Staff Report Action Required Amendment To Ground Lease: Fill & Download for Free

Apartheid is defined as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.The most classic example of this of course was South Africa and it was the success of the global boycott against South Africa that provided the enticement for an absurd strategy of reverse application (to Israel), where the comparison is made simply because of the success of the anti-Apartheid campaign.There is a simple and undeniable fact, that everyone in Israel votes, which in itself dispels the Apartheid myth completely; but let’s go even further.Take as an example two Arab brothers who were living in Akko in 1947; then during the civil war in 1948 caused by the Arab rejection of partition, one left the area to escape the troubles and the other didn’t.Today, one of these brothers is Israeli, with full citizenship; the other is a Palestinian living in a refugee camp. However you choose to look at this and whatever separates these two brothers, it cannot be race.(The lies and the myths of the anti-Israeli crowd)Israel is the opposite of an apartheid state. It is a multicultural democracy and the only free country in the Middle East. Labeling Israel as practicing “apartheid” justifiably offends Israelis and many victims of real apartheid regimes. Israeli law enshrines equal rights for all citizens, and minorities participate fully in public life. While Israel, like other multi-ethnic democracies, struggles with minority disadvantages, its laws try to eradicate inequality. Nor does Israel practice apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza. ‘Palestinians’ are not citizens of the jewish state, and the vast majority do not want to be. They are governed by their own leaders—Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.(16 Things That Give Israel a Bad Name But Aren't Really True)Apartheid Laws that are Explicitly Illegal in IsraelSouth AfricaImmorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23) - Prohibited adultery, attempted adultery or related immoral acts (extra-marital sex) between white and black people.Israel|Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty - All citizens are equal before the law. In regards to universal concepts of human dignity and liberty, religious and ethnic groups are not referenced at all, only people. There are no laws governing sexual activity within or without the bounds of marriage between consenting adults.South AfricaGroup Areas Act, Act No 41 of 1950 - Forced physical separation between races by creating different residential areas for different races. Led to forced removals of people living in “wrong” areas, for example Coloureds living in District Six in Cape Town.IsraelIt is illegal to discriminate against potential home-buyers based on race, religion or other factors in Israel. - There are no laws designating where Jews and non-Jews can or can not live. The Israel National Planning Council does designate new towns or cities as being developed for a specific community, but this is only designed to meet the needs of that community and has no bearing on who can actually live there. As such, the INPC may plan a new “haredi city,” but all Israeli citizens are free to move there, it just happens that because the plans will include special designations to meet the needs of the haredi community (additional space for synagogues, yeshivas, mikvahs…) making it more attractive to haredi citizens. INPC designations are merely guidelines and do not prevent citizens of any religion or ethnicity from living in any area.South AfricaSuppression of Communism Act, Act No 44 of 1950 - Outlawed communism and the Communist Party in South Africa. Communism was defined so broadly that it covered any call for radical change. Communists could be banned from participating in a political organisation and restricted to a particular area.IsraelBasic Law: The Knesset, Section 7A “Prevention of participation of candidates list - The only way a candidate list can be prevented from running for Knesset is if they reject Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, incite racism, or violence against the state by an enemy state or terror organization. Despite the fact that no Arab party currently in the Knesset recognizes Israel as a Jewish State, they have never been prevented from running in elections or serving in the Knesset. While there have been legal attempts to disqualify Arab parties for violating this law, each attempt was blocked by the Supreme Court. The only parties ever successfully banned from running for the Knesset were Kach and Kahane Chaiand they were subsequently banned outright after being reclassified as terrorist organizations.As for the law relating specifically to Communists, the Israeli Communist Party is currently in the Knesset as a faction of the Hadash Party which is part of the Joint Arab List.South AfricaNative Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953 - Prohibited strike action by blacks.IsraelCollective Agreements Law - 1957* and *the Settlement of Labour Disputes Law - 1957 (among others) - The right to strike by all workers, regardless of religion or ethnicity, is enshrined in law. General strikes by the Arab sector in Israel have occurred many times in the past as acts of protest.South AfricaReservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953 - Forced segregation in all public amenities, public buildings, and public transport with the aim of eliminating contact between whites and other races. "Europeans Only” and “Non-Europeans Only” signs were put up. The act stated that facilities provided for different races need not be equal.Israel:Discrimination based on religion or ethnicity is illegal in Israel - Jews and Arabs use the same public amenities, buildings and transport and it is illegal for a business not to serve a customer because they are an Arab or a Jew. The fact that occasionally the news will report about people or businesses discriminating (as happens at times in every country) is proof that they are law-breakers not policy makers.South AfricaGroup Areas Development Act, Act No 69 of 1955 - Helped to effect the purpose of the Group Areas Act of 1950, namely to exclude non-Whites from living in the most developed areas, which were restricted to Whites. It was later replaced by the Community Development Act of 1966.IsraelThere are no restrictions on where a citizen can live regardless of religion or ethnicity.South AfricaNatives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, Act No 64 of 1956 - Denied black people the option of appealing to the courts against forced removals.IsraelAny citizen can appeal an eviction notice before the courts. Even non-Israeli Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria can sue in the Israeli Supreme Court (and win) if they believe they are being deprived of their land unjustly. Arabs, both citizens and non-citizens, have the right to appeal to the court system for anySouth AfricaBantu Investment Corporation Act, Act No 34 of 1959 - Provided for the creation of financial, commercial, and industrial schemes in areas designated for black people.IsraelThere are no areas designated as only for Arabs (or Jews only) in Israel and no “financial, commercial or industrial schemes” specifically for those non-existent areas. The Industrial Parks or Zones in Israel and Judea and Samaria make no distinction between Jew or Arab or Israeli or Palestinian.South AfricaExtension of University Education Act, Act 45 of 1959 - Put an end to black students attending white universities (mainly the universities of Cape Town and Witwatersrand). Created separate tertiary institutions for whites, Coloured, blacks, and Asians.IsraelThere are no restrictions on university admission based on religion or ethnicity. On the contrary, there are affirmative action programs designed to aid disadvantaged students - Arab, women, the disabled… - in gaining admission.South AfricaPromotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, Act No 46 of 1959 - Classified black people into eight ethnic groups. Each group had a Commissioner-General who was tasked to develop a homeland for each, which would be allowed to govern itself independently without white intervention.IsraelArabs (like Jews) do fall into many categories in Israel - Muslim, Christian, Bedouin, Druze - but they are all equal before the law. There are no Bantu areas in Israel and no Israeli citizen can be deprived of their citizenship.South AfricaColoured Persons Communal Reserves Act, Act No 3 of 1961 - Effectively of lowered wages by denying Africans rights within urban areas and by keeping their families and dependents on subsistence plots in the reserves.IsraelIt is illegal to discriminate between employees based on religion or ethnicity, including in regards to their salaries.South AfricaPreservation of Coloured Areas Act, Act No 31 of 1961 - Created a legal loophole for land in “coloured areas” to be seized and paid for to white “Guardians” in place of the original owners who may or may not have registered their claims.IsraelThere are no areas specifically for Jews or non-Jews and in the case of eminent domain, only the legal owner would be compensated. All land-owners must have documentation to prove their ownership.South AfricaUrban Bantu Councils Act, Act No 79 of 1961 - Created black councils in urban areas that were supposed to be tied to the authorities running the related ethnic homeland.Israel:City councils are elected by the citizens of the