U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–749 PDF 2017

THE BEST AND WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Serial No. 115–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

Jonathan Skladany, Staff Director 

Rebecca Edgar, Deputy Staff Director 

William McKenna, General Counsel 

Kevin Ortiz, Professional Staff Member 

Kiley Bidelman, Clerk 

David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 6, 2017 ................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Roberta Jeanquart, Director of the Office of Human Resources Management, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department ofAgriculture 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 2 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Ms. Lacey Dingman, Director of the Office of Human Resources, Chief Human 

Capital Officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Ms. Angela Bailey, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Lee Gardner, Managing Director, US. Surface Transportation Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Ms. Veronica Villalobos, Principal Deputy Associate Director, Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Acting Executive Director, Chief 

Human Capital Officers Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

APPENDIX 

Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Mark Meadows ....................... 58 

Statement for the Record of The National Treasury Employees Union, submitted by Mr. Connolly ........................................................................................ 59 

Leadership Engagement Plan submitted by the Surface Transportation Board 

at the request of Chairman Mark Meadows ...................................................... 65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

THE BEST AND WORST PLACES TO WORK IN 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

Thursday, April 6, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Blum, and Connolly. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare a recess at any time. 

Welcome to the, what this would be, our third edition of the best 

and worst places to work in the Federal Government. I might add 

that it was the director of the Department of Homeland Security 

that originally encouraged us, along with Max, to change the name 

of this from the worst places to work to the best places to work. 

And so I acknowledge that we are trying to emphasize on what is 

happening in a good manner, not just in a poor manner, as we 

move forward. 

And this hearing hopefully will provide a platform to closely examine what the Federal employee engagement and satisfaction levels are. The data being examined today comes from the 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, which was taken by the Federal 

employees between April and June of last year. 

And after several years of decreasing scores, I’m pleased to see 

that a governmentwide engagement scores continue to trend positive for the second year in a row. For our hearing purposes today, 

witnesses will come from agencies who have shown either a great 

improvement or a large decrease in their scores. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is the most improved large 

agency, and while the Securities and Exchange Commission is the 

most improved mid-sized agency. Congratulations on your success. 

We look forward to learning more from each of you. 

We also welcome the Department of Homeland Security, which 

should be commended for finally reversing that negative trend, Ms. 

Bailey, in the negative momentum and posting the second-most improved employee engagement score for large agencies. However, 

there’s a lot of work, as we would acknowledge, that remains. DHS 

has ranked last among large agencies in employee engagement, 

and we look forward to hearing from you on what additional steps 

could be taken to foster more positive momentum. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

The Surface Transportation Board experienced the steepest decrease of any agency in the employee engagement and saw employee satisfaction scores plummet, so I’m curious to learn what 

steps the agencies will take to stem the bleeding and the trend that 

is going in the wrong area. 

And finally, the Office of Personnel Management and the partnership are also here to offer their insights on the 2016 Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Surveys. I welcome all of our witnesses and 

look forward to learning more from you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. As the ranking member will be making his way 

here, when he gets here, we’ll allow him to go ahead and do his 

opening statement. 

I would hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any member wishing to submit a written statement. 

We’ll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I’m pleased to welcome Ms. Roberta Jeanquart, director of the Office of Human Resources Management and the chief human capital officer for the 

United States Department of Agriculture. Welcome. Ms. Lacey 

Dingman, director of Office of Human Resources and chief human 

capital officer for United States Secret Service—I mean, Secret 

Service—Securities and Exchange Commission; Ms. Angela Bailey, 

chief human capital officer for the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security; Mr. Lee Gardner, managing director for the United States 

Surface Transportation Board; and Ms. Veronica Villalobos, principal deputy associate director of the employee services at the 

United States Office of Personnel Management and acting executive director of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council; and my 

friend, Mr. Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for 

Public Service. Welcome to you all. 

And pursuant to committee rules, we would ask that all witnesses be sworn in before they testify, so if you would please rise 

and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

And in order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate 

if you would limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes; however, your 

entire written statement will be made part of the record. And so 

we will now recognize you for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA JEANQUART 

Ms. JEANQUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And you need to hit the little button there. 

Ms. JEANQUART. Sorry. Is that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s—— 

Ms. JEANQUART. Okay. Thank you. 

In 2016, USDA was the most improved large agency moving from 

16th place in 2013 to a tie for 9th place in the Partnership for Public Service’s best places to work rankings. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Getting to number nine was a multiyear effort. We started out 

with USDA setting a target in our strategic plan to achieve a top 

10 ranking by 2018. We additionally set goals to achieve a 70 percent participation rate in the survey, a 68 percent positive response 

on the employee engagement index, and a 65 percent positive response on the global satisfaction index. 

We used five key strategies to drive the improvements at USDA, 

those included effective communication, employee development, 

performance management, support for diversity and inclusion, and 

worklife flexibilities. 

With regard to communication, which was our most important 

strategy, we asked leaders, managers, and supervisors to communicate more frequently with their employees. We encouraged members to hold—our leaders to hold townhall meetings, brown bag sessions, and informal visits. 

We asked that agency Employee Advisory Councils be set up to 

get input and empower employees to take action on workplace improvements. As a result of these listening sessions, action plans 

were created in each of the subcomponent organizations, and 

those—results of those action plans and progress on the action 

plans were reported to employees. 

Our second strategy was on employee development, and that was 

identified as a need in one of the listening—in some of the listening 

sessions. Employees were all given the opportunity to have, at 

USDA, an individual development plan, and that is a commitment 

that we make to the growth and development of our future leaders 

and all employees. 

When we started, we only had about 30 percent of employees 

with IDPs. By 2016, over 86 percent of our employees had IDPs. 

And to further contribute to their development, we created a mentoring strategy, and that mentoring strategy included individuals 

that were representative of our leaders, our executives, our managers, our supervisors who supported those employees through 

mentoring. We also created a 360-degree assessment so that managers, supervisors, and executives could all get feedback from their 

employees, their stakeholders, their peers, and their leaders. 

Our third strategy that contributed to our success was performance management. We made sure that performance plans for every 

employee linked the organization’s mission to—so that each person 

could see how they contributed to strategic goals. We also incorporated employee engagement in the performance plans of supervisors, managers, and executives so that their progress, or lack 

thereof, could be used in the performance appraisal process at the 

end of the year. 

We also, in order to track all these efforts, we established a 

USDA-wide employee engagement program manager who works 

with representatives from each of our subcomponent agencies to 

discuss progress, identify best practices, address challenges and 

barriers, and share successful strategies for improvement. 

We asked each of our agencies to report monthly on their 

progress towards our employee engagement goals, and we’re able 

to report any challenges we see or major progress to all leadership 

in the organization. We’re also able to support those organizations 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

where we see that don’t have the progress that we’d like to—we’d 

like to see. 

So in summary, I’d say that we’ve not only achieved our goal to 

be in the top 10 best places to work ahead of schedule, but we’ve 

also increased our results in the ten workplace categories. For 

USDA, we’ve made a business case that engaged employees are 

more productive employees. We know that we’ve made great 

progress, we know there’s more progress to be made, and we look 

forward to this year’s survey. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Jeanquart follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 25749.001
6 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 25749.002
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 25749.003
8 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. And if you would thank all the employees at the Department of Agriculture for their service to this 

country. A lot of times Federal employees get beat up in the debates that happen here on Capitol Hill, and it’s very important that 

they hear this message loud and clear, that they’re appreciated not 

only by the American people but by members of both parties for 

their service to the country. Thank you. 

Ms. JEANQUART. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ms. Dingman, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LACEY DINGMAN 

Ms. DINGMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Meadows and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to speak today regarding the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

results and the improved rankings of best places to work by the 

Partnership for Public Service. 

