U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–901 PDF 2004

ACHIEVING DIVERSITY IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE

SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 15, 2003

Serial No. 108–130

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

PETER SIRH, Staff Director

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHILIP M. SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia, Chairwoman

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

ADAH H. PUTNAM, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

RONALD MARTINSON, Staff Director

B. CHAD BUNGARD, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel

CHRIS BARKLEY, Legislative Assistant/Clerk

TANIA SHAND, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on October 15, 2003 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Brown, William A., Sr., P.E., HAIA, president, African American Federal

Executives Association; Jasemine C. Chambers, Chair, Asian American

Government Executives Network; Manuel Oliverez, president and CEO,

National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives; Shirley Harrington-Watson, Chair, National Legislative Review Committee, Blacks

in Government; Patricia M. Wolfe, president, Federally Employed

Women; and Linda E. Brooks Rix, co-chief executive officer, Avue Technologies Corp. ................................................................................................ 89

Lovelace, Gail T., Chief Human Capital Officer, General Services Administration; Jo-Anne Barnard, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office; and Dr. Reginald F. Wells, Deputy Commissioner

for Human Resources, Social Security Administration .............................. 62

Stalcup, George H., Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting

Office, accompanied by Ron Stroman, Managing Director, Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness, U.S. General Accounting Office; Ronald

P. Sanders, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy,

Office of Personnel Management, accompanied by Mark Robbins, General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management; and Carlton M. Hadden,

Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ................................................................................................... 10

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Barnard, Jo-Anne, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 74

Brown, William A., Sr., P.E., HAIA, president, African American Federal

Executives Association, prepared statement of .......................................... 93

Chambers, Jasemine C., Chair, Asian American Government Executives

Network, prepared statement of .................................................................. 100

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 6

Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

Hadden, Carlton M., Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, prepared statement of ..................... 44

Lovelace, Gail T., Chief Human Capital Officer, General Services Administration, prepared statement of .................................................................. 65

Rix, Linda E. Brooks, co-chief executive officer, Avue Technologies Corp.,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 127

Sanders, Ronald P., Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources

Policy, Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of ............. 30

Stalcup, George H., Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 12

Wells, Dr. Reginald F., Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources, Social Security Administration, prepared statement of ................................. 79

Wolfe, Patricia M., president, Federally Employed Women, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 116

(1)

ACHIEVING DIVERSITY IN THE SENIOR

EXECUTIVE SERVICE

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND AGENCY

ORGANIZATION, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jo Ann Davis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Davis of Illinois, and

Norton.

Staff present: Ronald Martinson, staff director; B. Chad Bungard,

deputy staff director and chief counsel; Robert White, director of

communications; Vaughn Murphy, legislative counsel; Chris Barkley, legislative assistant/clerk; John Landers, detailee; Tania

Shand, minority professional staff member; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization will come the

order.

I want to start today by thanking all of our witnesses for being

here. This hearing is concerned with achieving diversity among the

top ranks of the Federal Civil Service, an important topic that will

only grow in significance in the coming years, and I do want to

mention and to thank our Ranking Member Danny Davis for requesting this hearing and for playing such a big role in planning

it.

The impetus for this hearing is a General Accounting Office report from earlier this year. The GAO predicted that over the next

5 years about half the members of the Senior Executive Service

will leave government. But the GAO analysis suggests that the racial, ethnic and gender makeup of the SES will change very little.

A diverse SES corps can be a strength for the Federal Government,

and as the GAO report mentions, diversity is considered so important that it is one of the eight critical success factors by which the

agencies are judged in the GAO’s models of strategic human capital

management.

Three Federal agencies are represented here today to share with

us their experiences in achieving diversity in the workplace. I’m

pleased that the Office of Personnel Management will be revealing

its Candidate Development Program today, one of their efforts to

increase minority representation at the top levels of government.

2

We discussed this program a bit at our succession planning hearing

2 weeks ago, but today I’m interested in hearing the full details.

Finally, we’re also going to discuss the new No Fear Act which

improves agency accountability for anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws. This is a very new law, but we would like

to hear any initial findings and reactions.

Thank you, and I’m looking forward to hearing your comments.

I would now like to recognize the ranking minority member of

the subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis, for any opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis follows:]

3

4

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and let me first of all thank you for your leadership and

also for your responsiveness and the relationship that we’ve had

and continue to have as we work on these issues.

I want to thank you especially for calling this hearing. As you

know, earlier this year I requested that the subcommittee hold a

hearing on diversity in the Federal Senior Executive Service. That

request was based on the findings of two reports the GAO issued

on diversity in the Senior Executive Service [SES], that were requested by myself and other members of the Committee on Government Reform.

I thank you for not only holding this hearing this afternoon but

also would like to thank you, Chairman Tom Davis, and your respective staffs for your hard work in assuring that the witnesses

on panel two appear before us today.

Simply stated, the GAO reports found that there is a lack of diversity among the SES and that unless there is some intervention,

as predominantly White male SES members retire they will be replaced for the most part by White women. Delegate Norton and

others and I requested this hearing to help move us forward on the

very important issue of diversifying the highest and most influential ranks of the Federal work force, the Senior Executive Service.

The hearing is to focus on the steps the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management

have taken to address the following issues: How these agencies and

others will diversify their respective SES corps, how effectively we

are recruiting minorities for Federal service and how agencies are

being held accountable for discriminatory practices that hinder diversity and upward mobility in the workplace.

The Director of the OPM, Kay Cole James, has met and corresponded with me to discuss the findings in the GAO reports, and

to her credit in April she announced the creation of a new SES

Candidate Development Program. We call it the CDP. The CDP is

the first step in addressing diversity in the SES. The program was

created by OPM to help participants develop their leadership skills

and prepare them for senior executive positions they will immediately be eligible for upon completion.

But this is only a first step. As Director James pointed out when

she announced the program in April, out of the 249 graduates from

agency-sponsored CDP programs since January 2001, 30 percent

were minorities, but only 39 percent of those 249 graduates have

been placed in the SES. Agencies and this subcommittee have a lot

more work to do to ensure that we’re not talking about the same

problem 10 years from now. This is not a new problem or one that

is confined to Federal service. The Federal Government, however,

should be leading the way in addressing it.

As GAO stated in its most recent report, diversity can bring a

wide variety of perspectives and approaches to policy development

and implementation, strategic planning, problem solving and decisionmaking, and can be an organizational strength that contributes

to the achievement of results.

The Federal Government is at risk of failing to realize these benefits because its work force does not appropriately reflect the diversity of the people it serves. In last Sunday’s issue the Washington

5

Post Magazine contained an article entitled, ‘‘Profiles in Courage:

Washingtonians Tell the Truth about Diversity in the Workplace.’’

The article profiles 10 people who told their stories about how

race, size, gender or ethnicity impacted their treatment in the

workplace. In one such profile Stacey Davis Stewart tells of working in the housing and community development business where

there are few Blacks and even fewer women. Stacey Davis Stewart

is the president of the Fannie Mae Foundation. Her profile is one

we can learn from. Ms. Stewart said she was so tired of being confronted and challenged in the workplace that her boss had to tell

her to speak up in meetings because she really had good ideas. She

was quoted as saying, ‘‘It was like he had let me out of a cage.

When you have a work environment that values people, look at the

talent that unfolds.’’

Later in the article she says, ‘‘The perspective I bring as an African-American female should be something that is highly valued,

but in some cases it is not completely heard or respected because

of the lack of diversity in that group. They haven’t established

some way of accepting difference.’’

The Federal Government has to do a better job of accepting difference, whether it is race, ethnicity or gender based, and create

an environment where difference is accepted and appreciated. As I

mentioned, agencies in this subcommittee have a role to play in assuring that progress is made with regard to this issue.

I would like this subcommittee to hold quarterly hearings where

agencies would be randomly selected to testify about the steps they

are taking to diversify. By holding quarterly hearings, this subcommittee can hold agencies accountable for results. Oversight and

accountability are integral to achieving results, particularly when

agencies appear reluctant to testify on this issue.

Again, I thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for holding this hearing

and welcome the testimony of today’s witnesses and look forward

to listening to them.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

6

7

8

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Davis, and I certainly

appreciate you asking for this hearing today. I think it is a very

important subject and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

But I’d like to now yield to Ms. Holmes Norton to see if you have

an opening statement.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I do, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to begin

by thanking you for leading this hearing today and affording the

witnesses the opportunity to come forward and testify on what has

been an important subject in the Federal service now for years, if

I may say so, decades. I want to especially thank Mr. Davis for his

consistency on this issue and his unfailing leadership on what is

really a difficult issue.

The Federal Government initially employed African Americans

when private industry would not, so the African Americans could

get jobs in the lower reaches of government certainly and in places

like the Postal Service when they really would not be hired in other

places, and for that the Federal Government deserves some considerable credit and has gotten that credit in the past.

The problem is that is where African Americans stayed and that

the middle and upper reaches of the Federal Government were simply off limits to African Americans for years, and if the truth be

told, the situation for African Americans did not begin to improve

until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At the same time

that it began to improve those in the private sector, and, yes, it

began to improve and again the Federal Government—which began

to use affirmative action—indeed did better than it had done in

prior decades.

As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I can say to you, though, without fear of being contradicted that as hard as at least some in the government have

worked, there has never been a point when the Federal Government could take pride in what it has done in the middle and upper

reaches of the Federal services, never a point, and that point has

not been reached today. The fact is that civil servants do not have

the same rights to vindicate employment discrimination as they

would have if they worked for any private company because we

have not given them equality of rights to vindicate discrimination

in the Federal service because they have to go through their own

agencies. All of us would consider it absurd to ask people to apply

to AT&T first in order to vindicate a discrimination complaint

against AT&T, but that is exactly what we still require in the Federal service, and one begins to wonder if that hasn’t had some impact on the ability of African Americans and others to reach their

more natural places in the Federal service.

I thank the Chair in holding this hearing and the GAO for their

report. The continuing oversight of this committee on this issue

says loudly and clearly the presence in the Civil Service is not

enough, particularly when African Americans have been in the

Civil Service as long as they have over time in the natural order

of things, that they should be more evenly spread among the various categories of employment.

This is a particularly important time to address this issue. We

face a personnel crisis in the Federal Government because of the

huge number of retirements that face us. Would it not be a tragedy

9

not to seize this opportunity when we must replenish the Federal

service anyway because so many are retiring, not to seize this opportunity to make sure we do it right this time by assuring African

Americans, Hispanics and others a fair opportunity to be represented in the Federal service.

I can say this. We’re not going to get this opportunity again.

Those folks are going to retire almost all at one time, and we’re

going to have to hire very quickly, especially in many of those

agencies. If we do not seize this moment now, it will not pass our

way again probably for decades. So the moment is now.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Holmes Norton.

And Mr. Davis, I want to say thank you for your suggestion

about the quarterly meetings. We’ll certainly take a look at that,

and if it’s not possible to do the meetings maybe we can certainly

do something like ask for a quarterly report from the agencies. But

we will take a look and see what we can do to accommodate you.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative

days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing

record and that any answers to written questions provided by the

witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so

ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and other

materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be included in the hearing record and that all Members be permitted to

revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, it is so ordered.

On this first program, we’re going to hear from a number of

agencies that have an oversight role in diversity issues. Our first

witness today is George Stalcup, Director of Strategic Issues at the

General Accounting Office. After him will be Ron Sanders, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy at the Office of

Personnel Management. Joining him behind the table will be Mark

Robbins, General Counsel at OPM. Last on this panel will be Mr.

Carlton Hadden, Director of the Office of Federal Operations at the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

We’re all very glad to have this group here today, and it is the

practice of this committee to administer the oath to all witnesses,

so if you could please stand I’ll administer the oath. If I could just

have the second panel and the third panel stand at the same time,

we can go ahead and administer the oath. If you will remember

when you get up to testify you are under oath. If you’ll raise your

right hands, please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let the record reflect that the witnesses

have answered in the affirmative, and you may be seated.

And I would just remind all the witnesses that we do have your

prepared statements on the record. So if you would like to summarize, you’re more than welcome to do that. Mr. Stalcup, you’re recognized first for 5 minutes.

10

STATEMENTS OF GEORGE H. STALCUP, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY RON STROMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF OPPORTUNITY AND INCLUSIVENESS, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; RONALD P. SANDERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY

MARK ROBBINS, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND CARLTON M. HADDEN, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Mr. STALCUP. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Davis, Congresswoman Norton. I’m pleased to have this

opportunity to discuss attrition within the Senior Executive Service

and the challenge this poses as well as the opportunity it presents

for helping to ensure the gender, racial and ethnic diversity of the

Federal Senior Executive Corps.

Two weeks ago this subcommittee held a hearing on succession

planning at the Federal level. Our testimony stressed the importance of succession planning in building a diverse leadership corps

and pointed out some things other countries have done in this regard. My testimony today underscores the importance of succession

planning and other practices in ensuring diversity in the Federal

Senior Corps and is based on our January 2003 report on the SES.

The SES generally represents the most senior and experienced

segment of the Federal work force. The potential loss of more than

half of SES members between the years 2000 and 2007 coupled

with attrition in the GS–15 and 14 ranks has important implications for Federal agencies and underscores the need to focus not

only on the present but also future trends and challenges.

Demographics and the public served by the Federal Government

are changing. Representation by women and minorities in both the

government’s executive corps and the succession pool is crucial if

we expect to bring a wider variety of perspectives and approaches

to bear on policy development and implementation, strategic planning, problem solving and decisionmaking and to provide the organizational strength that contributes to achieving results.

A number of organizations have oversight responsibility for ensuring diversity in the Federal workplace. Key among these are the

other two organizations on today’s panel, the Office of Personnel

Management and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

which through policy, law and regulations are to, No. 1, protect

Federal workers from unlawful discrimination and other unlawful

work practices and, No. 2, promote equal opportunity, fairness and

inclusiveness.

