United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate

August 1995 MERIT SYSTEMS

PROTECTION BOARD

Mission Performance,

Employee Protections,

and Working

Environment

GAO/GGD-95-213

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-249151 

August 15, 1995

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Glenn:

This report responds to your request that we examine certain aspects of

the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) performance, management,

and operations in light of the critical role it plays as a protector of the

federal merit employment system. Specifically, you asked us to:

• assess whether MSPB, through its appeals process, is accomplishing its

statutory mission to protect federal employees against prohibited

personnel practices and abusive personnel decisions and whether MSPB is

abiding by its own guidelines in determining these cases in a fair and

timely manner;

• determine what accountability mechanisms MSPB has in place to provide its

employees the merit system protections that MSPB was created to uphold;

and

• identify what actions MSPB has taken, and the extent to which it has been

successful, in fostering “an environment of trust, respect, and fairness,” as

called for in its 1992 vision statement pledge to “promote and protect, by

deed and example,” federal merit employment principles.

Your request noted that effective oversight of MSPB is particularly

important and that confirmation of MSPB’s current chairman (sworn in on

July 2, 1993) made it a good time for our examination of MSPB to take

place. However, because the current chairman had only recently taken

office when our work began in November 1993, the data we collected

necessarily covered both the early part of his tenure and the latter part of

his predecessor’s.

Background MSPB is an independent, quasijudicial executive agency created by the Civil

Service Reform Act of 1978. Its mission is to ensure that (1) federal

employees are protected against abuses by their agencies’ management,

(2) executive branch agencies make employment decisions in accordance

with merit system principles, and (3) federal merit systems are kept free of

prohibited personnel practices.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

In large part, MSPB is to pursue its mission by hearing and deciding appeals

by federal employees of actions taken against them by their agencies.

Initially, an employee files his or her appeal at one of MSPB’s regional or

field offices. The appeal is then to be heard and decided by an

administrative judge. The decision becomes final in 35 days unless one of

the parties to the appeal files a petition for review to the board members

or MSPB reopens the appeal on its own motion. In such cases, the petition

for review is to be processed at MSPB headquarters. The board members’

decision constitutes the final administrative action unless the appeal

involves allegations of discrimination, in which case the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission may become involved. An

employee who is dissatisfied with the board members’ final decision may

appeal it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or, if

allegations of discrimination are involved, bring the case before a U.S.

district court.

MSPB’s three-member bipartisan Board consists of a chairman, a vice

chairman, and a member, all of whom are appointed by the president with

the advice and consent of the Senate to serve overlapping, nonrenewable

7-year terms.

MSPB’s fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $24.7 million. As of the end of

fiscal year 1994, it had 289 employees. Under Public Law 103-424, signed

by the president on October 29, 1994, MSPB was reauthorized for a period

of 3 years.

Results in Brief Based on practitioners’ views of the appeals process and on the high rate

at which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed

MSPB’s final decisions, MSPB is generally accomplishing its statutory

mission. In three of the five practitioner groups we surveyed—agency

general counsels, agency attorneys and representatives, and agency

employee and labor-management relations representatives—from 83 to

89 percent of the respondents expressed opinions that MSPB has been very

or generally successful in accomplishing its mission, while from 0 to

2 percent indicated that it has been very or generally unsuccessful. In the

remaining two practitioner groups, 46 percent of the private attorneys and

45 percent of the union officials expressed opinions that MSPB has been

very or generally successful; 25 percent of the attorneys and 23 percent of

the union officials indicated that it has been very or generally

unsuccessful.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

The responses from the practitioner groups reflect a general view that

MSPB has been fair in processing employee appeals of agency personnel

actions. MSPB’s fairness in processing employee appeals was further

indicated by the fact that over the 4-year period ending September 1994,

91 percent of the final MSPB decisions appealed to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit were upheld; the remainder were either

reversed or returned to MSPB for further action.

Regarding the timely processing of appeals, over the 4-year period ending

September 1994, the regional offices almost always met MSPB’s

self-imposed 120-day case processing guideline (96 percent in fiscal year

1994). Headquarters met management’s 110-day guideline less often

(61 percent in fiscal year 1994), but its performance in this regard had

improved from fiscal years 1991 to 1993. To explain the fact that

headquarters met its case processing guideline less often than the regional

offices, an MSPB official cited the complexity of cases reaching the

petition-for-review stage and the fact that individual cases may have been

kept pending for various reasons. Moreover, according to MSPB’s chairman,

management imposed the 110-day guideline at headquarters as a goal to

strive toward rather than as a hard and fast requirement for headquarters

staff.

MSPB has established accountability mechanisms in the form of policies,

procedures, and processes to protect its employees against workplace

discrimination, mismanagement, abuse, and improper personnel practices.1

 To protect its employees against workplace discrimination, MSPB has

established an equal employment opportunity (EEO) policy and has taken

various actions to implement it, such as providing EEO training

opportunities to its supervisors, managers, and EEO staff and recently

instituting an individual performance evaluation element for diversity.

Further, MSPB has established procedures for handling EEO complaints and

has made employees aware of their rights under these procedures.

In February 1994, MSPB abolished its nonstatutory Office of the Inspector

General (OIG) because of management’s concerns about its effectiveness

and efficiency. To provide MSPB employees with an avenue for reporting

their concerns should they become aware of mismanagement, abuse, or

improper personnel practices, MSPB arranged for hotline and investigative

services through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Inspector

General. MSPB also has transferred its OIG internal oversight functions to its

1

In addition, MSPB employees’ appeals of personnel actions taken against them, such as removals or

reductions in grade, are heard internally by MSPB’s own administrative law judge.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

Office of the General Counsel (OGC). MSPB’s arrangements for carrying out

these activities are comparable to those of the 10 other federal entities we

studied;2

 if these arrangements are implemented as planned, MSPB should

be able to comply with federal audit and investigative requirements.

However, because these arrangements have not been operational very

long, it is too early to tell how effective they will be.

Despite MSPB’s provisions for the protection of its employees against

workplace discrimination, mismanagement, abuse, and improper

personnel practices, about two-fifths of the employees responding to our

survey indicated they would be reluctant to become involved in the

process for handling EEO complaints. Slightly over one-half of the

respondents indicated they would be reluctant to report allegations of

wrongdoing. Also, while almost two-thirds of the respondents described

the work environment at MSPB as impartial, nearly one-fourth of the

respondents—mostly women and minorities—described it as

discriminatory. Although these responses represent perceptions rather

than proof of discrimination or indicators of wrongdoing going

unreported, we believe the perceptions are held by a large enough portion

of MSPB’s workforce to be of concern to MSPB, especially in light of its role

as protector of the merit system and the standard it set for itself in its 1992

vision statement, “To promote and protect, by deed and example, the

Federal merit principles in an environment of trust, respect and fairness.”

MSPB officials said that since the agency announced its vision statement in

November 1992, it has taken a variety of actions to foster an environment

of trust, respect, and fairness. But while 29 percent of survey respondents

felt MSPB has been successful in fostering such an environment, 39 percent

felt it has been unsuccessful. MSPB officials believe these responses may

have been affected by the uncertainties associated with the arrival of a

new chairman and management’s ensuing efforts to reorganize and

reengineer agency operations.

MSPB employees’ views of their work environment are somewhat similar to

those of federal employees in general. The Office of Personnel

Management’s (OPM) 1992 survey of nearly 57,000 federal employees

showed that while 44 percent expressed confidence and trust in their

organizations, 26 percent did not; and while 30 percent believed their

2

The 10 federal entities were the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Inter-American

Foundation, Institute of Museum Services, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, National

Transportation Safety Board, National Gallery of Art, Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission, American Battle Monuments Commission, State Justice Institute, and U.S. Institute of

Peace.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

organizations treated all employees equally, regardless of position or rank,

47 percent did not.

Scope and

Methodology

To assess whether MSPB is accomplishing its statutory mission through the

appeals process in a fair and timely manner, we developed a mail

questionnaire to obtain the views of practitioners who had represented

federal employees or agencies before MSPB during the 2-year period ending

September 1993 (see app. I). The results of our survey can be projected to

the populations from which the survey respondents were selected. We

analyzed MSPB’s case processing performance reports to determine

whether MSPB met its case processing guidelines at the regional and

headquarters levels in fiscal years 1991 through 1994. Additionally, we

analyzed data on the extent to which MSPB’s final decisions were appealed

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the court’s

disposition of these appeals.

To determine what accountability mechanisms MSPB had in place to

provide its employees the merit system protections that MSPB was created

to uphold, we reviewed the agency’s EEO and internal oversight activities

designed to protect its employees against workplace discrimination,

mismanagement, abuse, and improper personnel practices. In doing so, we

reviewed MSPB’s EEO policy, procedures, and processes and compared its

provisions for internal oversight to those of 10 other federal entities that

are roughly comparable to MSPB in budget and staff size. Further, we

developed and mailed a questionnaire to all MSPB employees as of May 12,

1994, asking for their views on selected aspects of the agency’s EEO

operations and internal oversight activities (see app. II).

To determine what actions MSPB had taken to foster a work environment

that is based on trust, respect, and fairness, we interviewed MSPB’s Chief

Operating Officer, EEO director, and members of a task force charged with

proposing actions for implementing MSPB’s 1992 vision statement. Further,

our MSPB employee questionnaire asked employees for their views on how

successful their agencies had been in fostering such an environment (see

app. II). We compared MSPB employees’ views of their work environment

to those reported by federal employees in a 1992 OPM governmentwide

survey.

More information on our scope and methodology is presented in appendix

III.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

MSPB’s chairman provided us written comments on a draft of this report by

letter dated July 14, 1995. A summary of his comments is presented on

page 19, and they are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI.

We did our review between November 1993 and January 1995. It was done

in the Washington, D.C., area in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards.

MSPB Is Generally

Accomplishing Its

Statutory Mission

In each of the practitioner groups we surveyed, the percentage of

respondents who expressed the opinion that MSPB has been successful in

accomplishing its mission was higher than the percentage who indicated

that it has not been successful. As shown in table 1, the percentages varied

among the practitioner groups. For example, the responses from agency

general counsels were the most favorable: 89 percent of the general

counsels responding to our survey believed MSPB has been very or

generally successful in accomplishing its mission; none of these

respondents believed MSPB has been very or generally unsuccessful. By

comparison, the responses from union officials were the least favorable:

45 percent of the union officials expressing an opinion indicated that MSPB

has been very or generally successful in accomplishing its mission, while

23 percent indicated that it has been very or generally unsuccessful.

Table 1: Participants’ Opinions on How

Successful MSPB Has Been in

Accomplishing Its Mission Through

the Appeals Process

Percentage of respondentsa

Participant group

Very or

generally

successful

As successful

as

unsuccessful

Very or

generally

unsuccessful

Number

expressing an

opinion

Agency general

counsels 89 11 0 35

Agency attorneys and

representatives 86 12 2 344

Agency employee and

labor-management

relations

representatives 83 17 0 30

Private attorneys 46 28 25 102

Union officials 45 32 23 66

aThe percentages do not always total 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s Survey on MSPB’s Appellate Process.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

The responses from the practitioner groups reflect a general view that

MSPB has been fair in processing federal employee appeals at the regional

and headquarters levels. As shown in table 2, the percentage of

respondents who indicated that MSPB’s appellate process at the regional

level was almost always or generally fair ranged from a high of 93 percent

among agency general counsels to a low of 59 percent among union

officials. The percentage of respondents who viewed the process at the

regional level as very or generally unfair ranged from a low of 0 percent

among agency general counsels and employee and labor-management

relations representatives to a high of 26 percent among union officials.

Table 2: Participants’ Opinions on the

Fairness of the Appeals Process at the

Regional Office Level

Percentage of respondentsa

Participant group

Almost

always or

generally fair

Fair as often

as unfair

Very or

generally

unfair

Number

expressing

an opinion

Agency general counsels 93 8 0 40

Agency attorneys and

representatives 91 8 1 359

Agency employee and

labor-management relations

representatives 85 15 0 27

Private attorneys 63 17 20 127

Union officials 59 15 26 74

aThe percentages do not always total 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s Survey on MSPB’s Appellate Process.

As for the fairness of MSPB’s appellate process at the headquarters level,

table 3 shows that the percentage of respondents indicating that the

process was almost always or generally fair ranged from a high of

95 percent among employee and labor-management relations

representatives to a low of 46 percent among private attorneys. The

percentage of respondents indicating that the appellate process at the

headquarters level was very or generally unfair ranged from a low of

0 percent among agency general counsels to a high of 29 percent among

private attorneys.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

Table 3: Participants’ Opinions on the

Fairness of the Appeals Process at the

Headquarters Level

Percentage of respondents

Participant group

Almost

always or

generally fair

Fair as often

as unfair

Very or

generally

unfair

Number

expressing

an opinion

Agency general counsels 87 13 0 31

Agency attorneys and

representatives 90 7 3 224

Agency employee and

labor-management relations

representatives 95 0 5 21

Private attorneys 46 25 29 69

Union officials 81 6 13 31

Source: GAO’s Survey on MSPB’s Appellate Process.