municipality without regard to religion or ethnicity.South AfricaBantu Homelands Citizens Act of 1970 - Compelled all black people to become a citizen of the homeland that responded to their ethnic group, regardless of whether they’d ever lived there or not, and removed their South African citizenship.IsraelArab citizens of Israel cannot be stripped of their citizenship without their consent. While critics of Israel frequently label the Palestinian Authority as a “Bantustan” this is for propaganda purposes and does not fit the comparison at all. Rather than creating the Palestinian Authority to deprive Arab Israelis of their citizenship, Israel was essentially forced into establishing it as part of the Oslo Accords. The creation of the PA had no effect on Arab citizens of Israel and while some Knesset Members have floated the idea of ceding some Israeli Arab towns to the PA as part of a peace treaty, such suggestions were never part of Israel’s past peace offers.Palestinian AuthorityMahmoud Abbas has made it clear that under any final peace deal, he would not allow a single Jew to remain in the Palestinian State. This means that all Jews living in Judea and Samaria outside of areas annexed by Israel would not even get the option of Palestinian citizenship. Just like Blacks in South Africa, they would be unable to get citizenship where they live and instead would have to look toward their ethnic homeland for citizenship before being expelled.South AfricaThe Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 - Laid the foundations for residential segregation in urban areas. This led to all Black South Africans being required to carry a Pass or ID card at all times.IsraelThere is no segregation - residential or otherwise - in urban or other areas. Segregation based on religion or ethnicity is illegal. All Israelis, regardless of religion or ethnicity, are required to carry their National ID Card at all times.Israeli Laws with Superficial Similarities to Apartheid LawsSouth AfricaProhibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Act No 55 of 1949 - Prohibited marriages between white people and people of other races. Between 1946 and the enactment of this law, only 75 mixed marriages had been recorded, compared with some 28,000 white marriages.IsraelReligious Marriage and Recognition of All Foreign Marriages - In regards to marriage, Israel maintains the law established by the Ottomans and continued by the British Mandate in which all marriages are conducted by separate religious establishments. All people are free to change their religious status for marriage or personal choice. All foreign civil marriages are recognized by the state without regard to religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.Palestinian AuthorityThe PA also has no Civil Marriage and all marriages are carried out through separate religious establishments. There is no recognition or protection for same-sex couples.South AfricaPopulation Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950 - Led to the creation of a national register in which every person’s race was recorded. A Race Classification Board took the final decision on what a person’s race was in disputed cases.IsraelRegistration of Inhabitants Ordinance No. 50 OF 5709-1949 and Population Registry Law, 5725-1965 - The State of Israel’s registration authority does collect data on citizen’s religion and ethnicity under the these laws, but this is merely for statistical purposes, as stated in Section 3 of the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004. Many if not most countries around the world do the same. The laws list “religion” and “ethnicity” but makes no distinction between them and does not call for members of a certain group to be treated differently. Israeli ID cards have not shown the barer’s religion/ethnicity/nationality since 2005.Palestinian AuthorityAll Palestinians have their religious affiliation included on their identification papersas well.An example of an Israeli ID card (note the ******** under the nationality section so the barer’s ethnicity/nationality is not shown.)South AfricaBantu Education Act, Act No 47 of 1953* - Established a Black Education Department in the Department of Native Affairs which would compile a curriculum that suited the “nature and requirements of the black people”. The author of the legislation, Dr Hendrik Verwoerd (then Minister of Native Affairs, later Prime Minister), stated that its aim was to prevent Africans receiving an education that would lead them to aspire to positions they wouldn’t be allowed to hold in society. Instead Africans were to receive an education designed to provide them with skills to serve their own people in the homelands or to work in labouring jobs under whites.|asdfasdfasd|IsraelSignatory to Convention against Discrimination in Education and Numerous Israeli Universal Education Laws - The Ministry of Education runs an Arab education system for the Arab minority in Israel that makes special recognition of Arab heritage and culture. This includes instruction in Arabic and lessons in Arab history and literature. There are also many joint Jewish-Arab schools throughout the country.In order to address gaps between the level and quality of education between Jewish and Arab students, the Israeli government has initiated numerous affirmative action campaigns and increased budgets for the Arab community. This has had mixed results. Despite the problems Israel faces with ensuring students in minority and poor student get a proper education (something every country has difficulty with) Christian Arabs have flourished in Israel in terms of education. Far from intending to prevent Arabs “from receiving an education that would lead them to aspire to positions they wouldn’t be allowed to hold in society” (none such positions exist in Israel), the Arab Education system of the Ministry of Education is designed to incread the educational standards in Arab schools while celebrating and teaching Arab culture and history.Arab students in IsraelSouth AfricaNatives Resettlement Act, Act No 19 of 1954 - Permitted the removal of blacks from any area within and next to the magisterial district of Johannesburg by the South African government. This act was designed to remove of blacks from Sophiatown to Soweto.IsraelIt is illegal to remove anyone, regardless of religious or ethnic background, from their legally owned homes. - If a citizen does not own their home or property or built their home without a legal permit, only then can they be evicted, but these evictions can be fought in court. The most common occurrences deal with Bedouin squatting on State Land and Jews who establish outposts in Judea and Samaria on property they have not legally acquired. In both cases, the residents may appeal their evictions to the Supreme Court. The only example of Israeli citizens being forced from their legally owned homes is of Jews who were forcibly removed from Sinai, Gaza and Samaria as part of the peace treaty with Egypt and the 2005 Disengagement Plan.Palestinian AuthorityMahmoud Abbas has made it clear that under any final peace deal, he would not allow a single Jew to remain in the Palestinian State. This means that any Jews living in the area designated for a Palestinian State would be expelled in the same way Jews were previously expelled from Sinai, Gaza and Northern Samaria.South Africa:Terrorism Act of 1967 - Allowed for indefinite detention without trial and established BOSS, the Bureau of State Security, which was responsible for the internal security of South Africa.Israel:British Mandate 1945 Law on Authority in States of Emergency as amended in 1979, or Administrative Detention - (From Wikipedia)Within Israel, the Defense Minister has the authority to issue Administrative Detention orders for up to 6 months in cases where there is a reasonable chance that the person harms the security of the state. The same Minister has the authority to renew such orders. Likewise, the Chief of the General Staff can issue such orders, but valid for only 48 hours. Law enforcement authorities have to show cause within 48 hours (in a hearing behind closed doors). Administrative Detention orders can be appealed to the District Court and, if denied there, to the Supreme Court of Israel. The District Court can annul such orders if it finds the administrative detention occurred for reasons other than security (e.g., common crimes, or the exercise of freedom of expression). Overall supervisory authority on the application of the relevant law rests with the Minister of Justice.More importantly, this law applies to all terrorism suspects. Suspected Jewish terrorists are subjected to the strictures of the law exactly as are Arab terrorists. It just happens that there are fewer Jewish terrorists (Thank God!) and therefore fewer Jews placed in administrative detention. Importantly, it is only very rarely used against Israeli citizens, Arab or Jew.This law is not perfect and, like any law, can be abused. However, the number of prisoners held in such an arrangement has a direct correlation with the terror level. In June 2012, there were 285 Palestinians in detention but by December 2013, this number was cut by more than half to 140. To put this in perspective, as of 2011, Jordan had 11,345 prisoners in Administrative Detention 81 times the number in Israel, with a significant proportion of those detained being Palestinian.South AfricaThe Natives Land Act, No 27 of 1913 - Made it illegal for blacks to purchase or lease land from