With these thoughts in mind, I would like to make three points

today. First, in our January 2003 report, we estimated that 55 percent of the career SES employed by the Federal Government on October 1, 2000 will have left by October 1, 2007. We also estimated

that attrition among the GS–15 and GS–14 ranks, the key source

for executive replacements, while lower, would still be significant—

47 percent at GS–15 level, 34 percent at the GS–14 level.

Second, while the past is not necessarily prolog, if appointment

trends from 1995 to 2000 were to continue, the only significant

11

change in SES diversity across government by 2007 would be an

increase in the number of White women from 19 to 23 percent and

an essentially equal decrease in the number of White men from 67

to 62 percent.

Now as shown on my chart on my right and your left, the proportion of racial, ethnic and minorities in the SES would change very

little over that time span, from 13.8 to 14.6 percent.

The chart on my left and your right on the top provides more detail on our projection, with governmentwide SES numbers by gender, racial and ethnic category. The first set of figures on that chart

represent the number of SES in place on October 1, 2000. The middle set of figures show the number of those that would still be in

place as of October 1, 2007. And the figures on the right show what

the profile that would result if they were replaced at the same appointment trends that were used from 1995 to the year 2000.

Now, those numbers represent a governmentwide picture. The

third chart below shows that our projections vary by agency. For

10 of the 24 large agencies, projections show less minority representation in 2007 than in the year 2000. For 12 agencies they

showed increases.

My final point is that upcoming retirements and other attrition

will provide the Federal Government with both a challenge and an

opportunity. The challenge will be to develop succession plans

based on inclusive strategies for having sufficient numbers of senior executives in place to develop and implement policies and programs of the Federal Government. The opportunity will be to help

ensure diversity in the SES corps through new appointments.

Based in part on our work on the SES corps and in other human

capital areas, we have seen positive responses on the part of

EEOC, OPM and other agencies in this regard, and commenting on

our report last January, agencies agreed that more needed to be

done and pointed to a number of ongoing and planned efforts aimed

at increasing diversity within the executive branches. I anticipate

we will hear more about those efforts this afternoon.

Continued leadership from OPM and EEOC coupled with a

strong commitment on the part of agency managers through such

actions as succession planning and holding executives accountable

for the diversity in the work forces they manage would help ensure

the diversity of future Federal senior executive leadership.

Madam Chairwoman and members of this subcommittee, this

concludes my prepared statement and I will be pleased to answer

any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stalcup follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Stalcup.

Mr. Sanders, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today on behalf of Director Kay Cole James to testify on OPM’s efforts to address underrepresentation in the Federal Government’s

Senior Executive Service. Mr. Mark Robbins, OPM’s general counsel, is also with me today to address any questions you may have

on the No Fear Act.

Madam Chairwoman, I believe that we all share a goal that is

simply stated, an SES corps that reflects the diversity of America’s

citizenry. You can rest assured that the President and Director

James are unequivocally committed to achieving that goal. It represents a mission imperative. We believe that a more diverse SES

will result in a Federal Government that better serves our citizens,

the ultimate objective of the President’s management agenda, and

they appreciate the leadership you and your subcommittee have

provided in this area.

Madam Chairwoman, the fact is that the SES today is not as diverse as it should be, and although we’ve seen some gradual improvement in this regard, progress remains slow. So the challenge

remains, and it’s one that is not amenable to quick fixes. Rather,

as you know only too well, it’s all about succession planning, managing the Federal Government’s leadership development pipeline

over a multiyear timeframe and paying attention to its diversity as

we do so.

As your hearing 2 weeks ago underscored, a diverse SES depends

in large part on a diverse candidate pool. That is where OPM’s new

Federal SES candidate development program comes in. Designed to

complement the executive development strategies of individual

agencies, including those that already have their own CDPs, it incorporates the very best practices in leadership development, lessons drawn from organizations, both public and private, that have

set the standard for connective excellence and diversity.

In developing our program, we took into account the Constitutional limits upon efforts of affirmative outreach toward traditionally underrepresented groups. OPM CDP is designed to operate

within those limits. It is a racially neutral program. Race plays no

part in the candidate selection process. OPM’s challenge is to create a diverse pool of applicants by ensuring that those qualified

members of traditionally underrepresented groups know about the

program and are encouraged to apply.

We can do this through Constitutionally accepted standards for

outreach. Thus, while a program is not and cannot be reserved for

the exclusive development of leaders from underrepresented

groups, we believe that includes a number of innovative features

that will help us accelerate the accomplishment of that goal.

First and foremost, our program enjoys the strong commitment

of this administration’s most senior leaders, including the members

of the new Chief Human Capital Officers Council. All of its members are keenly aware of the executive succession challenge that we

all face; and as our program’s ultimate board of directors, they are

sensitive to diversity issues, as they work to ensure continuity of

leadership excellence in their agencies.

28

Second, our program is uniquely demand driven, designed to find

and develop high caliber successors to replace an agency’s specific

projected SES losses. This is in contrast to many agencies’ CDPs,

which attract, develop and graduate many talented candidates who

never reach the SES, largely because they are not part of an effective succession strategy.

Third, while we obviously cannot guarantee the diversity of our

program’s candidates, or for that matter the SES itself, we can increase the odds of both by actively and aggressively reaching out

to all sources for the most diverse pool of potential executive talent

that we can. We’ve already actively engaged in the various organizations that represent the interest of female and minority Federal

employees, many of whom are here today to help us in this regard.

In addition, unlike most agency CDPs, we intend to open our program to all U.S. citizens, not just current and former Federal employees, a reservoir of potential talent that is substantially broader

and substantially more diverse than the typical agency CDP applicant pool. We also intend to conduct targeted print, electronic and

direct marketing to and through minority, disabled employees and

female professional associations that are potential conduits to that

talent pool.

Fourth, our applicant screening and assessment process will be

based on merit and merit alone. Conducted jointly with participating agencies, OPM will identify the most outstanding applicants,

and participating agencies will then have the opportunity to select

one or more candidates from this finalist cadre, appointing them to

a full-time developmental position at the GS–14 or 15 level.

Fifth, participants in our program will benefit from a series of intensive leadership development activity specifically designed to prepare them for the SES. The program will be hands-on and experiential, with each individual having the opportunity to actually

practice and demonstrate leadership in one or more executive level

assignments. To support these assignments, OPM will provide each

participating agency with a temporary SES allocation. Those that

graduate will be certified by an OPM SES qualification review

board and be eligible for noncompetitive promotion to the SES.

Finally, no effort as important as this would be complete without

some means of assuring accountability. We now have such a mechanism. As part of the President’s management agenda, OPM has

established a human capital assessment and accountability framework as a means of evaluating how well agencies are managing

their people. It includes standards for dealing with work force diversity and leadership succession. Agencies that do not meet these

standards do not receive high marks; and those marks are accorded

to the President, I can assure you that they matter.

Can we absolutely guarantee that our program will improve diversity in the SES? No, we cannot. However, we can and will do

everything we possibly can to ensure that its applicant pool truly

reflects America’s diversity, that its candidate assessment process

is absolutely free from any improper bias, that final selections involve senior agency leaders who understand the importance of and

are committed to leadership excellence, continuity and diversity,

and that agencies are held accountable for their efforts.

29

Before I conclude, let me turn briefly to the No Fear Act. This

summer the President delegated to OPM the responsibility to promulgate regulations implementing the act. Toward that end we’ve

been working with the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, Office of Special Counsel and the EEOC. We’ve also had discussions with external stakeholders, including the No Fear Coalition. Regulations implementing the judgment fund reimbursement

provisions of the act have been drafted and are currently being reviewed by OMB.

Further, we’re drafting regulations that will implement the additional sections of the act.

Madam Chairwoman, in his landmark management agenda the

President has recognized the Federal Government’s work force as

one of its most valuable assets, that our employees are a national

resource and that the American people expect them to be managed

efficiently and effectively. They also expect them to reflect their

own diversity, from the front line to the executive suite. The President and Director James are unequivocally committed to that goal.

Our new CDP represents part of that commitment, and we believe

that it will ensure a ready reservoir of exceptional SES candidates

and eventually an SES corps that reflects the diversity of America.

I’ll be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Hadden, thank you for coming, and now you’re recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. HADDEN. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members

of the subcommittee. I appreciate opportunity to appear before you

today on behalf of Cari M. Dominguez, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Commission. EEOC agrees with GAO that the projected

large losses in the SES ranks over the next few years present the

Federal Government with both a unique challenge and an opportunity.

As a critical step toward leading the government toward a more

inclusive workplace, the Commission unanimously voted to approve

new guidance effective October 1st of this year to Federal agencies

on how to meet their responsibilities and structure their EEO programs required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Section 501

of the Rehab Act of 1973.

It should be noted that prior to the final approval of the directive, the Commission distributed an earlier draft to Federal agencies for review and comment pursuant to the requirements of Executive Order 12067, and much of the input received from agencies

was in fact incorporated into the draft.

The Commission plans to develop operational instructions for the

agencies and anticipates issuing those instructions before the end

of the calendar year to agencies.

The new directive requires agencies to take appropriate steps to

ensure that all employment decisions are free from discrimination

and is designed to reemphasize that the quality of opportunity for

all in the Federal workplace is key to attracting, developing and retaining top quality employees who can deliver results, ensure our

Nation’s continued security, growth and prosperity.

The directive requires agencies to systematically and regularly

examine their employment policies and practices to identify and remove barriers to free and open workplace competition. Plans for addressing barriers will be developed by the agencies and progress toward removing those barriers will be monitored by the Commission.

The Commission believes it is critical for agencies to pay special

attention to potential barriers to entry and to those successor pools

of GS–15s and 14s with a focus on those positions which would

typically lead to senior level management.

In addition, potential barriers should be examined not only in selection to GS–14 and 15 feeder pools but also the early development of high potential employees at lower grades and to other

training and developmental opportunities which increase qualifications for future SES positions.

An important component of the MD–715 is defining of the following essential elements for structuring model EEO programs at Federal agencies. It is the Commission’s belief that attainment of a

model EEO program at an agency will provide the infrastructure

necessary for the agency to achieve the ultimate goal of a discrimination-free work environment characterized by an atmosphere of

inclusion and free and open competition for employment opportunities. The six elements are as follows: First, demonstrated commitment from agency leadership; second, integration of EEO into the

43

agency’s strategic mission; third, management and program accountability; fourth, proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination; fifth, efficiency; and, sixth, responsiveness and legal compliance.

We also should know that MD–715 addresses the unique challenges which face employees with disabilities. Although not addressed by the GAO report, this is an area of particular concern to

the Commission.

In fiscal year 2002 the percentage of employees with targeted

disabilities in the Federal work force decreased for the 5th consecutive year, stretching this decline to 20 percent over the last decade.

Agencies must make immediate and significant improvements in

the ability to provide opportunities to qualified individuals with

disabilities to work and compete equally for all levels of positions

within the Federal Government.

Complementing the Commission’s efforts with MD–715 is the recent passage of the No Fear Act. EEOC has responsibility for

issuing governmentwide regulations under Title III of that act, and

that requires agencies post on their public Web sites on a quarterly

basis information pertaining specifically to the processing of administrative complaints of employment discrimination filed under 29

CFR, Part 1614.

This summer the Commission voted on proposed interim regulation under Title III of the No Fear Act. Following the Commission’s

vote, the regulation was circulated for agencies for review, comments were received from 23 agencies. Revisions were made based

on the revised comments, and the Commission voted to approve the

proposed interim regulation late last week, and that has now been

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.

The No Fear Act should provide the Federal Government one

more tool to assist in efforts to identify and eliminate barriers to

equal opportunity for all to compete for positions at senior levels.

As the act states, agencies cannot run effectively if they practice

or tolerate unlawful discrimination. The No Fear Act is designed to

hold agencies to greater accountability in compliance with the nondiscrimination laws.

Through the various mechanisms available under the act, agencies should be more aware of and responsive to issues of discrimination and retaliation in their agencies. We anticipate that this

heightened awareness will be positively reflected in agency management of personnel practices and, to the extent that discriminatory practices are placing barriers to equal employment opportunity

in the SES work force, lead toward the elimination of practices and

create a level playing field.

Thank you. I’ll be glad to answer any questions that you may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hadden follows:]

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Hadden, and as I generally do in this subcommittee, I’m going to begin the questioning

by yielding to my ranking minority member, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and I certainly want to thank all of the witnesses for their

testimony.

You know I was smiling to myself, because it seems as though

I can’t get away from my mother in terms of always remembering

something that she said to us. She used to tell us that charity begins at home and spreads abroad. And I was thinking that the first

question I might want to ask is would each one of you discuss the

number of SES openings in your agency and how you go about filling them.

Mr. STALCUP. If I could start out, I could ask Ron Stroman, who

is the Managing Director of our Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness, to come to the table—he was sworn in—and respond to

that question.

Mr. STROMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Let me begin by talking

about the manner in which we fill the SES positions. Essentially

we have a feeder group that comes from our Band III employees,

our analysts at the Band III level. Essentially what we do is we

have a Candidate Development Program in which staff is pooled

from the Band IIIs, and we have developmental staff who go

through a fairly rigorous SES process. After completion of that

process, they then emerge into the SES. Diversity principles are essentially one of the cornerstones in selection of people into the SES.

So, for example, in our most recent SES candidate pool of the nine

SES candidates, we have two of those nine are African American

women, and we wanted clearly to make sure that they were clearly

represented.

In terms of the actual numbers in the SES, let me give those to

you, Mr. Davis.

In our career SES pool right now, there are approximately 9.1

percent of the SES is African American, 3.3 percent of that SES

pool is Hispanic, and 4.1 percent is Asian.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you. Mr. Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Davis. As you know, Director

James practices what she preaches. OPM has just gone through a

major restructuring, perhaps the most dramatic in its relatively

short history, and we’ve just finished filling almost 20 new SES positions. We now total about 60 or so SES positions in the agency,

and we’re far above the average in the Federal Government. First,

let me point out when we filled those jobs, we went to all-source

recruiting. We opened it up for everybody. We had almost 1,000 applicants with about half from outside the Federal Government, half

from within. And we ended up of the 20 positions we selected, onethird of those were non—former non-Federal employees that came

from the private sector or the military services.

