Case Information
*1 Applicability of Executive Order No. 12674 to Personnel of Regional Fishery Management Councils
The ap p ointed m em bers o f Regional Fishery M anagem ent C ouncils established under the M agnuson Fishery C onservation and M anagem ent A ct and other personnel of those C ouncils are not executive branch em ployees for purposes of E xecutive O rder No. 12674 and its im plem enting regulations, and thus are not subject to that Order.
D ecem ber 9, 1993 M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n f o r t h e G e n e r a l C o u n s e l D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e
This memorandum responds to your request1 for our opinion whether Executive Order No. 12674, 3 C.F.R. 215 (1990) (“Order”), and the regulations implement ing it apply to officials of the Regional Fishery Management Councils (“Councils”) established under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882 (“Magnuson Act” or “FCMA”).2 The officials in question are the Council members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) and the Councils’ executive directors and administrative employees. We conclude that, under the unusual statutory scheme of the Magnuson Act, appointed Council members and the other Council personnel under consideration are not executive branch “employees” subject to the Order.
I.
The Magnuson Act created eight Councils from regional groupings of coastal States and gave them certain authority concerning ocean fisheries to the seaward of their member States. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(a). The Secretary appoints a majority of the voting membership for three-year terms. Id. § 1852(a)-(b). The remaining members, voting and nonvoting, are State and Federal officials who serve ex offi cio. Id § 1852(b)-(c).3 The appointed Council members may be removed by the Secretary only “for cause . . . if the Council concerned first recommends removal Ju stic e , from D epartm ent o f C om m erce (July 17, 1992) (“C om m erce L etter’ ). ary 3, 1993. this discussion. T h e O ffice o f G overnm ent E th ic s ’ regulations im plem enting the O rder took effect on F ebru C o n sequently, w e have focused our analysis on this category. W e use the term “appointed” C ouncil m em “ m em b ers," as used in the C om m erce L etter, is lim ited to m em bers of a C ouncil appointed by the Secretary. G o v ern o r o f A laska 16 U S.C. § 1852(c)(2). W e understand from discussions w ith your staff that the term 57 Fed. Reg. 35,006 (1992) (to be co dified at 5 C .F R. pt. 2635). ex officio'. bers to distin g u ish such m em bers from th o se w ho serve S e e L etter fo r T im othy E. Flanigan, A ssistant A ttorney G eneral, O ffice o f Legal C ounsel, D epartm ent of 2 T he O rd e r w as am ended by Exec O rd e r No. 12731, 3 C F.R 306 (1991), in respects not pertinent to [1] 1 T he Pacific C ouncil also h a s one n on v o tin g m em ber appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the A pplicability o f Executive O rder N o 12674 to P ersonnel o f R egional F ishery M anagem ent C ouncils *2 by not less than two-thirds of the members who are voting members.” Id. § 1852(b)(5).
Each Council has the authority to appoint an executive director and such other administrative employees as the Secretary deems necessary. Id. § 1852(f)(1)- The Secretary pays appointed Council members “the daily rate for GS-16 of the Gen eral Schedule, when [such member is] engaged in the actual performance of duties for [a] Council.” Id. § 1852(d).4 The Secretary also pays “appropriate compensa tion” to the executive director and administrative employees. Id. § 1852(0(7). The Administrator of General Services furnishes the Councils with such offices and office supplies as any agency would receive. Id. § 1852(f)(4).
The Councils advise the Secretary in formulating fishery management plans within their respective geographical areas. Id. § 1852(h). The management plans must conform to national standards, id. § 1851, with respect to which the Secretary has promulgated implementing guidelines. 50 C.F.R. pt. 602 (1993). The Councils generally are required to open their proceedings to the public and must hold hearings to consider comments from interested persons during the develop ment of management plans. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(3). After a management plan is prepared by a Council, it is submitted to the Secretary, who reviews it and either approves, disapproves, or partially disapproves it. Id. § 1854(a), (b). If a Council fails to develop and submit a management plan, or fails to change a plan that the Secretary has partially or completely disapproved, the Secretary may prepare a management plan for that region. Id. § 1854(c). However, “the Secretary may not include in any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any such plan, pre pared by him, a provision establishing a limited access system [with respect to a fishery] . . . unless such system is first approved by a majority of the voting mem bers, present and voting, of each appropriate Council.” Id. § 1854(c)(3). After a management plan has been prepared or approved by the Secretary, the Secretary promulgates implementing regulations. Id. § 1855(a). The Secretary is responsi ble for the enforcement of the FCMA and implementing regulations. See id. §§ 1858,1861.
