known to political appointees.”