I am Lacey Dingman, the SEC’s chief human capital officer, and 

I am honored to have the opportunity to speak to you about the 

SEC’s efforts over the past 5 years to improve employee engagement. We are very pleased by the SEC’s improved employee engagement scores as reflected in the most recent survey results, and 

the recognition we received from the Partnership for Public Service 

for being the most improved of any mid-sized agency. 

These positive results reflect the culmination of a persistent 

multiyear effort by our employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the SEC’s leadership team in working together to 

create an environment that engages employees and supports their 

commitment to excellence on behalf of America’s investors and our 

markets. 

The mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. To 

achieve this mission, we rely on an exceptionally skilled and dedicated workforce of over 4,700 employees in our Washington, D.C. 

headquarters and 11 regional offices located throughout the United 

States. 

The SEC’s staff includes economists, accountants, security compliance examiners, attorneys, quantitative analysts, information 

technologists, and administrative and operations personnel. 

Through their efforts our employees strive every day to promote a 

market environment that is worthy of the public’s trust. 

The Office of Personnel Management administered the 2016 survey at the SEC in May and June of last year. More than 76 percent 

of the eligible workforce shared their views by completing the survey. The response rate was our highest participation rate to date. 

Notable results from the survey include the 2016 results increased for 69 out of 71 questions, with the average increase of four 

percentage points. The SEC now ranks in the top 10 in most best 

places to work categories, including worklife balance, training and 

development, strategic management, and effective leadership. 

The SEC also ranks in OPM’s—third in OPM’s global satisfaction 

index, with an 18 percent improvement compared to 2012. We also 

saw an 11 percent increase in both OPM’s employee engagement 

index and the new inclusion quotient index. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

The SEC’s 2016 score is the highest in our agency’s history, and 

we are now ranked in the top 25 percent of mid-sized agencies. It 

has taken 5 years of effort by SEC management, our union representatives, and SEC employees at every level and across every 

division and office to achieve this progress. Our experience shows 

that any change of this magnitude cannot begin nor succeed without significant buy-in at the top and without significant involvement and constructive engagement from rank-and-file staff and 

their representatives. 

As a result of numerous meetings with senior managers, listening sessions with employees, focus groups and employee suggestions, the agency chose to focus on the following initiatives: Improving communications across the agency and up and down the management chain, greater recognition of employee contribution to the 

mission, and better leadership development and employee training 

opportunities. 

While we are very pleased with our results, we know there’s always room to improve. We know that we still have work to do, and 

we will continue our collective efforts to demonstrate our values of 

integrity, effectiveness, fairness, accountability, teamwork, and excellence; foster communication, collaboration, and transparency; 

and empower our employees to carry out the SEC’s mission on behalf of American investors. 

We believe that the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

is an important tool that provides a snapshot of the opinion of our 

employees. While the results and rankings are informative, they 

are only the starting point. The real work begins when we hold 

meaningful discussions with leadership teams to help them understand their results, create action plans, and follow through on how 

those plans can help our employees be efficient and productive. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share with you 

the everyday efforts of my colleagues to make the SEC one of the 

best places to work in the Federal Government. I welcome any 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Dingman follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 25749.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 25749.005
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 25749.006
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 25749.007
14 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. And if you would please communicate 

the same message to the employees at the SEC, that we appreciate 

their service to our country and to those that they serve each and 

every day. Thank you for your leadership. 

So they have called votes, Ms. Bailey, so you’re going to get a reprieve for right now. And we’ve only got about 6 minutes left. 

There are two votes, possibly two votes, maybe as few as one. So 

for planning purposes, if you want to go get coffee, do whatever you 

need to do, you don’t have to hang out here. We’ll reconvene, but 

we will not reconvene any earlier than 10:40. And so at this point, 

I just wanted to let you know that for planning so you can go get 

coffee, do whatever you need. 

So the committee will stand in recess, subject to the call of the 

chair. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. JORDAN. [Presiding.] The committee will be back in session. 

The gentleman from—and I apologize for my attire. I didn’t think 

I was chairing this. We were in another meeting, but the chairman 

asked me to come in and get things started. 

So the ranking member, Mr. Connolly, from Virginia, will be recognized for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. And this is what happens when we have a hearing the morning of the last day of the 

session. 

I think I’m going to forego my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, 

so we can continue with uninterrupted testimony, other than to 

simply say, I think it is important that we have this public hearing 

of best to worst places to work; but more importantly, how can we 

improve, what can we do to try to improve the workforce. 

And I think looking forward, most of the agencies have, in fact, 

made marked progress, and I hope that can be sustained in the 

current environment. But as we look to the future, something like 

34 percent, Max, of the existing civilian workforce is eligible for retirement in the next few years, right? And so recruiting their replacements and being able to retain them is, you know, a challenge. And I think that requires streamlining personnel processes; 

I think it requires, you know, bringing human resources into the 

21st century; and I think it requires some real reflection on our 

part up here in the Congress in terms of how we make our workforce a better workforce, a better environment in which to work 

where employees feel valued and can seriously contemplate making 

a career or at least part of their career in Federal service. 

So I think that’s really what this is about, and I look forward to 

hearing from the testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to Ms. Bailey, I believe you’re up next, and you get 

your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANGELA BAILEY 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Connolly, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to address our efforts 

to enhance employee engagement at DHS. Last year, I testified 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

that we had a strong and pragmatic strategy and that we would 

improve. 

We analyzed the data and held discussions with leaders and employees. And based on that collection of work, we focused our efforts in three areas: One, select and empower high-performing leaders; two, develop excellent leaders at all levels; and three, communicate in a powerful way that connects the workforce. 

We implemented our strategies through top leadership involvement, component-specific action plans, and the employee engagements during committee. We hold component leadership accountable, we review our progress and make adjustments through our 

semiannual reviews, and, in fact, we just completed our last review. 

These efforts resulted in a 3 percent increase in the employee engagement index scores. According to OPM, this level of improvement is statistically significant. By contrast, the governmentwide 

employee engagement index went up 1 percent. 

All of our components, except one, improved their employee engagement index scores: ICE up 7 percent, CBP up 4 percent, U.S. 

Coast Guard up 4 percent, USCIS up 3 percent, FEMA up 3 percent, and U.S. Secret Service up 1 percent. Regarding the best 

places to work scores, DHS increased by 2.7 points, whereas the 

governmentwide average went up 1.3 points. 

While some may say you’re still at the bottom of the best places 

to work rankings, it’s important to put these rankings into greater 

context. Some DHS components by themselves are larger than the 

large agencies on the best places to work list. U.S. Coast Guard, 

USCIS, and FLETC all have best places to work index scores above 

the second-ranked large agency, Department of Commerce. 

In fact, USCIS is not much smaller than the top-ranked NASA, 

and its index score is almost as high as NASA’s. And when the 

Partnership for Public Service further broke down the rankings, 

the U.S. Coast Guard and USCIS are number one and number two, 

respectively, in the law enforcement and border protection categories of the best places to work mission area rankings. 

Other components, like the Secret Service, CBP, and TSA, all 

have extremely difficult jobs that place them squarely in the public 

eye, often under challenging circumstances. These components also 

have populations with limited access to computers, making it very 

difficult for these employees to complete the Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey. 

This is not an excuse, but it serves as context. We are focused 

on these components and are working with them and our leadership committee to continue the upward trend that we started last 

year. Our leadership committee is sharing successful practices on 

how best to reach our field personnel to increase participation in 

the survey and in understanding their needs when they are so far 

away from Washington, D.C. 