Another measure of MSPB’s fairness in processing employee appeals is the

rate at which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has

affirmed MSPB’s final decisions. As shown in table 4, during the 4-year

period ending September 1994, 1,422 MSPB final decisions were appealed to

the court and adjudicated on the merits. Of that amount, 1,287 cases

(91 percent) were affirmed, while 116 cases (8 percent) were either

reversed (3 percent) or remanded (5 percent) to MSPB for further

processing.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

Table 4: Dispositions of MSPB Decisions Reviewed and Adjudicated by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the

Period of FY 1991 Through FY 1994

FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994

Total for 4-year

period

Disposition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Affirmed 196 91 409 94 370 90 312 86 1,287 91

Board initiated

remanda 0 0 5 1 9 2 11 3 25 2

Court initiated

remandb 6 3 11 3 10 2 14 4 41 3

Reversed 4 2 7 2 22 5 17 5 50 3

Otherc 9 4 1 <1 0 0 9 2 19 1

Total cases 215 100 433 100 411 99d 363 100 1,422 100

aA case was returned to MSPB by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after MSPB

requested additional processing of the case.

bA case was returned to MSPB by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further

action.

cThis category includes court-vacated or summary decisions.

dThis percentage does not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s analysis of MSPB’s Case Management System data.

According to a recognized expert on the administrative redress system for

federal employees, the affirmation rate of MSPB’s decisions by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is much higher than the rate at

which other federal circuits affirm the decisions of other federal

administrative tribunals.3

Guidelines for the length of time MSPB should take to process cases differ

at the regional and headquarters levels. Guidelines at the regional level

stipulate that cases be processed in no more than 120 days. This guideline

was imposed by MSPB itself and is identical to the time limit in the statute

(5 U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)) requiring MSPB to decide appeals that involve

allegations of discrimination within 120 days of the filing of the appeal. At

the headquarters level, cases are to be processed within 110 days. This

guideline also is self-imposed; the chairman explained that the 110-day

guideline at the headquarters level represents a goal to strive toward

rather than a hard and fast requirement for processing petitions for review

3

Peter B. Broida, A Guide to Merit Systems Protection Board Law and Practice, 1979-1992 (Arlington,

VA: Dewey Publications, Inc.), page 2,118.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

(PFR). Further, MSPB’s written policy states that “it will attempt to complete

action on petitions for review of initial decisions within 110 days.”

Over the 4-year period ending September 1994, the regional offices took an

average of 78 days to process initial employee appeals and almost always

met their 120-day case processing guideline. Most survey respondents

were either very satisfied or generally satisfied with the actual amount of

time MSPB took to process cases at the regional level (see app. I, question

22). Satisfaction with actual processing time ranged from 87 percent for

employee and labor-management relations representatives to 67 percent

for agency general counsels. Dissatisfaction with processing time among

the five practitioner groups ranged from a high of 18 percent for agency

general counsels to a low of 7 percent for agency attorneys and

representatives. As shown in table 5, of the initial appeals processed at the

regional office level in fiscal years 1991 through 1994, 3 percent, on

average, were not processed within the 120-day guideline.

Table 5: Timeliness of Processing

Initial Appeals at the Regional Office

Level for the Period of FY 1991

Through FY 1994

Percenta of cases processed in:

Fiscal year

Number

cases

processed

0-30

days

31-60

days

61-90

days

91-120

days

More

than

120

days

Overall

average

days

1991 7,525 8 29 28 34 1 74

1992 7,293 8 26 27 37 3 78

1993 6,861 8 25 26 37 4 79

1994 7,530 8 24 26 38 4 81

Cumulative

results,

1991-1994 29,209 8 26 27 37 3 78

aThe percentages do not always total 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s analysis of MSPB’s Case Management System data.

During the same 4-year period, headquarters took an average of 170 days

to process PFR cases. Although headquarters met its guideline less often

than the regional offices met theirs, its processing time had been

improving until fiscal year 1994. Most survey respondents were very or

generally satisfied with the actual processing time at headquarters (see

app. I, question 26). Satisfaction with actual processing time ranged from

68 percent for the agency attorneys and representatives to 44 percent for

agency general counsels. Dissatisfaction among the five practitioner

Page 10 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

groups with actual processing time at the headquarters level ranged from a

high of 31 percent for private attorneys and agency general counsels to a

low of 20 percent for agency attorneys and representatives. As shown in

table 6, the percentage of PFR cases processed within the 110-day guideline

at the headquarters level over the 4-year period steadily increased from

52 percent in fiscal year 1991 to 78 percent in fiscal year 1993, but it

dropped to 61 percent in fiscal year 1994.

Table 6: Timeliness of Headquarters’

Processing of PFRs on Merit Cases for

the Period of FY 1991 Through FY 1994

Percenta of cases processed in:

Fiscal year

Number of

cases

processed

0-110

days

111-150

days

151-240

days

More

than 240

days

Overall

average

days

1991 1,503 52 14 10 25 220

1992 1,612 70 5 8 17 165

1993 1,317 78 7 4 11 131

1994 1,696 61 11 9 19 162

Cumulative

results,

1991-1994 6,128 65 9 8 18 170

aThe percentages do not always total 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s analysis of MSPB’s Case Management System data.

According to an MSPB headquarters official, the decline during 1994 in the

percentage of PFR cases decided within 110 days was caused by an

increase in workload due to Postal Service reorganization cases.4

 Also, the

chairman cited two additional reasons for the drop in the fiscal year 1994

PFR processing time: a conscious effort by headquarters to reduce the

backlog of PFR cases over 1 year old and a decrease in staff occurring

simultaneously with an increase in PFR caseload.

In explaining the generally longer headquarters processing times, an MSPB

official cited the complexity of cases reaching the PFR stage and the fact

that individual cases may have been kept pending for various reasons,

such as related cases being held to allow MSPB to decide a lead case. Also,

cases have been held because they involved issues under consideration by

the courts or because the contending parties failed to provide necessary

4

In effecting a major restructuring in late 1992, the U.S. Postal Service abolished thousands of

management positions, moved several thousand employees to lower graded positions, and offered

buyouts as an inducement to employees to retire. The Postal Service maintained that the restructuring

was not a reduction in force and that personnel actions taken in the course of the restructuring,

therefore, were not appealable to MSPB. By the end of fiscal year 1993, however, MSPB had received a

total of 277 appeals of actions resulting from the Postal Service reorganization.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

information within the 110-day period. Further, according to the MSPB

official, complex cases occasionally take more than 110 days because they

require more time for research, analysis, and drafting, and for a majority of

the board members to agree on a decision.

MSPB recently expanded its commitment to improving the appellate

process by further encouraging the settlement of appeals. In June 1994, in

accordance with National Performance Review (NPR) recommendations

encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, MSPB

established a program to help parties resolve their disputes at the PFR

level. From June 1994 through the end of September 1994, MSPB

headquarters settlement attorneys attempted to settle 52 cases and

succeeded in settling 17 cases—a success rate of 33 percent. MSPB is

considering doing a comprehensive assessment of the PFR settlement

program after more time has passed.

MSPB Has EEO and

Internal Oversight

Processes to Protect

Its Employees, but

Some Employees

Expressed Concerns

About Participating in

These Processes

MSPB has established accountability mechanisms in the form of policies,

procedures, and processes to protect its employees against workplace

discrimination, mismanagement, abuse, and improper personnel practices.

MSPB has established an EEO policy and has taken various actions to

implement it. The agency also has established new internal oversight

arrangements in lieu of the nonstatutory OIG it abolished in February 1994.

Despite these actions, a substantial number of employees expressed

concerns about participating in the processes for handling EEO complaints

and for reporting allegations of wrongdoing.

MSPB’s EEO Policy and Its

Implementation

MSPB’s EEO policy is to provide equal opportunity to all persons and to

prohibit discrimination because of race, color, sex, age, religion, national

origin, or handicapping condition. In addition, its written policy prohibits

reprisals against individuals who file a discrimination complaint; testify,

assist, or participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or

hearing; or oppose a practice prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, or the

Rehabilitation Act. To facilitate implementation of its EEO policy, MSPB has

(1) provided EEO training opportunities to supervisors, managers, and EEO

staff; (2) evaluated supervisors and managers and rewarded some for their

EEO performance; and (3) taken steps to inform employees about the EEO

complaint process and their rights under it.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

MSPB’s EEO manual, distributed in April 1994, states that “as part of its

commitment to equal opportunity in all management actions and

decisions, training will be given to managers, supervisors and other

personnel as a way of furthering EEO objectives.” According to an MSPB

official, all office directors, managers, and supervisors are responsible for

identifying and obtaining the necessary EEO training for themselves, and

the EEO director is responsible for ensuring that EEO counselors are

knowledgeable of current federal EEO rules and regulations. MSPB training

data provided to us showed that during the 2-year period ending

September 1993, MSPB managers and supervisors were provided

opportunities for training and were encouraged to attend various internal

and external EEO training courses. The MSPB training data also showed that

10 of MSPB’s 21 EEO staff, which consists of 2 full-time staff and 19

collateral-duty staff (mostly EEO counselors) received some type of EEO

training during the 2-year period.

In November 1993, the chairman informed MSPB employees of his strong

commitment to diversity and equitable treatment in the workplace. To

demonstrate his commitment, he established a new performance element

under which to review and evaluate employees’ performance in valuing

and respecting diversity in the workplace. An MSPB official told us that top

management takes its commitment to EEO very seriously, as demonstrated

by the fact that only one MSPB manager has received an outstanding rating

under the new performance element. MSPB’s senior executives and other

managers and supervisory employees are also evaluated on their

adherence to EEO and affirmative action principles under the performance

element on human resources management.

To reward EEO performance, MSPB established the Chairman’s Award for

Excellence in EEO. An employee is eligible for this award under eight

criteria, one of them being whether his or her leadership in achieving EEO

goals and objectives serves as a model for others. Since October 1990,

three MSPB employees have received the award—one manager and one

nonsupervisory employee in January 1992 and another manager in

November 1994.

MSPB’s EEO director told us that MSPB has taken various actions to

communicate MSPB’s EEO policy, program, and complaint process to

employees and to make them aware of their EEO rights. For example,

offices and employees were provided information on the names and

locations of the agency’s EEO counselors and special emphasis program

managers and on the circumstances under which EEO counseling should be

Page 13 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

sought. Also, in April 1994, MSPB’s EEO manual was distributed to all MSPB

offices for their employees’ reference and use. As shown in table 7, most

of the survey respondents indicated that they had received or seen posted

information that described MSPB’s EEO program, their EEO rights, and

procedures for contacting MSPB’s EEO counselors; less than one-half of the

respondents indicated that they had received or seen posted information

that described the details of the EEO complaint process.

Table 7: MSPB Employees’ Receipt of

Information Regarding EEO

Employees were asked if they had

received or seen information posted on:

Number of

employees who

responded yes

Percent of total

survey

respondentsa

MSPB’s EEO program 145 60

their EEO rights 127 53

how to contact MSPB’s EEO counselors 164 68

the EEO complaint process 105 44

aOut of the 299 eligible MSPB employees to whom we mailed our questionnaire, 240 responded

to it.

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment

New Internal Oversight

Policies and Procedures

Recently Implemented

MSPB abolished its nonstatutory OIG in February 1994 because of concerns

about its effectiveness and efficiency and in accordance with NPR’s

governmentwide goal of streamlining agency operations. Since then, MSPB

has assigned the former OIG’s internal oversight functions to its OGC. Also,

to provide its employees with an avenue for reporting their concerns

should they become aware of mismanagement, abuse, or improper

personnel practices, MSPB has entered into an oral agreement with USDA’s

Inspector General for hotline and investigative services.

MSPB’s OGC is responsible for planning and directing internal audits of

MSPB’s programs and operations. However, OGC is to contract for the actual

performance of the audits, either with other agencies through interagency

agreements or with private firms. MSPB has contracted with a certified

public accounting firm to help develop a 5-year audit plan and to establish

procedures for handling the agency’s internal oversight functions. OGC also

is responsible for arranging, as necessary, for investigations into

allegations of wrongdoing and for coordinating the hotline and

investigative services provided by USDA’s Inspector General. Any

complaints or allegations received by USDA’s Inspector General hotline are

to be forwarded to MSPB’s OGC for appropriate action. USDA’s Inspector

Page 14 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

General has agreed to provide investigative services to MSPB on an

as-needed basis. As of November 1994, USDA’s OIG hotline had received two

allegations; both allegations involved complaints about MSPB appellate

decisions rather than instances of mismanagement, abuse, or improper

personnel practices.