In the words of the FCMA’s principal sponsor, Senator Warren G. Magnuson, the Councils
are unique among institutions that manage natural resources. They are neither state nor federal in character, although they possess qualities of each. Their powers are derived from the constitutional authority of the federal government, yet the Councils are self determinant in their own affairs. Enforcement and administration of the Councils’ plans and regulations are carried out by the responsi ble federal agencies.
378 (1992). [4] The G S-16 level in the G eneral Schedule no longer exists Exec. O rder N o 12786, 3 C F R 376,
Opinions o f th e O ffice o f L egal Counsel * * * Although the Councils are to be relatively independent, each Coun cil must operate within the uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce that govern the administration of the Act. The principal function of the Councils is to formulate fishery man agement plans upon which management and conservation regula tions are to be based.
Warren G. Magnuson, The Fishery Conservation and Management Act o f 1976: First Step Toward Improved Management o f Marine Fisheries, 52 Wash. L. Rev. *3 427,436-37 (1977).
II.
The Order’s preamble recites that it is intended to set forth “standards of ethical conduct for all executive branch employees.”5 The term “employee” is defined only as follows: “any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Gov ernment employee.” Id. § 503(b).6 An “agency” means any “executive department . . ., Government corporation . . ., or an independent establishment in the executive branch,” as those terms are defined in 5 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103, and 104. Id. § 503(c). A “Special Government employee” is “as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).” Id. § 503(e).7
The Commerce Letter concludes that the Order and its implementing regulations do not apply to appointed Council members and staff. It reasons that because the authority for prescribing regulations governing standards of conduct is derived from 5 U.S.C. § 7301,8 the definitions of “officer” and “employee” in title 5 should determine whether the Order applies to the Councils.9 The Commerce Letter fur 3 T h e O rd e r supersed es E xec. O rder No 11222 56 Fed. R eg 3 3 ,7 7 8 ,3 3 ,7 7 8 (1 9 9 1 ) 6 A s the C om m erce L etter notes, the term s ' ‘officer” and “‘e m plo yee” do not receive any further definition, thus m aking the O rd e r s definition of “e m ployee” partly circular 7 S ection 202(a) o f title 18 defines a ' “special G overnm ent em plo y ee” in part as any. o ffice r or em ployee o f the executive . . . branch w ho is retained, designated, appointed, or em p lo y ed to perform , w ith or without com pensation, fo r not to exceed one hundred and thirty days d uring any period o f three hundred and sixty-five consecu tiv e days, tem porary duties either on a full-tim e or interm itten t basis. 8 5 U S C. § 7301 provides that “(t]he P resident m ay prescribe regulations for the conduct of e m ployees in the e x ecu tiv e branch.” 9 A n ‘‘office r” under 5 U .S C § 2104 is: [A ]n individual w ho is — (1) required by law to be appointed m the civil service by one o f the following acting in an o ffi cial cap a c ity — (A ) the President; (B ) a court o f the U nited States; (C ) the head o f an Executive ag ency, or (D ) the Secretary o f a military departm ent, A pplicability o f E xecutive O rder No. 12674 to P ersonnel o f R egional F ishery M anagem ent C ouncils ther argues, in reliance on a 1976 opinion of the Acting General Counsel of the former United States Civil Service Commission,10 that “Council staffs and mem bers are not Federal employees for the purposes of 5 U.S.C. § 2105 because al though the public members of the Councils are appointed by a Federal official (namely the Secretary of Commerce) and Council members perform a Federal function authorized by statute (e.g., preparing fishery management plans), there [is] no supervisory relationship between the Secretary of Commerce and the Councils within the meaning of section 2105(a)(3).” Commerce Letter at 5."
