INTRODUCTION

Ms. Delia L. Johnson, Co-Chair and Director, Office of Civil Rights at the International Broadcasting Bureau, thanked everyone for attending the meeting and asked Council members to introduce themselves. She thanked Beatrice Pacheco (Chief, Internal Policy & Programs Division, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Transportation) for hosting the meeting.

SAIGE

Fredericka J. Joseph, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, spoke about the Society of American Indian Government Employees (SAIGE), a national non-profit organization that serves the needs of American Indians and Alaska Native federal employees. Founded in 1991, there are several membership fees to join. The next conference will be held on August 28-30, 2006, in Anchorage, Alaska. For additional information about SAIGE, go to its website at http://www.SAIGE.org. You can also reach Fredericka at 703 390-6324.

Bonita White, Director, EEO Programs, DHHS, indicated that it would be helpful if SAIGE partnered with other federal agencies, and asked whether SAIGE officers had considered preparing a CD-ROM list of students interested in federal jobs, similar to the one compiled for the Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP). Fredericka responded that this would be a good project for the future.

Jorge Ponce, Council Co-Chair, asked how many members did SAIGE have, and Fredericka responded that there were approximately 140 members. Next, Mr. Ponce expressed his frustration at affinity organizations that visited federal agencies to indicate the underrepresentation of various minority groups in their workforces. Mr. Ponce stated that these organizations were preaching to the choir because it was these agencies’ EEO professionals who generated the statistical report that showed the various underrepresentations. Instead, he said it would be very helpful if these organizations had a current membership database with the number of their members, their job series, grade, length of time at the last grade, special skills, geographic location, willingness to relocate, etc. Thus, Mr. Ponce asked Fredericka if SAIGE had such a membership database, and she responded that it was an excellent idea for a future venture.

FAPAC

Farook Sait, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, indicated that the next conference of the Federal Asian Pacific American Council (FAPAC) is scheduled for May 8-12, 2006, in Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Sait stated that there is a large Asian/Pacific American community living in Hawaii that feels overlooked by planners of federal conferences. He said that he is aware that some managers think that having a conference in Hawaii created a perception problem when approving the registration forms for their employees. Nevertheless, he said that the airfare from the Washington, DC area to Little Rock, Arkansas, is more expensive that flying to Hawaii. For additional information about this conference, click on http://www.fapac.org

NO FEAR ACT

Jorge Ponce gave an update on the No FEAR Act. He stated that the Office of Personnel Management had issued proposed rules on the reporting requirements of Title II of the Act recently, and that the comment period closed on March 27, 2006. Although the majority of federal agencies have not submitted a No FEAR Act until these rules become final, the Department of Transportation issued a report last year. You can view the DOT report by clicking on http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/NoFear/050429-002%20FV.doc.

EEO SURVEY

Jorge Ponce discussed the EEO Survey that the Council released on January 5, 2006, regarding the complaints process in the federal sector. Mr. Ponce highlighted the following findings from this survey: 1) 97% of respondents want to make ADR mandatory for managers; 2) 82% of respondents thought that federal agencies should retain the investigative functions for EEO complaints; 3) 62% of respondents would like to be able to dismiss complaints on the merits for Complainants’ failure to meet a prima facie case prior to the investigative stage, with appeal rights to EEOC; 4) 95% of respondents concluded that EEOC hearings should be retained; 5) 79% of respondents thought that EEOC Administrative Judges should dismiss complaints from uncooperative Complainants and not remand them to federal agencies for the issuance of final agency decisions; and, 6) 84% of respondents indicated that they were in dire need of EEOC guidance regarding when it was proper to dismiss complaints for abuse of the EEO process.

