NAACP
FEDERAL SECTOR TASK FORCE
|
|
12803 STONECREST DRIVE
SILVER SPRING, M20904-5236
Website:
NAACPFSTF.ORG
April
10, 2004
Honorable Cari M. Dominguez, Chair
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20507
Dear Chair Dominguez:
SUBJECT: EEOC’s Management Directive 715
Instructions Issued March 30, 2004
We would like to
bring to your attention several issues that greatly concern the NAACP Federal
Sector Task Force regarding the March 30, 2004 issuance of the EEOC’s
instructions to federal agencies on EEO Management Directive 715. We think that these instructions will have
a deleterious impact on the implementation and coordination of affirmative action
programs in the Federal sector. At a
time when the rights of federal employees are under attack, the Task Force
members opine that a strong EEO program would lead to a more productive
workforce.
The following is a list of
some of the Task Force major concerns regarding the MD-715 instructions:
The EEOC has substituted the
PATCO categories with nine EEO occupational categories that are used in the
private sector. Please understand that whether we are
discussing affirmative action or the complaints process, the civil rights
programs in the public sector significantly differ from those in the private
sector. For example, the Sales
occupational category in the private sector does not have much use in the
public sector.
The Office of
Personnel Management has stated publicly that it will retain the [NEW OR
CURRENT] PATCO categories. The lack of
alignment and/or consistency of the PATCO categories would greatly
inconvenience the Task Force, general public, and other related stakeholder
groups when attempting to compare and analyze the statistical information
generated by EEOC and OPM.
In our opinion, this change will work to undermine and weaken the No
FEAR law reporting requirements.
According to a number of reliable sources, the National Finance Center sends the statistical information to the majority of personnel offices at federal agencies. It can be reasonably argued that a substantial number of personnel offices would not be inclined to convert the statistical information to the new EEO occupational categories since they report their PATCO information to OPM, not to EEOC.
If the proposed
changes become law, the general public will not be able to make meaningful
comparisons between the new occupational categories and the historical PATCO
categories used in previous EEOC Annual Reports on Minorities, Women, and
People with Disabilities. EEOC seems to
have ignored the costs that agencies will incur to retool their databases to
conform to the nine occupational categories.
At a time when EEO offices are being asked to
do more with less, EEOC has acted irresponsibly. Thus, we hereby suggest that EEOC retain the PATCO categories.
As far as the Task
Force could determine, the EEOC, for
unknown and unspecified reasons and rationale, has introduced seven race and
national origin (RNO) categories that differ from the ones authorized by the
Census Bureau in the 2000 Census and by the Office of Management and Budget in
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15.
Specifically, EEOC
treats Hispanic/Latino as a racial category when OMB and the Census Bureau
consider this to be an ethnic category.
This will probably lead not only to an undercount of Hispanics, but will also result in unreliable
statistical information.
The EEOC Chair should convene a
public forum and press conference to detail the reasons, rationale, and justification for the change in RNO categories that
differ from the categories used by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). According to a number of knowledgeable sources, the U.S. Congress
must legislatively approve such changes.
We suggest that EEOC
should take a leadership role in this issue and set up its own statistical
database that includes EEO government wide information. OPM already has its own Central Personnel
Data File that covers government wide personnel information. Until EEOC completes this task, we think
that federal agencies should continue to use the current RNO categories.
EEOC has asked federal agencies to collect applicant flow data. While we applaud EEOC for this requirement, we think that EEOC should lead by example. We are aware that federal agencies, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, have to get OMB approval for any new form that gathers information from the public; also, that this process can take up to six months to complete. We think that it would be a far better utilization of the taxpayer’s money if EEOC issued and got OMB’s approval for a standardized form instead of asking federal agencies to design and get their own form(s) approved by OMB. A standardized form would not only provide consistency, but also save valuable resources.
We feel very strongly
about this recommendation, since we think that EEOC should have exercised
better leadership by issuing a STANDARDIZED FORMAT and FORM for
reporting the No FEAR Act information.
Currently, there is no uniformity in the way that federal agencies post
this information, which makes it difficult to make meaningful analysis and
comparisons.
The Task Force
realizes that MD-715 is a work in progress, and that EEOC could modify its
requirements at any time, but we do not think that this is the most efficient
way to conduct business. These proposed
changes are time-consuming and expensive to implement. For example, it would be unfair and
inefficient for EEOC to change the reporting requirements at a moment’s notice
after a federal agency has spent a considerable sum of money to retool its
databases.
While we appreciate
EEOC’s efforts to update the affirmative action requirements in the federal
sector, we think these proposals merit more thoughtful deliberation by all
stakeholders. We are aware that it has
taken EEOC an estimated twenty years to update MD-712, 713, and 714, but we
also realize that the delays were caused, not by the merits of the proposals,
but, by political considerations.
We feel very strongly
that EEOC should provide employee affinity organizations, such as the NAACP, an
opportunity to submit their views on MD-715 and its implementing
instructions.
If you have any
questions pertaining to this letter, please feel free to contact me at
301-622-3633, or via Email at LeroyJr1MDFree@msn.com. We are requesting a meeting with you as
soon as possible to discuss these concerns.
We anxiously await
your response to this request in a prompt and timely manner.
Sincerely,
Leroy
W. Warren,Jr.
Leroy W. Warren, Jr.,
Chairman
NAACP Federal Sector Task
Force
CC: EEOC Vice Chair Naomi C. Earp,
Esq.
EEOC Commissioner
Leslie E. Silverman, Esq.
EEOC Commissioner
Paul Steven Miller, Esq.
EEOC Commissioner Stuart J. Ishimaru, Esq.
Congressman F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Senator Joseph
Lieberman
Congresswoman Shelia
Jackson Lee
Congressman Chris Van
Hollen