whites except in reserves; this restricted black occupancy to less than eight per cent of South Africa's land.IsraelArabs can and do purchase and lease land from Jews and there are no restrictions on them doing so. It is illegal to discriminate between buyers based on religion or race.When confronted with this fact, many people then point to the Jewish National Fund, which only allows Jews to buy, mortgage or lease its land. There are two important things to take into consideration in regards to the JNF:In 2005, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz ruled that the Israel Lands Administration could not comply with the JNF's Jews-only policy as it directly contravened Israel's anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, the JNF would be required to sell, lease or rent land to anyone regardless of religion or ethnicity.The Jewish National Fund was founded in 1901 in order to help Jews settle in the land of Israel at a time of growing global anti-Semitism. It was an NGO dedicated to aiding Jews regain territory in their ancestral homeland. This was akin to establishing Indian Reservations in the US or Aboriginal land rights in Australia however it was established and funded by the Jews themselves rather than the ruling government. It is understandable that such areas are run by and in many cases, restricted to, members of the native tribes who were kicked off their land so many years ago and that need these areas to maintain their cultural traditions. There are many laws in the United States, like the Dawes Act and the Indian Reorganization Act that deal specifically with setting aside land only for members of the tribes while Australia has the Indigenous Land Corporation whose sole purpose is to aid Aboriginal Australians gain and manage their land. If Australia were to elect an Aborigines Prime Minister, it would still be necessary and just to have land set aside specifically for Aboriginal use and settlement. The same is true for Israel and the Jewish National Fund.Palestinian AuthorityIt is illegal to sell land to Jews - Any Palestinians who sells land to Jews is not only subject to intense social pressure leading to most claiming they were misled as to the real buyers, but the PLO’s Revolutionary Penal Code (1979) applies the death penalty to anyone “transferring positions to the enemy.” While this was strictly enforced in the 1990s, Abbas has not authorized executions for land sales since 2004. Instead, Palestinians convicted of selling land to Jews are now sentenced to hard labor for life.Technically these laws refer either to "enemy states" or "Israelis," however in practice, this is only ever applied to land deals with Jews. There has never been a case where Palestinians were prosecuted for selling land to Israeli Arabs, despite the fact that many buy homes in the PA. Additionally, since all Jews were ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt in 1948, there are no Jewish citizens of the Palestinian Authority (other than token citizenship for famous Israeli "peaceniks" like Daniel Barenboim who don't actually live there) who could buy land or property without being members of an "enemy state." The effect is that it is illegal to sell or rent land to Jews in the Palestinian Authority.(Apartheid Law vs. Israeli Law)Above: South African racial discrimination signBelow: Israeli busAbove: South AfricaBelow: IsraelAbove: South AfricaBelow: IsraelAbove: South AfricaBelow: IsraelAbove: South African racial segregation signBelow: Israeli townPrime Minister Netanyahu shaking hands with Ayman Oudeh, Head of the Joint Arab List, in the KnessetA strike by Israeli workers (if you can tell which are Arabs and which are Jews, be sure to let me know as I certainly cannot tell the difference).An Arab student at Ben Gurion University of the NegevArab workers in IsraelArab voting in an Israeli electionOn Jerusalem's light RailOn Israel Train

A Govt. employee is not allowed to engage in any business as per law, therefore ownership as a promoter/director of a Private Limited Company is also not allowed. However, they can run it in a trustable person's ownership. Like father, mother or wife and if they can have time from job they can operate it.A public servant cannot engage in part-time job or any other business. It is a clear provision in Conduct Rules. There are few exceptions eg certain State Government doctors can practice outside office hours with permission from department, provided s/he is not drawing non-practicing allowance.Rule 15(1)(d) of CCS (C)Read the following text for reference:The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964RULE 15. PRIVATE TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT:Government of India Decisions(1) Joining of Educational Institutions by Government servants outside normal office hours.It has been brought to the notice of this Ministry on behalf of Government servants belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, that certain Ministries/Departments do not permit members of their staff belonging to these communities to join educational institutions outside the normal office hours.2. As the Ministries are aware, it was proposed in this Ministry’s OM No. 25/27/52-Est., dated the 3rd May, 1952 (not reproduced) to issue general instruction on the subject. The replies received to that OM however revealed that while some Departments found that efficiency was suffering on account of Government servants attending a regular course of study for University Degree even outside office hours, a great majority of the Ministries was able to permit their employees to pursue such studies without detriment to official duties and that no serious problems had been created in most of the Departments by Government servants joining educational institutions. It was, therefore, not considered necessary to issue any specific instructions on the subject. Ordinarily there can be no objection to the pursuit of knowledge by Government servants in their leisure hours. But this must be subject to the condition that such pursuit does in no way detract from their efficiency. Wherever found necessary, the administrative authorities may require that Government servants under their control should take prior permission before joining educational institutions or courses of studies for University Degrees as the joining of educational institutions involves advance commitment about attendance at specific hours and absence from duty during periods of examinations. Ordinarily, permission is to be granted but with a view to summarily dealing with cases where it is noticed that the Government servant has been neglecting his duties for the sake of his studies, a condition may be attached saying that the permission may be withdrawn at any moment without assigning any reason. This will, of course, be without prejudice to any other departmental action being taken where mere withdrawal of the permission is not considered adequate.3. Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes may be allowed to take full advantage of the educational facilities subject to the policy stated above.4. These instructions have been issued with the concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General in so far as persons serving under him are concerned.[MHA OM No. 130/54-Ests.(A), dated 26.02.1955.](1A) Period of tenure of the official should be taken into account while granting permissionIt is clarified for information, and compliance by the Ministry of Finance, etc., that while taking into account the various administrative considerations in deciding upon a request for permission to attend courses of study outside office hours, the period of tenure of the Government servant concerned should also be taken into account so that in the ordinary course, occasions do not arise to ask for extension of tenure to cover the period of the course attended by him which may continue beyond the expiry of the tenure. Should a case of permission to a tenure officer to join an educational course the completion of which would require the extension of tenure of the officer concerned come up for consideration, this Department may please be consulted before the permission is granted.[MHA OM No. 11013/4/77-Ests.(A), dated the 21st May, 1977](2) Participation in Shramdan activities organized by Government departments or the Bharat Sewak SamajA question was raised recently whether central Government servants can be permitted to participate in a “Shramdan” drive organized by a State Government with the object of enabling the participants to devote some time and labour in furthering of the objects and work of public utility. Participation of a Government servant in such activity in his spare time is not only unobjectionable but even welcome subject; of course, to the consideration that such activity does not interfere with the performance of his official duties. It is, in fact, considered desirable that Government servants should be encouraged to participate in such activities so long as official duties of the employees concerned are not unduly interfered with.The Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to inform the Departments and offices under them accordingly. It should however, be made clear that these instructions apply only to activities organized by Government departments or the Bharat Sevak Samaj and not by private organizations.