We are using our communications channels, including messaging 

from the Secretary, leader alerts to supervisors and executives, and 

listening tours to ensure leaders at all levels act as a force multiplier for us to reach the workforce throughout the year. And at the 

same time, we are focusing on the 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey rollout, which begins next month. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

Every single day, the men and women of DHS carry out difficult 

and frequently dangerous work that is often unseen by the American public. They do an outstanding job and have a deep commitment to the mission. 

Through our focused efforts to employee engagement, we are determined to enhance their work experience, including their worklife 

balance, and honor the contributions of our hardworking and dedicated workforce. Thank you again for supporting our employees 

who protect us and our great Nation. I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 25749.008
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 25749.009
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 25749.010
20 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Ms. Bailey. 

Mr. Gardner. 

STATEMENT OF LEE GARDNER 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Congressman 

Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. I am Lee Gardner, 

managing director of the Surface Transportation Board. We greatly 

appreciate your subcommittee’s strong interest in ways to ensure 

growth in employee engagement at agencies such as ours. 

From 2009 through 2014, the STB was ranked as the best small 

agency in the government, according to the FEVS annual survey. 

We even received accolades from entities outside the survey, including a spot in Washingtonian magazine’s 50 Greatest Places to 

Work for 2013. We took great pride in this distinction. 

After 6 years of being number one, our scores fell in 2015, placing us fifth among small agencies. In 2016, our scores declined further, placing the Board 16 out of 29 small agencies. This decline 

is a concern to management at all levels at our agency. 

Comparing scores for specific questions asked in the 2014, 2015, 

and 2016 surveys, we found several key questions with positive 

scores worth noting, including balance of worklife, a willingness on 

the part of employees to put forth extra effort to get the job done, 

and the overall quality of work. These items scored in the 90 percent range or higher. 

We’ve also seen high scores in areas that depict the high level 

of professionalism and dedication of our employees, including, ‘‘my 

work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment,’’ ‘‘I like the 

work I do,’’ and ‘‘the work I do is important.’’ 

With respect to negative responses, we fell in areas including the 

relationship between pay raises and performance, supervision in 

leadership, steps taken to deal with poor performers, training, and 

diversity. 

Over the last few years, the STB has been an agency in transition. Our staff has experienced a significant amount of change and 

uncertainty in the areas of leadership, responsibilities, and resources. These factors have no doubt contributed to the 2016 survey results. 

In the span of 2 years, the agency underwent a change in the 

chairmanship several times. Naturally, each change brought a 

transition from—for staff and an adjustment to new priorities. 

Sustained periods of constrained resources have also been a real 

challenge. Our FTE levels have been dropping, leaving the agency 

with fewer staff to fulfill the agency’s workload. The STB’s budget 

requests have gone largely unmet, which in turn puts further 

strain on our workforce. 

We currently have a staff of 128 FTEs, a significant reduction 

from our highest employment level of 149 FTEs in 2010. These 

numbers are significant for such a small organization. 

Another factor that has affected the staff is the prospect of relocating due to a recent expiration of our lease. GSA notified us in 

2013 that at the end of our lease in February 2017, we could be 

required to relocate to a new facility. This has been very unsettling 

to staff, since during this time, we have not known what the full 

impact of relocating might be on their daily lives. Just this week, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

GSA informed us that a lease award should be finalized within the 

next 30 to 40 days. 

Finally, enactment of the STB Reauthorization Act of 2015, 

which reauthorized the Board for the first time since its inception 

in 1996, made the Board a fully independent agency and imposed 

several important directives. 

While independence has been invigorating, exciting, and challenging, it also marks another transition to new and expanded responsibilities but with expected additional funding assistance held 

up as a consequence of the ongoing continuing resolution. 

The Board is exploring ideas to help improve our scores, and 

most importantly, employee engagement and satisfaction. For example, to better understand specific reasons for our recent scores, 

senior managers exchanged insights into the possible causes of and 

discussed ways to improve. We reached out to our entire staff asking them to share their thoughts on issues contributing to the 

Board’s scores, as well as suggestions on actions to improve the 

STB overall. 

The Partnership for Public Service recently briefed the board 

members and staff on the survey results and provided useful insights into the key drivers of our recent scores. To address scores 

regarding senior leadership, OPM delivered an executive training 

course to 25 senior managers, which provided an in-depth discussion and interactive sessions on developing core leadership skills, 

including how to effectively lead, communicate, build strong teams, 

and manage change. 

Beyond actions taken to address the survey directly, we have 

continued to provide staff with important training in areas of concern to our agency as well as the government. For example, in-person diversity training for the entire agency was offered last fall, 

sharing information about equal employment opportunity, increasing inclusion, respecting diversity, and effective communications 

and problem solving. 

Please be assured that as we work to fulfill the agency’s important mission, the STB is firmly committed to improving our employee’s work satisfaction as well. I would be happy to respond to 

any questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 25749.011
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 25749.012
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 25749.013
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 25749.014
26 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. 

Ms. Villalobos. 

STATEMENT OF VERONICA VILLALOBOS 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. Thank you. 

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey and employee engagement. 

Since 2002, the Office of Personnel Management has administered the FEVS. The survey is designed to provide agencies with 

valuable information—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could I ask the witness to pull that microphone 

much closer because—— 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. Certainly. Is that better? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. Thank you. 

The survey is designed to provide agencies with valuable information on employee satisfaction, commitment, engagement, and ultimately, retention needed for driving change within an organization. 

Having an engaged workforce is critical to each agency’s ability 

to achieve its mission of providing excellent service to the American 

people. OPM is committed to working with agencies to provide tools 

they can use to improve employee satisfaction and engagement. 

To assist agencies, OPM provides results from the FEVS in several ways. The FEVS governmentwide management report provides 

an overview of survey results and highlights notable agency 

achievements. The management report contains scores from industries such as employee engagement, global satisfaction, and the 

New Inclusion Quotient, or New IQ. 

In addition to the management report, OPM provides agency-specific FEVS reports to leadership in government agencies. FEVS results are also made available through Unlock Talent, a comprehensive dashboard used to help agency leadership make data-driven 

decisions and design initiatives to improve Federal agencies. 

Unlock Talent also allows users to view FEVS scores across government for employee engagement and global satisfaction. The dashboard is customized to each agency, and Federal managers are able 

to access personalized pages for their departments and agencies. 

This powerful online tool assists agencies in better analyzing and 

understanding the data in order to creatively use the information 

in their engagement efforts. 

In 2016, OPM surveyed approximately 889,000 employees from 

80 agencies and over 407,000 employees responded. The 2016 

scores on employee engagement continue to increase steadily across 

government, with 65 percent of all respondents expressing positive 

views on the employee engagement index. 

The 2016 global satisfaction index results revealed 

that 61 percent of respondents reported satisfaction with aspects 

related to their work, and the 2016 New IQ overall index score was 

58 percent. These scores all increased from the prior year. 

For the 2016 management report, OPM incorporated a comparison of the agencies by size. Because of the challenges or opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25749.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

ties the agencies faced based on their size, these categories were 

created to further aid interagency communication and sharing of 

promising practices. In addition, the management report featured 

the key drivers of employee engagement that are beneficial to agencies in building and supporting employee engagement and performance improvement efforts. 

Finally, the management report highlighted promising practices 

which provided practical advice on what works to help agencies improve engagement and thereby performance. 

While the FEVS has been a useful tool for agencies and stakeholders, the full potential as a strategically responsive instrument 

has faced some limitations. Because core survey items were in regulation, 45 such items have not been updated since 2007. This has 

limited the ability of our research professionals to adjust items and 

make commonsense changes. 