Mr. Ponce recounted that the Council had worked with a coalition of civil rights, employee advocate, and other stakeholder after they have received a reform proposal in 2002 that called for limiting the EEO functions at federal agencies to just providing counseling. See FederalSectorReformProposal. He then referred to Chair Dominguez’ statement, dated November 9, 2005, to the Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, in which she stated that she “would propose that agencies continue to use the tools at their disposal, such as counseling, training and mediation.” See EEOC Chair Statement 05. Next, he indicated that the reform of the complaint process in the federal sector was part of the EEOC semiannual regulatory agenda that was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2005. He mentioned that he had attended the EEOC Meeting on February 15, 2006, and that one of the EEOC speakers stated that the reform of the complaint process in the federal sector would be included again in the next EEOC semiannual regulatory agenda that would be published in the Federal Register around April/May 2006.

OPM LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL

A Council member indicated that EEOC does not belong to the OPM Learning and Development Advisory Council, Curriculum Development Working Group (CDWG). Through USALearning (http://www.usalearning.gov), the CDWG plans to populate mandatory training governmentwide so that there is an economy of scale for federal agencies. She stated her concern that the EEO community was not on the table with OPM when the planning of online standardized governmentwide-training courses is being considered. This would be an ideal opportunity for EEOC and OPM to collaborate in the planning of the soon to be required, mandatory No FEAR Act training.

INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP

Mr. Ponce introduced Gerald Lucas, Senior Advisor to the Civil Rights Director at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and asked him to give an update on the recent meeting, at the request of the EEOC Chair, between the members of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) and the EEOC Office of Federal Operations (OFO).

Mr. Lucas explained that the meeting was not well received by the OFO staff because the IWG members were asking questions on MD-715 that OFO did not want to hear. For example, the IWG members asked about the recurring lack of cooperation between EEOC and OPM; about the fact that the OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) had the functionality to supply federal agencies with the MD-715 statistical tables, so that agencies would not have to use their scarce resources to purchase unnecessary and expensive software packages; about the fact that MD-715 was itself a barrier to having better communication between civil rights and personnel offices by creating different languages between them – personnel offices used PATCOB and EEOC now wanted the civil rights offices to use nine occupational categories that mirrored those used by the private sector; and, about the different benchmarks or signposts used by OPM and EEOC to measure parity imbalances.

Mr. Lucas asked Council members to think how silly EEO and HR professionals looked to management officials when seeking their support to remedy the underrepresentation of a minority group and, yet, HR professionals used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey and EEO professionals used the Census Bureau signpost. Most likely, the typical reaction from these managers would be to tell the EEO and HR professionals to get their house in order before coming back to address them again.

Mr. Lucas stated that one of the IWG members from a small agency indicated that to compile the statistical tables for the MD-715 report for FY 2005, she would need to purchase a statistical database that would cost her about $500,000. Getting an extension from EEOC would only prolong her agony, as she did not have the kind of money needed to get the statistical database. Thus, EEOC officials told this IWG member to submit just the narrative portion for the FY 2005 report. However, Mr. Lucas pointed out that if this example were repeated throughout the Federal Government, of what use would the MD-715 report be. After all, he pointed out that despite all the blood, sweat, and tears that federal agencies had to go through to compile their MD-715 reports for FY 04, EEOC got its statistical information from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. Moreover, the only thing that federal agencies had to show for their efforts was a table in Appendix III of the FY 04 report that showed whether they had submitted their report on time. Mr. Lucas indicated that these were compelling reasons for EEOC to have honored the votes taken at a recent meeting of EEO Directors to suspend the next MD-715 reporting cycle and give EEOC an opportunity to address their common concerns with OPM.

Mr. Lucas opined that this lack of cooperation between EEOC and OPM was unconscionable, and indicated that IWG members are troubled by this posture that hindered the creation of model EEO programs. A Council member indicated that it was precisely this lack of cooperation between these two agencies that would be addressed in the upcoming GAO report.

A Council member recommended that federal agencies should identify the lack of cooperation between EEOC and OPM as a barrier to the establishment of a model EEO program in Form I of their MD-715 reports for FY 2005.