[MHA OM No. 25/8/55-Ests. (A), dated 03.05.1955](3) Permission to participate in the AIR programmes and to receive honorarium thereforA reference is invited to this Ministry’s Office memorandum No. 25/05/47-Est., dated the 16th June, 1947, on the subject mentioned above (not reproduced). With the issue of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 Government servants are now not required to obtain any sanction to broadcast on All India Radio if such broadcasts are purely literary, artistic or scientific character. In such cases the onus of ensuring that the broadcasts are of such a character rests on the Government servant concerned.2. A Question has, however, arisen whether the permission of competent authority is now necessary for the purpose of acceptance of honorarium under F.R. 46(b) by a Government servant in such cases. The matter has been considered by this Ministry in consultation with the Ministries of Finance and Information and Broadcasting and it has been decided that in cases in which no sanction is required for such broadcasts, no permission is necessary for Government servants to receive the honorarium.3. In cases where sanction to broadcast is necessary, such sanction, if given, should be taken to carry with it also the sanction to receive the honorarium.4. These orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General and are applicable to employees of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department also.[MHA OM No. 25/32/56-Ests.(A), dated 15.01.1957](4) Acceptance of part-time employment Examinership of examination papers set by recognized Universities.It is felt that the offers of Examinership are generally of a casual nature, occurring once or twice a year for a few days when the answer books etc. may have to be evaluated. There may, therefore, be no serious objection to giving permission in such cases.[MHA OM No. 25/5/56-Ests.(A), dated 06.09.1957 to the Ministry of Defence](5) Part-time lectureship amounts to regular remunerative occupation attracting need for sanction under supplementary Rule 11.A question has been raised whether a Government servant who is permitted under SR11 Supplementary to undertake a part-time job of a lecturer in an educational institution should also obtain sanction of the Government in terms of Rule 12 of the Central Civil (Conduct) Rules, 1955, (now Rule 15) before accepting the assignment.2. It has been decided in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Ministry of Home Affairs that the powers delegated under S.R. 11 should only be exercised in cases where a Government servant undertakes to perform some work of a causal or occasional nature but where the work done is of the nature of a regular remunerative occupation, Conduct Rule 12 (now Rule 15) will be attracted and the sanction of Government will be necessary. Accordingly, the acceptance of a part-time lectureship in the case referred to is to be regarded as regular remunerative occupation which requires the sanction of Government under Conduct Rule 12 [now Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964].[Min. of Finance OM No. F.10(94)-E-II(B)/58, dated 13.09.1958](6) Acceptance of part-time employment of Government servants after office hours ordinarily not to be allowed.Instances have come to notice in which Government servants have been allowed to accept regular part-time employment in other Government, quasi-Government or private institutions. Such employment, even though it is outside office hours, is contrary to the principle embodied in rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (now Rule 15), prohibiting engagement in any trade or undertaking of any employment by a Government servant other than his public duties. It may result in some deterioration in his efficiency because if he does part-time work in addition to his full working hours in his office, he may not get sufficient time for rest and recreation and will, therefore, be unable to give undivided attention to his work even during office hours. Moreover, such part-time work by Government servants leads generally to depriving unemployed people of work which they would otherwise have got.2. Having regard to all these consideration, it has been decided that while the competent authority may permit a Government servant under S.R. 11 to undertake work of a casual or occasional character, a whole time Government servant should not ordinarily be allowed to accept any part-time employment whether under Government or elsewhere, even though such employment may be after office hours. In rare cases where it is proposed to give permission to a Government servant to accept part-time employment, prior sanction of Government should be obtained. In this connection a reference is also invited to the Ministry of Finance, Office memorandum No. F.10(94)-E-II(B)/58 dated 13th September, 1958 on the subject (Decision No. 6).3. In so far as the personnel serving in the Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General.[MHA OM No. 25/42/58-Ests.(A), dated 16.10.1958](7) Enforcement of the restriction against canvassing by Government servants of the business of Life Insurance Agency, Commission Agency owned or managed by members of his family.Sub-rule (1) of rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (Now rule 15), inter alia lays down that no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment. It has been further emphasized in the ‘explanation’ thereunder that canvassing by a Government servant in support of the business of insurance agency, commission agency, etc., owned and managed by his wife or any other member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub-rule.2. In spite of specific provisions in this rule, during the past two years quite a number of cases have been reported to the Special Police Establishment in which Government servants have been found carrying on life insurance business on their own or in the names of their wives or dependent, etc.3. It appears that the Government servants have either not realized the full importance of the above rule or are willfully ignoring it. This rule should, therefore, be brought to the notice of all Government servants under the Ministry of WHS etc., and the importance of observing the rule impressed on them.[MHA DO No. 24/10/61-AVD, dated 01.01.1962](8) Joining Civil Defence Service permissibleEnquiries have been made whether Government servants employed in the offices or establishments under the Central Government in Delhi and elsewhere could be allowed to join as volunteer in the Civil Defence Service. These volunteers have to play an important and useful role in the lives of the citizens. The Ministries are, therefore, requested to permit Government servants working under them to join this service and also to provide them necessary facilities for this purpose. Such of the Government servants as are holding key posts and who cannot be released during an emergency need not be permitted to join the Service.As far as possible, it is envisaged that the normal period of training will be outside office hours. However, if in an emergency, a Government Servant, who is enrolled as a member of the Civil Defence is required under the C.D. Service Rules, 1962 to perform any duties and functions during office hours, the period of absence shall be treated as special casual leave. The Government servants concerned may also be permitted to receive in addition to their civil pay, such allowances as may be prescribed for them under the Civil Defence Service Rules, 1962.These orders are not applicable to Government servants desiring to join Civil Defence Organisation on a whole time paid basis. Such Government Servants would be sent on deputation basis if they are permanent, and other individual cases should be examined on merits.As regards employees of Semi-Government organisation and Public Undertakings, the Ministry of Finance etc., are requested if there is no objection to take action on the above lines in respect of the undertakings under their control.[MHA OM No. 47/7/63-Ests.(A) dated 23.05.1963](9) Medical practice during spare time – Permission to be given to only those holding recognized qualificationsThe Government of India have had under consideration the question of permission to Central Government servants to practice medicine on a purely charitable basis during their spare time. Since such practice of medicine by unqualified and untrained persons will be harmful to the community, it has been decided that permission to central Government servants to undertake practice in any system of medicine should not be granted unless they hold recognized qualifications. Only persons holding recognized qualifications in any system of medicine and registered under the relevant law in force in the State or Union Territory concerned should be allowed to undertake medical practice. Head of departments may grant the required permission, provided the practice is undertaken during spare time, on a purely charitable basis, without detriment to the official duties of the Government servant concerned.2. Past cases, if any, in which permission has been granted to Government servants to undertake medical practice during their spare time may be reviewed in the light of the above decision.3. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.[MHA OM No. 25/4/64-Ests.