The net result, an SES corps that we believe is a model; 10 percent of OPM’s corps is African American, 10 percent Hispanic, 2

percent Asian Pacific islander. Women constitute 37 percent. We’ve

got two people who are going to enter our own candidate development program, and we’ve also brought in for the first time in several years a class of 20 new Presidential management interns, and,

53

again, they are just as diverse. Of those 20, 6 are African American, 12 are women and 4 Hispanic.

Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. HADDEN. The Commission is in a unique position. We are in

a hiring freeze and we don’t have SES openings, but the Commission has in fact planned; and what we have done is established a

candidate development program in fiscal year 2001, and of the candidates in that program, they reflect a diversity of the Commission.

There are 6 candidates and 83 percent are women and 33 percent

are Hispanic and 33 percent are African American.

In regard to the Commission’s current profile, the way we look

today, I think we’re probably—I don’t want to say the most diverse

Federal agency, but I think we’re amongst the top. In fiscal year

2003, minorities constitute 56 percent of the SESers at the Commission. Women constitute 46 percent of the SESers at EEOC.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, I know that my time is about to expire. So I’m going to

ask could we have a second round with this group? I know we’ve

got three panels, but——

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I think we can allow for a second round.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Holmes Norton.

Ms. NORTON. From OPM is it Mr.——

Mr. SANDERS. Sanders, yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. I’m looking at the GAO report, and I’m looking at

page 6, number of SES percentages of women and minorities on

October 1st. And this is where he does projections. With minorities

there are 12 agencies that probability increases. Eight agencies—

I’m just looking at this for the first time, so you just correct me if

I’m wrong—that probability decreases. And one of them is OPM, in

minorities, minus 2.3. Percentage—and yet the figures you have

just given of fairly large numbers of people in your pool now—and

I’m looking at percentage on October 1, 2007 using current appointment trends and percentage change from October 1, 2000. And I’m

looking at OPM, and I’m wondering why of all places OPM would

be projecting minus 2.3 change in minorities.

Mr. SANDERS. Ms. Norton, those are GAO’s projections, and that

I think underscores a flaw in their report. It’s a flaw that they recognize. It’s grounded on the assumption that what was will be.

Ms. NORTON. Well, that’s the only thing they have to go by, sir.

Mr. SANDERS. It is and I’m not faulting their methodology. Their

projections are based on an October 2000 base. It projects forward

to October 2007, and it simply assumes that the way OPM filled

its SES jobs in the past will be the way OPM fills its SES jobs

through 2007. Director James has taken advantage of the restructuring of the agency to fundamentally change that assumption. So

those projections are wrong, and we hope that frankly all of them

are wrong. I think GAO would support that. It’s simply an extrapolation of history, and we all know we can change history.

Ms. NORTON. What do you have to say, Mr. Stalcup?

Mr. STALCUP. Well, we did make projections. Our point was to

raise the red flag that large numbers would be leaving, and if the

hiring and appointment trends from the late 1990’s persisted

54

through 2007 this is where we would end up. Again, this was a

projection. It was a warning flag. It was in no way a prediction. In

fact, it was just the opposite, of trying to raise the issue so that

in fact change did happen.

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you further, Mr. Stalcup, you’re looking

at, I presume, the Federal work force as if in fact jobs are going

to be filled in the normal way in which they were filled, and yet

we are seeing the administration come here with bills for contracting out huge numbers of jobs, often in the largest agency. I wonder

if we’re talking about the same kind of work force that would be

in fact depending on the Civil Service to do its work.

I recently saw a chart on the growth in Federal employees, and

if you include people who were contracted out, it was a million employees contracting out over which we have nothing to say about

the gender or virtually nothing to say except through the normal

process that we use on of course private sector employees and keeping their records; but we have—what you see are a huge block of

jobs that are going outside of the work force, and I wonder if you’ve

taken that into account in projecting how many SES positions are

going to be available or might in fact disappear because the Federal work force is disappearing as we speak.

Mr. STALCUP. Well, again, our projections were based on what in

fact happens from the years 1995 to 2000. During that course in

time undoubtedly there was some contracting out. So to the extent

that dynamic of contracting out goes up after that period of time,

our projection would not have covered that.

Ms. NORTON. That could mean fewer SESs altogether, just

like——

Mr. STALCUP. Again, our study did not cover that. I understand

your question. It is a good question, but it was not covered in this

study.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Holmes Norton. So let

me, Mr. Stalcup, Mr. Sanders, make sure I understand it. The projections were based on if we did the same thing yesterday—if we

did what we did yesterday, if we’re doing it today, then we’d be in

the same place tomorrow. And in fact that is not true, at least for

OPM, because you changed the way you were doing things. Is that

correct?

Mr. STALCUP. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. When we talk about improving diversity, there’s been a suggestion about one of the ways to bring more

members of the minority groups into the Federal Government is

through the hiring process, but all of that is based on the fact

that—or the assumption that we’re going to have all these retirements or loss of jobs through attrition. Does that still hold true?

I guess this would be to OPM. Do you all have any projections as

to how many vacancies there’s going to be? I mean——

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, ma’am. Those retirements will occur. They’ve

been deferred for various reasons. You know, anecdotally people

say the economy, they’re waiting for it to pick up before they look

at a post Federal career, etc. All we know is that the number of

folks who were eligible to retire in the Senior Executive Service

continues to grow. In effect, we’ve created a bow wave. If anything,

55

we may see a greater rate of retirements. Even though the eligibility is creeping up, the fact is that they may all go over a shorter

period of time once they decide to. So the opportunities are going

to be there. They’ve just been deferred slightly, and frankly, that

gives us an opportunity to prepare the successor pool for them.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So we’re still looking 2004, 2005 where

we can make the greatest change in the percentage of diversity?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Stalcup, I know that recruiting

takes a lot of effort, and if human resources offices and agencies

are understaffed, which I think some probably are, maybe they

need to get outside help for at least a short term.

Do you know, do any of the Federal agencies use what we call

executive head hunters to fill any of their positions and to bring

in greater diversity? Do you know if any of the agencies are doing

that?

Mr. STROMAN. Mrs. Davis, no, we’re not aware of the use of executive head hunters in any particular agency, although as Mr.

Stalcup indicated, we did not look at that issue to determine that.

So there is perhaps an outside possibility, but it’s nothing that we

examined.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So if they were using outside agencies,

outside head hunters, how would we control that? I mean, how

would we make the changes for greater diversity if that were happening, because we don’t—I think what you’re saying is you don’t

know for sure. Right?

Mr. STROMAN. Right.

Mr. STALCUP. We don’t. But I believe it’s factors like that need

to be considered, and what we talked about. The bottom line message of our report is the need for the long-term succession planning

to be able to know with some certainty where you’re going to be

and what your needs are going to be as the years unfold, so that

you can plan ahead and, in fact, have not only the people immediately available but the pipeline backing that up that will feed

into what you need over time.

Mr. STROMAN. The other issue, Mrs. Davis, is that what you

would have to do is if you were contracting with an outside agency

is what you would do with any contractor. That is, if you wanted

diversity to be part and parcel of the pool, the people that you are

recruiting, I think you would have to make it abundantly clear to

the contractor that this was an important part of what they were

expected to do and then hold them accountable for the results as

you would hold your own employees accountable for those results.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So it ultimately falls back on the different agencies and the agency heads?

Mr. STROMAN. That’s correct.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Which brings me to the question I personally have is how do we make sure that our agencies and those

who are responsible within the agencies know what they’re supposed to be doing, and how do we get the message out to them?

Mr. SANDERS. I think hearings like this do. I think the fact that

it is now part of the human capital assessment and accountability

framework. It’s part of GAO’s models. So as we evaluate agencies,

we look at those things. As they evaluate agencies, they look at

56

them. And hearings like this highlight them on a periodic basis.

The Chief Human Capital Officers Council has addressed this on

a number of occasions. So, too, has the Interagency Task Force on

Hispanic Employment that Director James chairs. So I can tell you

that the awareness has certainly been elevated, and I think hopefully action will follow.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What happens if action doesn’t follow?

Mr. SANDERS. I think as I said in my statement, the best we can

do is focus on creating as diverse an applicant pool as we possibly

can at all levels of the Federal Government, including for SES vacancies, and then we have to trust the merit process to achieve the

right result, the best person for the job.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Those questions were just for my own

personal use, by the way, because I just wanted to make sure how

we’re doing it and who is doing it and are we going to have to hold

this hearing every year infinitum until we find out what we’re supposed to be doing.

I’m going to go ahead and stop and let Mr. Davis have a second

round.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you very much, Madam

Chairwoman.

Mr. Stalcup, in your testimony as you were giving it, you indicated that as you spoke with executives in different agencies, that

they all pretty much agreed that something more needed to be

done, that obviously we were not doing enough. Did any of them

indicate that they were going to do anything? I’m saying they

agreed that something needed to be done, but did they also indicate

that they were in the process of doing something?

Mr. STALCUP. Absolutely. Again, we have a formal comment process whenever we do any report. So we had written comments from

all the agencies involved, OPM, EEOC and then several of the line

agencies also. And across the board, as you say, all agreed with the

need that more needed to be done. All were able to cite specific actions that they had under way or on the drawing board, so to

speak, to get that done. The candidate program that Mr. Sanders

referred to is one of those at OPM. EEOC, during the course of the

past year, has issued a new strategic plan. The witness talked

about Management Directive 715, which provides many of the

needed actions on the part—I think now the key is the roadmap

is kind of laid out there. It’s going to require follow-through on the

part of OPM, EEOC as well as the agency managers themselves.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Sanders, you indicated that progress

obviously is slow, that change oftentimes is indeed—much of the

time it’s much more covert than overt. But you also indicated that

the new candidate development program was race neutral, and if

it’s to be race neutral, how is there assurance that race will be impacted in terms of changing the composition of the work force?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Davis, we can’t make that assurance. What we

can assure you of is that we’re going to do everything we possibly

can to reach out to ensure that we have an applicant pool that is

as diverse as we possibly can make it. I’ve outlined some actions

that I think we can take that will improve the diversity of that applicant pool over agency experience to date. But once we’ve done

that we have to trust the merit process to run its course. We can’t

57

provide preference or anything like that. There are Constitutional

limits by which we are bound.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So we are operating on the theory that

much of the problem had to do with the applicant pool and that

there weren’t enough people in the pool that through the normal

process of extracting out the best, that we would also have the kind

of diversity that is desired?

Mr. SANDERS. I think all you have to do is look at the feeder pool

of GS–14s and 15s, primarily GS–15s. That’s typically where agencies draw from for candidate development programs and SES positions. It’s not much more diverse than the SES corps. And that is

in gross numbers. It’s not talking about locations and occupations

and specific demand and requirements. So it is kind of a roll of the

dice if all you’re doing is looking at GS–15s as your source for executive candidates. One of the things we know we can do is go beyond that candidate pool, look outside the confines of the Federal

Government. There’s lots of talent out there and, again, increase

the diversity of the people we’re considering and trust the merit

process to do its thing.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me ask you this. I recently heard of

a situation in an agency where essentially one person for the last

20 years has pretty much determined who the individuals were

who got promoted or who moved up into the SES ranks. Could that

happen under any scenario that you could think of in terms of policies and practices?

Mr. SANDERS. I suppose it could, but, again, looking forward I do

think one of the subtle but important changes that has occurred,

in part thanks to the actions of the Congress, is the creation of

these new chief human capital officers in the major departments

and agencies. Those are the individuals who will be held accountable. They have stewardship responsibility for the way the agency

manages its people, and if you looked at the folks who have been

named as CHCOs, as chief human capital officers, they are far

more senior than, for example, agency HR directors in the past.

These are individuals who take that accountability seriously.

I’ve sat through a couple of meetings now that the CHCOs council has had. So while in theory that could happen, one person could

control it and for whatever purposes he or she wanted, I think that

is now changing as we’re elevating the importance of the human

capital business and the people who are responsible for it, again in

part thanks to hearings like this.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And Madam Chairwoman, with your indulgence my last question would be to Mr. Hadden, and that is if

we find that agencies don’t really have the feeder pools that are

necessary, what should happen to make sure that those feeder

pools are in fact adequate?

Mr. HADDEN. Well, I think under MD–715, what we would hope

agencies would do, and each agency circumstance may be different,

is to examine what are the factors which caused that to occur, why

aren’t there people in the pipeline. That may be an example of

looking at are there training opportunities being shared throughout

the agencies, throughout the organization. We expect an agency to

look at its own particular circumstances. It’s not as easy as a stock

answer for how each agency would deal with that, but we would

58

expect each agency to look at its own practices, and we would then

monitor and see for ourselves what barriers might have existed to

keep that from happening.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I know that my time is up, and I appreciate the indulgence.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

And Mr. Davis, I would just say that we will have written followup questions for all three of the panels that we would ask that you

would answer and get back to the committee. And so if you have

any further questions, we can certainly do it that way.

Ms. Holmes Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Mr. Hadden, in a fairly elliptical sentence in your testimony, you

say, therefore—page 4—EEOC believes it will be critical for agencies to pay special attention to potential barriers to entry into those

successor pools of GS–15s and 14s. With a focus on those positions

that typically lead to senior management—senior level management—see, I’m interested—not so much interested in the 14s and

15s. First of all, those are verified positions in the Federal Government, too. Those people have been leaving the Federal Government—the minorities and Whites, according to the GAO report,

have been leaving the Federal Government and GS–15s at about

the same rate. And you know why? Because these are people that

are very much sought after. You know, they don’t need the Federal

Government. This isn’t your grandfather’s economy, and the private sector knows how to give health care, the kind the Federal

Government doesn’t give, sometimes picking up the whole thing.