We found that by placing its oversight functions in a staff office in lieu of

an OIG, MSPB is administering these functions in a manner comparable to

those of 10 other federal entities we studied of roughly comparable budget

and staff size (see app. IV). Like MSPB, 8 of the 10 federal entities we

studied do not have their own audit or investigative offices but obtain

audit or investigative services through contracts with private firms or

agreements with other agencies’ OIGs. Such arrangements do not ensure

the same level of objectivity or independence as do statutory inspector

general offices. However, if MSPB’s arrangements are implemented as

planned, MSPB should be able to comply with federal audit requirements

set by the Office of Management and Budget and with investigative

requirements set by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

Since MSPB’s arrangements are new, data on usage and results are not yet

available, and it is too early to assess their effectiveness in ensuring that

MSPB employees are provided an avenue for reporting their concerns

should they become aware of mismanagement, abuse, or improper

personnel practices.

Despite the provisions MSPB has made to protect its employees against

workplace discrimination, mismanagement, abuse, and improper

personnel practices, a sizeable portion of survey respondents indicated

concerns about becoming involved in the processes established for

handling EEO complaints and for reporting wrongdoing. About 40 percent

of the respondents indicated they would be either uncertain about or

unwilling to participate in EEO counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint

if they felt they had been discriminated against; the most common reason

was fear of reprisal (see app. II, questions 19 through 22). Fifty-one

percent of the survey respondents indicated they would be either

uncertain about or unwilling to report waste, fraud, abuse, or

mismanagement of which they became aware; the most common reasons

were a concern over maintaining anonymity and a fear of retaliation (see

app. II, questions 24 and 25).

Page 15 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

Most Employees Described

the MSPB Workplace as

Impartial, but Perceptions

Varied Among Groups

As shown in figure 1, nearly two-thirds of the MSPB employees responding

to our survey described the work environment as impartial. Nearly

one-fourth of the respondents described it as discriminatory.

Figure 1: Most Employees Described

the Work Environment at MSPB as

Impartial

14.0% 62.0% • Impartial •

As impartial as discriminatory

•24.0%

Discriminatory

Note: The percentages are based on 221 respondents.

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

More female (29 percent) than male (16 percent) employees and more

minority (45 percent) than nonminority (18 percent) employees described

their work environment as discriminatory (see figure V.1 in app. V).

Overall, most survey respondents believed that they had been treated

fairly regarding various employment and personnel decisions, such as job

assignments and promotions (see table V.1 in app. V). However, more

women, minorities, and nonattorneys believed they had been treated

unfairly regarding such decisions (see tables V.2 through V.4 in app. V).

Sixty-nine (29 percent) of the MSPB employees responding to our survey

suggested various actions for MSPB top management to take to further

promote an impartial work environment. Employees’ suggestions

Page 16 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

generally related to promoting more diversity in management; treating

everyone fairly; making promotion and hiring decisions only on the basis

of merit and not on such factors as race, gender, or political affiliation; and

providing counseling and training to supervisors who are repeatedly the

subject of EEO complaints.

Regarding actual numbers of EEO cases, our analysis of MSPB data on the

EEO complaint process showed that during the 5-year period ending

September 1994, 34 employees received EEO counseling, and 10 employees

filed a total of 21 formal EEO complaints. We have no basis on which to

infer from these numbers the extent to which MSPB has been effective in

establishing a fair and impartial workplace.

We recognize that the responses of MSPB employees to our survey

represent perceptions rather than proven instances of discrimination or

indicators of wrongdoing going unreported. Nevertheless, we believe the

fact that, overall, 24 percent of MSPB employees view their workplace as

discriminatory, and that 45 percent of the agency’s minority employees

concur, should be of concern to the agency because of (1) its role as

protector of the merit system; and (2) the standard it set for itself in its

1992 vision statement, “To promote and protect, by deed and example, the

Federal merit principles in an environment of trust, respect and fairness.”

We believe that in light of MSPB’s mission and the standard adopted in its

vision statement, it is important that MSPB’s own employees feel confident

that they are fairly treated regardless of their race, religion, color, sex,

national origin, political affiliation, marital status, disability, or age.

Employees’

Perceptions Varied

Regarding MSPB’s

Efforts to Foster an

Environment of Trust,

Respect, and Fairness

In November 1992, MSPB announced as its vision, “To promote and protect,

by deed and example, the Federal merit principles in an environment of

trust, respect and fairness.” Although the vision statement was developed

and adopted prior to the current chairman’s appointment, he supports it,

according to MSPB officials. MSPB officials said that several actions have

been taken to foster “an environment of trust, respect, and fairness.” These

actions have included the institution of a new performance element for

valuing and respecting diversity in the workplace, various efforts to

improve internal communication, and the involvement of employees in the

decisionmaking process. Examples of these efforts include (1) featuring

articles in MSPB’s internal newsletter, News of Merit, that highlight various

agency events; (2) cross-training employees within MSPB offices;

(3) allowing employees to select award recipients; and (4) involving

employees in the process for reengineering and reorganizing MSPB in

Page 17 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

response to NPR recommendations on streamlining agencies and

empowering employees.

Twenty-nine percent of survey respondents expressed the belief that MSPB

has been very successful or generally successful in fostering an

environment of trust, respect, and fairness. But 39 percent, of whom

disproportionate numbers were headquarters, women, and minority

employees, expressed the belief that the agency has been generally

unsuccessful or very unsuccessful. Respondents’ perceptions of MSPB’s

success varied by duty station, gender, and minority or nonminority status

(see figs. V.2 through V.4 in app. V).

MSPB believes that the staff’s mixed perceptions of the agency’s efforts to

foster an environment of trust, respect, and fairness may have been

affected by the uncertainties associated with the arrival of a new

chairman, along with the staff’s concerns over job security at a time when

management was in the process of reorganizing and reengineering the

agency’s operations. However, an internal MSPB survey that was

administered about 2 years prior to both our survey and MSPB’s current

reorganization efforts yielded similar results. Fifty percent of the

respondents to MSPB’s internal survey administered in February 1992

disagreed with the statement that “overall, the Board creates and fosters

an environment of trust, respect, and fairness.”

The views of MSPB employees in this regard are somewhat similar to those

of federal employees in general. In OPM’s 1992 survey of 56,767 federal

employees, 44 percent of the respondents expressed confidence and trust

in their organizations, but 26 percent did not. OPM’s survey also showed

that although 30 percent believed their organizations treated all employees

equally regardless of position or rank, 47 percent did not. OPM’s survey

results demonstrate that other federal agencies, based on their employees’

perceptions, have had mixed success in fostering trust and fairness in the

workplace.

Nearly half (45 percent) of MSPB employees responding to our

survey—including many who felt that MSPB has been successful in

promoting an environment of trust, respect, and fairness—suggested

actions for MSPB top management to take in this regard. The suggestions

generally related to improving workplace communication and managerial

decisionmaking about employment and resource matters, allowing

employees to contribute to the decisionmaking process and involving staff

at all levels, and treating staff equitably without regard to position or to

Page 18 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

minority or nonminority status. MSPB officials said that some of these

suggestions correspond with actions already taken by management, and

they are continuing to pursue them.

Conclusion Our examination of MSPB’s mission performance, employee protections,

and working environment began 4 months after the swearing-in of MSPB’s

current chairman and therefore covered a transitional period for the

agency. Regarding mission performance and employee protections,

indications were that MSPB’s new management is pursuing policies and

initiatives that are in accord with relevant standards and with the needs of

its customers and employees. Management has taken several actions to

provide employee protections and to promote a working environment

based on trust, respect, and fairness. However, MSPB employees had mixed

perceptions of the impartiality of the workplace and of management’s

success in improving the work environment. We believe the eventual

impact on MSPB’s employees of management’s actions will become clearer

after the current chairman has been in office for a longer period of time,

and the process of reorganizing and reengineering the agency’s operations

has been completed.

Agency Comments In a letter dated July 14, 1995, MSPB’s chairman provided comments on a

draft of this report. The chairman said that our report, on the whole, was

thorough and thoughtfully presented. He did not express any disagreement

with its findings and conclusions. His comments consisted of apprising us

that (1) processing time for petitions for review on merit cases improved

during the first half of fiscal year 1995 (a time period that was outside the

scope of our review); and (2) while the report states that OGC will contract

out audits, it may also be prudent for OGC, under the current fiscal

environment, to arrange for Board personnel to perform some audits in

situations where appropriate safeguards can be established. The chairman

also recommended a technical change that we made where appropriate.

The chairman’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix VI.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen of the Merit Systems

Protection Board, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the

House Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight. Copies will be

made available to others upon request.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
B-249151 

This report was prepared under the direction of Stephen Altman, Assistant

Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues. Other major

contributors are listed in appendix VII. If you have any questions about

this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8676.

Sincerely yours,

L. Nye Stevens

Director

Federal Management and Workforce Issues

Page 20 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Page 21 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on

the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit

Systems Protection

Board

26

Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board

Employees’ Attitudes

and Views About

Their Work

Environment

38

Appendix III 

Scope and

Methodology

54

MSPB’s Appeals Process 54

MSPB’s Accountability Mechanisms 58

MSPB’s Vision Statement 60

MSPB Employee Questionnaire Objectives and Development 60

Nonsampling Errors on Both Questionnaires 61

Page 22 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Contents

Appendix IV 

Comparison of

MSPB’s Internal

Oversight

Arrangements With

Those of 10 Other

Selected Federal

Entities

62

Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on

Selected MSPB

Employee Survey

Results

64

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Merit Systems

Protection Board

70

Appendix VII 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

72

Tables Table 1: Participants’ Opinions on How Successful MSPB Has

Been in Accomplishing its Mission Through the Appeals Process

6

Table 2: Participants’ Opinions on the Fairness of the Appeals

Process at the Regional Office Level

7

Table 3: Participants’ Opinions on the Fairness of the Appeals

Process at the Headquarters Level

8

Page 23 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Contents

Table 4: Dispositions of MSPB Decisions Reviewed and

Adjudicated by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for

the Period of FY 1991 Through FY 1994

9

Table 5: Timeliness of Processing Initial Appeals at the Regional

Office Level for the Period of FY 1991 Through FY 1994

10

Table 6: Timeliness of Headquarters’ Processing of PFRs on Merit

Cases for the Period of FY 1991 Through FY 1994

11

Table 7: MSPB Employees’ Receipt of Information Regarding

EEO

14

Table III.1: cipant Groups Included in MSPB’s Appeals Process

Questionnaire Survey Mailed on April 27, 1994

56

Table III.2: Questionnaire Returns 56

Table III.3: Useable Return Rates by Group 57

Table III.4: Confidence Intervals for GAO’s Analysis of Sampled

Participants’ Views of MSPB’s Success in Accomplishing Its

Mission and the Fairness of Its Appellate Process

58

Table III.5: Questionnaire Returns 61

Table V.1: Percentage of MSPB Employees Indicating They

Believed They Have Been Treated Fairly Regarding Various

Personnel and Pay Decisions

65

Table V.2: Percentage of Employees Indicating They Believed

They Have Been Treated Unfairly, by Gender

65

Table V.3: Percentage of Employees Indicating They Believed

They Have Been Treated Unfairly, by Nonminority/Minority

Status

66

Table V.4: Percentage of Employees Indicating They Believed

They Have Been Treated Unfairly, by Position

66

Figures Figure 1: Most Employees Described the Work Environment at

MSPB as Impartial

16

Figure V.1: Respondents’ Description of the Impartiality of the

Work Environment, by Gender and Nonminority/ Minority Status

64

Figure V.2: Employees’ Perceptions of MSPB’s Success in

Fostering an Environment of Trust, Respect, and Fairness, by

Gender

67

Figure V.3: Employees’ Perceptions of MSPB’s Success in

Fostering an Environment of Trust, Respect, and Fairness, by

Nonminority/Minority Status

68

Figure V.4: Employees’ Perceptions of MSPB’s Success in

Fostering an Environment of Trust, Respect, and Fairness, by

Duty Station

69

Page 24 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Contents

Abbreviations

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NPR National Performance Review

OGC Office of the General Counsel

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PFR petition for review

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Page 25 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

United States General Accounting Office

Survey on the Appellate Process of the

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Introduction

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an independent

agency of Congress, is reviewing the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB) at the request of the Chairmen of

the House Subcommittee on Civil Service and the Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs. The purpose of this

survey is to obtain your views on certain aspects of the

MSPB appellate process that are of interest to the

committees. Your frank and honest answers will help GAO

advise the committees on the MSPB appellate process and

the need, if any, to change it. The committees are interested

in these aspects of the appellate process:

-- MSPB’s mission accomplishment and fairness of

the appellate process,

-- time limits for filing appeals,

-- case processing standards, and

-- alternative dispute resolution practices.