(A), dated 29.02.1964](10) Commercial employment – negotiations for, while in serviceInstances have come to notice where Government servants enter into negotiations with private firms to secure commercial employment even while they are in service under Government. A Government servant is under an obligation to devote his energies whole-heartedly to the performance of his duties and not to divide his attention and efforts in search of employment elsewhere. It is, moreover, likely that in initiating such negotiations, the Government servant may in some measure utilise his official position or the official position of his friends and colleagues to further his interest in securing commercial employment or at any rate give reason for an impression that he might have done so. It has, therefore, been decided that no Government servant should negotiate for commercial employment without obtaining the prior permission of the Head of Department, or, if he is a Government servant serving in a Ministry of Department of the Government of India or a class I (Group A) Officer serving in an office under its control, of the Ministry or Department administratively concerned. It has been further decided that such permission should not be given unless there are any special reasons for doing so.[MHA OM No. 29/3/66/Ests.(A), dated 08.02.1966](11) Incentive to Central Government servants who are members of St. John Ambulance BrigadeUnder the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. F.25/21/49-Ests dated 31st May, 1949 (not reproduced), Central Government servants may in suitable cases be permitted by the Head of Office etc., concerned to enroll themselves as members of St. John Ambulance Brigade and to receive the necessary training subject to the condition that the grant of permission in such cases would not interfere with the efficient discharge of their official duties by the Government servants concerned. In regard to the treatment of the absence of the Government servant from duty while receiving training, it was declared that in cases where Government servants who may be permitted to join the Brigade and required to undergo the necessary training, etc., during office hours there will be no objection to the period of training etc. being treated as casual leave to the extent such leave is due and to the extent such leave is not due, as special casual leave. The question what should be allowed to the Government servants who are the members of the Brigade and who are detailed for duty by the Brigade on the first-aid posts organized by them in Fairs and on important occasions, has been receiving attention of the Government of India for some time. It has now been decided that special casual leave not exceeding three (3) days per annum may be allowed to Government servants who are members of the Brigade to cover their absence on any special duties that may assigned to them by the Brigade provided that –(i) such duties are performed during office hours on working days; and(ii) if the duties so performed extend only to half a day only half day’s special casual leave should be allowed.[CS (Deptt. of Personnel) OM No. F.27/5/70-Ests.(B), dated 12.01.1971](12) Sub-letting of Government accommodation by Government servants – Departmental action against.Where Government servants are found guilty of letting out the accommodation allotted to them by Directorate of Estates, action is taken against them under the provisions of Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. The question whether any departmental disciplinary action may be taken against such employees, apart from the action taken against them under the Allotment Rules, has been considered carefully. It has been decided that in all cases where a Government servant has been found guilty of letting out the Government residential accommodation allotted to him/her, the Directorate of Estates will intimate to the administrative authority concerned the details of the case and action taken against the employees under the Allotment Rules and the concerned disciplinary authority after considering the facts of the case may take suitable departmental disciplinary action under the disciplinary rules for imposition of a suitable penalty on grounds of unbecoming conduct of the Government employees involving violation of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or any other similar rule governing them. Similarly, disciplinary action may be taken in those cases also where the accommodation in question is controlled by an authority other than the Directorate of Estates.[DOPT OM No. 11013/14/85-Estt.(A), dated 06.03.1986](13) Canvassing in support of business owned or managed by members of familyUnder Rule 15 (1) (d) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, canvass in support of any business of insurance agency, Commission etc. owned or managed by any member of his family. Sub-rule (3), ibid, further provides that every Government servant shall report to the Government if any member of his family is engaged in a trade or business or owns or manages an insurance agency or commission agency.2. The business of advertising agencies carried on by a member of the family of a Government servant besides other similar services, is thus covered under the aforesaid rules. A Government servant shall not, except with the previous sanction of the Government, canvass in support of any such business.[DOPT OM No. 11013/1/89-Estt.(A), dated 11.03.1989](14) Participation of Government servants in competitions/events organized by Private Companies etc. with the objective of promoting their products.Instances have come to notice where Government servants participated in competitions and other social events organized by some private companies and organizations with the objective of promoting their business interests. Attention in this regard is invited to the provisions of Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which provides, inter alia, that while a Government servant may undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or take part in sports activities as an amateur, he should not, except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or take part in the registration, promotion or management of any company or co-operative society etc. for commercial purposes.2. The social events and competitions promoted by various private companies can be put into different categories;(i) where the social events are organized purely with an intention to promote the business interests of the company and the competitiveness amongst the participants is not relevant;(ii) where the competition by way of games and sports are sponsored by private companies and the spirit of the competitiveness amongst the participants is very much evident.The nature of events referred to in item (i) above are quite distinct from those referred to in item (ii) as in the latter case, it is the competition or the event which remains in the forefront and not the sponsors and as such the involvement of the private companies as sponsors cannot be taken as solely for the purpose of promotion of their business interests.3. The Government servants are advised not to take part in any competition or social event referred to in item (i) of para 2 organised by private companies or organizations, the primary objective of which is only to promote their business activities or their products, without the prior sanction of the Government. Such a participation without the previous sanction is liable to be construed as a violation of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Conduct Rules. However, the participation in the events referred to in item (ii) of the preceding para does not require any previous sanction of the Government.[DOPT OM No. 11013/2/89-Estt.(A), dated 28.03.1989](15) Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Clarification regardingThe Staff Side in the National Council (JCM) has pointed out that officials in some of the Departments are being prohibited from holding elective offices in Government cooperative societies and in that context has urged for suitable amendment to Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Official Side, while holding that no amendment of the rule is necessary has however, agreed to issue clarificatory instructions in the matter.2. Rule 15(1)(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules provides for previous sanction of the Government being taken by a Government servant for holding an elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not. Rule 15 (2) (d) provides that a Government servant may, without previous sanction of the Government take part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the holding of elective office) of a literary, scientific or charitable society or of a club or similar organization, the aims or objects of which relate to promotion of sports, cultural or recreation activities, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 or any law for the time being in force. Thus, there is no bar, as such, on a Government servant holding an elective office and the rules only provide for previous sanction of the Government being taken for this purpose. Holding an elective office in a body or society covered under Rule 15 (1) (c) and 15 (2) (d) would generally involve exercise of some administrative responsibilities in that organization. Subject to the administrative authority satisfying itself that this will not interfere in any manner with the discharge of official duties by the Government servant concerned, the question of permitting Government servants to hold elective office can be considered.3. The position under the rules, as clarified in the preceding para, may be kept in view by the Ministries/Departments while considering the requests of Government servants for permission to seek/hold elective office in a body or society covered under Rule 15 (1) (c) and 15 (2) (d) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.