And we haven’t come close to that. They know how to make bonuses really get more work out of managers, and people who attain

14 and 15 are very ripe to be picked off.

So we’ve been concentrating on those levels. Well, you can concentrate all you want on those levels, but by the time somebody finally makes his way to 14 or 15 he may be applying all over the

map. Who needs you anymore?

So I really am just as interested in what we are doing to make

the feeder pool fatter and to make people want to stay in the Federal Government to have enough sense that there is promotion to

get to the place where you can be looked at for SES. I read the sentence from Mr. Hadden about how you get into the feeder pools and

what you’re doing to make sure, particularly given retirements,

given competition, the sexy place to be, gentlemen, is not the Federal Government these days. The sexy place to be is in the private

sector. So I want to know what you’re going to do to retain people

long enough to get them and what you’re going to do to make sure

the people get into the feeder pool so that they can be looked at

by the SES in the first place. That I didn’t find in the testimony.

Don’t you all speak at once, please.

Mr. SANDERS. If that is a general question, I’ll take it on. Starting with the very beginning of the pipeline, we’re really doing a tremendous job bringing in bright young folks to the Federal service,

the Presidential management intern program, outstanding scholars, the Federal career intern program. The recruit rates are high,

and the diversity statistics are pretty impressive. For example, in

59

the class of 2003 for Presidential management interns, 21 percent

were minority and almost 60 percent were women.

Ms. NORTON. What grades were those interns?

Mr. SANDERS. They start at GS–9. So at the beginning of the

pipeline, we’re doing quite well. We need more work in the middle

of the pipeline. A number of agencies are doing very innovative

things. IRS, my old place, HHS with its emerging leaders program,

the Department of Labor has really had remarkable success bringing in MBAs straight into mid-level positions. OPM is about to develop and deploy an executive readiness program which is sort of

one level down focusing on high potential 13s and 14s to prepare

them for the SES candidate development program and the next

step after that the SES. Those programs are under way. They’re

under development. And that is probably the weakest part of the

leadership development pipeline.

But in terms of keeping good folks, you know this because Director James has testified on this before and so has Dan Blair, our

Deputy Director. We need to make the general schedule far more

performance based so that when we have somebody who is on the

fast track we can reward them, we can promote them, we can compensate them and keep them so they can get to the SES and not

have to wait around for 20 or 25 years.

Ms. NORTON. You have to watch out how you do that too, because

they can believe there is favoritism.

Finally, let me ask you a question about accountability, Mr.

Sanders. It says at page 10 of this testimony that we can hold

agencies accountable for their efforts in this regard. You are doing

a lot of good work in trying to do the groundwork. The accountability has always been a major problem here.

And you go on in this testimony to talk about human capital,

benchmarks of red, yellow and green, and apparently that is how

the agency is marked, including the diversity of the work force and

diversity in leadership decisions.

Then you continue to get to the individuals who will be held accountable. And you speak about a chief human capital officer and

her stewardship for ensuring diversity and leadership continuity in

the agency. What you indicate is that at least you have a single

point of accountability.

I want to know how that person is going to be held accountable.

If this were the private sector, for example, that person might be

held accountable through their compensation. Diversity would be a

specific element of their compensation. It might even be broken

down as to high level diversity and diversity in the ranks, how the

employee was evaluated. Diversity would be an important part of

the evaluation of the manager or the leader. I want to know any

such accountability notions that are a part of your system of accountability.

Mr. SANDERS. Particularly at the level of the chief human capital

officer, for the most part these are senior political appointees in

agencies. So accountability is directly to their Cabinet secretary,

department head, to the President and, in part, to you all.

I think hearings like this are part of the Federal Government’s

accountability mechanism. So while, for example, we can’t reward

or penalize them in terms of compensation, what we can do is put

60

a spotlight on those that do good things, that make progress, and

those that don’t.

Our focus will be on making sure that they have——

Ms. NORTON. Are these people evaluated?

Mr. SANDERS. In terms of formal performance evaluations?

Ms. NORTON. In any way.

Mr. SANDERS. I think they have their own performance evaluations individually, and agencies are certainly evaluated as well.

Ms. NORTON. Well, are these people—are these people evaluated

in any way? And if so, can they be evaluated for their achievement

in diversity in the terms in which we are now discussing?

Mr. SANDERS. I think that evaluation occurs as they are held accountable by their agency head and by the President.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I just—for the record, you have not said to

me that anybody will be evaluated or otherwise held personally accountable for the achievement of diversity benchmarks. That is

what I am looking for.

Mr. STROMAN. Ms. Norton, if I can just comment on that, I can

tell you that at the General Accounting Office, the Comptroller

General awards bonuses to his senior managers as a result of performance at the end of each fiscal year. And one of the important

elements with regard to those bonuses is diversity; that is, we

track what the promotion opportunities have been during the

course of a year, what the senior level looks like in a particular

team, and the Comptroller General makes a decision. And diversity

is an important component.

So I agree with you that money at some point can be made available and can be used as an important stick to move diversity forward.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for your indulgence. I do want to just say for the record that unless—it is a part

of human nature, and it is a part of the way in which government

and every enterprise has run since the beginning of time. If an

agency holds somebody accountable for how that agency processes

Civil Service, sorry, Social Security, then you say that is important

to this agency.

And unless the agencies are going to be held accountable for

whether they achieve and how much, how far they go in achieving—and I mean meeting goals. There is a sky—we got some this

year. You will never satisfy at least some members of this committee unless there are goals set and unless you know whether those

goals have been met.

As far as this member is concerned, there is no accountability

system. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Holmes-Norton.

I would like to clear up something in my own mind. I don’t remember which one of you said it. Are you saying that the chief

human capital operating officer, are they all political appointees?

If so, who do they report to?

Mr. SANDERS. No, not all of them. That was a matter for each

agency head to decide. But I do believe the majority of them are

senior political appointees reporting; in many cases they are assistant secretaries, so they are reporting to their Cabinet secretary.

61

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So they come and go with the Cabinet

secretaries when them come and go with the administration?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, ma’am. The legislation doesn’t specify whether the chief human capital officer is a political appointee or a career. And, frankly, that is a delicate balance because you do want

somebody who is going to have the voice and the weight of the department head speaking on human capital matters. They, of

course, have a career staff, including senior HR folks in the SES

who report to them, who provide the continuity.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Holmes-Norton, I understand what

you are saying, but I also wonder how you can use diversity as

something to go by when you are counting bonuses and salaries

and the like, if the pool—and I am hearing that the pool may not

be there. If the pool isn’t there, how can you hold the person accountable for not hiring the people if they don’t have the pool to

hire from?

Which brings me to my question, I guess of, are there barriers

out there, and what barriers are out there to achieving what we

are looking for here, diversity in the SES corps?

And, quite frankly, just to give you where I stand, it would suit

me fine if everybody could be hired based on whoever is hiring

them never seeing their names so they can’t guess whether they

are male or female, and never seeing their face so they couldn’t see

what color, or their height or weight or anything.

I don’t know the magic answer to that question. But if you

can——

Mr. STALCUP. Well, in part, in answer to that question, and going

back to Ms. Norton’s question, we are doing a study now looking

at agencies across government in terms of how specifically they are

holding their executives accountable for elements such as diversity.

We are very early in the stages of that; it is a request from the

Senate side, and that report will be coming out next year. So it is

a key issue, one that we are in agreement with in terms of importance and one that will help us sort this out.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me just say this. If you start doing

that, and you make your senior executives—if you hold them liable

for not having a diverse—for not hiring minorities, could we be getting to the point where they hire minorities just because they are

minorities rather than hiring the best person for the job?

Mr. STALCUP. Well, I would hope not. Obviously, our study also

showed—the report that we talked about today—that, really, numbers is not necessarily a problem. Our study shows, at least at the

GS–15 and 14 levels, that there will be sufficient numbers, both

minority and White people.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. In the pool?

Mr. STALCUP. In the pool, yes, down the road. So that is not necessarily an issue.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairwoman, in terms of appointing people to the Senior Executive Service, frankly that is one of the most

expeditious ways of bringing folks into government. Not every

agency practices it, but as Director James has demonstrated, and

others, you can literally bring SESs on board in 30 days if you put

your mind to it.

62

You can reach out to a broad candidate pool, not just Federal

Government or former Federal employees, but the private sector.

There is wonderful talent out there. There is wonderful talent inside as well. You can do this very quickly. You can move fast. It

just takes will.

And it goes back to the issue of accountability and having somebody now that you all can talk to and point to, as well as the President saying, what are we doing?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, I am impressed that OPM has

raised their numbers. I am glad to hear that the report was based

on what you used to do, so if you changed what you are doing, we

can get a little higher.

We will have some other questions we will submit to you for the

record, if you can answer them and get them back to us. And that

is open to my colleagues as well. I thank you all of you for being

patient, and for being with us here today.

I would now like to invite our second panel of witnesses to please

come forward to the witness table. On this panel we will be hearing

from some of the agencies themselves.

First is Gail Lovelace, Chief Human Capital Officer for the General Services Administration. Next we will have Jo-Anne Barnard,

the Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Third will be Dr. Reginald Wells, the Deputy Commissioner

for Human Resources at the Social Security Administration.

And we have already sworn you all in. So if you will take your

seat, we will begin with the statements.

We will now recognize you. We will ask you to summarize your

testimony in 5 minutes. Any more complete statements you may

wish to make will be included in the record.

I would like to welcome you, Ms. Lovelace, and thank you for

being with us today. We will begin with you. You are recognized

for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF GAIL T. LOVELACE, CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL

OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; JO-ANNE

BARNARD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. PATENT AND

TRADEMARK OFFICE; AND DR. REGINALD F. WELLS, DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Ms. LOVELACE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman,

members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of Steven Perry, the Administrator

of GSA. I am Gail Lovelace, GSA’s Chief People Officer, and I am

also the Chief Human Capital Officer for GSA.

Today, I will briefly address three issues: the current level of diversity in GSA’s SES work force; recruitment and development of

minorities and women in preparation for SES positions; and a

quick update on the implementation of the No Fear Act inside

GSA.

We believe that GAO is absolutely correct when they write that

diversity can be an organizational strength that contributes to

achieving results. In addition, diversity at the highest levels of an

organization sets a positive and visible example for the rest of the

organization to follow and to emulate.

63

The desire to encourage and increase racial, ethnic, gender and

other types of diversity in the Federal work force, including diversity at the senior executive levels, is explicit in guidance that covers much of my daily work. The President’s management agenda

includes an initiative for the strategic management of human capital, and this initiative establishes a goal of ‘‘a diverse work force,

including mission-critical occupations and leadership.’’

GSA’s Human Capital Strategic Plan, first published in August

of last year, outlines seven human capital goals. Two of the seven

goals are focused on executive leadership and diversity. As stated

in our plan, one of the goals is ‘‘to ensure that we have a diverse

work force.’’ Our plan is to continually assess our work force and

take steps to ensure that there is appropriate representation by minorities, women and other identified groups in the GSA work force

as a whole, and at various grade levels, certainly including the

Senior Executive Service.

In GSA, we believe that our overall work force is diverse. Currently, minorities comprise 37.8 percent of the work force; women

represent 45 percent of our overall work force. At the executive

level, GAO’s report showed that as of October 1, 2000, 13.8 percent

of our Federal career executives were minorities and 23.6 percent

were women.

At that time, GSA’s numbers were slightly better than the average; 14.3 percent were minorities, and 28.6 percent were women.

On September 30, 2003, 3 years later, GSA’s numbers have regrettably declined for minorities, at 10 percent, but improved for

women at 28.8 percent.

For us, there is certainly room for improvement. With 80 career

executives in GSA, we represent a very small portion of the governmentwide total. Even within that small number, we continue to see

movement within our executive ranks. Just since March of this

year, we have lost three women and four minority executives, either through transfers to the Department of Homeland Security,

retirement or through movement to another position outside of

GSA.

Today, we are recruiting for several career executive positions.

We are well aware of the opportunities that this presents and will

make every effort to ensure that we are attracting a diverse group

of candidates to GSA.

As career senior executives leave the GSA work force, their vacant positions are filled from within GSA, or from other sources

outside the agency. We are focusing our efforts on attracting a pool

of diverse candidates from both directions.

GSA, like many other agencies, uses a variety of sources to attract applicants. Our new recruiting branding strategy, ‘‘You can do

that here,’’ is being utilized in a variety of settings to attract applicants to GSA.

In addition to our recruitment efforts, GSA is also focused on development of internal staff to get them ready to move into executive positions. We recently established a new five-tier Leadership

Institute that offers leadership development programs for managers, supervisors, senior specialists and analysts.

In fiscal year 2002, with the support of OPM, GSA established

our Advanced Leadership Development Program as one tier of our

64

Leadership Institute. The Advanced Leadership Development Program is designed to develop future leaders and plan for executive

succession in the coming years.

The impetus for this endeavor is the potential for a pending leader exodus from GSA. As in many other government agencies, over

half of GSA’s executives, supervisors and managers will be eligible

to retire in the next 5 years. It was deemed prudent to begin an

accelerated leadership development program to prepare for the future.

That program is comprised of three competitive phases, an application process, an assessment process and executive interviews.

Once the applicant has successfully passed these phases, they enter

into a coaching relationship and begin various programs required

for their development. We are pleased that in our 2003 program,

25 percent of our participants are minority, 48 percent are women.

In our external recruitment efforts, we are maximizing the use

of Web-based technology and other supplemental methods of communication to reach out to new or previously untapped sources of

highly qualified candidates. Most of our executive vacancy announcements, we have advertised for both Federal employees and

outside applicants. We believe that this increases our opportunity

to attract a more diverse applicant pool.

We are also considering use of OPM’s proposed new Federal SES

Candidate Development program as another opportunity to increase our diverse pool of candidates.

Before I close, I would like to turn to the No Fear Act. As required by the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, GSA is implementing increased

accountability for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. We are moving forward with plans to effectively implement the No Fear Act, based upon the interim regulations that were issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and anticipated guidance from OPM.