III. We accept the premise of the Commerce Letter that the terms “officer” and “employee,” as used in § 503(b) of the Order, are identical in scope and meaning with the terms “officer” and “employee” as used in 5 U.S.C. §§ 2104 and 2105. We further believe that, as those terms are used in 5 U.S.C. §§ 2104 and 2105, they do not reach the appointed Council members.
A. Three considerations point to the conclusion that the terms “officer” and “employee” in the Order have the same meaning as those terms in 5 U.S.C. §§ *4 2104 and 2105. First, in the absence of any definition of “employee” in the crimi nal conflict-of-interest statutes applicable to Federal employees in title 18, we have generally assumed that the term “was no doubt intended to contemplate an em- ployer-employee relationship as that term is understood in other areas of the law,” C om m erce Letter im pliedly excludes their being “officers ” Joseph B Scott, A cting G eneral C ounsel, C ivil Service C om m ission (A ug 3, 1976) ( '‘C SC O pinion” ) extends to “officers." In contending that appointed C ouncil m em bers are not “em ployees,” th erefore, the might be w ithin title 5 ’s definition o f an “officer.” H ow ever, § 2 105’s definition o f an “e m ployee” explicitly An “em ployee" under 5 U S.C § 2105 is [A ]n officer and an individual w ho is — [10] 1 The C om m erce Letter does not specifically address the possibility that appointed C ouncil m em bers (3) subject to the supervision o f an individual nam ed by paragraph (1 ) o f this subsection w hile engaged in the perform ance o f the duties o f his position. cial C onference of the U nited States, w hile engaged in the perform ance o f the duties o f his office (2) engaged in the perform ance o f a Federal function under authority o f law or an E xecutive act, and and (3) subject to the supervision of an authority nam ed by paragraph ( i ) o f this section, or the J u d i (2) engaged in the perform ance of a Federal function under authority o f law or an Executive act, (1) appointed in the civil service by one o f the follow ing acting in an official capacity— L etter for Joseph E K asputys, A ssistant Secretary for A dm inistration, D epartm ent o f C om m erce, from (D ) an individual w ho is an em ployee under this section; 32, (C) a m em ber of a uniform ed service, (B) a M em ber or M em bers of C ongress, or the C ongress, (A ) the President, (E) the head o f a G overnm ent controlled corporation, or (F ) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned under section 709(c) o f title
Opinions o f th e O ffice o f L egal C ounsel
and in particular have turned to 5 U.S.C. § 2105 as providing “the most obvious source of a definition” for title 18 purposes. See Conflict o f Interest — Status o f an Informal Presidential Advisor as a “Special Government E m ployee” 1 Op. O.L.C. 20, 20 (1977).12 Because the objectives of the Order and its implementing regula tions are closely related to those of the conflicts statutes, we think it reasonable to look to title 5’s definition of “employee” when elucidating the Order. Cf. North- cross v. Board ofE duc., 412 U.S. 427, 428 (1973) (similarity of language and pur pose in different statutes suggests that they be construed similarly).13
Second, although the Order does not expressly adopt title 5 ’s definition of an “employee,” it does adopt that title’s definition of an “agency.” Order § 503(c) (“‘Agency’ means any executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105 . . . .”). We think it unlikely that the Order was intended to cover personnel who were em ployed by “agencies” within the meaning of title 5 but who were not themselves “employees” within the same title.
Third, although the Order’s preamble locates the President’s authority to issue the Order in “the Constitution and laws of the United States” without specifying any particular statutory provision, we agree with the Commerce Letter that the most obvious statutory source of authority for the Order is 5 U.S.C. § 7301. That section states that the President “may prescribe regulations for the conduct of em ployees in the executive branch,” 5 U.S.C. § 7301, and is a general statutory source of authority for Presidential regulation of executive branch personnel. See N a t’l A ss’n o f Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 273 n.5 (1974); Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 183 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (Executive Order No. 11222 was issued “under the President’s authority and pur suant to 5 U.S.C. § 7301”). Because the section occurs in title 5, its interpretation is governed by the definition of an “employee” in § 2105 of the same title.14 To the extent that the Order rests upon § 7301, therefore, its coverage must be limited to the class of employees within § 2105.