We are sending this questionnaire to:

-- general counsels of federal agencies,

-- federal agency attorneys/advocates,

-- employee and labor-management relations

representatives in federal agencies,

-- private attorneys representing appellants, and

-- union officials representing appellants.

To obtain different perspectives on MSPB’s appellate

process, we would appreciate receiving individual responses

from each representative. We would like you to focus on

your experiences with MSPB’s operations since October

1991.

Your responses will be kept confidential and will not be

released outside GAO, unless compelled by law to do so or

required to do so by the Congress. While the results are

generally provided in summary form, individual answers

may be discussed in our report, but they will not include any

information that could be used to identify individual

respondents. The questionnaire is numbered only to aid us in

our follow-up efforts and will not be used to identify you

with your response. The link between you and your response

will be destroyed before the report is issued.

The questionnaire can be completed in about 20 minutes.

Space has been provided at the end of the questionnaire, and

additional pages may be added, for any comments you may

want to make.

Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed

pre-addressed envelope within 10 days of receipt. If the

envelope is misplaced, the return address is:

U.S. General Accounting Office

Attn: William Trancucci

Room 3150

441 G Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20548

If you have any questions about this survey, please call

William Trancucci at (202) 512-5043 or Mary Martin at

(202) 512-4345.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

DEFINITIONS

Regional level - Under MSPB regulations, an

employee must initially file an appeal of an agency

personnel decision with one of MSPB’s 11 regional

offices. At the regional level, an administrative judge

will hear and decide the employee’s appeal. In this

survey, the appellate process that is carried out at

MSPB’s 11 regional offices is referred to as the

regional level.

Headquarters level - Under MSPB regulations, an

employee and/or agency may ask the 3-member

Board located in Washington, D.C. to review the

appeal’s decision that was made by an administrative

judge in the regional office. In this survey, the

appellate process that is carried out by the 3-member

Board at its office in Washington, D.C. is referred to

as the headquarters level.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

I. Background

1. Since October 1991, with about how many MSPB

cases, if any, have you had experience in representing

clients? (Enter number and continue to Question 2.

If none, enter "0" and read box below.)

N=667 Number of cases at the regional level: Mean = 9.8

N=499 Number of cases at headquarters level: Mean = 2.2

If you had no experience (entered 0) with MSPB

cases, please stop here and return the questionnaire

to us in the enclosed envelope. Thank you.

2. Considering all the cases since October 1991 with

which you have had experience representing clients

before MSPB (see Question 1), about how many were

in each of the following categories?

(Enter numbers in appropriate boxes.)

TYPE OF CASE

NUMBER OF

CASES

a. Adverse action by agency (removal,

reduction in grade or pay,

suspension for more than 14 days,

or furlough for 30 days or less for

cause that will promote the

efficiency of the service under 5

U.S.C. 7512)

N = 617

Mean = 8.5

b. Unacceptable performance action

(reduction in grade or removal

under 5 U.S.C. 4303)

N = 334

Mean = 1.9

c. Rights or interests of individuals

under federal retirement programs

(5 U.S.C. 8347(d)(1)-(2) and

8461(e)(1))

N = 198

Mean = 1.2

d. Other (Specify.)

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

N = 181

Mean = 3.3

3. Are you an attorney? (Check one.)

N = 672

60% Yes

40% No

II. Mission Accomplishment and Fairness

of Appellate Process

MSPB was established by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of

1978, which was codified by the Civil Service Reform Act

of 1978, as an independent, quasi-judicial agency. MSPB’s

mission is to assure that Federal merit systems are kept free

of prohibited personnel practices, employees are protected

against abuses by agency management, and executive branch

agencies make employment decisions in accordance with

merit systems principles. One way MSPB accomplishes its

mission is by hearing and deciding employee appeals from

agency personnel actions.

4. How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the MSPB

precedential body of case law? (Check one.)

N = 676

28% Very familiar 

 (Continue with

49% Generally familiar  Question 5.)

11% As familiar as

unfamiliar 



9% Generally unfamiliar  (Skip to

 Question 6.)

2% Very unfamiliar 

5. In your opinion, are the outcomes in decisions that

constitute the MSPB precedential body of case law

consistent or inconsistent from case to case (where the

same or similar issues are involved? (Check one.)

N = 513

15% Almost always consistent

68% Generally consistent

14% Consistent as often as inconsistent

3% Generally inconsistent

0% Almost always inconsistent

----------------

N=9 No basis to judge/Don’t know

Page 27 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

6. Consider the cases with which you were associated. In your opinion, are the decisions at the regional level and headquarters

level consistent or inconsistent with the evidence in the appeals records related to each individual case?

(Check one box in each row.)

Almost

always

consistent

(1)

Generally

consistent

(2)

As

consistent

as

inconsistent

(3)

Generally

inconsistent

(4)

Almost

always

inconsistent

(5)

No basis

to judge/

Don’t know

(6)

a. Regional level N=590 27% 54% 15% 3% 1% N=77

b. Headquarters level N=348 31% 51% 13% 5% 1% N=246

7. In your opinion, at the regional level, how fair

(impartial) or unfair (partial) is the appellate process?

(Check one.)

N = 627

26% Almost always fair 

 (Skip to

55% Generally fair  Question 9.)

11% Fair as often

as unfair 



6% Generally unfair  (Continue with

 Question 8.)

2% Very unfair  -------------- ----

N=48 No basis to judge/Don’t know (Skip to

Question 9.)

8. Please explain your response to Question 7.

95 had comments

9. In your opinion, at the headquarters level, how fair

(impartial) or unfair (partial) is the appellate process?

(Check one.)

N = 376

29% Almost always fair 

 (Skip to

52% Generally fair  Question 11.)

10% Fair as often

as unfair 



7% Generally unfair  (Continue with

 Question 10.)

2% Very unfair  -------------- ----

N=281 No basis to judge/Don’t know (Skip to

Question 11.)

10. Please explain your response to Question 9.

56 had comments

Page 28 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

11. Based on your experience with MSPB, do you believe

MSPB considers each case on its own merits (is

neutral) or is it biased in favor of employees or

agencies (management)? (Check one.)

N = 629

2% Very biased in favor of employees

32% Somewhat biased in favor of employees

60% Neutral (considers each case on its own

merits)

0% Somewhat biased in favor of agencies

6% Very biased in favor of agencies

-------------------

N=42 No basis to judge/Don’t know

12. In your opinion, how successful or unsuccessful has

MSPB, through the appellate process, been in

accomplishing its mission (see introductory paragraph,

Section II, page 2.) (Check one.)

N = 577

17% Very successful

58% Generally successful

17% As successful as unsuccessful

6% Generally unsuccessful

2% Very unsuccessful

----------------

N=87 No basis to judge/Don’t know

III. Time Limits For Filing Appeals

MSPB requires that an appeal of an agency personnel action,

such as removal from employment or suspension for more

than 14 days, be filed with the appropriate regional office

within 20 days of the action’s effective date. MSPB

requires that a petition to review a regional office

administrative judge decision be filed with the Clerk of the

Board within 35 days after the regional office decision is

issued. If these time frames are not met, MSPB may

dismiss the appeal or the petition to review the regional

office decision as untimely filed, and not decide the appeal

or petition on its merits, unless a good reason for the delay

in filing is shown.

13. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate is the

20-day time limit for filing an appeal with an MSPB

regional office? (Check one.)

N = 653

43% Very adequate 

 (Skip to

30% Generally adequate  Question 15.)

7% Adequate as often

as inadequate 



14% Generally inadequate  (Continue with

 Question 14.)

6% Very inadequate  -------------- ----

N=18 No basis to judge/Don’t know (Skip to

Question 15.)

14. In your opinion, which of the following limits for filing

an appeal with an MSPB regional office would provide

appellants the most reasonable amount of time to file

the required petition for appeal? (Check one.)

N = 173

27% 21 - 30 days

31% 31 - 40 days

6% 41 - 50 days

27% 51 - 60 days

9% Other (Specify.)

____________________________________

____________________________________

---------------

N=0 No basis to judge/Don’t know

Page 29 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

15. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate is the

35-day time limit for filing a petition for review of a

regional office decision with the Clerk of the Board?

(Check one.)

N = 606

37% Very adequate 

 (Skip to

41% Generally adequate  Question 17.)

9% Adequate as often

as inadequate 



11% Generally inadequate  (Continue with

 Question 16.)

2% Very inadequate  -------------- ----

N=65 No basis to judge (Skip to Question 17.)

16. In your opinion, which of the following time limits for

filing a petition for review with the Clerk of the Board

would provide petitioners the most reasonable amount

of time to file the required petition? (Check one.)

N = 129

20% 36 - 45 days

19% 46 - 55 days

40% 56 - 65 days

8% 66 - 75 days

13% Other (Specify.)

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

----------------

N=5 No basis to judge

MSPB requires that an agency response to an employee

petition for appeal of an agency personnel action be filed

with the appropriate regional office within 20 days of the

date of the regional office order acknowledging the appeal.

17. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate is the 20-

day time limit imposed on agencies for filing a

response to an employee appeal with an MSPB regional

office? (Check one.)

N = 638

19% Very adequate 

 (Skip to

39% Generally adequate  Question 19.)

15% Adequate as often

as inadequate 



20% Generally inadequate  (Continue with

 Question 18.)

7% Very inadequate  -------------- ----

N=34 No basis to judge (Skip to Question 19.)

18. In your opinion, which of the following time limits for

filing a response to an employee appeal with an MSPB

regional office would provide agencies the most

reasonable amount of time to file a response?

(Check one.)

N = 261

42% 21 - 30 days

34% 31 - 40 days

10% 41 - 50 days

11% 51 - 60 days

3% Other (Specify.) _______________

-----------------

N=1 Don’t know/no basis to judge

Page 30 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

MSPB requires that an agency or employee response to a

petition for review of a regional office decision be filed with

the Clerk of the Board within 25 days after the date that the

petition for review was served on the party.

19. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate is the

25-day time limit imposed on parties for filing a

response to a petition for review with the Clerk of the

Board? (Check one.)

N = 603

19% Very adequate 

 (Skip to

45% Generally adequate  Question 21.)

15% Adequate as often

as inadequate 



18% Generally inadequate  (Continue with

 Question 20.)

4% Very inadequate  -------------- ----

N=70 No basis to judge (Skip to Question 21.)

20. In your opinion, which of the following time limits for

filing a response to a petition for review with the Clerk

of the Board would provide a party the most reasonable

amount of time to file a response? (Check one.)

N = 217

23% 26 - 30 days

40% 31 - 40 days

12% 41 - 50 days

21% 51 - 60 days

4% Other (Specify.) ________

-----------------

N=0 Don’t know/no basis to judge

Page 31 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

IV. Case Processing Standards

MSPB has established standard time frames for processing cases at both the regional (120 days) and Board (110 days) levels.

At the regional level, the 120 days begins with receipt of the initial appeal and ends with the issuance of an initial decision.

During that time period, the appeal is assigned to an administrative judge, the agency’s case file is received, and the discovery

process begins. Also, prehearing motions are filed, attempts are made to achieve settlement, and a hearing may be held.

At the Board headquarters level, the 110 days begins with the filing of the petition for review by the appellant or agency. The

case file is received from the regional office and reviewed. The 110 day period ends with the issuance of a final Board decision.

We are interested in (1) how satisfied or dissatisfied in general you are with these standard time frames for processing cases;

(2) how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the actual amount of time MSPB has taken to process and decide cases at the

regional and headquarters level; (3) whether you believe MSPB should revise its standard time frames; and (4) what would be a

reasonable standard for MSPB to process and decide cases.

21. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with MSPB’s standard time frames for administrative judges and board members to

decide cases at the regional (120 days) and headquarters (110 days) levels, respectively? (Check one box in each row.)

MSPB STANDARD TIME FRAMES

Very

satisfied

(1)

Generally

satisfied

(2)

As satisfied

as

dissatisfied

(3)

Generally

dissatisfied

(4)

Very

dissatisfied

(5)

Not sure/

No basis

to judge

(6)

a. Regional level (120 days) N=629 28% 47% 11% 10% 3% N=41

b. Headquarters level (110 days) N=415 25% 49% 14% 8% 4% N=180

22. Consider the actual amount of time it has generally

taken MSPB to process a case at the regional level.

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the time it

actually takes MSPB to process a case at the regional

level? (Check one.)

N = 636

24% Very satisfied 

 (Skip to

54% Generally satisfied  Question 26.)

12% As satisfied

as dissatisfied 



8% Generally dissatisfied (Continue with

 Question 23.)

2% Very dissatisfied  -------------- ----

N=39 Not sure/No basis to judge (Skip to

Question 26.)