Just last week our Associate Administrator for Civil Rights led

a leadership group at GSA in a discussion about the law, and will

continue to share updated information with them as we implement

the plans that we expect to get as a result of requirements of the

new regulations.

We are developing an e-learning module for our OnLine University, and we are using our Web site to educate our associates about

the act. In addition, our Office of Civil Rights has installed a new

data base that will capture and report the data required by the act.

In their model, GAO examined career senior executive service

trends between 1995 and 2000. They projected that, based upon

those trends, the proportion of minority men and women in the

SES will remain virtually unchanged. We will be successful in

meeting the challenge of creating a more diverse work force if at

a future date GAO’s projection has proven to be incorrect. That will

require a concerted level of effort at all agencies.

GSA is committed to taking steps needed to improve our diversity across GSA, including our executive ranks. Thank you for the

opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lovelace follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Lovelace.

Now I would like to recognize Ms. Barnard. I would like to thank

you for being with us today; you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. BARNARD. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Davis and

members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today for the USPTO. Americans can be proud that when they

apply for a patent or a trademark, they are relying upon one of the

more diverse agencies in the Federal Government.

This wide diversity is well represented within the agency’s SES

ranks. Since 1999, the USPTO has seen substantial increases in

the number of African Americans, Asian Americans and women on

our SES staff. Currently 14 of our 46 SES members are women, including one Asian American and three African American women.

This represents a 133 percent increase over 1999 when we had

six female SES members on our rolls. During the same 4-year period, we have increased the number of African Americans in our

SES ranks by 100 percent, from two to four individuals, and the

number of Asian American SESers by 200 percent, from one to

three individuals.

The USPTO’s SES diversity profile compares favorably with that

of the Federal Government as a whole. The most recent governmentwide SES demographics issued by the Office of Personnel

Management in 2001 indicate that governmentwide, 25 percent of

SES members are women and nearly 14 percent are minorities.

At the USPTO, 30 percent of SES members are women, and over

15 percent of all appointments are held by minorities. As we replace retiring members of our existing SES corps over the next few

years, we expect this diversity to further increase, because of the

significant diversity in the pool of existing employees that we have.

The USPTO currently has 46 members of the SES; 19 of these

individuals, 41 percent, are now retirement-eligible, or will become

eligible over the next 2 years. Although a few of our existing SES

positions, like my own, are in the financial and administrative area

or the information technology field, the vast majority of our SES

jobs are highly specialized in nature.

In addition to the managerial skills normally required for SES

positions, incumbents and applicants for these jobs possess extensive intellectual property knowledge in either patent or trademark

law. SES members in the patent business area manage a work

force comprised largely of scientists and engineers. And those in

the trademark area direct a staff of intellectual property attorneys.

Executives in both of these areas must possess both the technical

knowledge required to direct the work force, and a high degree of

specialized knowledge about intricate, often complex examination

rules, regulations and procedures. Much of this specialized knowledge can only be acquired through years of experience in the office.

As a result, virtually all of our patent and trademark SES positions

are filled from within the USPTO.

Diversity is likely to increase in our SES ranks because of the

underlying diversity of the pool of patent and trademark professionals from which many of our future SES executives are likely

to be drawn. Our current work force presents a recruitment pool

of 370 patent professionals at the GS–15 level, most of whom occupy supervisory and managerial positions. Of this total, 83 are

73

women, 31 are African American, 84 are Asian American, 9 are

Hispanic and 2 are Native Americans. We also have 72 attorneys

at the GS–15 level, including 39 women, 4 African Americans, 3

Asian Americans, and 2 Hispanics.

In order to enhance the qualifications of this SES pool, many of

these patent and trademark professionals have taken advantage of

the managerial, supervisory, leadership and executive management

training and development assignments that we offer and fund. We

have put in place and constantly seek to improve upon developmental opportunities that have included managerial training provided by the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Executive

Institute and other facilities, a management certificate program

that was designed specifically for the USPTO by Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, in-house technical and managerial training

and opportunities for numerous career development details

throughout the agency.

The USPTO also currently has an SES candidate training program under development. Our priority is always to select the best

qualified person, regardless of race, national origin, sex or religion,

for each SES position that we fill. Because we have so many talented men and women and minorities in our senior supervisory

and managerial ranks, we are confident that many of them will

rise to the SES level.

In addition, we will continue to conduct the broadest possible

searches for our financial, administrative and information technology SES vacancies.

As for the No Fear Act, the USPTO is actively implementing the

reporting and notification requirements pursuant to the act and the

upcoming regulations. We have purchased software that will aid in

meeting the reporting requirements and migration of current complaint data into a Web-based format is now under way.

To meet the notification requirements, we have arranged to place

a notification on each employee’s printed pay stub, and on the

USPTO Internet Web site. The notice will explain the rights and

protections guaranteed by Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. We also have incorporated No Fear Act information into the training module that is given to all new managers and supervisors at the agency.

The Office of Personnel Management is currently drafting regulations on the implementation of the reimbursement requirements of

the act.

We are prepared to take any steps necessary to implement these

requirements as soon as the regulations are issued. I appreciate

the opportunity to share this information and to testify today.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Barnard.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnard follows:]

74

75

76

77

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And Dr. Wells, we appreciate you being

here today, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Mr. Davis for

asking me to be here today to discuss the Social Security Administration’s efforts to achieve diversity in its Senior Executive Service.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to tell you about the efforts

that SSA has made to develop and recruit a diverse work force as

we also address the challenges presented by the forthcoming retirement wave among career civil servants.

The Social Security Administration is an agency of 65,000 employees working in 1,500 installations nationwide. As Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart has often said, the men and women of

Social Security are ‘‘the agency,’’ and I share her view that the Social Security work force is the best in government.

Our goal is to provide the American people with the service they

expect and deserve. To succeed we must understand and meet the

needs of a diverse public. That means we need a high-performing,

well-trained and well-equipped staff, from our front line right up

to our highest executives.

Seventy-one percent of our employees are women, and 44 percent

are members of minority groups. Diversity is reflected in all of the

major components, at all levels, including among our deputy commissioners, regional commissioners and associate commissioners.

We are also a very experienced group, with an average of 20 years

of service, and an average age of 47. That is both a challenge and

an opportunity for SSA, as the agency faces the massive increase

in workloads that the aging of the baby boomers is already starting

to create. Sixty percent of SES and GS–14s/15s will be eligible for

regular retirement by 2008, and we will need to replace 24,000 of

65,000 employees over the next 10 years. But SSA views this turnover as an opportunity to increase diversity as we recruit and hire

the work force that will take the agency into the future.

Over the past 4 years, we have hired approximately 12,000 permanent employees. We have focused on ensuring equal opportunities for all, including minorities and women. Today, 44 percent of

our employees are members of minority groups, compared to 28.5

percent in the civilian labor force and 30.8 percent in the Federal

work force. We employ an increasing number of Hispanics, who

now comprise 11.9 percent of SSA’s work force, compared to 12.2

percent of the civilian labor force and 7.1 percent in the Federal

work force. SSA ranks third among Federal agencies in this area.

Further, SSA is second among major Federal agencies in hiring

Hispanic employees. The Office of Personnel Management’s June

2003 report to the President highlighted SSA as one of the model

agencies for Hispanic hiring.

In October 2002, our SES corps of 123 individuals included 41

minority men and women, representing one-third of the total. Ninety-four percent of the most recently completed SES candidate development program class, remaining with the agency, has been selected for placement in SES positions at SSA.

Of the 30 SES appointees from this class, one-third were women

and 40 percent were minority. However, Commissioner Barnhart

and the entire agency leadership is firmly committed to continuing

78

our efforts to build a work force that truly reflects the Nation as

a whole.

SSA’s long tradition of developing leadership from within means

that a diverse SES corps depends in large part on a diverse total

work force. SSA recruits at historically Black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions, and has cooperative agreements with Native American tribal colleges and universities.

SSA also uses the Outstanding Scholar Program to recruit minorities, as well as the authority granted by OPM to use bilingual

registries in hiring. We are also establishing partnerships with national organizations, such as the National Association of Colleges

and Employers, the Association on Higher Education and Disability, and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

SSA has three national development programs for employees

from grades GS–9 through GS–15 that will enable the agency to

meet the staffing and leadership challenges of the 21st century.

These programs are considered to be among the best in government. In addition to our national programs, we offer numerous regional and component level programs.

I would like to turn for a moment to the Notification and Federal

Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, also

known as the No Fear Act. SSA strongly supports the implementation of the No Fear Act.

Prior to October 1, 2003, the effective date, SSA took affirmative

steps to comply with the notification provisions of the new act, and

I am pleased to report that SSA has successfully completed all of

the five required steps to inform employees of their legal protections and rights.

In closing, I would like to emphasize SSA’s pride in its work

force and its efforts to promote diversity among its employees.

Thank you, and I will be glad to answer any questions you may

have.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Dr. Wells.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:]

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I would like to thank all three of our

witnesses for being patient and being here with us today.

Before I go to Mr. Davis, I have a question of Ms. Barnard. In

inviting the Patent and Trademark Office to attend today’s hearing, we were expecting them to send someone very knowledgeable

about the agency’s personnel and human resources functions relating to the Senior Executive Service.

As the CFO, would you explain your role in the management, selection and oversight of the Senior Executive Service at the Patent

and Trademark Office?

Ms. BARNARD. Yes. I am the Chief Financial Officer and the

Chief Administrative Officer. So I also have under me the Office of

Human Resources, and I am responsible for recruitment, for directing the committee that selects senior executives, the Performance

Review Board, and the Executive Review Board.

So I am directly involved in the agency’s hiring and training programs.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. For the SES?

Ms. BARNARD. Yes.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you very much, Madam

Chairwoman.

Ms. Lovelace, I was intrigued with your testimony, especially the

point where there has been some decrease. Could you explain how

that may have happened, or how that could happen?

Ms. LOVELACE. The decrease in the number of minorities and

women that are in our executive ranks comes from the fact that we

have had turnover within the agency. There are people that have

moved to other agencies, have retired, or have transferred into

other positions outside of the government.

We see a decrease in the number of SESers, and an increase in

the number of minorities and women that actually leave the agency. We in fact will see that the numbers overall in terms of our percentages will decrease as well.

There are some opportunities inside GSA right now. We are currently trying to recruit to fill career executive positions, to fill behind some of those losses. And so I think that is a unique opportunity for us.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I certainly agree with your comment, in

terms of indicating that there was opportunity, because as I looked

at the numbers and—you know, I saw that in terms of SES hires

in 2002, there was one Black female, no Black males. And in 2003,

there was one Black male and no Black females.

Do you have your own candidate training program?

Ms. LOVELACE. It is not actually a candidate development program. It is a program to develop people to take on new leadership

roles within GSA. So it is not a formal candidate development program.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You did indicate, though, that you were

talking with OPM about possible use of their program?

Ms. LOVELACE. Yes. As a matter of fact, we are discussing this

program at my Executive Resources Board at GSA. This meeting

has actually been planned for some time, we will discuss our use

86

of that program, and discuss the numbers that you see in front of

you in terms of the hiring or lack thereof of minorities and women

inside our executive ranks at GSA.

We realize that there are issues inside GSA, which is why we

have included a very specific goal in our human capital strategic

plan to try to address that issue within GSA.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Barnard, I was certainly struck, as I looked at your testimony and as I heard you, in terms of the percentages. I mean, you

look at the percentages in your agency and you say, Wow. You

know, you just—then, of course, you look at the numbers. And you

say, Well, the wow is a little more understandable; that is, if you

are going from one to three, or you are going from two to four. But,

even so, that represents significant movement.

And I don’t mean to downplay that in any kind of way, but my

question is, prior to those years, did the agency have a formal program that was designed to help move people up and in?

Ms. BARNARD. No, we have never had a formal SES development

program, per se. The Department of Commerce has a program in

which we have participated. As part of our human capital program

right now, we are developing, under the aegis of the President’s

management agenda, a training program along the lines of the one

Ms. Lovelace talked about, where we will be offering training to

various levels of managers.

As I spoke earlier, we really see our opportunities for improving

the diversity of our work force in that underlying pool of managers,

and because we are so diverse at that level, we think we will be

able to make better inroads than in the past.

For instance, if you look at the 23 selections that we have made

in the past 4 years in the Senior Executive Service, 22 percent of

those have been minorities. So we are having the minorities developed through our ranks of managers. And that is where we are

placing our emphasis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me just ask both of you quickly.

Would it be just as simple and just as easy, perhaps, to use the

program that OPM has developed? Is there a reason perhaps to

have some other activity?

Ms. LOVELACE. The OPM program is not fully developed yet and

has not been made available to agencies. Our Leadership Institute

has actually been in existence for about 3 years; I believe we are

going into our 4th year. We needed to step up our level of effort

before OPM even began development of this program.

But we will look to see how we can enhance our ability to recruit

minorities and women by use of that program, and see how it

aligns with what we are already doing inside GSA.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. OK.

Dr. Wells, quickly, I don’t want to take issue with the comment

that you made about the Social Security Administration having the

best work force in the Federal Government, and I really don’t know

about that. But I do know about that bunch that work out of Region 5 in Chicago, and they are about as good as they come. So you

don’t get much better than they are.

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

87

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I have had a wonderful experience working with them. And they have had some of most committed and

dedicated people that I have ever run into. I mean, they are out

all times of the night, all over the place with us, as we try and take

information to the people.

Let me ask you, how long have you been in Federal Government

service?

Mr. WELLS. In the Federal service, well, if you count my time

with District Government, which doesn’t actually count technically,

although it is the same retirement system, I have actually been in

the Federal Government proper since 1994.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you are a career person?

Mr. WELLS. I am, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Not a political——

Mr. WELLS. I am not a political, no.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I am wondering, if having people in certain positions coming from a career service vantage point might not

make a difference?

