MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 2004

COUNCIL OF FEDERAL EEO AND CIVIL RIGHTS EXECUTIVES

The meeting was held on January 21, 2004, at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Pauline Campbell, Director, Office of Equal Rights hosted the meeting.

Council Chairs Delia Johnson and Jorge Ponce welcomed everyone and outlined the agenda.

The first agenda item discussed was the No Fear Act posting requirements. Jorge Ponce shared pertinent information with Council members who may not have attended the quarterly EEO Directors meeting at EEOC on January 20, 2004. Following are the major changes that EEOC made to the Aug. 5, 2003 interim final rules:

• A sub-element is now defined as an agency component having 1,000 or more employees. In addition to reporting Department-wide aggregate data, agencies will also have to report complaint data for their sub-elements on the parent-agency Web site. Of course, it is optional for the sub-elements to post their own data on their Web sites, if they have one.

• Counseling data doesn’t have to be reported.

• Agencies only have to report complaints as originally filed, not amendments.

• EEOC is looking at developing a uniform form for agencies to report the No Fear Act data. However, they are making no promises. Thus, the upcoming Federal Register notice will not have a uniform form. Jorge Ponce indicated that he has posted numerous agency forms in the What’s New directory at http://www.fedcivilrights.org.

• Agencies are required to post their complaints data for the previous five years. However, the No Fear Act is clear that if the data is not available, agencies don’t have to report this data.

• OMB has approved the OPM’s Title I and II interim final rules, although no one has seen them.

The next topic of discussion was the “The Survey Responses to Interaction between the Offices of General Counsel and the EEO Offices within federal agencies”. Delia Johnson and Jorge Ponce discussed the results of the survey. Many of the written comments in the survey indicated a concern with the following issue:

• A serious lack of resources and funding to handle caseloads and other program requirements;

• Untimely processing of Final Agency Decisions (FAD) because of the duration of OGC reviews; and,

• Management deferral to legal counsel for the “final authority.”

The information contained in the survey reflected the Council’s best efforts to capture accurate practices and policies within the Council member’s respective agencies. Based on the results, there are four major challenges facing EEO directors in their relationships with the OGC. Those challenges are as follows:

• Organizational structure/reporting

• Resources and staffing

• Document issuance and approval

• Technical assistance and advice

Jorge Ponce pointed out that the Navy Department had advertised, on January 15, 2004, an SES job as Director, HR Policy and Program Departments, in which the personnel and EEO functions were linked. Mr. Ponce indicated that the Navy Department was in violation of the mandates of EEOC Management Directive 110 that required that the personnel and EEO functions be kept separate. Mr. Ponce clarified that MD 110 required all EEO functions (complaints processing, affirmative action, special emphasis, etc.) to be kept separate from the personnel functions. He indicated that this was not the first time that the Council had addressed this issue with the Navy Department. In fact, he stated that the Council addressed this same issue in its January 28, 2003 meeting regarding the posting of another SES position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Civilian Personnel/EEO). Since the Council gave the Navy Department an oral admonishment in 2003 to no avail, Mr. Ponce indicated that the Council would put its position in writing this time around.

In closing, the executive members requested from the membership new topic of discussion for future meeting and locations.