To address these limitations, OPM initiated a revision of the regulation. Overall, the revised regulation permitted OPM to modernize the survey in alignment with topics cited in statute. Specifically, the effect of the revision was to reduce the number of prescribed survey items and remove the definition of leadership levels. 

In the process of revising the regulation, OPM presented plans 

for updates to multiple stakeholder groups. The final regulation allows OPM’s professional survey experts and research psychologists 

to improve the survey while maintaining agencies’ abilities to monitor progress and analyze trends. Agencies still maintain the flexibility to expand their own surveys and add agency-specific questions, as appropriate, to address their specific needs. 

OPM does not intend to make changes to the 2017 FEVS. We understand the reliance stakeholders and agencies have on the survey 

results. Any future updates will be done with stakeholder input 

and OPM’s experts, along with survey testing to preserve quality 

and trending. 

As we prepare to release the next survey, OPM will continue its 

efforts to support agencies with meaningful improvements to the 

FEVS in order to assist agency leadership with improving employee 

engagement and performance. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I am 

happy to address any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Villalobos follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 25749.015
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 25749.016
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 25749.017
31 

Mr. MEADOWS. [Presiding.] Thank you so much for your testimony. My apologies, the administration had asked us to get back 

to him on health care, so I apologize. I had to have a real quick 

meeting. So—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —before you call on our final witness, just—I ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement with respect to the subject from the National Treasury Employees Union. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Without objection. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Stier, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAX STIER 

Mr. STIER. Thank you very much, Chairman Meadows, Ranking 

Member Connolly. Thank you for your focus on such an important 

issue. I know life is very full and busy with all kinds of things, and 

it is a testament to your foresight and leadership that you are, for 

the third time, having this hearing, because it does require constant attention and oversight. 

To begin with, I think it’s important to focus on why this matters. This is not about happy employees. This is about employees 

that can do more and better for the American public. And that’s 

what employee engagement is about. 

One of the really incredible challenges of actually managing in 

the Federal Government is that you don’t have real-time performance information as you would in the private sector, the for-profit 

sector. You don’t have your P&L statement, you don’t have stock 

prices. The goals are public goals; they’re not financial goals. And 

as a result, actually, employee engagement becomes even more important. In the private for-profit sector there is tons of data that 

shows improved employee engagement results and better performance, and that’s even more important in the public sector. 

And we should be proud of the people that are here and the good 

work that they’re doing. It’s 2 years in a row you’ve seen increases. 

But we also need not lose sight of the bigger picture. And in our 

view of the Partnership for Public Service, we believe that the Federal Government should meet or exceed the best in class in the private sector. And today, right now, on the engagement scores, the 

Federal Government is 17 points lower than a reasonable private 

sector average. And it’s not because Federal employees are not 

committed to the mission. Federal employees are overwhelmingly 

committed to the mission across the board in every agency. 

Bottom line, it’s almost inevitably about leadership, which is the 

second root cause of challenge in the Federal Government. You 

have short-term political leaders that don’t align to the long-term 

needs of the organizations they run. 

And the data is frightening. If you look at some of the numbers, 

just one-fifth of employees agree that pay raises depend on performances; two-thirds of employees don’t believe promotions are 

based on merit; fewer than half of Federal employees believe that 

good work is rewarded. And those are not numbers that we ought 

to be proud of. These are numbers that we need to work on and 

change. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

And I would propose three things that you can do here in Congress to make a big difference: Number one, we need to modernize 

the FEVS statute. Very important. As I said, it gives the one universal metric across the board. I think it ought to be codified. OPM 

has done a phenomenal job. The statute doesn’t currently require 

that OPM do it every year. It’s important that OPM does it every 

year. It’s cost effective. They do it for everybody. And it also means 

that you got comparative data. So that would be the first piece. 

And the second one is, in today’s age with improved technology, 

this is all done digitally. The turnaround of the data is very important, so getting that data out fast would be a second area of key 

importance. 

Number two, it’s always about leaders, and we need to see more 

attention paid to leadership’s responsibility to manage talent in the 

Federal Government. It starts with the top. It starts with the political leaders. Today, the political leaders do not actually have a requirement to have performance plans. There’s no transparency 

about what they’re supposed to achieve. And I would posit to you 

that it starts at the top. You ought to have a requirement that all 

political appointments, all leaders have performance plans that are 

clear and that are transparent and that part of that transparency 

includes a requirement that they focus on their most important 

asset, the people in their organizations. 

Secondly, that’s something that’s true not just for the political 

leadership, it’s true for the career folks. USDA is an example of an 

organization that actually bakes into their SES requirement that 

the SES focus on employee engagement, and you’ve seen the returns that they get from that. 

And third, I think it’s incredibly important for this kind of oversight to take place, to make sure that hearings in this committee 

and otherwise actually ask questions of the political appointees to 

make sure they know that you’re watching them and paying attention. 

So first is modernize the statute; second is focusing on the leadership issues; and the third piece, I think, is modernizing our civil 

service system. We have a system that was designed for a different 

age when government was doing different things, when the talent 

market looked differently. And we need to make sure that we have 

a system in place to actually manage our talent in government, 

whether it’s to bring in the right talent to replace those that are 

leaving or to manage those that are already here that reflects the 

current society that we have right now. 

The Federal Government in many ways has become an insulated 

and isolated organization, and that’s not good for any of us. And 

elements of the change that need to take place are examples like 

market-based pay. So you look at examples at VA, the medical center directors. They’re paid under the SES scales, that means that 

they’re making at top $170,000, $180,000. And you have to pay, in 

a private sector, $700,000, $1 million to find competing talent. It 

just doesn’t work. And again, there will be some employees that 

will be paid less, some paid more, but it will be paid according to 

what the government actually needs to pay to get the right talent, 

and that would be a big change. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

There are a whole set of other changes that ought to take place 

in the civil service system itself, and we’d love to work with you 

in making that happen. 

I see my time is running out, but I want to say thank you for, 

really, your incredible work. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 25749.018
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 25749.019
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 25749.020
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 25749.021
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 25749.022
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 25749.023
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 25749.024
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 25749.025
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 25749.026
43 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, all. I want to thank all the witnesses 

for being here. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. And so, Mr. Stier, let 

me follow up on a couple of your questions, because you talked 

about that market-based pay. And you’re finding someone who is 

very willing to make sure that people are properly compensated, realizing that upper end sometimes is a barrier to attracting good 

talent. 

One of the big issues that we run into, and I’m highly sensitive 

to it, because I don’t even think, if you wanted to change it, that 

it would be enough votes on either side of the aisle by themself to 

change it, is really the union involvement and what that may or 

may not do when you try to actually make it more market based. 

So can you speak to that barrier, and how do we do that with 

so many different public service unions that are in place? And, you 

know, sometimes—we all have a unified goal of providing good 

service and a good quality workforce. At the same time, sometimes 

there is a competing agenda in terms of what may or may not happen, and we’ve run into that on Postal and a few other areas. 

But the biggest place I’m running into it, quite frankly, is—I can 

use that—is maybe on WMATA and what we’re facing in a bipartisan way on WMATA, because we believe that it needs to happen. 

And so I can use that as maybe a tangential evidence of having to 

address something but with real complications, because you’ve got 

union contracts, you’ve got competing—so how do we do that? 

Mr. STIER. Yeah. So not an easy job, and that’s why—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s why you threw it to me, right. 