23. Please explain the reason for your dissatisfaction with

the actual amount of time it takes MSPB to process a

case at the regional level.

117 Responses

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

24. If you are dissatisfied with the actual amount of time it

has taken MSPB to process cases at the regional level,

do you believe it needs to revise its standard time

frames for processing cases? (Check one.)

N = 118

87% Yes --> (Continue with Question 25.)

13% No  ---------------  (Skip to

N=17 Not sure/No opinion  Question 26.)

Page 32 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

25. In your opinion, what would be the most reasonable

standard for processing a case through MSPB at the

regional level? (Check one.)

N = 104

2% 30 days or less

12% 31 - 60 days

14% 61 - 90 days

4% 91 - 120 days

14% 121 - 150 days

38% 151 - 180 days

17% 181 days or more - Please specify:

________________________________

---------------------

N=1 No opinion

26. Consider the actual amount of time it has generally

taken MSPB to process a case at the headquarters level.

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the time it

actually takes MSPB to process a case at the

headquarters level? (Check one.)

N = 400

11% Very satisfied 

 (Skip to

52% Generally satisfied  Question 30.)

14% As satisfied

as dissatisfied 



14% Generally dissatisfied (Continue with

 Question 27.)

9% Very dissatisfied  -------------- ----

N=265 Not sure/No basis to judge (Skip to

Question 30.)

27. Please explain the reason for your dissatisfaction with

the actual amount of time it takes MSPB to process a

case at the headquarters level.

132 Comments

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

28. If you are dissatisfied with the actual amount of time it

has taken MSPB to process cases at the headquarters

level, do you believe it needs to revise its standard time

frames for processing cases? (Check one.)

N = 132

60% Yes ---> (Continue with Question 29.)

40% No  ---------------  (Skip to

N=16 Not sure/No opinion  Section V on

page 9.)

29. In your opinion, what would be the most reasonable

standard for processing a case through MSPB at the

headquarters level? (Check one.)

N = 81

6% 30 days or less

17% 31 - 60 days

21% 61 - 90 days

19% 91 - 120 days

7% 121 - 150 days

21% 151 - 180 days

9% 181 days or more - Please specify:

________________________________

---------------------

N=1 No opinion

Page 33 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

V. Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices

Broadly defined, alternative dispute resolution is any process

that disputing parties use to resolve a disagreement other

than a formal process such as court or administrative

proceedings. MSPB has incorporated alternative dispute

resolution into the appellate process by requiring

administrative judges to order the parties to discuss the

possibility of voluntarily settling their dispute. With the

parties’ approval, the administrative judge may participate in

the settlement discussions.

30. Consider all the cases with which you have had

experience with MSPB since October 1991 (See

Question 1). In about how many cases, if any, have

you had experience where an administrative judge

participated (encouraged, discussed terms of settlement,

etc.) in the settlement discussions? (Enter number and

continue to Question 31. If none, check box below and

then skip to Question 32.) N = 551

N = 438 1 - 10 Cases

N = 65 11 - 20 Cases

N = 20 21 - 30 Cases

N = 12 31 - 40 Cases

N = 7 41 - 50 Cases

N = 9 Over 50 Cases

____________________

(Number of cases)

N=122 None (Skip to Question 32.)

31. In about how many of these cases (see question 30), if

any, did you want to proceed with a formal

adjudication of the case, but were persuaded by the

Administrative Judge not to terminate settlement

negotiations?

(Check one.)

N = 528

14% All, or almost all, of the cases

11% Most of the cases

11% About half of the cases

22% Some of the cases

42% None, or almost none, of the cases

----------------

N=19 No basis to judge

32. Consider all the cases with which you have had

experience with MSPB since October 1991 (see

Question 1). In about how many cases, if any, have

you entered into a settlement agreement with the other

party to resolve the dispute? (Enter number and

continue to Question 33. If none, check box below and

then skip to Question 36. If necessary, an estimate will

suffice.)

N = 510

N = 454 1 - 10 Cases

N = 39 11 - 20 Cases

N = 7 21 - 30 Cases

N = 10 Over 30 Cases

____________________

(Number of cases)

N=165 None (Skip to Section VI on page 11.

33. Consider those cases since October 1991 where you

entered into settlement agreements with other parties

(see Question 32). In about how many, if any, do you

believe that the settlement agreements’ terms were

equitable, given the weight of the evidence in the other

parties’ and your cases? (Check one.)

N = 497

52% All, or almost all, of the cases

31% Most of the cases

7% About half of the cases

5% Some of the cases

6% None, or almost none, of the cases

----------------

N=11 No basis to judge

Page 34 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

34. Consider those cases since October 1991 where you entered into settlement agreements with the other parties (see Question

32). In about how many, if any, do you believe that the terms of the settlement agreements left the party you represented

better off than if you had proceeded with adjudication? (Check one.)

N = 471

29% All, or almost all, of the cases

24% Most of the cases

13% About half of the cases

16% Some of the cases

18% None, or almost none, of the cases

----------------

N=32 No basis to judge

35. Consider all the cases since October 1991 where you entered into settlement agreements with the other parties (see Question

32). In about how many of these cases, if any, did the administrative judges discuss (either in writing or verbally) the

following? (Check one box in each row.)

Administrative judges discussed

whether you . . .

All, or

almost all,

of the cases

(1)

Most of

the cases

(2)

About half

of the cases

(3)

Some of

the cases

(4)

None, or

almost none,

of the cases

(5)

Don’t know/

not

applicable

(6)

a. agreed to a settlement N=479 83% 11% 2% 3% 2% N=20

b. understood the terms of the

agreement N=471 76% 11% 3% 3% 6% N=25

c. wanted the agreement made part of

the appeals record N=470 74% 14% 3% 4% 4% N=26

Page 35 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

VI. General Comments

36. If you have additional comments regarding any previous question or general comments or suggestions for improving the

MSPB appeals process, please use the space provided below. If necessary, attach additional sheets.

253 provided additional comments

Please check here if you would like a copy of the final report.

358 requested a copy of the report

GGD/MS/8-95

Page 36 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix I 

Annotated Survey on the Appellate Process

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

OPTIONAL

The following section will be separated from the questionnaire before processing.

Name of agency, union, law firm you represent:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name of the person who filled out this questionnaire and who may be contacted, if necessary, for clarification of responses.

(Please print.)

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Title: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone: (_____________) ___________________________________

(Area code) (Number)

Page 37 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

United States General Accounting Office

Survey of U.S. Merit Systems Protection

Board Employees’ Attitudes and Views About

Their Work Environment

Introduction

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an

independent agency of Congress, is reviewing the U.S.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) at the request

of the Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs and the Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil

Service, House Post Office and Civil Service

Committee. As part of this review, we are surveying

all MSPB employees to get their views on the work

environment in general and MSPB’s efforts to (1)

foster a work environment that is based on trust,

respect, and fairness; (2) ensure that its employees

work in an environment that is free of discrimination;

and (3) create a climate that encourages reporting of

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. We also ask

for views on the reasonableness of MSPB’s standard

time frames for processing and deciding cases.

Your frank and honest answers will help GAO inform

the committees on how MSPB employees view their

work environment and the agency’s equal employment

opportunity (EEO) operations. Your responses will be

kept confidential and will not be released outside

GAO, unless compelled by law or required by

Congress to do so. While the results are generally

provided in summary form, individual answers may be

discussed in our report, but they will not include any

information that could be used to identify individual

respondents. The questionnaire is numbered only to

aid us in our follow-up efforts and will not be used to

identify you with your response. The link between

you and your response will be destroyed before the

report is issued.

The questionnaire should take about 20 to 30 minutes

to complete. Space has been provided at the end of

the questionnaire for any comments you may want to

make. Additional pages may be added if necessary.

Please complete and return the questionnaire in the

enclosed preaddressed envelope within 10 working

days to avoid costly follow-up efforts. In the event the

envelope is misplaced, the return address is:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street, NW

Room 3150

Washington, D.C. 20548

Attention: Ms. Mary Martin

If you have any questions, please call Mary Martin on

(202) 512-4345 or Bill Trancucci on (202) 512-5043.

Thank you very much for your time.

*******

Page 38 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

I. Your Views on the Work Environment at MSPB

In this section, we ask about your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with certain aspects of your work

environment at MSPB.

1. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following as they relate to your current MSPB

work environment? (Check one box in each row.)

Very

satisfied

Generally

satisfied

As satisfied

as

dissatisfied

Generally

dissatisfied

Very

dissatisfied

Not

applicable/

No basis

to judge

a. The people you work with daily

(peers/colleagues) N=236 42% 43% 11% 3% 1% N=0

b. Your immediate supervisor N=221 40% 34% 12% 8% 7% N=17

c. Your division director N=123 29% 42% 15% 7% 7% N=102

d. Your office director in

headquarters N=161 23% 40% 18% 12% 8% N=73

e. Your regional director N=97 43% 33% 19% 2% 3% N=138

f. Availability of training

opportunities N=238 21% 43% 17% 11% 8% N=1

g. Availability of resources (i.e.,

budget, technology, staff, etc.)

necessary to do your job N=233 15% 49% 23% 11% 3% N=3

h. The career progress you have made

in MSPB up to now N=230 23% 41% 16% 10% 10% N=8

i. The opportunities for promotion or

career advancement N=222 7% 29% 14% 26% 24% N=14

j. Other (Please specify.)

___________________ N=11 18% - 9% 18% 55% N=4

2. Looking at your responses to question 1, overall,

how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your

current MSPB work environment?

(Check one.)

N=237

Very satisfied 21%

Generally satisfied 45%

As satisfied as dissatisfied 17%

Generally dissatisfied 11%

Very dissatisfied 6%

-----------------------

Not sure/No basis to judge N=1

3. Thinking in general about your responses to

question 1, would you say that the work

environment at MSPB is improving, staying about

the same, or getting worse? (Check one.)

N=230

Improving greatly 5%

Improving somewhat 28%

Staying about the same 31%

Worsening somewhat 24%

Worsening greatly 11%

-----------------------

Not sure/No basis to judge N=5

Page 39 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

4. What actions, if any, would you suggest that MSPB top management take to further improve the work

environment at MSPB? (Please describe below. If you believe no actions are necessary, enter "None".)

No comment 20% (N=49)

"None" entered 9% (N=21)

Suggested actions 56% (N=135)

Dissatisfaction

expressed or

problems cited 15% (N=35)

In November 1992, MSPB announced the following vision statement: "To promote and protect, by

deed and example, the Federal merit principles in an environment of trust, respect and fairness."

The following questions ask for your views on the extent to which MSPB has fostered a work

environment based on trust, respect, and fairness, since announcing its vision statement in November

1992.

5. Based on your experience, in general, to what extent does your MSPB manager or supervisor currently show

respect to you in the following ways? Please focus on manager or supervisor you currently report to.

(Check one box in each row.)

To a very

great

extent

To a

great

extent

To a

moderate

extent

To some

extent

To little

or no

extent

Not

applicable/

No basis

to judge

a. He/she shows interest in my wellbeing. N=229 29% 25% 19% 16% 12% N=11

b. He/she creates an environment in

which I feel valued. N=229 27% 25% 17% 15% 16% N=10

c. He/she is receptive to my

suggestions on how to improve

operations. N=218 27% 23% 21% 17% 12% N=21

d. He/she considers my views in

formulating policy or

programs. N=211 25% 21% 17% 19% 18% N=27

e. Other (Please specify.)

_____________________ N=2 50% - 50% - - N=2

Page 40 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

6. In general, how much do you currently trust or distrust the people in each of the following categories?

By trust, we mean your expectation that they will maintain a fair and honest work relationship with you.

(Check one box in each row.)

Strongly

trust

Generally

trust

Trust as

much as

distrust

Generally

distrust

Strongly

distrust

Not

applicable/

No basis

to judge

a. Members of your work group or

unit (peers/colleagues) N=238 31% 48% 15% 4% 3% N=0

b. Your immediate supervisor N=224 35% 37% 15% 6% 7% N=14

c. Your division director N=123 21% 42% 20% 9% 8% N=109

d. Your office director in

headquarters N=154 14% 38% 23% 16% 9% N=78

e. Your regional director N=95 39% 33% 21% 3% 4% N=139

f. Senior managers above your office

director N=178 3% 23% 36% 26% 12% N=58

g. Members of the Board N=199 5% 26% 42% 17% 11% N=40

h. Human resource officials or

staff N=203 10% 37% 36% 13% 5% N=34

i. Other (Please specify.)