*5 from T h eo d o re B. O lson, A ssistant Attorney G eneral, O ffice o f Legal C ounsel, at 10 (Dec 15, 1982) (“the Title 5 definition o f em ployee is frequently used as a to r S u r v e y on C o st C on tro l Re: P re sid e n t's P rivate S e c starting p o int for any analysis o f whether the conflict o f interest laws apply to a p articular individual . . the app o in tm en t is fo r no m ore than 130 d a y s out o f any c onsecutive 365 days. See R estriction s on a F ed alth o u g h the T itle [5] definition is not necessarily conclusive for conflicts purposes” ). e ra l A p p o in te e 's C o n tin u ed Em ploym ent b y a P rivate Law F irm 5 0 3 (b ) A n in d iv id u a l’s status as a special (a s distinct from re g u la r) G overnm ent em ployee turns on w hether — F ederal Advisory C o m m ittee A c t (5 U .S C. App. I) 1 O p. O L C at 21, S e e ap p lied the e lem ents o f title 5 ’s definition o f “ e m ployee” lo b oth regular and special G overnm ent em ployees. , 7 O p O L.C. 123, 126 (1983). W e have 3 Op O .L C 321, 322-23 (1979). th is sec tio n o r w hen specifically modified.*’ Section 7301 d oes not undertake to m odify § 2 1 0 5 ’s definition o f an “e m p lo y e e,” and thus does not fall w ith in this exception tiv e G ro u p on E c o n o m ic R elations, U nited S ta tes-Japa n C on sulta M em orandum for Irving P. M argulies, D eputy G eneral C ounsel, D epartm ent o f C om m erce, [12] S e e a lso See 13 T h e O rd e r ex p ressly covers both regular and special G overnm ent em ployees o f an agency O rd er § 14 S ectio n 2105 specifies that its definition applies generally in title 5, “except as otherw ise provided by A pplicability’ o f Executive O rder No. 12674 to P ersonnel o f R egional F ishery M anagem ent C ouncils
B. Assuming then that the Order applies only to “employees” within the meaning of § 2105, an appointed Council member would have to meet each of the three tests in § 2105 to be deemed a covered “employee.” He or she would have to be (1) “appointed” by an appropriate official, (2) engaged in the performance of a Federal function, and (3) subject to the supervision of an appropriate Federal offi cer or employee. See Horner v. Acosta, 803 F.2d 687, 691-92 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (collecting cases); Costner v. United States , 665 F.2d 1016, 1019-20 (Ct. Cl. 1981).
It is not disputed that appointed Council members satisfy the first two of these tests. The Commerce Letter contends, however, that the third test is not met. In its view, because these Council members are not subject to the supervision of the Sec retary, they are not “employees” within § 2105 or the Order. We agree that the third test is not met.
We begin by considering the text of the Magnuson Act. As we have observed, “[t]he FCMA ‘adopts a somewhat convoluted scheme to achieve its purposes of conservation and management of fishery resources.’” Litigating Authority o f the Regional Fishery Management Councils, 4B Op. O.L.C. 778, 778 (1980) (quoting Washington Trollers Ass'n v. Kreps, 466 F. Supp. 309, 311 (W.D. Wash. 1979), r ev ’d on other grounds, 645 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1981)) (“Litigating Authority”).15 Two features of the Act in particular demonstrate that Congress did not intend ap pointed Council members to be “subject to the supervision o f ’ the Secretary within the meaning of § 2105. First, the Secretary’s removal power as to an appointed Council member cannot be exercised except upon the prior recommendation of two-thirds of a Council. See 16 U.S.C. § 1852(b)(5). This provision severely lim its the Secretary’s removal power and is designed to constrain narrowly the Secre tary’s ability to supervise and control the Council members he appoints. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 694, 696 (1988) (power to remove officials pro vides ability to supervise and control them); M eyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (same).16 15 In enacting the M agnuson Act, C ongress “creat[ed] really a unique anim al in these m anagem ent coun
