Mr. HUBERT. Well, you see, we don't know what the efficiency cut of
four points means in terms of severity, and that's what we would like
to know.
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, normally for the last 3 or 4 years I have always
carried a 90 efficiency, which is a fairly high efficiency, and I got
cut four points on one certain thing, which I'm not familiar enough
on how they grade on that--to actually explain it to you, but I went
up to the civil service board when I got my efficiency and checked to
see who, of course, they keep a record of anybody that changes your
efficiency. My efficiency was changed by Chief Fisher. It was cut from
a 90 to an 86 and on one particular phase of how they grade you--on
dependability.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you ascertain that that efficiency cut was done because
of the Ruby incident?
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, I didn't think--I thought possibly it was over the
Ruby incident and I went and talked to one of my supervisors and I
didn't feel that I should have had a cut on my efficiency under the
circumstances but the point to me--there has--they have never actually
proved that Jack came in that way.
Mr. HUBERT. When you spoke to this officer, your superior officer about
the fact that you didn't think you should be cut, what did he say?
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, he said he didn't know what I was cut for.
Mr. HUBERT. Who was that, by the way, what is his name?
Mr. VAUGHN. I believe that was Sergeant Jennings, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. HUBERT. You know you talked to Fisher about it?
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, I was going to see Chief Fisher, as a matter of fact
I got the lieutenant to talk to Chief Fisher and he told Chief Fisher
that I did want to see him, and at that time Chief Fisher was involved
in some other kind of business he had--I don't know exactly what it
was, but he was busy. Then Lieutenant Pierce told me that I shouldn't
go see Fisher at this time. He said, "If you will wait, I will talk to
Fisher."
Mr. HUBERT. By the way, this efficiency cut, is that on the basis of a
year or a month or what?
Mr. VAUGHN. Six months.
Mr. HUBERT. And this was made about January 1, I guess?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes, sir; I think the efficiency ends in the month of
January.
Mr. HUBERT. Did Rio Pierce ever report back to you as to whether he had
spoken to Fisher or not?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes, I talked to Lieutenant Pierce, I believe it was a
couple of weeks ago, and he said it was the first opportunity he had
had a chance to talk to Chief Fisher, and my understanding I got from
him was that Chief Fisher said it was for letting Tom Chabot in the
basement.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, you got the impression from Pierce, that
the efficiency cut was not related to the Ruby incident, but rather to
the Chabot incident?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes; to Chabot.
Mr. HUBERT. I think we need a bit more information as to the severity
of this cut. Could you give us examples of what point cut they give for
what?
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, you might get 1 or 2 points--I've seen them get cut
as high as 13 points.
Mr. HUBERT. For what?
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, just for different things.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, what would be--what would a four cut be the result of?
Mr. VAUGHN. Well, normally a 4 point cut wouldn't be too severe,
because actually--well, I had a 90. I got cut 4 points--I got an 86,
which is still a fairly good efficiency, but to me, like I said, under
the circumstances and the things I felt it was severe because I didn't
quite understand it--that was the point on that.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, were you in the police building on the 23d--the day
before?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes, sir; I was there in and out.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you see Ruby then?
Mr. VAUGHN. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you in the police building on the 22d of November?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you see Ruby around there then?
Mr. VAUGHN. No.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you happen to go to that assembly when Oswald was
brought down to see the press?
Mr. VAUGHN. No, sir; I don't know what time that was, but at that
particular time we were working days and we got off at 3 o'clock.
Mr. HUBERT. I show you three statements which have been marked for
identification as follows: a copy of a letter dated November 26,
1963, addressed to J. E. Curry in two pages and I have marked it for
identification, "Dallas, Tex., April 17, 1964, Exhibit 5334, Deposition
of Roy Vaughn," and I have signed my name on it and since it has a
second page, I have put my initials at the right-hand bottom corner
of the second page, and the second document, which is an interview of
you by FBI Agents Lester and Larson, dated December 1, 1963, and for
purposes of identification, I have marked this, "Dallas, Tex., April
17, 1964, Exhibit 5335, Deposition of Roy Vaughn." I have signed my
name on that and I have put my initials in the lower right-hand corner
on the second, third, the fourth and the fifth pages of that document,
and then there is another document, a report of an investigation of
you by Agents Hughes and Dallman, dated December 19, 1963, and I have
marked that for identification on the first page as follows, "Dallas,
Tex., April 17, 1964. Exhibit 5336, Deposition of Roy Vaughn," and I
have signed my name below that and I have marked the second, third and
fourth pages with my initials in the lower right-hand corner.