_____________________ N=9 - 22% - 22% 56% N=2

Page 41 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

7. Since MSPB announced its vision statement in November 1992, overall, how fairly or unfairly do you believe you

have been treated in terms of decisions in each of the following areas? By fair, we mean decisions that were

based on merit and were free of bias and favoritism. (Check one box in each row.) (32-38)

Very

fairly

Generally

fairly

As fairly

as

unfairly

Generally

unfairly

Very

unfairly

Not

applicable/

No basis

to judge

a. Job or project assignments N=226 30% 38% 18% 8% 7% N=9

b. Training N=230 28% 44% 19% 7% 3% N=7

c. Formal performance

appraisals/ratings N=228 35% 36% 18% 7% 4% N=10

d. Monetary awards and bonuses

N=219 33% 32% 18% 7% 11% N=18

e. Promotion or career

advancement N=202 23% 34% 19% 13% 12% N=35

f. Nonmonetary awards and

recognition N=206 24% 34% 19% 11% 13% N=31

g. Other (Please specify.)

______________________ N=2 - - - - 100% N=1

8. Overall, since MSPB announced its vision statement in November 1992, how successful or unsuccessful has

MSPB been in fostering an environment of trust, respect, and fairness? (Check one.)

N=225

Very successful 5%

Generally successful 24%

As successful as unsuccessful 32%

Generally unsuccessful 27%

Very unsuccessful 12%

--------------------------

Don’t know/No basis to judge N=10

9. If necessary, what actions would you suggest that MSPB top management take to further promote a work

environment based on greater trust, respect, and fairness? (Please describe below. If you believe no actions

are necessary, enter "None".)

No comment 25% (N=59)

"None" entered 11% (N=27)

Suggested actions 45% (N=108)

Dissatisfaction

expressed or

problems cited 19% (N=46)

Page 42 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

The following questions ask for your views on the extent to which MSPB has a discrimination-free

work environment.

10. We have listed below certain behaviors and actions that could occur in any organization. During the past 2 years,

do you believe that any of these situations occurred anywhere at MSPB? If yes, please indicate whether it

happened to you, you saw it happen or you were told by the person it happened to, or you heard about it through

a third party. (Check yes or no for each situation. If yes, check all boxes that apply.)

Do you believe

the situation

occurred

at MSPB?

What is the basis for your belief?

(Check all boxes that apply.)

N’s reported for this question Yes No

It

happened

to me

I saw it

happen or

was told by

the person

it happened

to

I heard it

through a

third

party

a. An employee was not considered for job

or career advancement because of family

responsibilities (e.g., caring for

children/elders). 20 205

If yes -->

3 11 8

b. An employee was not considered for job

or career advancement because of a

physical disability. 10 216 If yes --> - 5 4

c. An employee was assigned to a job or

project based primarily on race or sex. 65 155 If yes --> 7 45 19

d. An individual was hired based primarily

on the hiring official’s personal bias

regarding race or sex. 49 174

If yes -->

3 35 16

e. An employee was given formal

recognition or rewarded based primarily

on race or sex. 65 158 If yes --> 5 43 20

f. An employee was given a training or

developmental opportunity based

primarily on race or sex. 38 182 If yes --> 5 27 7

g. A qualified employee was not promoted

based primarily on the selecting

official’s personal bias regarding race or

sex. 47 173

If yes -->

13 25 12

h. Management was informed that remarks

with racial or ethnic overtones were

being made but continued to tolerate

them. 20 204

If yes -->

4 13 3

i. Management was informed that remarks

or actions with sexist or sexual

overtones were being made but

continued to tolerate them. 38 183

If yes -->

6 20 15

j. Other (Please specify.)

______________________ 9

If yes -->

- 9 2

Page 43 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

11. Considering your responses to the situations

listed in question 10, would you describe the

work environment at MSPB as impartial or

discriminatory? (Check one.)

We define an impartial work environment as one

in which an employee is treated fairly without

regard to race, religion, color, sex, national

origin, political affiliation, marital status,

disability, or age (if at least age 40).

N=221

Very impartial 29%

Somewhat impartial 33%

As impartial as discriminatory 14%

Somewhat discriminatory 16%

Very discriminatory 8%

---------------------------

Not sure/No basis to judge N=15

12. Are you aware of any efforts by MSPB during the

past 2 years to further promote an impartial work

environment? (Check one.)

N=233

55% Yes ---> (Continue with Question 13.)

45% No ---> (Skip to Question 14.)

13. In your opinion, how successful or unsuccessful

have MSPB’s efforts been to further promote an

impartial work environment? (Check one.)

N=119

Very successful 12%

Somewhat successful 36%

As successful as unsuccessful 30%

Somewhat unsuccessful 10%

Very unsuccessful 12%

---------------------------

Not sure/No basis to judge N=9

14. If necessary, what actions would you suggest

that MSPB top management take to further

promote an impartial work environment at

MSPB? (Please describe below. If you

believe no actions are necessary, enter

"None".)

No comment 35% (N=84)

"None" entered 24% (N=57)

Suggested actions 29% (N=69)

Dissatisfaction

expressed or

problems cited 12% (N=24)

15. During the next year, how likely are you to stay

with or leave MSPB? (Check one.)

N=230

41% Very likely to stay 

24% More likely to stay  Skip to Section II

than leave  on Page 8

17% As likely to stay 

as leave 

10% More likely to leave 

than stay  Continue with

9% Very likely to leave  Question 16 ------------------------ 

N=8 Undecided 

16. To what extent, if at all, is your likelihood to

leave MSPB within the next year or your

indecision due to any dissatisfaction you might

have with the employment environment at

MSPB (i.e., the issues raised in the questions

you’ve answered thus far)? (Check one.)

N=83

To little or no extent 8%

To some extent 19%

To a moderate extent 18%

To a large extent 29%

To a very large extent 25%

Page 44 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

II. Your Views on the Operations of MSPB’s EEO Office

MSPB’s EEO office manages the agency’s equal employment, affirmative action and complaint

programs. Among other things, it is responsible for disseminating information on the agency’s

EEO program and complaint process, developing EEO and affirmative action plans, providing

counseling to employees who believe they have been discriminated against, and processing and

resolving discrimination complaints.

This section asks about the extent to which MSPB’s EEO office has taken certain actions to

inform you of your EEO rights and of the agency’s EEO program and operations. It also asks

about your willingness to participate in the complaint process if you believed you had been

discriminated against.

17. Before reading the description at the beginning of this section, how familiar or unfamiliar were you with the

responsibilities of MSPB’s EEO office? (Check one.)

N=235

Very familiar 31%

Generally familiar 44%

As familiar as unfamiliar 13%

Generally unfamiliar 9%

Very unfamiliar 4%

18. Within the past 2 years, do you recall receiving the following materials or seeing them posted at MSPB?

(Check all boxes that apply.)

N’s reported for this question.

Responses combined for responses 1 and 2.

I received

this

information

I saw this

information

posted

I neither

received nor

saw this

information

posted

I don’t

remember

whether I

received or

saw this

information

posted

a. Written materials that describe MSPB’s EEO

program N=240 <-- 145 --> 31 64

b. Written materials about your rights under the federal

government’s EEO regulations N=240 <-- 127 --> 37 76

c. Written materials describing how to contact MSPB’s

EEO counselors such as their names, addresses, and

telephone numbers N=240 <-- 164 --> 25 51

d. Notices, memoranda, or newsletters that describe the

EEO complaint process N=240 <-- 105 --> 46 89

e. Notices, memoranda, or newsletters that communicate

MSPB’s sexual harassment policy N=240 <-- 126 --> 37 77

f. Other materials (Please specify.)

_____________________________________ N=13 <-- 8 --> 2 3

Page 45 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

19. If you believed that you had been discriminated against, how willing or unwilling would you be to participate in

EEO counseling at MSPB, including discussing the matter with all parties in an attempt to informally resolve it

early in the process? (Check one.)

N=235

20% Very willing 

 Skip to Question 21.

24% Generally willing 

18% As willing as 

unwilling 

19% Generally unwilling  Continue with

14% Very unwilling  Question 20. ------------------- 

4% Uncertain 

20. Which of the following describes your reason(s) for being uncertain or unwilling to participate in counseling?

(Check all that apply.)

N’s reported for this question

83 I would be concerned that my contact with the EEO counselor during the counseling period

would not be kept confidential.

43 I would be concerned that I would be assigned to an EEO counselor who

was not competent or well trained.

33 I would be concerned that the matter would not be resolved in a timely manner.

44 I would be concerned that too much of my time would be consumed in the complaint process.

44 I would be concerned that the matter, if resolved informally, would not result in a

mutually satisfactory solution for all parties involved.

39 I would be concerned that I would be alienated from my co-workers.

83 I would fear reprisal.

21 I would not be willing to participate for personal reasons.

14 Other (Please specify.)

_________________________________________________________________________

Page 46 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

21. If you believed that you had been discriminated against, how willing or unwilling would you be to file a formal

EEO discrimination complaint at MSPB? (Check one.)

N=236

20% Very willing 

 Skip to Question 23.

21% Generally willing 

17% As willing as 

unwilling 

23% Generally unwilling  Continue with

14% Very unwilling  Question 22. ------------------- 

5% Uncertain 

22. Which of the following describes your reason(s) for being uncertain or unwilling to file a formal discrimination

complaint? (Check all that apply.)

N’s reported for this question

46 I would be concerned that my complaint would not be investigated in a competent manner.

37 I would be concerned that my complaint would not be thoroughly investigated by the EEO office.

56 I would be concerned that my complaint would not be handled in a fair manner.

30 I would be concerned that my complaint would not be handled in a timely manner.

53 I would be concerned that too much of my time would be consumed in the complaint process.

49 I would be concerned that I would be alienated from my co-workers.

93 I would fear reprisal.

30 I would not be willing to file a formal complaint for personal reasons.

10 Other (Please specify.)

_____________________________________

Page 47 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

III. Your Views on The Extent to Which a Climate Exists in MSPB That Encourages Reporting of Waste,

Fraud, Abuse, and Mismanagement

This section asks for your views on reporting illegal or wasteful activities, whether you would report

such activities if you became aware of them, and the extent to which MSPB has taken certain

actions to create a climate that encourages reporting of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.

23. In encouraging you to report any activities involving waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement, how important, if at

all, would it be to you that MSPB take the following actions? (Check one box in each row.)

How important is it to you

that MSPB would...

Of very

great

importance

to me

Of great

importance

to me

Of

moderate

importance

to me

Of some

importance

to me

Of little

or no

importance

to me

Not sure

a. take action to correct the problem.

N=234 62% 31% 4% 1% 2% N=1

b. punish the wrongdoer(s). N=230 30% 30% 24% 10% 7% N=4

c. allow me to remain anonymous. N=229 52% 20% 16% 6% 7% N=6

d. assure me that the legal protections

against unlawful retaliation for reporting

such activities would be enforced.

N=233 75% 18% 3% 2% 1% N=2

e. provide me with a nonmonetary award for

reporting such activities. N=227 4% 3% 13% 9% 72% N=7

f. provide me with a monetary award for

reporting such activities. N=227 4% 2% 12% 12% 70% N=8

g. Other (Please specify.)

________________________ N=3 100% - - - - N=1

Page 48 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

24. If you became aware of activities involving waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in any MSPB program or

operation, how willing or unwilling would you be to report it? (Check one.)

N=235

17% Very willing 

 Skip to Question 26.

32% Generally willing 

26% Uncertain 

16% Generally unwilling  Continue with Question 25.

9% Very unwilling 

25. If you are uncertain or unwilling to report any activities involving waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement, which

of the following would describe the reason(s) for being unwilling to report them? (Check all that apply.)

N’s reported for this question

39 I am not sure to whom I should report such activities.

10 I feel it would not be my responsibility to report such activities.

12 I would be concerned that the solution to the problem would not be under MSPB’s control.

70 I would be concerned that MSPB would not take action to correct the problem.

50 I would be concerned that MSPB would not punish the wrongdoer(s).

91 I would be concerned that I would not remain anonymous.

84 I would be concerned that MSPB would not assure me that the legal protections against unlawful

retaliation for reporting such activities would be enforced.

1 I would be concerned that MSPB would not provide me with a nonmonetary award for reporting

such activities.

2 I would be concerned that MSPB would not provide me with a monetary award for reporting

such activities.

10 Other (Please specify.) ______________________________________________________

26. Over the past 2 years, how adequate or inadequate was the information provided by MSPB about the following

aspects of reporting instances of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement? (Check one box in each row.)

More

than

adequate

Generally

adequate

As adequate

as

inadequate

Generally

inadequate

Very

inadequate

Not sure/

No basis

to judge

a. Where to report these

instances N=194 16% 38% 22% 11% 13% N=34

b. The process for reporting these

instances N=190 12% 37% 24% 13% 14% N=38

c. The protections afforded to

employees who report these

instances N=176 13% 31% 24% 18% 14% N=52

Page 49 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

27. Over the past 2 years, to your knowledge has MSPB management done any of the following to foster an

environment that encourages reporting of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement?