[DOPT OM No. 35014/6/92-Estt.(A), dated 10.06.1993](16) Rule 15-Contesting in elections to sports bodies etc.As the Ministries/Departments are aware, previous sanction of the Government in required as per Rule 15 (1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for a Government servant to hold an elective office or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective office, in any body whether incorporated or not. Under Rule 12 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, previous sanction of the Government or of the prescribed authority is also necessary for a Government servant associating himself with raising of any funds or other collections in pursuance of any object whatsoever. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the entire time of the Government servant, particularly a senior officer, should be available to the Government and no activities unconnected with his official duties should be allowed to interfere with the efficient discharge of such duties. The need for curbing the tendency on the part of a Government servant to seek elective office in sports federations/associations at the national/state level has been considered carefully and it has been decided that the following principles should be followed while considering requests from Government servants for seeking election to or holding elective offices in sports federations/associations:-(i) No Government servant should be allowed to hold elective office in any sports association/federation for a term of more than 4 years, or for one term whichever is less.(ii) While seeking office (for which prior permission of Government should be obtained) or supporting the candidature of any person for election to sports bodies, a Government servant should not indulge in conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.(iii) A Government servant must refrain from raising of funds or other collections from official as well as non-official sources for the promotion of sports at any level.(iv) Prior clearance from the Government of India must be obtained for any travels abroad in connection with the work or other activities of any sports federation/association. While seeking such clearance, the officer must indicate the source of funding for the foreign trip including travel, hospitality and other expenses and when permitted to go, he must do so by availing of leave due and admissible to him.[DOPT OM No. 11013/9/93-Estt.(A), dated 22.04.1994](17) Subletting of Government accommodation – Departmental action againstThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order passed on 29.11.1996 in Writ Petition No. 585/94 (S.S.Tiwari Vs. UOI & Others) had directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Government servants who sublet their accommodation allotted to them by the Government. It was also directed that the findings of the Directorate of Estates regarding subletting shall be binding on the disciplinary authority for the purpose of initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The relevant extract from the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced below:“Rule 15-A has been inserted under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by the Notification dated August 16, 1996 as published in the Government Gazette dated August 31, 1996. The said rule is as under:-15-A. Sub-letting and vacation of Government accommodation.(1) Save as otherwise provided in any other law for the time being in force, no Government servant shall sub-let, lease or otherwise allow occupation by any other person of the Government accommodation which has been allotted to him.(2) A Government servant shall, after the cancellation of his allotment of Government accommodation vacate the same within the time-limit prescribed by the allotting authority.It is thus obvious that a Government servant who sub-lets the Government accommodation or otherwise allows occupation by any other person of the said accommodation, that would per se amount to misconduct. Even otherwise, keeping in view the shortage of Government accommodation and thousands of Government employees on wait list for years together (even today, according to Mr. Harcharanjit Singh, the wait list in certain types of houses is 20 years), the sub-letting of the Government accommodation by the Government servant for pecuniary gain is a grave misconduct. It is, therefore, obligatory for the disciplinary authority of the department concerned to initiate disciplinary proceedings against concerned Government servant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As soon as the allotment is cancelled by the Directorate of Estate on the ground of sub-letting, the disciplinary authority of the Department concern shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant concerned. The findings of the Directorate of Estates regarding sub-letting shall be binding on the disciplinary authority for the purpose of initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Once the disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the procedure laid down under the CCS (CCA) Rules shall take its own course. Since the disciplinary proceedings in such cases would be initiated on a charge of grave misconduct, the competent authority may consider placing the delinquent Government servant under suspension.”2. All Ministries/Departments/Offices etc. are requested to bring the above ruling of the Supreme Court to the notice of all concerned under their control and to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the Government servants in whose cases subletting of allotted Government residential accommodation has been established by the Directorate of Estates. It may be ensured that charge sheets are issued immediately in cases where persons are likely to retire shortly or those cases which are likely to become time-barred by virtue of the misconduct being more than four years old.[DOPT OM No. 11012/2/97-Estt.(A), dated 31.12.1997](18) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Provisions of rule 15 regarding the holding of elective office by Government servants in Co-operative Societies etc.As a number of references are being received in this Department regarding the need for obtaining permission by Government servants to hold elective offices in Co-operative Societies and other bodies, the necessity to reiterate the relevant provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 has been felt. Rule 15(1) (c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 provides that no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government hold an elective office, or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective office, in any body, whether incorporated or not. Under Rule 15 (2)(d), a Government servant may, without the previous sanction of the Government, take part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the holding of an elective office) of a literary, scientific or charitable society or of a club or similar organization, the aims or objects of which relate to promotion of sports, cultural or recreational activities, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force. Rule 15 (2)(e) provides that no previous permission is required for taking part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the holding of elective office) of a co-operative society substantially for the benefit of Government servants, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or any other law for the time being in force.2. It needs to be stressed that the entire time of the Government servant should be available to the Government and that no activities unconnected with his or her official duties should be allowed to interfere with the efficient discharge of such duties.All Ministries are requested to ensure that the participation of Government servants in the activities of cooperative societies conform to the above provisions and does not interfere with the discharge of their official duties.3. The relevant Acts and bye-laws of the Co-operative Societies contain necessary provisions regarding eligibility of candidates to contest election including restrictions on tenure/number of terms.4. The request from Government servants for permission to participate in the activities of Co-operative Societies and other bodies may also be examined keeping in view the provisions of the relevant Act and bye`-laws governing the activities of such societies apart from the aforesaid provisions of rule 15(1) & (2) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.[DOP&T O.M. No. 11013/4/2007-Estt.(A) dated 13th November, 2007]Source: Referencer | Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964 | GOI_Decisions_15