Mr. STIER. But I think the answer, in my view, is, you know, 

first, that a lot gets cured by conversation, and I think that, you 

know, part of the need we have right now is to have those critical 

stakeholders brought together. As you said, I actually really believe 

there are common objectives. Once you’re able to get that agreement around common objectives, I think that provides a framework 

for resolving, you know, how best to get there. I also think there 

are going to be opportunities, even if you don’t get it done across 

the board in special places—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. STIER. —and an example would be the VA, where, you know, 

there are 160 of these folks. There are not that many. They’re the 

most important people. They run the hospital systems. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. STIER. It just makes no sense. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So maybe do that as a pilot. 

Mr. STIER. You do that—and I’d be careful—the only thing about 

pilots in government is that in the ordinary course, the logic is you 

try it, if it works, then you spread it around. That doesn’t happen 

in the government. You look at—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, tell me it’s not so. 

Mr. STIER. Yes. Well, no, but I mean—so you look at some of the 

pay, you know, experiments that were done, you know, in the military with the—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree. 

Mr. STIER. —they’re 1980s, and they have good data to suggest 

that the things they did made sense. So in any event, though—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Mr. MEADOWS. So a pilot that actually would get implemented 

systemwide if it worked? 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So let me go a little bit further. If we look 

at this and we’re looking at those objectives, would you say the fundamental reason why we don’t get it as at times trust, the trust 

that if somebody’s willing to give, that it will only be cuts and not 

increases? 

Mr. STIER. I think you put your finger on an important point for 

sure. I think there’s an expectation that, you know, better to protect what one has than to take the risk of what may come in the 

future, sort of Pandora’s box. But the reality to me is that the 

world is changing at an ever-increasing fast pace, and it’s a—you 

know, the erosion is really substantial. 

The other trust factor here, which I think is really important, is 

trust in the managers in government, and I think that’s a big 

issue. I think one of the things that you’ve got to put your arms 

around is how do you actually improve the capability of management so that there is improved trust. You look at the Employee 

Viewpoint Survey numbers, that’s a problem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how does OPM fit into that equation? Because 

really, right now we have silos, is what I would say. We have OPM 

that’s overarching, but we have silos. And it’s kind of like in the 

corporate world where they look at HR in a less than favorable 

way, let’s put it that way. And so they say, this is my domain, I’m 

going to operate it the way I think. Thank you, OPM, for giving 

me your guidance, but by the way, I’ve got to run it. So how do 

we do that? 

Mr. STIER. So if I can still keep plugging forward here, I would 

say the following: Which is I think there’s way too much finger 

pointing at OPM and not enough looking in the mirror. Because if 

you point to the corporate sector, every successful corporate executive I know—and I know a lot of them—they view that talent is 

their job. They look to HR as being, you know—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. STIER. —there to support them, but their responsibility. 

I don’t think you see that in the government. Agency leaders 

don’t understand that that’s one of their primary responsibilities. 

They’re not around long enough. It’s going to be their successor or 

their successor’s successor that deals with their problem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. Okay. 

Mr. STIER. So that’s back to the performance plan piece. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So let me—picking up, Ms. Bailey, on 

where—in terms of our attention. I want to let you know something, that we were keenly aware of any statements that get made 

that talk about employee satisfaction. And so you’ve been there 

about a year. We’ve seen some good progress, and I want to thank 

you for that. 

But the other day, we got what I thought was a real encouraging 

comment by who I refer to as General Kelly, but Secretary Kelly, 

as he talked about, you know, what’s going to specifically happen 

in terms of job satisfaction. He says, well, that’s, you know, under 

my leadership. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

And he went on further to say, is that when he elaborated on it, 

he says that the employees feel hamstrung by former leadership to 

not allow the employees to actually do their job. 

Now, that’s a theme. And I’m not trying to be derogatory towards 

any previous administration or anything else, but would you concur 

that the employees, some within DHS, feel like that they’ve never 

been allowed to do their job? And would you agree with Secretary 

Kelly? 

Ms. BAILEY. I think it’s always smart to agree with my boss. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you are smart. Well, we now know why 

you’ve improved so much, but go ahead. 

Ms. BAILEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me—would you—so let me rephrase it. Obviously, since you agree with Secretary Kelly, would you say within 

the ranks that you see some question among rank-and-file employees that they are not allowed to do the job that they were hired 

to do to its fullest capability? 

Ms. BAILEY. Right. And I think that you’ll see that over time. If 

you look at the FEVS scores, whether it’s within DHS or, quite 

frankly, within a lot of the Federal agencies, what you will find is 

that by and large this idea around creativity, innovation, or the 

ability to not be hamstrung, right, to be able to do your job, I think 

that that’s kind of with the—almost with the age of time. 

And so I think it’s very encouraging that Secretary Kelly recognizes that right upfront. It’s not surprising to me that he recognizes it. And I think it’s, again, very encouraging that we’re going 

to actually tackle some of those issues. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Well, thank you. 

I want to applaud both of our most improved best places areas, 

and just say that what I typically have done in previous hearings 

is ask for your commitment to actually work with other agencies 

to share best practices. Is that something that you’re willing to do 

at USDA? 

Ms. JEANQUART. Absolutely. In fact, we employed some of the 

best practices we learned from other agencies to get where we’re 

going. So I really think we’re a community among ourselves, and 

we all—you know, we all want to see engaged and productive employees. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Great. 

Ms. Dingman? 

Ms. DINGMAN. We are definitely committed to working with our 

fellow colleagues in the HR community. We see this as we all grow 

together and we learn as a Federal community. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So keeping the standard the way that it’s 

been and not changing, it is critical for benchmarks. And so I 

would just—from an OPM standpoint, are we willing to keep our 

standard? 

Here’s my concern: There was rumor out there that we were 

going to change the way that we looked at some of these things and 

different benchmarks. And for me, that’s like changing an SAT 

score to have a different benchmark. So my score from generations 

ago can’t be compared to, you know—they were much harder back 

in the old days, I can tell you, so—but can’t be compared to SAT 

scores today because we changed the standards. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

And so do we have a commitment from OPM to keep a standard 

where we have a benchmark that we’ve had for the last 2 or 3 

years and keep it in place? 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. So OPM intends to continue to work to illuminate the topics that are within statute. As you know, we did go 

through the regulatory change. We’ve done a better job of matching 

the questions that are within the topical areas to the statute. We 

want to make sure that we’re able to modernize based on survey 

science, but we are going to continue to work with agencies and 

stakeholders as we move forward. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. That’s a great answer. So let me be more 

specific then. Don’t change the standard, okay. And so I’m all for 

modernization and all that, but I don’t want a benchmark that lets 

me have Ms. Bailey’s score next year be different than her score 

for the last couple of years. I have to have the same benchmark. 

Can I get the commitment from OPM that they’re willing to do 

that? 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. We will continue to use the same indices and 

work with our stakeholders moving forward to make sure that 

we—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s a great answer to a question I didn’t ask. 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. Okay. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And so let me be blunt. I need a commitment to keep the same standards. And so if you can’t give that 

today, I would ask you to get with your staff and get back with our 

staff within the next couple of weeks on how you plan to help me 

understand how to look at it going forward. 

Ms. VILLALOBOS. Thank you, Chairman. We will get back with 

you based on your request. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Thank you so much. 

I recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I think you can understand the concern of the 

chairman, and I share it. If we start changing the baseline against 

which we measure best of work, you know, we all become one 

happy paradise in the workers’, you know, republic, and everyone 

is happy, and we’ve got new standards that shows it. And we don’t 

really want to go there. The purpose of these metrics is really to 

try to gauge where we are and make appropriate improvements. So 

I would echo what the chairman had to say. 

Ms. Jeanquart, USDA showed marked improvement in the indices in front of us, and it seems to me that one of the things that 

improved was communication and also worklife flexibility. So the 

creation of Employee Advisory Councils seemed to foster a lot more 

dialogue in both ways, and I think, frankly, your embrace of 

telework is symptomatic of a more flexible workplace approach. 