cils, som ething that had not existed before W e tr[ied] to create som ething unique, and w e d id in the regional m anagem ent councils We did not m ake them regular Federal em ployees, because we did not want them to be regular Federal em ployees.” See F ishery C onservation a nd M anagem ent A c f H earings Before the Subcom m on Fisheries and WiUlhje C onservation a n d the E nvironm ent oj the H ouse C om m on M er chant M arine a n d Fisheries, 96th C ong 44 8 -4 9 (1979) (“ 1979 H earings” ) (rem arks o f Rep Studds) 16 C onsistent w ith that intent, the H ouse R eport on the 1983 am endm ents to the M agnuson Act stated that the C ouncils '‘enjoy some degree o f independence from the Secretary ’ H R Rep No 97-54 9 , at 15 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U S .C C A N 4320, 4328 (“ 1982 H ouse R eport” ) (accom panying H R 5002 e n acted as Pub L. N o 97-453, 96 Stat 2481 (1983)) R epresentative Studds w ent further in em p h asizin g the C ouncils' autonom y: I w ould have been outraged looking at that statem ent “The councils enjoy som e degree of in d e pendence from the Secretary ” That w as backw ards, absolutely inside-out and backw ard In som e lim ited ways, the councils have som e responsibilities w hich involve the Secretary T hey are
155
Opinions o f th e O ffice o f Legal C ounsel
Second, any fishery management plan drafted by the Secretary may not limit ac cess to a fishery unless a majority of the voting membership of each affected Council approves. 16 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(3). Thus, the statute empowers the Councils to prevent certain regulatory actions by the Secretary and, in effect, puts the Councils on a footing with the Secretary in regulating access to regional fish eries. In view of both the powerful constraints on the Secretary’s removal author ity and the Councils’ apparent “veto” power over some of the Secretary’s initiatives, it cannot be said that the Council members are subject to the Secretary’s supervision.
Legislative history (albeit history relating to amendments to the original Magnu son Act) supports this reading of the statute. The House Report on the 1983 amendments to the Magnuson Act stated that “Council members and administrative staffs are not Federal employees in the sense of 5 USC 2105 because they are not appointed by, or subject to the supervision of Federal officials in their day-to-day activities.” 1982 House Report at 15.17 Moreover, the Commerce Department itself denies (and has long denied) that the Secretary of Commerce exercises su pervisory authority over the Councils. The Commerce Department’s position is buttressed by the 1976 CSC Opinion. Commerce Letter at 6.
Consequently, we conclude that appointed Council members are not “employees” subject to the Order. In addition, the executive directors and admin istrative employees of the Councils also are not “employees” because they are ap pointed and supervised by the Councils, see 16 U.S.C. § 1852(0(1), a majority of whose members are not federal employees, so that the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 2105 again are not met. Accord 1982 House Report at 15.18
In reaching these conclusions, we do not suggest that the existence of statutory limitations on removal is generally inconsistent with the retention of supervisory power in the person who can exercise the power to remove. On the contrary, the case law clearly supports the view that “for cause” limitations on removal power can be compatible with the continuing power and duty to supervise.19 In the case of the Councils, however, the statute does not restrict the Secretary’s removal here their status as “em p lo y e es” w ithin the m eaning o f 5 U S C § 2105. appointed by Federal officials. The Secretary appoints the C ouncil m em bers w hose status is in question Svnar, authority to assure that coun sel perform ed co m p eten tly and in accordance w ith statutory m andate), B ow sher v to rem ove indep en d en t counsel did not p revent A ttorney G eneral from exercising sufficient supervisory that has the rem oval po w er m ust supervise the subordinate o ffic e r at least to the extent needed to determ ine C o m p tro lle r G eneral). Indeed, the very a bility to rem ove for “cause*’ presupposes that the officer or body in clu ding “in efficien cy, * “neglect of duty,’* and “ m alfeasance’* enabled it to control execution o f law s by w h ether “cause** for rem oval exists 4 7 8 U.S 714, 726, 7 28 -29 (1986) (C o n g re ss’s pow er to rem ove the C om ptroller G eneral for causes 1979 H earings at 4 4 9 -5 0 18 H ow ever, Federal em p lo y ees detailed to the C ouncils pursuant to 16 U.S C § 1852(0(2) w ould retain 487 U S at 692 (“good