I wish I could do a better job on this subject than the D.C. Circuit Court, but I can’t. The factual background to Pigford v. Glickman answers this question with perfect clarity and detail. I have reproduced some of the Opinion, for educational purposes only, below;OPINIONPAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.Forty acres and a mule. As the Civil War drew to a close, the United States government created the Freedmen's Bureau to provide assistance to former slaves. The government promised to sell or lease to farmers parcels of unoccupied land and land that had been confiscated by the Union during the war, and it promised the loan of a federal government mule to plow that land. Some African Americans took advantage of these programs and either bought or leased parcels of land. During Reconstruction, however, President Andrew Johnson vetoed a bill to enlarge the powers and activities of the Freedmen's Bureau, and he reversed many of the policies of the Bureau. Much of the promised land that had been leased to African American farmers was taken away and returned to Confederate loyalists. For most African Americans, the promise of forty acres and a mule was never kept. Despite the government's failure to live up to its promise, African American farmers persevered. By 1910, they had acquired approximately 16 million acres of farmland. By 1920, there were 925,000 African American farms in the United States.On May 15, 1862, as Congress was debating the issue of providing land for freed former slaves, the United States Department of Agriculture was created. The statute creating the Department charged it with acquiring and preserving “all information concerning agriculture” and collecting “new and valuable seeds and plants; to test, by cultivation, the value of such of them as may require such tests; to propagate such as may be worthy of propagation, and to distribute them among agriculturists.” An Act to establish a Department of Agriculture, ch. 71, 12 Stat. 387 (1862). In 1889, the Department of Agriculture achieved full cabinet department status. Today, it has an annual budget of $67.5 billion and administers farm loans and guarantees worth $2.8 billion.As the Department of Agriculture has grown, the number of African American farmers has declined dramatically. Today, there are fewer than 18,000 African American farms in the United States, and African American farmers now own less then 3 million acres of land. The United States Department of Agriculture and the county commissioners to whom it has delegated so much power bear much of the responsibility for this dramatic decline. The Department itself has recognized that there has always been a disconnect between what President Lincoln envisioned as “the people's department,” serving all of the people, and the widespread belief that the Department is “the last plantation,” a department “perceived as playing a key role in what some see as a conspiracy to force minority and disadvantaged farmers off their land through discriminatory loan practices.” See Pls' Motion for Class Certification. Exh. B, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team (Feb.1997) (“CRAT Report”) at 2.For decades, despite its promise that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity of an applicant or recipient receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Agriculture,” 7 C.F.R. § 15.1, the Department of Agriculture and the county commissioners discriminated against African American farmers when they denied, delayed or otherwise frustrated the applications of those farmers for farm loans and other credit and benefit programs. Further compounding the problem, in 1983 the Department of Agriculture disbanded its Office of Civil Rights and stopped responding to claims of discrimination. These events were the culmination of a string of broken promises that had been made to African American farmers for well over a century.It is difficult to resist the impulse to try to undo all the broken promises and years of discrimination that have led to the precipitous decline in the number of African American farmers in the United States. The Court has before it a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit that will not undo all that has been done. Despite that fact, however, the Court finds that the settlement is a fair resolution of the claims brought in this case and a good first step towards assuring that the kind of discrimination that has been visited on African American farmers since Reconstruction will not continue into the next century. The Court therefore will approve the settlement.I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASEThe plaintiffs in this case allege (1) that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) willfully discriminated against them and other similarly situated African American farmers on the basis of their race when it denied their applications for credit and/or benefit programs or delayed processing their applications, and (2) that when plaintiffs filed complaints of discrimination with the USDA, the USDA failed properly to investigate and resolve those complaints. See Seventh Amended Complaint at 4–5. Plaintiffs allege that defendant's actions violated a number of statutes and the Constitution, but both sides agree that this case essentially is brought under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (“ECOA”). See Transcript of Hearing of March 2, 1999, at 19.1The Court certified this case as a class action on October 9, 1998, and preliminarily approved a Consent Decree on January 5, 1999. After a hearing held on March 2, 1999, the parties made some revisions to the proposed Consent Decree and filed a revised proposed Consent Decree with the Court on March 19, 1999. The Court now concludes that the revised proposed Consent Decree is fair, adequate and reasonable.A. Factual BackgroundFarming is a hard way to make a living. Small farmers operate at the whim of conditions completely beyond their control; weather conditions from year to year and marketable prices of crops to a large extent determine whether an individual farmer will make a profit, barely break even or lose money. As a result, many farmers depend heavily on the credit and benefit programs of the United States Department of Agriculture to take them from one year to the next.2For instance, if an early freeze kills three-quarters of a farmer's crop one year, he may not have sufficient resources to buy seeds to plant in the following season. Or if a farmer needs to modernize his operations and buy a new grain harvester in order to make his operations profitable, he often cannot afford to buy the harvester without an extension of credit. Because of the seasonal nature of farming, it also is of utmost importance that credit and benefit applications be processed quickly or the farmer may lose all or most of his anticipated income for an entire year. It does a farmer no good to receive a loan to buy seeds after the planting season has passed.The USDA's credit and benefit programs are federally funded programs, but the decisions to approve or deny applications for credit or benefits are made locally at the county level. In virtually every farming community, local farmers and ranchers elect three to five member county committees. The county committee is responsible for approving or denying farm credit and benefit applications, as well as for appointing a county executive who is supposed to provide farmers with help in completing their credit and benefit applications. The county executive also makes recommendations to the county committee regarding which applications should be approved. The salaries of the county committee members and the county executives are paid from federal funds, but they are not considered federal government employees. Similarly, while federal money is used to fund the credit and benefit programs, the elected county officials, not federal officials, make the decision as to who gets the federal money and who does not.The county committees do not represent the racial diversity of the communities they serve. In 1996, in the Southeast Region, the region in the United States with the most African American farmers, just barely over 1% of the county commissioners were African American (28 out of a total of 2469). See CRAT Report at 19. In the Southwest region, only 0.3% of the county commissioners were African American. In two of the remaining three regions, there was not a single African American county commissioner. Nationwide, only 37 county commissioners were African American out of a total of 8147 commissioners—approximately 0.45%. Id.Throughout the country, African American farmers complain that county commissioners have discriminated against them for decades, denying their applications, delaying the processing of their applications or approving them for insufficient amounts or with restrictive conditions. In several southeastern states, for instance, it took three times as long on average to process the application of an African American farmer as it did to process the application of a white farmer. CRAT Report at 21. Mr. Alvin E. Steppes is an African American farmer from Lee County, Arkansas. In 1986. Mr. Steppes applied to the Farmers Home Administration (“FmHA”) for an operating loan. Mr. Steppes fully complied with the application requirements, but his application was denied. As a result, Mr. Steppes had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and crop treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. See Seventh Amended Complaint at ¶ 14.Mr. Calvin Brown from Brunswick County, Virginia applied in January 1984 for an operating loan for that planting season. When he inquired later that month about the status of his loan application, a FmHA county supervisor told him that the application was being processed. The next month, the same FmHA county supervisor told him that there was no record of his application ever having been filed and that Mr. Brown had to reapply. By the time Mr. Brown finally received his loan in May or June 1984, the planting season was over, and the loan was virtually useless to him. In addition, the funds were placed in a “supervised” bank account, which required him to obtain the signature of