Your comment. 

Ms. JEANQUART. We—absolutely. What we heard from our employees was worklife flexibilities were important for us. We have 

increased the number of eligible employees that are able to 

telework. At the same time, we’ve also trained our supervisors to 

manage employees who telework to make sure that they continue 

to remain as productive. So those flexibilities have really contributed to our scores. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

We have about 86 percent of our employees that are on flexible 

work schedules as well. So the ability to meet the worklife challenges has been helpful; but at the same time, we’re also seeing increases in productivity. And we’ve seen that in the way that we delivered our last farm bill, on time, early, in many programs, and 

all of that has contributed. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. I always felt in management in the private 

sector that productivity at the end of the day is what I care about. 

So for example, if your job is to write proposals, and I’m looking 

at hit rates, and, you know, you’re getting 90 percent hit rates, 

when you write a proposal, we’re going to get it. I don’t care if you 

do it in your PJs watching soap operas at home, you know. 

It’s sort of the management principle of Lincoln. When people 

criticized Grant for drinking, he said, really, I want to know what 

brand of whiskey he drinks, and I’m going to send a barrel of it 

to all of my generals, because he wins. 

So there’s a certain, you know, bottom line to what we do, I hope, 

where we’re looking at what matters, not the ephemeral. I mean, 

you know, whether I’m there from 9 to 5 is a way of getting to the 

productivity, but it’s not a substitute for the productivity. 

Mr. Stier, thank you for the lozenge, by the way. One of the criticisms—and one of those things I think from—when people from the 

private sector look at the Federal Government, not just the Federal 

Government, other governments too, it’s rule driven, it’s rule 

bound. It’s a very juridical environment that seems to stifle sometimes creativity, seems to minimize performance with all the protections. And over the years, for all the best reasons, we’ve got even 

more protections for our various classes of workers that sometimes 

allows them to escape accountability. 

And when you do that, it has a demoralizing effect on people who 

want to be productive workers and see, witness, you know, the protection of or turning a blind eye as a manager because it’s just too 

difficult, and I don’t want to get into a suit or an action or be 

known as the guy who cracked down on somebody. I think that’s 

a real problem in government. 

And I fully support due process and I support a vibrant civil 

service, but I think sometimes it’s just become so hidebound and 

rulebound that it’s brittle, and it’s not the model we need moving 

forward. And I wonder if you could comment to that. 

Mr. STIER. I think you’re 100 percent correct, and I think a lot 

of it stems from the point you began with, which is losing sight of 

what the objectives are. And one of the ways that I think we need 

to move the Federal Government is to be more focused on the customer experience and less on the process. 

And Ms. Bailey said something that I think is very important 

earlier about the sense of employees being encouraged to do things 

in a more innovative way. And if you look at the data, again, so 

important, because otherwise it’s just anecdote, I feel encouraged 

to come up with new and better ways of doing things. 

Federal employees, it’s 56.8. The private sector benchmark on 

that is 77. And, again, there’s no reason why we should have that 

kind of discrepancy, other than, in my view, poor leadership, and 

that’s what we need to change. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

We do live in a world in which it has become much more of a 

spoke, and that’s why the broader changes need to take place. We 

have a pay system that’s all about internal equity but not 

connectivity to the larger talent market, and we need that. It needs 

to be—Ms. Bailey, again, was talking about some of the things that 

she’s doing, which I think are very, very important at DHS, that 

are allowing them to think more creatively about how to address 

the individual as opposed to the broader class. 

And interestingly, you know, there’s a lot of discussion about how 

regulation is stifling people on the outside of government. I think 

it’s stifling the employees themselves, in that we ought to see the 

same kind of de-encrustation internally that’s necessary. The tendency is to put things on top, not think about how they interrelate 

or whether they’re still valuable. It’s—again, it’s a legacy institution. So that’s why your engagement involvement is so critical. 

And the people here, you know, there’s no one who knows what 

needs to change better than the people that are having to experience it day in and day out. So getting that input into your process, 

to me, seems vital. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can I just ask one skunk-at-the-picnic question? 

So we have made progress, but if you look at the budget the 

President has submitted to the Congress—let’s take USDA, Ms. 

Jeanquart—it will cut 21 percent, $4.7 billion; reduce staff at 

USDA Service Center Agencies throughout the country; eliminate 

the water and wastewater loan and grant program; cut $95 million 

from Rural Business-Cooperative Service; cut $200 million from 

Women, Infants, and Children nutrition; and cut another $200 million from the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program. 

Do those cuts have any impact on what we’re talking about here? 

Could they influence these metrics when we meet again a year 

from now? 

Ms. JEANQUART. I think they can, but I also think employee engagement can help us as we move forward. USDA’s faced budget 

cuts before, and we’ve used interaction with our—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Jeanquart, just one second. You’ve faced 

budget cuts. Have you ever faced a 21-percent budget cut? 

Ms. JEANQUART. No, we have not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. Right. We need to put it in perspective here. 

Budget cuts are one thing. 

Ms. JEANQUART. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I mean, of course—and you’re a piker compared 

to EPA. 

Ms. JEANQUART. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Imagine the morale over there, with a 31-percent 

cut. 

Mr. Stier, final question. The chairman’s allowed me to go over 

my time. Impact magnitude of those kinds of cuts—and I don’t 

think Congress, frankly, is going to entertain them, but nonetheless they’re out there. They’re a new baseline for somebody; hopefully not Congress. But does it have an impact on what we’re talking about here? 

Mr. STIER. So it clearly has an impact. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

I think of even greater impact is the uncertainty that’s been created. And I think that is fundamental. And so, if you don’t mind 

me being the skunk in the picnic here, you know, the last 6 of the 

last 7 years, you know, the executive branch hasn’t been able to operate on any budget; there has been no budget. You know, we’re 

talking, you know, 2018 right now. 2017, these agencies don’t know 

how much money they have. 

And so, if you think, again, about any other organization in any 

other context, the idea that they could manage effectively and 

achieve results without knowing what their resource base is, is impossible. 

And my view would be, you know, uncertainty is the most corrosive of all in terms of diminishing, you know, capability. And this 

is true right now with respect to budget, it’s true with respect to 

the hiring freeze. Just not—it’s not—those are not the effective 

ways to get best value for the American people, in my view. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

So the chair recognizes himself for a few followup questions here. 

And so, Mr. Gardner, you’ve gotten off fairly easily so far, and 

I know that you may be squirming in your chair. I’m not going to 

let you off that easy, as you can well imagine. Because I think part 

of this is, you know, carrot and the stick. And the gentleman to my 

right is talking about the carrot. And I’m willing to work in a bipartisan way. Ultimately, I think the budget that we pass will be 

not as impactful as perhaps some are concerned about today in 

those areas, and yet we do have fiscal constraints. 

And so, Max, your point of needing a budget, needing direction, 

I’ve been one that believes that we need to do that on a congressional basis, is do 2 years, so that, you know, where you have that, 

where there’s some—you know, long-range planning in the private 

sector is 5 to 10 years, you know, and long-range planning here is 

9 months. And it just—it’s troubling. And so I get your point. 

But, Mr. Gardner, I guess I’m—in spite of some of the things 

that we’re talking about, really this survey was from back in last 

year, so the hiring freeze was not in place. This was back, taking 

survey results from last summer. And yet we saw a 21.9-point drop 

in your agency. 

And I guess the two troubling areas was really more about the 

employee involvement and empowerment and then leadership, 

management leadership, and those two categories. So that’s not as 

much with financial/fiscal restraints as it is management initiatives. So help me explain why we went backwards on that. 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I said, we’re very concerned about the decline, and we were very surprised—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That makes two of us, so go ahead. 