I suspect that throughout the Social Security Administration,

there are people like you who have career service status and rank,

and have moved up to certain levels and have responsibility. That

responsibility carries with it certain continuity, and so there seems

to be a level of professional commitment to doing the job.

That is really what I am trying to get at and to suggest. Would

you comment on that?

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Davis, I think—in my experience, I have been

fortunate in that most of the Federal employees I have had the occasion to work with, both career and political, have been very dedicated to the work. I have had a very good experience with that.

There is something to be said for continuity, and that is why we

have the two sides. The career service is for purposes of keeping

things going on an even keel. And clearly in the case of the Social

Security Administration, which has very few political senior executive positions relative to some other agencies, we have really enjoyed a lot of continuity with the careerists that are there.

I happen to be the designated chief human capital officer for the

Social Security Administration. So I am one of the exceptions that

Ron Sanders spoke of. I happen to wear that hat. I am also the

Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So I kind of gathered that. That was really the genesis of my question.

And I think it does make a great deal of sense and provides opportunity for a level of professional thought, action and continuous

commitment. If something doesn’t happen, we can really come back

to you 2 years from now and expect that you will still be there, or

we can come back 3 years, 4 years maybe, and expect that you are

still there.

Mr. WELLS. I certainly hope to be.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Rather than a political appointee, you

might come back next year and they are gone. And whoever is

there can then say, well, I really didn’t have responsibility for what

was going on year before last because I just got here.

Mr. WELLS. That is kind of in my genes. I happen to be a second

generation Fed. My mother worked for the Internal Revenue ServVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 12, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\92901.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
88

ice for 45 years. So I don’t know if I will go quite as long as she

did, but I am intending to stay here for a career.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, maybe good fruit doesn’t fall too far

from the tree. Thank you very much.

Madam Chairwoman, I have no further questions.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Dr. Wells, I will just say that if today is any indication of your

loyalty and your commitment to your job—because as I understand

it, you opted to be here rather than Austria; I am not sure that I

would have that kind of dedication—I would imagine with that

kind of commitment, you will probably be here in 3 or 4 years.

Mr. Davis, I don’t think you have to worry about that too much.

Ms. Barnard, I was just rechecking your statement in the beginning. I think I heard you say that because of the type of work and

all that you have in the PTO, generally promotions are from within, the feeder group is from within, you don’t go outside to bring

people up into the SES positions.

Did I hear you correctly on that?

Ms. BARNARD. We go outside for administrative, for legal, information technology positions, just as all agencies do. And actually,

that would be the extent that we would rely on OPM’s training program. But the vast majority of our SES positions are specialized

positions. They are patent group directors or patent managers or

people that negotiate treaties worldwide in the patent and trademark area, or trademark managing attorneys.

Those people we do tend to select come mostly from within because the nature of the rules and the rules of practice are things

that are learned best through years of experience in the agency. It

is extremely difficult to recruit people who are familiar with the

government rules from the outside. In fact, we are constantly competing to retain our people because we have law firms and private

industry that are trying to attract them away from us.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Could you tell me, on the patent side,

what percentage you have of minorities that would be in the feeder

pool, GS–14, 15s?

Ms. BARNARD. Of the 370 that we have at the GS–15 level—let’s

see, I have those numbers here—83 are women, so that is approximately 22 percent. About 10 percent, 9 to 10 percent, are African

American; 22 percent are Asian American; less than 1 percent are

Hispanic and Native American.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Now, can you tell me in the SES pool

on the patent side your breakdown on minorities?

Ms. BARNARD. Pardon?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. On the patent side, your SESs, could

you give me the breakdown of the minorities?

Ms. BARNARD. I don’t have that information, but I would be glad

to provide that to you.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Can you get that back to us for the

record?

And less than 1 percent were Hispanic, I think you said.

I want to thank all three of the witnesses for being here and for

being patient today. And we will have other questions for the

record that we will submit to you, if you can get back to us in writVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 12, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\92901.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
89

ing, and any other questions that we ask that we didn’t get the answers to.

I really appreciate your being here. I will dismiss this panel and

bring in the third panel.

I would like to thank our third panel of witnesses for being very

patient with us.

Today on this panel we have representatives of various employee

groups that are all very interested in today’s topic. From the African American Federal Executive Association we have its president,

William Brown. Second is Jasemine Chambers, Chair of the Asian

American Government Executive Network. Third we have Manuel

Oliverez, president of the National Association of Hispanic Federal

Employees.

Fourth, that will be Shirley Harrington-Watson, National Legislative Review Committee Chair from Blacks in Government. And

fifth we will hear from Patricia Wolfe, the president of federally

Employed Women. Last, the committee will hear from Linda Rix,

Co-CEO of AVUE Technologies Corp.

And I believe we have sworn you all in. You all were here when

we did the swearing in. Correct. And I will ask that each of you—

we have your prepared statements, so if you would like to summarize and try to keep to the 5 minutes, we would certainly appreciate it.

This is a very large panel. And we would like to get through all

of the statements and then have the members of the committee be

able to ask questions.

So I would like first to welcome Mr. Brown. And thank you again

for your patience. And thank you for being with us today. You are

recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM A. BROWN, SR., P.E., HAIA, PRESIDENT, AFRICAN AMERICAN FEDERAL EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION; JASEMINE C. CHAMBERS, CHAIR, ASIAN AMERICAN

GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVES NETWORK; MANUEL OLIVEREZ,

PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC FEDERAL EXECUTIVES; SHIRLEY HARRINGTON-WATSON, CHAIR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE,

BLACKS IN GOVERNMENT; PATRICIA M. WOLFE, PRESIDENT,

FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN; AND LINDA E. BROOKS RIX,

CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AVUE TECHNOLOGIES

CORP.

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Norton, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

In January of this year I retired from Federal service as the Deputy Director of Military Programs for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after a 381⁄2-year career. I was fortunate to achieve the rank

of Senior Executive, level 5, but I assure you it was no easy feat.

I encountered many obstacles despite my qualifications.

I was and am a licensed professional engineer, one of the youngest persons to be inducted in the College of Fellows of the Engineering Association, an honorary member of the American Institute

of Architects, and I have held a variety of GS–15 positions with the

U.S. Air Force.

90

In January 1995, after applying for 23 SES vacancies, and making the short list and being interviewed 15 times, I became the first

African American career civil servant sworn into the Senior Executive Service in the field of engineering in the entire Department of

Defense. Additionally, I was the only African American promoted

to SES in the entire Army that year.

Now, that was just 81⁄2 years ago. Can you imagine the number

of highly qualified minorities who preceded me and who were denied the opportunity to serve our Nation at the highest levels? Just

think of where our Nation might be now if selecting officials had

taken advantage of the skills and experience of the hundreds of

highly qualified African Americans who are willing to stand up for

America and put duty, honor and country before all else.

In February 2002, several African Americans, including myself,

who attended Harvard University, formed the African American

Federal Executive Association. Our goal is very simple; we promote

the professional development and advancement of minority groups

with particular emphasis on African Americans into the Senior Executive Service. With that, I would like to provide you a few specific comments.

Most Federal agencies are not serious about diversity. The good

old boy network continues to flourish. Agencies continue to change

the rules of engagement, and minority groups are pitted against

one another for the few vacancies that become publicly available

each year.

The General Accounting report on SES diversity indicates that

with current trends, the number of White SES females will increase by 4 percent by year 2007, while the number of minority

males and females will only increase by 0.7 percent.

Our Nation can ill afford to wait at this snail’s pace for the complexion of our government leaders to change. The latest census results indicate our Nation is more diverse than ever. How long must

a citizenry wait before the leadership reflects the ethnicity of our

population? Are we not striving for ethnic equality in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why then are we not striving for the same in America?

To help the subcommittee achieve ethnic equality, I offer several

recommendations.

Recommendation No. 1: We recommend endorsement of the

OPM-CDP program. We provided comments during the development, and while not all of our comments were incorporated, those

dealing with direction, vision, intent and implementation were. We

commend the Honorable Kay Cole James for her leadership and

willingness to consider alternatives to business as usual.

CDP is, however, one option that needs to be included in a diversity tool box. Much more must be done if diversity is to be achieved

in the near future.

Our second recommendation is that you consider withdrawing all

authority from an agency to hire Senior Service Executives until

that agency achieves diversity in the SES ranks equal to ethnic

representation in the United States as a whole.

In the interim, OPM or a congressionally appointed board should

be given authority to fill all career SES vacancies in that agency

until SES parity is achieved.

91

Our third recommendation is that you pass legislation prohibiting Federal agencies from changing the rules of engagement within

1 year of filling a vacancy. I have observed firsthand the selection

of individuals without a college degree into the SES corps. None

were minorities.

I have also observed discussions on the academic qualifications

of candidates when an African American is one of the top candidates. Invariably, the discussion always centers on the African

American not having enough degrees or the right degrees. This

changing of the rules when a minority is being considered must be

eliminated. If a degree is required, require it of all candidates. If

it is not required, require it of none of the candidates.

I recently met with African Americans from a very visible agency, where an African American has not been promoted beyond the

GS–14 level in the last 20 years.

In this agency, one SES screens all candidates for senior positions and makes the vacancy selection. No other person is involved

in the selection process. The process being used by agency ensures

that no African American ever gets into the pipeline to compete for

an SES position. Why is this kind of process being allowed to exist

in our government?

Madam Chairwoman, our fourth recommendation is that your

subcommittee put an end to this kind of practice by enacting legislation requiring all agencies to use a panel of no less than three

individuals to screen applicants for all GS–14 and above vacancies.

Furthermore, we recommend that the legislation include a provision that when a minority is among the top three candidates, the

agency be required to justify in writing to the agency head why the

minority was not selected.

We also recommend that the selection panel be required to include a voting minority at or above the level at which the position

will be filled.

To offset the argument that qualified minorities cannot be found

to serve on the panels, we further recommend that your legislation

include a provision for the agency to hire and reimburse retired minority Federal employees to sit on the selection panels.

Finally, Madam Chairwoman, we are finding that complaints

against an agency are not being adjudicated in a timely manner.

I am sure that when agencies realize that under the No Fear Act

they will be required to pay from their budget settlement fees, they

will be quick to resolve complaints as well as take steps to ensure

issues do not reoccur. For these reasons, we support the No Fear

Act.

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I thank

you for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you. I have always believed that pride in public service occurs when you treat

people with dignity and respect, and you allow them to be all that

they can be. There have been times when this belief has been tested.

In the final analysis, I was the one of the lucky ones. I served

on diplomatic missions to Russia, Nigeria, Hungary, France, etc.,

and I was able to stand tall for America.

But remember, I said I was lucky. What about those who are not

so lucky? What about those who could have made America even

92

stronger? What about your children, my children, the future generations to come?

People are America’s greatest asset. You have the opportunity to

make America an inclusive rather than exclusive society by implementing the recommendations that I have outlined for you. Thank

you.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Brown. And thank you

for your service to our country.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Chambers, you are recognized for

5 minutes.

Ms. CHAMBERS. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Davis

and Ms. Norton.

According to the 2000 U.S. census, there are 12.8 million Asian

Pacific Americans in the U.S. population. That amounts to 4.4 percent. Today, about 87,000 APAs serve in the Federal executive

branch, 56,000 on active duty in the military, and 26,000 in the

military Reserves, as well as 56,000 in the U.S. Postal Service.

These 200,000-plus employees do not include those in the legislative and judicial branches or the national security agencies.

Despite the participation and contributions, APAs have largely

been absent from the top Federal leadership and executive positions. Although the number of APAs in the SES doubled from

about 50 to over 100 in the last decade, only 1.7 percent of the current SES members are Asian Pacific Americans, and that is well

below its representation in the entire Federal work force or in the

general population.

According to the GAO report, based on the current separation

and hiring trends, the number of APAs in the career SES will increase only modestly to 104 by the year 2007, but still remain at

only 1.7 percent of the total SES.

The Asian American Government Executives Network [AAGEN],

shares this extremely alarming observation, and believes that the

actual problems are more severe than reported because of several

reasons.

No. 1, there are 2,900 Asian Pacific Americans in the GS–15

pipeline. However, more than half of the 2,900 APAs serve as nonsupervisory medical personnel under special pay plans in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and these positions are not structured to advance into the SES; and this number can be very misleading, if you just look at the plain number in the GS–15 pipeline.

Our second observation is, as the Federal Government’s human

resource agency, the Office of Personnel Management itself has not

had one Asian Pacific American serving in either its career SES or

at the GS–15 rank. From the year 1990 through September 30,

2003, the single Asian Pacific American SES was believed to be

brought in on October 1, 2003, a couple of weeks ago.

And third, to illustrate this pipeline problem, the only APA SES

member in the 65,000-employee Social Security Administration is

expected to retire soon. And in this 65,000 employee agency, there

are believed to be only eight Asian Pacific Americans in the GS–

15 pipeline to fill this and other upcoming vacancies.

And unfortunately, some of these APAs are themselves eligible to

retire soon.

And finally, as another example in the pipeline problem, out of

a class of 50 candidates, only 3 minorities, 1 Asian Pacific American and 2 Hispanic Americans, and no African-American, were recently accepted into the SES candidate development program conducted by the Department of Agriculture.

The Asian American government executive network recognizes

that sound decisions can be made only with good data and good

analysis. We commend the subcommittee and the GAO for producing a very insightful report.

99

However, we also note that there are significant data information

gaps about the Federal work force. For example, OPM’s demographic data has become less available to the public. The most recent demographic profile of the Federal work force on the OPM

Web site dates back to September 30, 2000. That data more than

3 years old. Timely and reliable information is a form of public accountability.

Beginning October 1, 2003, the No Fear Act became effective.

The law now requires Federal agencies to disclose employment

complaint statistics on the Internet. The Asian American government executives network believes that these same principles underlying the No Fear Act—and that is public disclosure and accountability—are equally applicable in work force diversity issues.