(Check one box in each row.)

Over the past 2 years, MSPB has...

Yes No

Not

applicable,

not aware of

illegal or

improper

activities

Don’t

know/No

basis to

judge

a. solicited employee knowledge of illegal or wasteful

activities using surveys or other means. N=157 24% 76% N=70

b. made presentations to MSPB employees at your

location that emphasized the importance of reporting

illegal or improper activities. N=173 18% 82% N=52

c. distributed or made readily available literature which

described how and/or where to report illegal or

improper activities. N=164 50% 49% N=63

d. taken action(s) to correct illegal or improper

activities. N=129 26% 47% 27% N=103

e. punished an individual who took part in illegal or

improper activities. N=114 18% 48% 33% N=117

f. punished an individual who retaliated against an

employee who reported illegal or improper

activities. N=93 3% 60% 37% N=141

g. provided an individual with a nonmonetary award for

reporting illegal or improper activities. N=80 - 56% 44% N=153

h. provided an individual with a monetary award for

reporting illegal or improper activities. N=80 1% 55% 44% N=153

i. Other (Please specify.)

_____________________________________ - - - N=9

Page 50 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

IV. Views on Case Processing Time Frames and Caseload

28. Are you . . . ? (Check one.) N=233

0% (N=0) a board member 

25% (N=58) an administrative judge (includes Chief Administrative Judge) 

13% (N=31) a staff attorney in the Office of the Appeals Counsel  Continue with

2% (N=4) an attorney on a board member’s personal staff  Question 29.

5% (N=11) an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel 

55% (N=129) None of the above -----> Skip to Question 38 on page 15.

29. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with MSPB’s

120-day standard time frame for administrative judges

to decide initial appeal cases at the regional level?

(Check one.)

N=101

12% Very satisfied 

 Skip to

35% Generally satisfied  Question 32.

29% As satisfied as 

dissatisfied  Continue with

16% Generally dissatisfied  Question 30.

9% Very dissatisfied  ---------------- N=7 Not sure/No  Skip to

basis to judge  Question 32. 

30. Please explain your reason(s) for your

dissatisfaction with the standard 120-day time

frame for deciding initial appeal cases at the

regional level.

48 respondents expressed or implied a reason

31. In your opinion, which of the following time

frames would be the most reasonable standard for

administrative judges to decide initial appeal cases

at the regional level? (Check one.)

N=49

30 days or less 0%

31 to 60 days 0%

61 to 90 days 0%

91 to 120 days 18%

121 to 150 days 39%

151 to 180 days 41%

181 days or more 2%

(Please specify.) ________

--------------

No opinion N=2

32. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with MSPB’s

110-day standard time frame for board members to

decide petition for review cases at the headquarters

level? (Check one.)

N=87

7% Very satisfied 

 Skip to

38% Generally satisfied  Question 35.

30% As satisfied as 

dissatisfied  Continue with

16% Generally dissatisfied  Question 33.

9% Very dissatisfied  ---------------- N=21 Not sure/No  Skip to

basis to judge  Question 35. 

33. Please explain your reason(s) for your dissatisfaction

with the standard 110-day time frame for deciding

petition for review cases at the headquarters level.

44 respondents expressed or implied a reason

34. In your opinion, which of the following time frames

would be the most reasonable standard for board

members to decide petition for review cases at the

headquarters level? (Check one.)

N=40

30 days or less 0%

31 to 60 days 3%

61 to 90 days 8%

91 to 120 days 28%

121 to 150 days 25%

151 to 180 days 35%

181 days or more 3%

(Please specify.) ________

--------------

No opinion N=10

Page 51 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

35. On average, how many initial appeal cases or

petition for review cases do you have pending

per month? (Enter number. If none,

enter zero.)

Initial Appeal Cases Per Month N=85

0 Cases ................. N=22

1 to 10 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . N=7

11 to 20 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . N=6

21 to 30 Cases ............ N=44

31 to 40 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . N=6

Petition for review Cases Per Month N=41

0 Cases ................. N=11

1 to 10 Cases ............. N=16

11 to 20 Cases ............ N=10

21 to 30 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . N=2

31 to 40 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . N=1

More than 40 Cases . . . . . . . . . N=1

36. In your opinion, given the current standard time

frames and the requirements for adjudication, is

your average pending caseload too heavy, about

right, or too light? (Check one.) N=96

10% Much too heavy 

44% Generally too  Continue with

heavy 

43% About right -----> Skip to question 38.

10% Generally too 

light  Continue with

44% Much too light  Question 37.

37. In your opinion, given the current standard time

frames and the requirements for adjudication, what

would be the appropriate number of cases you

should reasonably have pending per month?

(Enter number.)

Number of Cases Pending Per Month N=51

1 to 10 Cases .............. N=13

11 to 20 Cases ............ N=18

21 to 30 Cases ............ N=20

V. Background

38. How long have you been employed with

MSPB? (Check one.)

N=236

Less than 2 years 9%

2 to less than 5 years 21%

5 to less than 10 years 23%

10 or more years 48%

39. Where is your permanent duty station?

(Check one.)

N=238

Headquarters 58%

Regional office 30%

Field office 12%

40. What is your sex? (Check one.)

N=237

Male 39%

Female 61%

41. Are you of Hispanic origin? (Check one.)

N=236

Yes 2%

No 98%

42. What is your race? (Check one.)

N=235

African-American 21%

Asian/Pacific Islander 2%

Native American

(American-Indian) <1%

White 76%

Other (Please specify.) 1%

______________________

Page 52 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix II 

Annotated Survey of U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board Employees’ Attitudes and

Views About Their Work Environment

VI. Comments

43. If you have any comments relating to any of the issues discussed in this questionnaire, please write them here.

(If necessary, you may attach additional sheets.) N=240

91 respondents (38%) provided comments

44. If you have any additional suggestions not noted elsewhere on this questionnaire on how MSPB can improve

its work environment and its EEO operation, please write them here.

(If necessary, you may attach additional sheets.) N=239

26 respondents (11%) made suggestions

26 respondents (11%) expressed dissatisfaction or cited problems

Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed preaddressed envelope.

Thank you for your assistance.

Page 53 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

MSPB’s Appeals

Process

To assess whether MSPB is accomplishing its statutory mission through the

appeals process in a fair and timely manner, we (1) developed a

questionnaire and mailed it in April 1994 to individuals who had

experience as practitioners with MSPB’s process for adjudicating federal

employees’ appeals of agency personnel actions during the 2-year period

ending September 1993; (2) analyzed its case processing performance

reports to determine whether MSPB abided by its own guidelines in

processing cases during fiscal years 1991 through 1994 at the regional and

headquarters levels; and (3) analyzed data on the extent to which MSPB’s

final decisions were appealed to and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit during fiscal years 1991 through 1994.

In analyzing the case processing performance reports, we did not verify

them to source documents but did review available MSPB information on

the reliability of the case management system from which the reports were

generated. For example, we identified various MSPB systemwide controls

used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of appeals case data. We also

identified and reviewed three data verification studies performed by MSPB’s

management analysis group. We did not review appeals cases to determine

whether the process was carried out fairly or resulted in well-reasoned

decisions.

Questionnaire Objectives

and Development

We mailed a total of 1,179 questionnaires on April 27, 1994, to appeals

process practitioners asking for their views on (1) how successful MSPB

has been in accomplishing its mission through the appeals process, (2) the

fairness of the appeals process, and (3) the time limits for filing and

processing appeals. The practitioners included (1) general counsels of

federal agencies, (2) federal agency attorneys and representatives,

(3) employee and labor-management relations representatives in federal

agencies, (4) private attorneys representing appellants, and (5) union

officials representing appellants.

The questionnaire was designed by a social science survey specialist in

conjunction with GAO evaluators who were knowledgeable about MSPB’s

appeals process. We pretested the questionnaire with members of each of

the five participant groups to determine if (1) the respondents possessed

the information desired; (2) the questionnaire would be burdensome to the

respondents; and (3) the questionnaire design, including such elements as

the type size, layout, and procedures for recording the information, was

appropriate. Any problems with the questionnaire that were identified by

the pretest process were corrected. We also provided the questionnaire to

Page 54 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

MSPB for review and incorporated the agency’s comments as appropriate.

After the questionnaires were completed and returned by survey

respondents, the questionnaires were edited. Three data verification

procedures were used. All data were double-keyed and verified during

data entry. A random sample of these data was verified back to the source

questionnaires. Also, computerized logic checks were run to look for

incorrect data; any errors that were found were corrected.

Sampling Methodology The total population of the 5 participant groups was 5,015 individuals;

1,179 of these 5,015 individuals were mailed questionnaires.

Questionnaires were mailed to all persons in the general counsel (83) and

employee and labor-management relations representative groups (98).

Federal agency general counsels were identified and selected from agency

general counsels listed in the Federal Yellow Book, Winter 1994. Employee

and labor-management relations representatives in federal agencies were

selected from a membership listing of OPM’s Interagency Advisory Group

Committee on Employee and Labor-Management Relations.

We sent questionnaires to a total sample of 998 individuals who made up

the remaining 3 groups of appeals process participants—federal agency

attorneys and representatives (492), private attorneys (368), and union

officials (138). Federal agency attorneys and representatives, private

attorneys, and union officials were selected from MSPB’s lists of individuals

who represented federal employees or agencies before MSPB sometime

during fiscal year 1992 or fiscal year 1993; because of the large number of

individuals included in these lists, we randomly sampled from the three

groups.

Table III.1 presents the population sizes and the original and revised

sample sizes for each of the five participant groups that were mailed

questionnaires on April 27, 1994.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

Table III.1: cipant Groups Included in

MSPB’s Appeals Process

Questionnaire Survey Mailed on

April 27, 1994 Group

Number of persons

in population

Sample of persons

mailed

questionnaires

Sample of persons

eligible to receive

questionnairesb

Agency general

counsels 83 83a 50

Agency attorneys and

representatives 2,336 492 443

Agency employee and

labor-management

relations

representatives 98 98a 41

Private attorneys 1,855 368 316

Union representatives 643 138 123

Total 5,015 1,179 973

aThe entire population, rather than a sample, was mailed the questionnaire.

bFigures represent the sample of persons mailed questionnaires minus those who indicated on

returned questionnaires that they had not had personnel appeals cases experience with MSPB

since October 1991.

Questionnaire Response

Rate

Of the 1,179 questionnaires we mailed in April 1994, 206 questionnaires

were returned by individuals who indicated they had not had personnel

appeals case experience with MSPB since October 1991 and thus were

deemed ineligible for our sample. These individuals were dropped from

our original population of individuals, resulting in a revised survey sample

size of 973 questionnaires for our 5 participant groups. Those individuals

who did not respond were sent a second questionnaire mailing on June 8,

1994, and a final questionnaire mailing on August 4, 1994. As a result of

these 3 mailings, we received 676 completed and useable questionnaires,

for a response rate of 69 percent. Table III.2 summarizes the questionnaire

returns for the revised survey sample size of 973.

Table III.2: Questionnaire Returns

Types of returns

Number of eligible

returns Percent

Useable returns 676 69.5

Delivered but not returned 218 22.4

Undeliverable 70 7.2

Returned not completed or useable 9 0.9

Total 973 100

Page 56 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

The useable return rates for the individual groups ranged from 47 to

85 percent. Table III.3 presents the revised sample size and return rates for

each group.

Table III.3: Useable Return Rates by

Group

Group

Eligible

returns

Useable

returns

Useable

return rate

Agency general counsels 50 42 84.0

Agency attorneys and representatives 443 375 84.7

Agency employee and labor- management

relations representatives 41 30 73.2

Private attorneys 316 149 47.2

Union officials 123 80 65.0

Total 973 676 69.5

Population Estimates

From the Sample Results

and Sampling Error

The results obtained from our sampling methodology allow us to make

observations about each group’s experience in representing clients before

MSPB. Our sample results can be projected to the populations for three of

the five groups who have had experience representing clients before

MSPB—federal agency attorneys and representatives, private attorneys, and

union officials representing appellants. The other two groups—employee

and labor-management relations representatives and general counsels of

federal agencies—were not sampled; instead, the populations of

individuals in these two groups were mailed questionnaires.

Because our survey selected a sample or portion of the population of

agency attorneys and representatives, private attorneys, and union

representatives, the review results obtained are subject to some

uncertainty, or sampling error. The sampling error consists of two

parts—confidence level and confidence interval. The confidence level

indicates the degree of confidence that can be placed in the estimates

derived from the sample. The confidence interval is the upper and lower

limit between which the actual population estimate may be found.

We chose the specific sample sizes for each of the three groups so that the

confidence interval, based on a 100-percent response rate, would not be

greater than plus or minus 5 percent at the 95-percent level of confidence.