Mr. GARDNER. We were very surprised. And, on reflection, I 

do—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That concerns me even more, okay? So I’m going 

to interrupt you. 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. If you’re surprised by the results, it shows that 

we have a lack of understanding of the rank-and-file—I mean, it’s 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

one thing to acknowledge that you have a bad problem. Ms. Bailey 

does that. She acknowledged that they’ve been at the bottom of the 

barrel, and so she recognizes that. But to be surprised, you know, 

really concerns me. Why would you be surprised? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, to explain further, we had the drop between 

2014 and 2015, which was not a dramatic drop. It took us to fifth 

place, and some of the results we saw were still positive results. 

But I guess to explain, I felt and I think most of the management 

at the agency felt that we were continuing to do a good job with 

engagement. 

I agree with Mr. Stier that it starts with leadership, and we did 

not do well on our effective leadership scores across the board. I 

think that’s an area where we definitely need to focus. I think it 

also includes the need to do a better job of communicating with our 

staff and keeping the staff informed. In the followup that we’ve 

done, we found that that’s one of the things that staff were concerned about. 

They’re also very concerned, as I mentioned, about the changes. 

And the changes I was referring to in my statement weren’t related 

to the freeze, but they were related to things related to in terms 

of leadership, change in leadership. As I mentioned, we had a 

change in chairmanship. Over 3 years, we had three different 

chairmen. 

We also have a lot of uncertainty associated with the move and 

the relocation, which has been very unsettling to staff because 

they’re really not sure what’s going to happen there with regard to 

the relocation of the agency. And we still don’t know, even to this 

point. We’ve been working with GSA for over 3 years on this, and 

there’s been a lot of uncertainty and unsettled feelings about that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So help me understand. What uncertainty are you 

talking about? The fact that you may get a new chairman? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I guess it’s just the fact that we’ve had the 

change—we’ve had three different chairmen. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But, Mr. Gardner, with all due respect, this has 

nothing to do with just one person. 

Mr. GARDNER. Understood. 

Mr. MEADOWS. A 6.9- or almost 7-percent drop in employees 

thinking that leadership is not fair is not a problem of one person. 

Mr. GARDNER. No, I agree, sir. I agree. In fact, when I talk to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you surprised by that, that they think that 

leadership is not fair, that management is not fair? 

Mr. GARDNER. I am surprised at that, because I think we are 

fair. I think, as a leader at the agency, I think we do a good job. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me push back a little bit. It 

doesn’t matter what you think. 

Mr. GARDNER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It matters what the rank-and-file thinks. And 

that’s the whole reason why you have an employee survey. You 

know, I can think I’m the most fair person in the world, and if he 

says I’m not, his perception is reality to him. 

And so how do we address that? I mean, if you’re thinking that 

everything is kumbaya, I mean, how do we fix the problem? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, obviously, sir, we realize now that it’s not 

the way we would like it to be. And—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when did you realize that? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, when we saw those scores. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Mr. GARDNER. When we saw the second set of scores. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when did you see the second set of scores? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I guess they came out in December. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Mr. GARDNER. December. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what did you do? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we met with the Chairman; the senior leaders met with the Chairman. We talked about the kinds of things 

that we did poorly on and talked about things we might do to improve the scores, including better and more communication, better 

sharing of information. This was one of the things—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if we did this new survey today, would it be 

better? 

Mr. GARDNER. I think that it would. I think we have—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Of course, you think everything is all right already, so, I mean—— 

Mr. GARDNER. I don’t mean to say that, no. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what we have here is not a failure to communicate. And that’s what everybody runs backs to and says, ‘‘Well, 

if we just had more communication, we would be okay.’’ But you 

and I are having communication right now, and it doesn’t necessarily make it pleasant for either one of us. 

So here’s where we have to go, is we have to figure out how to 

empower your rank-and-file, how to make sure that it’s fair. Normally, when I see scores like this dropping on fairness, it has to 

do with promotions, bonuses. And, I mean, it comes down to, really, 

are they feeling empowered, do they get special assignments. 

So this would indicate that there’s a problem within your leadership ranks of not actually responding appropriately to the rankand-file. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. GARDNER. I would. I would. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So who’s going to get—we won’t say ‘‘terminated.’’ 

Who’s going to get some correctional direction? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Have you already identified those people? 

Mr. GARDNER. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Have you already identified the people? 

I mean, because if you do the surveys, you can probably figure 

out where you have a problem. So have you identified the areas 

where you have management problems? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I think—we don’t do individual—we don’t 

get results back from individual components because we’re so 

small. So I would think that it would be the responsibility of all 

of the senior executives, all of the office directors, to take the 

lead—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Very good. 

Mr. GARDNER. —bear the responsibility—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what have you done? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we have—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Other than talking, what have you done? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we’ve asked employees for suggestions on 

ways that we could improve—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many suggestions did you get? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we’ve gotten probably hundreds of suggestions. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many have you implemented? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we haven’t implemented any yet. We’re simply—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Therein is the problem, Mr. Gardner. When you 

get information from rank-and-file employees and you do nothing 

with it, there is a problem. Then they think that their opinion 

doesn’t matter. Wouldn’t you agree with that? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I would agree, sir, but we are trying to convince the employees that their—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So don’t you think it would be a good idea for the 

ranking member and I to come and have a visit with some of your 

rank-and-file employees and maybe hear firsthand? 

Mr. GARDNER. That would be terrific. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So—— 

Mr. GARDNER. You’d be more than welcome. 

Mr. MEADOWS. —we’re going to do that, and we’ll get that set up. 

So at what point do you put in a leadership plan to make sure 

that people feel like they’re being treated fairly? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we’re going to address that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. When? 

Mr. GARDNER. —directly. Within the next month, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you’ll report back to this committee 

within 30 days of a plan on how you’re going to address the fairness issue with regards to your management and your rank-andfile. Is that correct? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir, we will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s fair. Actually, that’s a very aggressive 

timeframe. You know, we’ll give you—how about 45 days? I think 

if you’re trying to do it in 30—I don’t want you to overcommit 

there. 

Mr. GARDNER. We could certainly give you a progress report, but 

45 days would be fine. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

And so, in doing that, here’s what I need to see, Mr. Gardner. 

I want to see these scores go up, but it’s not for the scores’ sake. 

I want to see those employees become most improved. 

And just like Ms. Bailey is here today—I’m not celebrating the 

fact that she is still low down on the totem pole. She’s got a huge 

organization, so, you know, it’s like a big steamship, trying to move 

it. But the fact is she’s here today because we’re recognizing that 

she has made progress. And I’m willing to do the same thing. In 

fact, I would love to eat crow or humble pie, either one that you 

want to serve, when you address these problems. 

But we will have them addressed. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

So let me close with this. I want to make sure, from an OPM 

standpoint, that my request of you is not to be derogatory in anything. In fact, if anything, I think we need to update the way we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

do surveys. In fact, I would love to see it where they’re going online, and the minute that they’ve finished it, it gives them a percentage of where they are and how they’re doing. 

I mean, I think that that would—we call it in the internet 

‘‘clickbait,’’ but I can tell you, I will fill out a survey more accurately if I see the results immediately after I finish it, even though 

somebody may be finding, you know, information on me personally. 

And the same thing happens with employees. If they can fill out 

all the surveys and they can say, Oh, my goodness, you know, this 

is where it is, it does two things: If the trend is going the wrong 

way, they will tell other friends, Can you believe everybody thinks 

it’s good when it’s really bad? Or if it’s good, or bad, they will go 

the other way. So you get better feedback. It’s sometimes perverted 

a little bit because people—you know, you may get somebody who 

wants to go and say, Well, you know, they’re saying leadership is 

good, it can’t be good. But I think you get better feedback if we can 

do that. 