In closing, the Asian American government executives network

urges Congress and the administration to proceed to the next stage

of reaching out to the APAs and removing the employment barriers

that prevent APAs from reaching the full potential, offering true

equal opportunities to enter the SES and other senior positions and

also be included in the current transformation to a 21st century

government.

AAGEN concurs with the four GAO recommendations, and in addition, we propose the following, that the recommendations by the

GAO be linked to specific agency strategic plans and actions, established performance goals, continuing to monitor results and consequences of good or poor performance. And No. 2, the Congress

continues to exercise oversight by directing the GAO to conduct annual audits and to hold hearings such as this to address the

progress or the lack of it.

No. 3, the OPM and U.S. Postal Service should be directed to restore the availability of timely reliable and accurate demographic

work force data to the public, including both the employment and

the applicant pool information.

And finally, the subcommittee continues to include the Asian

American government executives network and the Asian Pacific

American perspectives in the current transformation of the SES.

Madam Chairwoman, Mrs. Davis, Ms. Norton, thank you very

much. This concludes my statement.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Chambers.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chambers follows:]

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Oliverez, certainly feel free to summarize your statement if you would. We have your full statement

in the record. You’re recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

Mr. OLIVEREZ. Madam Chairwoman——

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Could you turn your mic on, sir, or pull

it a little closer. Yes.

Mr. OLIVEREZ. My name is Manuel Oliverez, and I am the president and CEO of the National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives [NAHFE]. It is an honor for me to represent for the subcommittee an organization of Hispanic professionals concerned

about Hispanic representation in the Senior Executive Service. The

Hispanic population represents the largest minority group in the

United States, according to U.S. bureau statistics, and will continue to increase at a rapid rate within the next few years.

At the present time Hispanics represent more than 13 percent of

the total population, and more than 12 percent of the civilian labor

force is Hispanic. Hispanics, according to the June 2003 OPM report to the President on Hispanic employment in Federal agencies,

represent 6.9 percent of the Federal work force. Incidentally, Hispanics are the only ethnic underrepresented group in all of the

Federal agencies in the government.

Hispanic representation at the Senior Executive Service level is

only 3.3 percent, including professionals who receive senior pay but

are not in the senior executive or management positions. Hispanic

representation in the pipeline for senior executive positions is 4.5

percent, 3.8 percent, 3.3 percent for GS–13s, 14s and 15s respectively.

NAHFE concurs with the GAO estimates concerning the upcoming losses of Federal employees in the Senior Executive Service at

the GS–15 and 14 levels. NAHFE maintains that if current hiring

promotion and retention practices continue, diversity at the senior

level of the Federal Government will continue at the present unacceptable levels, and the level of Hispanic representation will continue to be a serious concern to those who design, develop and implement personnel practices in the Federal Government.

The June 2003 OPM report to the President indicates that Federal agencies hired more than 13,000 Hispanics or 9.5 percent of

all employees hired in the Federal work force during fiscal year

2002. However, the total number of Hispanic employees increased

by 6,151, or 4.7 percent. NAHFE commends the Director of OPM,

Ms. Kay Cole James, and those members of the interagency task

force on Hispanic employment for their efforts in this right direction.

However, based on the numbers on Hispanic representation,

NAHFE agrees with GAO that more consistent efforts and accountability measures are needed to improve diversity in the Federal

work force, especially at the senior executive levels. Hispanics are

affected not only by past and current discriminatory recruitment

hiring, promotion and retention practices, but also by a lack of participation in succession planning, developmental assignments and

opportunities for formal and informal training, coaching and mentoring. These barriers are evident by looking at the numbers of

Hispanics selected for SES positions as well as Hispanic candidates

selected for SES candidate development programs. And to add inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 12, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\92901.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
111

sult to injury, many of those that complete the SES training are

not placed in senior positions.

NAHFE appreciates the material that is developed in Spanishcontaining information on employment opportunities in the Federal

Government. However, these resources, as well as those invested in

training candidates for the SES, will not produce the desired results until other issues are addressed. Hispanic youth deserves the

opportunity to learn about public service early in their careers, and

Hispanics entering the Federal work force deserve the opportunity

to learn about the Senior Executive Service as early as possible.

Career development is as important as a potential for leadership.

The National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives would

like to thank again the OPM Director for including NAHFE as a

stakeholder in the discussion of issues and policies that will save

diversity in the Federal Government in the future. NAHFE members are very concerned about the stagnant progress of Hispanic

representation in the Federal work force. In spite of continued increase in the Hispanic population. Initiatives and policies will not

produce desired results unless there is a consistent support and

commitment for diversity from the White House, U.S. Congress,

cabinet secretaries and agency heads. NAHFE recognizes and is excited about the President’s management agenda, and specifically

about the strategic management of human capital that provides

guidance to Federal agencies in hiring and retaining policies consistent with agency mission and critical need.

NAHFE supports a pay for performance initiative that will definitely encourage performance and will eventually clean the system

of underperformers. And although there may be a need for checks

and balances and tools for managers to justify the recommendations and decisions, NAHFE believes that ultimately these policies

will encourage Federal employees to maintain and upgrade their

level of skills and performance.

In summary, NAHFE recommends that organizations of Federal

employees and organizations advocating excellence in public service

be given the opportunity to participate in the process. First of all,

nonprofit organizations should have access to small business, education and training funding opportunities to assist Federal Departments in the identification, preparation, training and career development programs of candidates that will improve diversity in the

Federal work force.

NAHFE has identified several initiatives that, given the adequate attention in funding, will meet the objectives of the strategic

management of human capital. Following those initiatives—

NAHFE initiatives that can help Federal agencies achieve diversity

in the Senior Executive Service level.

The NAHFE annual conferences in development and training

where GS–15s are taught how to prepare their SES packages, the

Hispanic Federal executive summits, we’ve had six of those for

SESers and GS–15s. Project Tivo, a program for GS–15s, a data

base program. Project NARA, a 5, 7 and 9, 11 data program that

we have on our Web site. The NAHFE mentoring program, the

NAHFE networking initiatives, and the NAHFE Yahoo program

where we have over 250 SESers and GS–15s. We provide daily information on the opportunities in the system.

112

These initiatives will ensure the Hispanics possess the skills to

compete for Federal employment at all levels. For those competing

for entry level positions, NAHFE can offer training and resume

preparation, interviewing skills and general knowledge of requirements for Federal employment.

For those already in the Federal work force, NAHFE can coordinate seminars and other training opportunities to prepare Hispanics for the GS–13 to 15 positions. For those GS–14 and 15, however, NAHFE can support OPM efforts to ensure Hispanic candidates nationwide are aware of the opportunities at the senior

level and understand the preparation and application process that

will allow them to submit competitive application packages.

All outreach efforts, including the dissemination of materials in

Spanish, will not produce the desired results until Hispanic candidates are interested in public service and understand the process

and requirements and have access to training and mentoring opportunities to advance to the senior level. The increase in Hispanic

population not only in traditionally Hispanic geographical areas demands a comparable diversity at all levels of the Federal Government, most critically at the Senior Executive Service level.

NAHFE wants to thank all members of the Subcommittee on

Civil Service and Agency Reorganization, and especially to Representative Jo Ann Davis, chairwoman of the subcommittee, for inviting NAHFE to the discussion of issues concerning diversity at

the Senior Executive Service. NAHFE members, mostly in grades

13, 15 and SES, are excited about the opportunity to make a difference, and be part of the developing initiatives and policies that

will increase Hispanic representation at the Senior Executive Service and management level.

Thank you.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Oliverez. Ms. Harrington-Watson, and if you could, if you see the yellow light on,

that tells you you have about 30 seconds to wrap it up. And I’ll just

repeat, we all have the full statements here. So if you could do a

summary, that would be appreciated. Thank you, you’re recognized

for 5 minutes.

Ms. HARRINGTON-WATSON. Thank you. Honorable Davis, Honorable Davis and Honorable Norton, I am happy to be here representing the national president, Mr. Gregory Reed. He is in Austin, TX

on grand jury duty and sends his regrets.

I was just looking at how in depth our presentation is, and you’re

absolutely right, 5 minutes would not do us justice, and I will not

infringe upon going over that time.

I’d like to just step through some of the pages and just raise

some issues. Blacks in government, of course, represent AfricanAmerican employees on the State, local, county and national level.

And as we’re here today to talk about the section level, we all are

here letting you know that we are very much concerned about GS–

9s and 13s who we consider to be the tremendous feeder pool that,

as of today, feel they have no hope.

We would like to encourage you to help us encourage our membership, because there is no possibility of increasing the numbers

if we do not get our constituents to apply. And many of them at

this point have given up.

113

I would like to raise the attention of the panel to page 12. I took

the time to go through the entire GAO report, and you will see

there the compilations of how African-American males and females

compare in the 12 top agencies on size and then also how we fair

as relates to SES in the five smallest agencies.

From this chart alone you see our numbers are very small. When

we looked at our feeder pools of GS–15s and 14s, there is an alarming statistic that you probably have also reviewed as you looked at

the GAO report, and that is our feeder pool is in an age range

where many of those GS–15s and 14s will be seeking retirement in

the next 5 years.

In our full report, we raise the question of what is going to happen with reforms as it relates to older workers in America, and we

were very interested in the statistics and the information that was

also provided in the additional GAO report on older workers in

America, GAO 03307.

We wanted to make a couple of recommendations that are also

found in our report. One is that the leadership of America should

not be one that is resting in agencies. We feel that appropriations

are needed to develop future leaders of America, and we wish to

suggest that may be an area that we could look at in the future,

how does Congress finance leadership development so that it does

go back to an appropriate higher level rather than throughout the

individual agencies?

Additionally, we wanted to just raise to you the possibilities of

talking about other certification processes. Blacks in government

feel that we are a tremendous training ground, as many other large

employee organizations, and there could possibly, with an additional certification process where our leaders who serve for 2 to 4

years, could be certified by OPM.

So as an alternative to some of these very expensive leadership

programs, we know that on-job training is one of the highest levels

of training that you could possibly get.

I’d like to just conclude by just saying this is quite an opportunity. We have said a lot in our comments to you, but we know

that as OPM steps out in the next few months with this trial program of candidate development, we would like to suggest strongly

that there would be some uniformity in all CDPs that occur within

every agency, also that there would be some uniformity in the way

that nonCDP SESers are hired. CDP programs only represent 30

percent of all SESes. So where are the other 70 percent coming

from, and exactly how do they get selected?

We are also concerned about current employees of the government. They should have a better opportunity to apply for SES than

outside selections.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for giving me this opportunity,

and Blacks in government would just like to go on record saying

we are here to provide assistance and support.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Harrington-Watson, for

staying within the 5-minute time limit and summarizing an excellent statement that you brought to us.

Ms. Wolfe, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. WOLFE. Thank you. federally employed women [FEW], very

much appreciates the opportunity to testify at this subcommittee

114

hearing on diversity in the Senior Executive Service. On behalf of

the over 850,000 women employed in the Federal Government and

the military, we thank Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member

Davis, and Delegate Holmes Norton for conducting this very important meeting.

FEW is a private nonprofit organization founded in 1968 after

Executive Order No. 1375 that added sex discrimination to the

other forms of discrimination prohibited in the Federal Government was issued.

As a private organization, FEW works to improve the status of

women employed by the Federal Government. This includes contact

with Congress to encourage progressive legislation, keeping our

members informed of issues, and I would just also like to note that

FEW does share delegate Holmes Norton’s concern with the contracting-out issue and its impact on diversity.

For over 35 years, federally Employed Women has been working

to end sexual discrimination and to enhance opportunities for the

advancement of women in government. We have an extensive

training program at a national level, a regional level, and we work

hard to try to provide women with the opportunities to enhance

their skills so that they will be ready to take advantage of opportunities should they come along.

FEW is quite diverse. Approximately one-third of our membership is comprised of minorities. At this time approximately 50 percent of our organization’s leadership is comprised of minorities. I’m

very proud of this diverse group of leaders. Our leaders come from

about 21 States. FEW has also instituted a diversity program with

the aim of developing strategies to identify and eliminate barriers

within the Federal Government. This program is led by our national vice president for diversity.

We also offer diversity training annually at our national training

program and throughout the year at local events.

As we all saw from the stats in the GAO study, we certainly acknowledge that there has been some improvement for women as a

gender group in the last couple of years. These levels still do not

represent actual employment levels of women and minorities currently serving in the Federal work force.

In order to better reflect the demographics of the entire Federal

work force, the SES composition should be at least somewhat comparable to employment levels of both women and minorities.

OPM and the EEOC have provided some recommendations on

how agencies and Federal departments can enhance diversity in

their SES work forces, and of course we want to applaud OPM’s

initiative in creating the SES candidate development program.

They have also included FEW as a stakeholder, and we are very

appreciative of that. We believe that their program, which does include some rotational assignments, formal training, mentoring,

etc., is definitely geared to helping women and minorities and disabled Federal workers move into the executive ranks of government.

This type of program should be the model for all Federal agencies in creating a high quality SES that reflects the diversity of the

work force.

115

FEW supports the recommendations of these agencies, and certainly we applaud the agencies that were represented here today

for their work in this area. We have some additional measures that

we ask might be considered, and they really go to the thing that

I’ve heard mentioned several times today, the feeder pools, these

succession pools, because we believe that to have people get into

the Federal executive service, the process has to start a lot sooner

than when someone is ready at the higher level.

Just as a very small starting point, include more women and minorities at top-level personnel and human resource meetings. Put

more emphasis on providing opportunities for career ladder positions for women and minorities. Too often they’re stuck in positions

that offer no continuous upward mobility to even get them to the

grade level of 14, the necessity for entering the Senior Executive

Service.

We also believe that agencies should provide guidance to their

managers.

Now, just to summarize and mention, FEW also was an active

member of the No Fear Coalition, and we very much support that

initiative.