cause*’ lim itation on the A ttorney G en eral’s pow er 17 W e note that the H ouse R eport is in e rro r insofar as it slates broadly that C ouncil m em bers are not [19] See, e.g., M o rriso n v. O lson, from the S ecretary, they are basically, fundam entally and critically independent o f the Secretary. fu n d am en tally independent from the S ecretary They do not enjoy som e degree o f independence *7 A pplicability o f E xecutive O rder N o 12674 to P ersonnel o f R egional Fishery M anagem ent C ouncils power merely by requiring that “cause” for removal exist. It also demands that, before a Council member can be removed, two-thirds of the Council’s voting membership recommend such removal. In effect, the statutory scheme not only circumscribes the removal power, but also vests that power jointly in the Secretary and the Councils themselves. This unusual feature of the Magnuson Act distin guishes it from more traditional legislation in which some form of “cause” is all that is required before removal can occur. As a result, the Councils possess greater autonomy than that enjoyed, for example, by typical “independent” agencies.20
We also do not suggest that the Secretary utterly lacks any supervisory authority with regard to the Councils. On the contrary, it is clear that under this unusual statutory scheme, Congress intended the Secretary to exert substantial control over basic aspects of the Councils’ activities. Thus, as we have pointed out:
However independent the Councils may be in their day-to-day op erations, ultimate authority over a majority of their membership, budgets, and their major area of concern — the fishery management plans — remains with the Secretary or other federal agencies. The Councils perform the basic research, hold hearings, draft the plan for their area, and propose regulations. It is the Secretary, however, to whom the drafts and proposals are submitted and it is the Secre tary who either approves the management plan or amends it to his satisfaction. It is also the Secretary who reviews the regulations to insure their legality and who implements them.
Litigating Authority, 4B Op. O.L.C. at 782 (footnotes and citations omitted).21
In our judgment, however, the Secretary’s powers with respect to the Councils do not suffice to render appointed Council members “employees” subject to the Secretary’s supervision. As Senator Magnuson put it, “the Councils are self determinant in their own affairs.” Magnuson, supra at 436. The unusually severe constraints on the Secretary’s removal power, coupled with the Councils’ ability to “veto” the Secretary’s draft fishery management plan if the plan limits access to a fishery, are incompatible with the ordinary meaning of supervision. Consequently, eral Trade C om m ission for “inefficiency, neglect o f duty, or m alfeasance in office” ) W e have found only one other statute, 16 U S C § 4009, establishing certain seafood m arketing councils, that limits the rem oval is final arbiter in prom ulgation o f fishery m anagem ent m easures and is responsible for ensuring that m an pow er in a fashion com parable to 16 U S.C § 1852(b)(5). the F is h e n ’ C onservation a nd M anagem ent A c t o f 1976 , 52 W ash L. Rev. 599, 616, 6 2 0 (1977) (S ecretary perm its scrutiny o f m anagem ent plans for self-serving m easures that C ouncils d om inated by fishing industry agem ent schem es com port w ith legislative standards, fact that Secretary m ust review C o u n cils' decisions m ight put forw ard). with, e g , retary may rem ove m em ber for “cause” ) 1 5 U S C . § 41 (P resident may rem ove m em ber o f Fed C hristopher L. K och, C om m ent, C om pare 16 U S C § 1852(b)(5) (prior recom m endation o f tw o-thirds o f C ouncil needed before Sec- [20] J udicial R eview o j F ishery M anagem ent Regulations U nder [21] See also
Opinions o f th e O ffice o f Legal C ounsel
we conclude that appointed Council members are not employees covered by the Order.
Conclusion
As a matter of statutory construction, and on the basis of the specific features of the Magnuson Act, we conclude that Executive Order No. 12674, as amended by Executive Order No. 12731, and the implementing regulations relating to that Or der, do not apply to appointed members, executive directors, or administrative em ployees of the Regional Fishery Management Councils.
WALTER DELLINGER Assistant Attorney General Office o f Legal Counsel