So I’m all with you on modernizing, and yet, at the same time, 

let’s make sure we keep the same standards. 

And I’ll give the last set of questions to my good friend from Virginia, and then we’ll close out. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just remember, if we go online, Ms. Villalobos, 

it will be read in Moscow and Beijing. 

Max Stier, I just wonder if you want to maybe use this opportunity to just give us some parting thoughts here. What’s the utility of this kind of survey? And have we been able to use the survey 

to make measurable progress, both in performance and productivity and morale? 

Mr. STIER. So, look, I think there are obviously things that can 

be improved, and we’ve made some suggestions. But it’s worth taking a step back and remembering that you don’t have to go back 

many years in which the only information you had about what was 

happening inside these agencies were some small number of employees coming to you anecdotally and telling you what’s going on. 

The old saw ‘‘you can’t manage what you don’t measure’’ is true. 

And it’s one of the fundamental challenges of managing in the Federal Government, is that lack of universal, real-time performance 

information. 

And I think Chairman Meadows has it right, that there are some 

really interesting opportunities. This is a once-a-year survey. It 

ought to be done once a year. It’s a great way of creating a benchmark. It’s important for us to remember it’s not just about the Federal Government. The larger talent market is the one that the government’s fishing in, so you’ve got to compare it to the larger talent 

market. 

But there’s opportunities to do poll surveys, to do things that are 

real-time, not, you know, the 84 questions here, but when an issue 

is identified, to be able to pull out two, three, four things and then 

to ask your employees in real time whether or not you’re making 

progress so that you’re not waiting, you know, for that full cycle. 

So there are ways to, I think, improve capability here and consequence. You asked, is it making a difference, and I think the answer is yes. I think if you look down this table, all these folks here 

are working very hard because there is a data point that they’re 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

being held accountable to, and it’s actually the right data point, 

what their employees have to say. 

And, again, Chairman Meadows is right, is that it is not—people 

sometimes—‘‘Well, it’s subjective data.’’ But it is the objective subjective data. Because it matters what employees actually have to— 

what they think. 

And this is a rich data set. Again, it’s about whether they’re 

being supportive and being innovative, whether they’re getting the 

right talent into their organization. You know, I think that OPM 

is right, they are opportunities to collect some other different 

things, but we do need to have that common baseline across the 

board. 

I think if this kind of hearing was had across the board, in all 

the different committees of jurisdiction who have supervisory responsibility, you would see 10X impact. And so, you know, one 

question would be, is there a way to help make that happen? 

I think the idea that you both might visit, you know, Surface 

Transportation Board, you go out and visit other agencies, is phenomenally important for you to get real information about what’s 

going on inside these agencies. 

I mentioned earlier that I think that the lack of real-time performance information, short-term leaders not aligned to long-term 

missions are two of the root causes of dysfunction in our government. The third one that to me is real is I don’t think Congress 

is doing everything it ought to do. And it’s in the oversight, it’s in 

the budgeting. And kudos to you on biennial budgeting. Giving 

some longer-term peace would be hugely important. But that’s another area of huge, huge impact on what the government can 

produce for the American public. 

So thank you for that opportunity. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And one final question on this. You know, STB 

is a small agency. How many people, Mr. Gardner? 

Mr. GARDNER. 128, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So if you do a survey of 128 people, you 

probably get a pretty good picture from the survey in terms of 

what’s on people’s minds, what’s bothering them and so forth. 

But you look at DHS, and it is a many-splendored thing. I mean, 

you know, after 9/11, we cobbled it together. I remember it quite 

vividly. And you’ve got, you know, all kinds of different agencies 

with different kinds of missions under one roof—with how many 

employees totally, Ms. Bailey? 

Ms. BAILEY. It’s around 230,000. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. 128; 230,000. 

And how many agencies are cobbled together under that? 

Ms. BAILEY. I think originally it was 22 agencies. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Twenty-two agencies. 

So I worry a little bit about—I mean, there is a difference between these two, not only in sheer numbers but just the complexity 

of it. And is there some reason to be concerned about the data 

we’re getting from the one versus the other, not because it’s corrupted but just because it doesn’t really take cognizance of the differentiation of missions and cultures? 

Mr. STIER. Yeah. So one of the reasons why we do best in class, 

best agency in large agency and medium agencies and small agenVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25749.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

cies, is for the reason you identified: It is a very different management proposition. And at the end of the day, I think the ranking 

actually helps bring attention. This is a society that cares about 

ranking; competition is actually a good thing. But it is still the 

case, as you suggest, that there are different management challenges depending on the organization. 

However, people are people. And if you listen to the kinds of 

things that people are doing across the board here, they’re largely 

the same. The activity—it’s harder to move your steamship, the 

bigger piece, but the activities are the same. And for DHS, they’ve 

got to break it down into their operational components to make it 

work. 

I do think the risk, though, is that everyone wants to believe 

they’re special and different. And while there is some element of 

that, there’s also a lot of similarity. And we don’t do enough in the 

Federal Government of actually learning from each other. And part 

of it, we don’t do enough on mobility of talent. Because that’s really 

the way you’re going to actually knit it all together, is getting people to be working and moving, especially at the leadership side. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. Fair point. We heard that a lot in the IT 

sector. Mr. Meadows and I both worked on—you know, ‘‘Our mission is unique, and therefore we can’t’’—fill in the blanks, you 

know, move from the legacy system, move to the cloud, whatever 

it might be. 

And you think, well, at a certain point, though, data is data. And 

there are lots of, you know, confidentiality concerns or classified 

concerns that have to be taken into account, but the management 

of data is generally something that can be applied across the board. 

So I take your point. 

I thank you. Thank you all for being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I’d like to thank all of our witnesses that are here today and 

thank you, even those that, Mr. Gardner, are going to put forth a 

plan to make things better. 

Kudos to all of you who have really recognized the importance 

of the Federal workforce and what they contribute. And so, as 

much as you’re here to testify on behalf of your agencies and the 

progress that has been made, the real thank you needs to go to the 

employees who not only participate in the survey but also do the 

work each and every day. 

And so I look forward to following—and I can tell you, I do follow 

this. I follow it very closely. And part of it’s just I love to see the 

competitive nature, and I love to see how everybody’s waiting for 

those scores to come out and where they are and the recognition 

that comes from that. You know, when the schedule permits, we 

love to participate and celebrate a success. 

And so, from your predecessor, Ms. Bailey, who encouraged me 

to look at this in a positive light, it has changed this hearing, because we truly do try to focus now on the good practices. 

I think one of the matrix that might be interesting to add, from 

an OPM and a survey standpoint, is how much agency-to-agency 

participation there is, you know. And so, as we look at that—so the 

fact that you’ve learned from other agencies, the fact that you’re 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

sharing that knowledge with others, that should be a score component that actually weighs in, because we want to share those best 

practices. 

And so, as I say that, I want to thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent that all the members of the committee 

have 5 legislative days to submit questions for the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

So, if there is no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(57) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 25749.027
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 25749.028
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 25749.029
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 25749.030
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 25749.031
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 25749.032
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 25749.033
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 25749.034
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 25749.035
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 25749.036
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 25749.037
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 25749.038
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 25749.039
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 25749.040
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 25749.041
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 25749.042
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 25749.043
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 25749.044
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 25749.045
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 25749.046
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 25749.047
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 25749.048
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 25749.049
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 25749.050
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 25749.051
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 25749.052
84 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 25749.053