Again, we appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in this issue

and all the support that you have given Federal workers in the

past. I’m very proud of the work that we do for the Federal Government, and simply want to ensure that all workers are given the

same opportunity to enter the ranks of Senior Executive Service

and that the Senior Executive Service truly represents the Federal

work force. We believe a proactive approach to diversity will

achieve much. I thank you all very much.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Wolfe.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wolfe follows:]

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Rix, you’re recognized for 5 minutes, and feel free to summarize.

Ms. RIX. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the

subcommittee. We’re quite pleased, actually, very honored to be

asked to come and speak before you today. I am the founder and

co-chief executive officer of AVUE Technologies Corp. I started the

company after a 5-year career with the Office of Personnel Management. The company is exclusively devoted on the practice of developing and providing services that are work force management solutions exclusively for the Federal Government sector.

In addition to the 20 Federal agencies and departments that are

our customers, we provide on a public service basis job information

portals and have partnerships—formal partnerships signed with region 11 of Blacks in Government, which serves the Washington,

DC, metro area; National Image, which is an organization that supports the education and employment of Hispanics and Latinos; the

Federal Asian Pacific American Council; Black Data Processing Associates; and also the Senior Executives Association.

Our principal effort in providing this public service is to, in fact,

increase the capability of Federal Government agencies to reach

out to a wider and more diverse audience and encourage individuals to not only apply for Federal positions, but also to understand

the process by which individual Federal positions are filled and recruited in the Federal Government sector.

A major feature of AVUE’s system for its clients and also for the

senior executive’s association is a senior executive’s portal that includes opportunities for employment in the Senior Executive Service for current employees as well as outside applicants that may be

interested. It includes a wide variety of tools for applicants so that

they understand, for example, what we mean when we talk about

executive corps qualifications, how are those measured, how does

one effectively address that, how does one build an effective resume

to be entered and be considered fairly in the Senior Executive Service cadre.

Our observations are principally associated around our experience in the Federal Government sector, and it is also principally

associated around our current clients and a lot of the successes

that they have achieved. We would start with the observation that

SES diversity in and of itself, as you have heard, I think, a number

of times today already, about the pipeline or the feeder pool, what

we have as a basic observation is that Senior Executive Service diversity cannot be compartmentalized from general work force diversity, which cannot be compartmentalized from the available labor

pool in the country, and it is very important not to isolate and not

to feature a comparative analysis of underrepresentation in the

Senior Executive Service against merely the pipeline that currently

feeds the senior executive service.

Now, to paraphrase an earlier comment here, you know, if you

always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you always got. So we are in the process here of helping our customer

agencies and helping our affiliate partners to go forward and to establish, in essence, a new trend line and a new method of evaluation and examination of opportunities.

125

We feel that external recruitment must be considered as a fundamental source of representation and the improvement of representation in the Senior Executive Service. I did not hear today

and I don’t know if you are aware of the statistic that the GS–14

and 15 pipeline in the Federal Government today is basically filled

from within government ranks currently. In fact, the trend line in

looking at OPM’s central personnel data file statistics is that 99

percent of the 14s and 15s in the Federal Government today come

from within. So you must examine a multifaceted, multitiered layer

of how the government goes through the process of recruiting.

It is also true that agencies do differ substantially as to what is

a good comparative analysis of what they need and what is available and how we recruit in the Federal Government sector. I think

that MD–715 EEOC’s new directive on accountability measures

and the recruitment process along with the no fear legislation basically reinforces existing the statute, but adds additional accountability levers into that statute.

One of the things that is very important here is that agencies be

able to track their applicant flow data to be able to measure continuously whether their recruitment is, in fact, effective and whether their recruitment produces the right result and perhaps their selection process does not or whether this selection process is, in fact,

producing the right result; but they need to increase their outreach

and their recruitment efforts. At AVUE, our current customer clients currently we have a statistic that 93.64 percent as of today of

all applicants that apply for Federal Government agency clients

that are AVUE agencies voluntarily report their race, sex and national origin data.

This is an important statistic. Because of EEOC’s management

directive, what this allows us to do is actually measure concretely

and provide metrics on the recruitment process and on recruitment

sources and on where our applicant prospect pool is coming from,

not just the accomplishment as a result of the selection process.

AVUE provides its client agencies with data that allows them to

see every phase of the process and to see how the applicant pool

progresses through phases of the process.

I am out of time. So I just want to make one last statement that

I think is an important statement here.

It is imperative that the government continue to go through the

process of the most aggressive and most successive outreach it can

possibly utilize to globally disseminate job information to the

widest possible audience. Today we are in danger of having the Office of Personnel Management make the USA job site the only information portal for job information. We would urge you to reconsider that as it is fundamentally contrary to the entire understanding and mechanisms by which outreach operate. We need to provide more information to more people and increase the diversity of

our recruitment pool and not do less.

So in closing, what I would like to do is thank you again for this

opportunity and to also say that part of our written submittal includes some agency success stories relative to how we are able to

actually materially change managerial behavior, the process and

transparency of the process that helps agencies not only meet their

126

existing objectives and existing regulation, but new regulations as

promulgated by MD–715 and the No Fear Act. Thank you.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Ms. Rix.

And thank you all for your testimonies.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rix follows:]

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I’m going to go to Mr. Davis. We had

a lot of testimony there, and I’m sure that we’re going to have

questions that we can’t get in today in the time limit that we will

submit to you in writing if you could get it back to us for the

record.

And Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.

Ms. Chambers, let me ask you first. We’ve talked a great deal

about the Office of Personnel Management candidate development

program. You sort of indicated that OPM itself didn’t have such a

good record when it comes to Asian Americans. Are you suggesting

that you don’t have confidence in their program or that their program may not generate the kind of results that you’re looking for?

Ms. CHAMBERS. The candidate development program that OPM

is putting together right now is a new program. It hasn’t actually

gone into effect. So, I mean, it’s a matter of, you know, waiting and

see how it goes. And so I think they are making a lot of effort to

include groups such as the Asian Pacific American government networks to give input in the design of the program and other groups

on the panel have also been involved. But so far the—as far as history goes, the only APA that I’m aware of that is an SES rank

since the last 10 years, 13 years, was just appointed recently. So

hopefully from now on, it will be much better.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you’re saying that you do have hope,

but you’re just pointing out that the history has not been so good,

and that change appears to be on the way. I’m saying—my mother

used to tell us, you know, what you do speaks so loudly, I can’t

hear what you’re saying. And, you know, that sort of resonated a

great deal. So you’re not saying that you don’t think the program

will not net some results, but just up to this point you have not

seen—coming from the leader. Of course, they haven’t always been

around and haven’t always been the agency that they are, and so

hopefully there is movement.

Ms. CHAMBERS. I think the fact that this subcommittee and yourself have gotten involved in addressing this issues is definitely

helping to push forward, you know, the momentum, give it momentum. So appreciate that very much.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Ms. Wolfe, you know, the GAO report suggested that unless

there is some intervention, that the only real change by 2007 will

be the diminution of White males but an increase with White females. No movement necessarily for other population entities. Do

you have any idea as to why they would arrive at that conclusion?

Ms. WOLFE. I wish I had a magic answer to that. I don’t. Now,

again, it may be—now, as Ms. Chambers mentioned, something to

do with history. I think clearly if things are to change, there has

to be more of an outreach effort. There has to be more of getting

people in this pipeline that we keep talking about. Perhaps agencies could develop some criteria. Certainly we would encourage

them to participate in the OPM candidate development program,

but that’s at the end of the line, so to speak, perhaps develop some

criteria for getting people more in the mid-level manager positions

that would again provide some minorities. And we have the idea

138

of perhaps including them in different meetings, giving opportunities for some cross-training rotational assignments, that kind of

thing.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I’ve always been—I’ve always looked at

this whole business of subjectivity and tried to figure how it is that

individuals can make decisions on an objective basis or how a reporter can write a story and not inject some of him or her self into

it, or how an analyst can make an analysis and not inject some of

their feeling about whatever the issue is into it.

Mr. Brown, do you think that subjectivity—I mean, you mentioned this one person, whoever might be, that subjectivity has

played too much of a role in making these promotions happen.

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely, Congressman. In fact, my belief is that

we’re somewhat focused on the wrong portion of the issue here.

We’ve been having a lot of talk about getting candidates into the

pipeline and so forth, and I totally support that and we must do

that; but I would offer to you that the bigger issue is not the pool

of candidates, but the pool of selecting officials and the attitudes

and the subjectivity that they use in making their decisions.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Can I just quickly, Ms. Watson, you

placed a lot of emphasis on concern for the pool. You mentioned

GS–9s and 10’s and that kind of thing.

Ms. HARRINGTON-WATSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you agree with Mr. Brown? That

or——

Ms. HARRINGTON-WATSON. Yes. I do agree with his summary, but

let me just add two things between both of these Houses that I’m

sitting in between, those who have made it and the women pool.

When you look from the African-American female perspective or

the African-American male perspective, I can say that I do terribly

disagree with total outside recruitment over increasing outside recruitment, because you have people, as Mr. Brown has said, that

have been struggling for 10, 15 years trying to get to a 14- or a

15- and then to see that completely dashed with any possibilities

of ever making it to an SES because outside recruitment is so

heavy already.

We look at this from Blacks in government perspective that if

you look at the age of the average 14 and 15 right now, and you

look at the lack of possibilities, we will not see any change for African-Americans, because we’re not going to be there in any substantial number to even be considered in a few years. So our plight is

a little more—a little different than some of the other categories,

but there is no substantial change even in the candidate development concept.

I want to step back to one question you were asking—I think I

heard the question underlying when you were talking to Ms.

Chambers about where is the real problem in the decisionmaking.

When we first went to OPM as stakeholders, it was raised that

every person representing OPM in that room was a White male

that was making decisions on the SES candidate development program. There were no White females. There were no Black females.

There were no minorities represented. So if all the decisionmakers

on the leadership of our country are coming from one segment, I

would say that we really have not made a lot of progress.

139

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you’re saying we’ve got to train the

trainers essentially. I have no further questions, Madam Chairwoman, but I appreciate that.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I’m sure I’m

going to have a lot of questions after I leave here, but right now

I want to zero in on you, Ms. Chambers. And you gave a lot of statistics there, and I’m hoping you have an answer that I asked the

previous panel. When I asked Ms. Barnart about the Patent Office,

and she gave me a very large percentage of Asian folks that were

working there, I think 22 percent, do you happen to know what

percentage of the SES in the patent side of the office are Asian?

Ms. CHAMBERS. Well, this is a very interesting question, because

I am from the Patent Trademark Office.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. That’s why I’m asking the question.

Ms. CHAMBERS. And I can tell you on the patent side as far as

Asian American—Asian Pacific Americans go, there are—let’s see.

There are three Asian Pacific Americans, two males and one female. And I’m the one female.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Out of—and that is SES?

Ms. CHAMBERS. SES.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Out of how many?

Ms. CHAMBERS. Out of 24 group directors. As Ms. Barnart said,

the group director position is highly technical, specialized. So they

manage the 10 examining groups. So there are a total of 24 group

directors; and of the 24, three Asians including myself. And as far

as—I’m trying to think—African-American goes, I think there is

two African-American women and no Hispanic.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. No African-American males, just

women?

Ms. CHAMBERS. Just women at this time.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. If our math is right, that’s 8 percent

Asian Pacific Americans out of 22 percent in the pool. Is that about

right? Eight percent that are SES out of 22 percent in the pool?

Ms. CHAMBERS. Yeah.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I’m sure I’ve got a lot of questions for

the rest of you. I’ve got to tell you, Ms. Harrington-Watson, you did

an excellent job summarizing your statement, and I really appreciate it. So don’t think we missed anything.

Ms. HARRINGTON-WATSON. Thank you. I was wondering if I was

going to get that compliment. I really tried.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You did an excellent job, you certainly

did. You get an A plus in my book.

I want to thank all of you for being here. We did have a very

long hearing and a lot of witnesses. But we heard a lot. And I will

just say to you, Ms. Harrington-Watson, what you said about not

liking going outside of the Federal Government to find those who

move up, that puts us back, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. Davis, puts

us back in the same dilemma if we did that. If the diversity level

right now is low and if we had to pull from the pool of the low percentage, we can’t ever increase the percentage.

Ms. HARRINGTON-WATSON. Well, let me just give you a scenario,

and just see what you think about this opinion. We may be talking

about low pools, but when there is no selection within the available

pool, that is the real issue at hand. If you have a limited number,

140

yes, I agree, let’s go outside, let’s recruit, really recruit; but in most

agencies, you have anywhere from 5 to 15 percent in those 14, 15

levels already.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Of minorities?

Ms. HARRINGTON-WATSON. Of minorities. And they are not making the highly qualified list.

Now, there are a lot of reasons, many we would like to explore

in the future. In fact, that was one of the questions to OPM is how

can you help us identify what you see as the shortcoming for minorities when they apply for SES positions, because as you know

when you go through that ECQ process and if you don’t write in

the first person, if you don’t put certain data there, then you’re just

completely knocked out.

So if we’re not making the connection in application processing,

let’s work on that. If we’re not making the connection based on first

line elimination, which happens at many agencies where the first

line supervisor decides which candidates to even send forward,

then let’s work on that.

If the certification process is where we’re losing those minorities

that we feel like are highly qualified and have been working in

agencies 10, 15 years, then let’s work on that.

Right now I would think that we are void on enough data to understand what are the shortcomings and the inside candidates receiving true consideration.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, it’s certainly a lot of food for

thought for us here, and I’m sure this isn’t the last that we’ve

heard of this subject. And I’m certainly going to work with my colleague, Mr. Davis, to see what we can do. You know, it used to be

that I thought White females were part of the minority, but I see

here today we’re not based on this breakdown. And everybody told

me we’ve come a long way, baby, but not necessarily up here on

the Hill. So I understand what you’re saying.

Anyway, I thank you all for being here today and for your patience, and like I said, we will submit questions to you for——

Mr. OLIVEREZ. Madam Chairwoman, may I say something?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Mr. OLIVEREZ. (Speaks in Spanish.).

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I have no idea what you said, but thank

you. Thank you all. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

Æ