a county supervisor before withdrawing any funds, a requirement frequently required of African American farmers but not routinely imposed on white farmers. See Seventh Amended Complaint at ¶ 11.In 1994, the entire county of Greene County, Alabama where Mr. George Hall farmed was declared eligible for disaster payments on 1994 crop losses. Every single application for disaster payments was approved by the Greene County Committee except Mr. Hall's application for four of his crops. See Seventh Amended Complaint at ¶ 5. Mr. James Beverly of Nottaway County, Virginia was a successful small farmer before going to FmHA. To build on his success, in 1981 he began working with his FmHA office to develop a farm plan to expand and modernize his swine herd operations. The plan called for loans to purchase breeding stock and equipment as well as farrowing houses that were necessary for the breeding operations. FmHA approved his loans to buy breeding stock and equipment, and he was told that the loan for farrowing houses would be approved. After he already had bought the livestock and the equipment, his application for a loan to build the farrowing houses was denied. The livestock and equipment were useless to him without the farrowing houses. Mr. Beverly ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt to the FmHA. See id. at ¶ 12.The denial of credit and benefits has had a devastating impact on African American farmers. According to the Census of Agriculture, the number of African American farmers has declined from 925,000 in 1920 to approximately 18,000 in 1992. CRAT Report at 14. The farms of many African American farmers were foreclosed upon, and they were forced out of farming. Those who managed to stay in farming often were subject to humiliation and degradation at the hands of the county commissioners and were forced to stand by powerless, as white farmers received preferential treatment. As one of plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. J.L. Chestnut, aptly put it, African American farmers “learned the hard way that though the rules and the law may be colorblind, people are not.” Transcript of Hearing of March 2, 1999, at 173.Any farmer who believed that his application to those programs was denied on the basis of his race or for other discriminatory reasons theoretically had open to him a process for filing a civil rights complaint either with the Secretary of Agriculture or with the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Adjudication (“OCREA”) at USDA. USDA regulations set forth a detailed process by which these complaints were supposed to be investigated and conciliated, and ultimately a farmer who was unhappy with the outcome was entitled to sue in federal court under ECOA. See Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341, 342–44 (D.D.C.1998). All the evidence developed by the USDA and presented to the Court indicates, however, that this system was functionally nonexistent for well over a decade. In 1983, OCREA essentially was dismantled and complaints that were filed were never processed, investigated or forwarded to the appropriate agencies for conciliation. As a result, farmers who filed complaints of discrimination never received a response, or if they did receive a response it was a cursory denial of relief. In some cases, OCREA staff simply threw discrimination complaints in the trash without ever responding to or investigating them. In other cases, even if there was a finding of discrimination, the farmer never received any relief.In December of 1996, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman appointed a Civil Rights Action Team (“CRAT”) to “take a hard look at the issues and make strong recommendations for change.” See CRAT Report at 3. In February of 1997, CRAT concluded that “[m]inority farmers have lost significant amounts of land and potential farm income as a result of discrimination by FSA [Farm Services Agency] programs and the programs of its predecessor agencies, ASCS [Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service] and FmHA [Farmers Home Administration].... The process for resolving complaints has failed. Minority and limited-resource customers believe USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints. Appeals are too often delayed and for too long. Favorable decisions are too often reversed.” Id. at 30–31.Also in February of 1997, the Office of the Inspector General of the USDA issued a report to Secretary Glickman stating that the USDA had a backlog of complaints of discrimination that had never been processed, investigated or resolved. See Pls' Motion for Class Certification, Exh. A (Evaluation Report for the Secretary on Civil Rights Issues). The Report found that immediate action was needed to clear the backlog of complaints, that the “program discrimination complaint process at [the Farm Services Agency] lacks integrity, direction, and accountability,” id. at 6, and that “[s]taffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management have resulted in a climate of disorder within the civil rights staff at FSA.” Id. at 1.The acknowledgment by the USDA that the discrimination complaints had never been processed, however, came too late for many African American farmers. ECOA has a two year statute of limitations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f). If the underlying discrimination alleged by the farmer had taken place more than two years prior to the filing of an action in federal court, the government would raise a statute of limitations defense to bar the farmer's claims. For instance, some class members in this case had filed their complaints of discrimination with the USDA in 1983 for acts of discrimination that allegedly occurred in 1982 or 1983. If the farmer waited for the USDA to respond to his discrimination complaint and did not file an action in court until he discovered in 1997 that the USDA had stopped responding to discrimination complaints, the government would argue that any claim under ECOA was barred by the statute of limitations.In 1998, Congress provided relief to plaintiffs with respect to the statute of limitations problem by passing legislation that tolls the statute of limitations for all those who filed discrimination complaints with the Department of Agriculture before July 1, 1997, and who allege discrimination at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1981 and ending on or before December 31, 1996.Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82, 85–89 (D.D.C. 1999), aff'd, 206 F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and enforcement denied sub nom. Pigford v. Schafer, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008)If you are familiar with this case, you know that after this, there was a huge mess. The remedy of the Court provided 2 tracks for Plaintiffs. One track was for those who had evidence that they attempted to farm but were discriminated against;Track B arbitration is the option for those who have more extensive documentation of discrimination in a credit transaction. Under Track B, an arbitrator will hold a one day mini-trial and then decide whether the claimant has established discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Consent Decree at ¶ 10. Class counsel will represent any claimant who chooses Track B, or a claimant may be represented by counsel of his choice if he so desires. Track B is designed to balance the need for prompt resolution of the claim with the need to provide adequate discovery and a fair hearing.Pigford, at 97. There were only around 200 plaintiffs that went this route, because the evidence required was higher than Track A. Track A required a much lower bar of evidence. In fact, many commentators point out that Track A - under Pigford II - required no substantial evidence;“Under Track A, a claimant must submit “substantial evidence” demonstrating that he or she was the victim of race discrimination. See Consent Decree at ¶¶ 9(a)(i), 9(b)(i). Substantial evidence means something more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence but less than a preponderance. See Burns v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 41 F.3d 1555, 1562 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.1994). Put another way, substantial evidence is such “relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support [the] conclusion,” even when “a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view.” Secretary of Labor v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 111 F.3d 913, 918 (D.C.Cir.1997)”Pigford, at 96. The Plaintiffs in Track A who had more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence received compensation roughly in line with the size of their farm. The Plaintiffs in Track A who had basically no evidence, under Pigford II, - allowed by the Court because in many cases the applications and relevant evidence was destroyed by the USDA, or never made it into a file, somehow got lost, etc. - received awards up to $50,000. This created an incredible controversy, with accusations of fraud being lobbed from both the right and the left. As the New York Times put it;“The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agricultural Department. But an examination by the New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have field claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.”Farm Loan Bias Claims, Often Unsupported, Cost U.S. MillionsWhen the dust settled, Pigford has become the largest Civil Rights case in U.S. history.