However, because the useable questionnaire response rate was less than

100 percent and varied for each of the three practitioner groups we

sampled, the confidence intervals were generally larger than plus or minus

5 percent.

Page 57 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

We calculated the confidence intervals only for the sampled groups’

responses to the three survey questions on MSPB’s success in

accomplishing its mission and the fairness of its appellate process, which

we presented earlier in tables 1, 2, and 3. In calculating the confidence

intervals, we assumed that for each of the three practitioner sample

groups the reported percentage of practitioners responding to the three

survey questions was near 50 percent, which may result in larger

confidence intervals. The confidence intervals are smaller when the actual

reported percentages approach 100 percent and 0 percent. For example,

the 90 percent of agency attorneys and representatives who responded

that MSPB’s appellate process was fair at the headquarters level had a

confidence interval of plus or minus 4 percent, as compared to a

confidence interval of plus or minus 6 percent if 50 percent had responded

that the process was fair.

Table III.4 shows what the confidence intervals for each of the sampled

groups would have been if the reported percentage of practitioners

responding to the three questions had been near 50 percent.

Table III.4: Confidence Intervals for

GAO’s Analysis of Sampled

Participants’ Views of MSPB’s

Success in Accomplishing Its Mission

and the Fairness of Its Appellate

Process

Confidence intervalsa for participants’

views on:

Sampled group

MSPB’s success in

mission

accomplishment

Fairness of

MSPB’s appellate

process at the

regional level

Fairness of

MSPB’s appellate

process at the

headquarters’ level

Agency attorneys

and representatives 5% 5% 6%

Private attorneys 9 8 12

Union officials 11 11 17

aThe confidence intervals are stated as a plus or minus percent with a confidence level of

95 percent.

MSPB’s

Accountability

Mechanisms

To determine what accountability mechanisms MSPB had in place to

provide its employees the merit system protections that MSPB was created

to uphold, we reviewed the agency’s EEO and internal oversight activities

designed to protect its employees against workplace discrimination,

mismanagement, abuse, and improper personnel practices. We also sought

MSPB employees’ views on selected aspects of the agency’s EEO operations

and internal oversight activities by mailing a questionnaire to all MSPB

Page 58 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

employees. A more detailed discussion of the questionnaire development

and its mailing is presented later in this appendix.

As discussed and agreed with your office, we did not review (1) MSPB’s

affirmative employment program for recruiting, hiring, advancing, and

placing minorities, women, and other protected groups; or (2) how well

audits and investigations were performed by MSPB’s former OIG. We also did

not review appeal cases of MSPB employees to determine whether the

process was carried out fairly and resulted in well-reasoned decisions.

MSPB’s EEO Operations In reviewing MSPB’s EEO operations, we focused on (1) training received

during fiscal years 1992 and 1993 by MSPB managers and supervisors to

make them aware of their EEO responsibilities and by EEO staff in carrying

out the agency’s EEO functions; (2) policies and procedures in place to

evaluate and reward managers and supervisors on their EEO performance;

and (3) actions MSPB has taken to communicate its EEO policy, program,

and complaint process to its employees and to make them aware of their

rights under the EEO complaint process. We reviewed MSPB’s EEO manual

and collected and analyzed data for fiscal years 1990 through 1994 on the

number of employees who had received EEO counseling or filed formal EEO

complaints. We also reviewed MSPB’s performance management manual

and collected data for fiscal years 1991 through 1994 on the number of

employees who had received the Chairman’s Award for Excellence in EEO.

MSPB’s Internal Oversight

Activities

We interviewed MSPB officials to determine what measures agency

management has taken, since abolishing its nonstatutory OIG in

February 1994, to provide audit and investigative coverage of its programs

and operations. We examined whether these measures would enable MSPB

to conduct audits and investigations in compliance with requirements

established by the Office of Management and Budget and the President’s

Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

We also compared MSPB’s measures for carrying out its internal oversight

activities with those of 10 other federal entities (see app. IV). Specifically,

we compared the entities’ capabilities to provide audits and investigations,

the offices responsible for handling allegations of wrong-doing,

arrangements for obtaining investigative and audit services, and the types

of audits provided. We judgmentally selected these 10 entities because

they were roughly comparable to MSPB in budget and staff size. As agreed

Page 59 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

with your office, we did not review how well audits and investigations

were performed by MSPB’s former OIG.

MSPB’s Vision

Statement

To determine what actions MSPB has taken to foster a work environment

that is based on trust, respect, and fairness, as called for in its 1992 vision

statement, we interviewed MSPB’s Chief Operating Officer, EEO director,

and members of a task force charged with proposing actions for

implementing MSPB’s vision. We also used our previously mentioned MSPB

employee questionnaire to solicit employees’ views on their agency’s

success in fostering an environment based on trust, respect, and fairness.

Lastly, we compared the workplace views of MSPB employees with those of

federal employees in general. We did this by reviewing a May 1992 OPM

special report entitled “Survey of Federal Employees,” which contained

data on federal employees’ attitudes towards their jobs, their supervisors,

and their organizations. OPM had distributed this questionnaire to 56,767

federal employees.

MSPB Employee

Questionnaire

Objectives and

Development

We mailed our questionnaire to all individuals employed by MSPB as of

May 12, 1994, asking for their views on MSPB’s efforts to (1) carry out its

EEO operations and ensure that its employees work in a discrimination-free

environment; (2) create a climate that encourages reporting of waste,

fraud, abuse, and mismanagement; and (3) foster a work environment that

is based on trust, respect, and fairness. We also asked employees who

were involved in the processing of cases at the regional and headquarters

levels for their views on the reasonableness of MSPB’s guidelines regarding

time frames for processing and deciding cases. These employees included

the regional administrative judges, attorneys in MSPB’s Offices of the

Appeals Counsel and the General Counsel, attorneys on the board

members’ personal staffs, and the board members. The Chairman was not

included.

The questionnaire was first mailed on May 25, 1994, to all MSPB employees.

On July 7, 1994, we sent a second copy of the questionnaire to those who

did not respond to our first mailing. On August 1, 1994, we sent a third

copy of the questionnaire to those who still had not responded.

The questionnaire was designed by a social science survey specialist in

conjunction with GAO evaluators who were knowledgeable about MSPB’s

EEO and internal oversight operations. Before mailing our questionnaire,

we pretested it with 10 MSPB employees who held various job titles and

Page 60 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

were assigned to either an MSPB regional office or to various offices within

MSPB headquarters. The pretest helped to ensure that our questions would

be interpreted correctly and that the respondents would be willing to

provide the information required. We also provided the questionnaire to

MSPB for review and incorporated the agency’s comments as appropriate.

After the questionnaires were received from survey respondents, the

surveys were edited. Three data verification procedures were used. All

data were double-keyed and verified during data entry. A random sample

of these data was verified back to the source questionnaires. Also,

computerized logic checks were run to look for incorrect data, and any

errors detected were corrected.

Questionnaire Response

Rate

A total of 301 employees were mailed the questionnaire, but 2 employees

were later dropped from the our original population because they were not

employed with MSPB as of May 12, 1994. Of the 299 eligible employees in

our universe, 240 of them returned useable questionnaires to us, for a

response rate of 80 percent. Table III.5 summarizes the questionnaire

returns for the 299 eligible MSPB employees who were mailed

questionnaires.

Table III.5: Questionnaire Returns

Types of returns Number Percent

Useable returns 240 80

Delivered but not returned 56 19

Returned not completed or unuseable 3 1

Total 299 100

Nonsampling Errors

on Both

Questionnaires

In addition to the sampling errors of the kind discussed earlier for the MSPB

appeals process questionnaire, the practical difficulties of conducting any

survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as

nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question

is interpreted by the survey respondents could introduce unwanted

variability into the survey’s results. We took steps in the development of

each questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize

nonsampling errors. These steps, such as pretesting and editing the

questionnaires, have been discussed in previous sections of this appendix.

Page 61 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix IV 

Comparison of MSPB’s Internal Oversight

Arrangements With Those of 10 Other

Selected Federal Entities

Areas of comparison MSPB FRTIB IAF

Fiscal year 1992 actual budget

authority (in millions of dollars)

$23.4 $24.1 $24.6

Fiscal year 1992 full-time

equivalents

283 89 76

Official who handles allegations General

Counsel

General

Counsel

General

Counsel

Inhouse capability for conducting

audits

No No Yes

Audits contracted out with private

firms

Yes Yes Yes

Agreement with an OIG to perform

audits

No Yesb No

Types of audits performed Financial

related

Financial

related

Grant and

compliance

Required to report to the Office of

Management and Budget annually

on audit and investigative activity

Yes Yes Yes

Page 62 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix IV 

Comparison of MSPB’s Internal Oversight

Arrangements With Those of 10 Other

Selected Federal Entities

IMS FMCS NTSB NGA OSHRC ABMC SJI USIP

$27.0 $28.1 $34.7 $48.6 $6.7 $17.6 $13.5 $11.0

17 311 352 863 77 386 25 51

General

Counsela

General

Counsel

Budget and

Financial Policy

Director

General

Counsel

General

Counsel

Director of

Personnel

General

Counsel

Executive Vice

President

No No No Yes No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Yes No No No Yes Noc No No

Financial

related

Financial Financial

related

Financial,

economy and

efficiency,

performance

Financial (to be

performed)

Financial,

management

Financial,

program

Financial

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Legend:

MSPB - Merit Systems Protection Board

FRTIB - Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

IAF - Inter-American Foundation

IMS - Institute of Museum Services

FMCS - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board

NGA - National Gallery of Art

OSHRC - Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

ABMC - American Battle Monuments Commission

SJI - State Justice Institute

USIP - U.S. Institute of Peace

aIMS does not have a general counsel. An IMS official said that depending on the nature of the

allegation, it may be handled by the National Endowment for the Humanities’ general counsel

under the interagency agreement that IMS has with it.

bThe Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 requires the Secretary of the Department

of Labor to establish a program to carry out audits of compliance with fiduciary responsibilities

relating to the Thrift Savings Plan, which is administered by FRTIB.

cABMC does have an agreement with the Army Audit Agency to perform audits.

Page 63 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on Selected MSPB

Employee Survey Results

Based on situations that they either had personally experienced or had

seen or heard occurred at MSPB during the past 2 years, 24 percent of the

respondents to our employee questionnaire described the MSPB work

environment as either somewhat discriminatory or very discriminatory.

The discriminatory acts that respondents perceived to have taken place

most often involved employees being hired, assigned to jobs, or formally

recognized or rewarded primarily because of their race or sex. As figure

V.1 shows, more women than men and more minority than nonminority

employees described the work environment at MSPB as discriminatory.

Women and minorities were 61 percent and 32 percent of MSPB’s

workforce, respectively, at the time we initiated our survey.

Figure V.1: Respondents’ Description

of the Impartiality of the Work

Environment, by Gender and

Nonminority/ Minority Status

Percent of respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women Nonminority Minority

Respondents’ description of the impartiality of the work environment

Impartial

As impartial as discriminatory

Discriminatory

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Page 64 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on Selected MSPB

Employee Survey Results

As shown in table V.1, most employees responding to our survey believed

that since MSPB announced its vision statement in November 1992, they

have been treated fairly in decisions regarding job assignments, training,

formal ratings, monetary awards and bonuses, promotion or career

advancement, and nonmonetary awards and recognition. However,

employees’ responses regarding these decisions varied with their gender,

nonminority/minority status, and position as shown in tables V.2 through

V.4.

Table V.1: Percentage of MSPB

Employees Indicating They Believed

They Have Been Treated Fairly

Regarding Various Personnel and Pay

Decisions

Type of personnel or pay decision

Percent of respondents

indicating fairlya

Job or project assignments 68

Training 72

Formal performance appraisals/ratings 71

Monetary awards and bonuses 65

Promotion or career advancement 57

Nonmonetary awards and recognition 58

aFor ease of presentation, “fairly” refers to the responses of employees who believed they have

been treated either very fairly or generally fairly.

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Table V.2: Percentage of Employees

Indicating They Believed They Have

Been Treated Unfairly, by Gender

Percentage who believed

they have been treated

unfairlya

Type of personnel/pay decision Men Women

Job or project assignments 11 17

Training 7 11

Formal performance appraisals/ratings 9 12

Monetary awards and bonuses 17 16

Promotion or career advancement 19 27

Nonmonetary awards and recognition 20 25

aFor ease of presentation, “unfairly” refers to the responses of employees who believed they have

been treated either very unfairly or generally unfairly.

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Page 65 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on Selected MSPB

Employee Survey Results

Table V.3: Percentage of Employees

Indicating They Believed They Have

Been Treated Unfairly, by

Nonminority/Minority Status

Percentage who believed they have

been treated unfairlya

Type of personnel/pay decision Nonminorities Minorities

Job or project assignments 14 18

Training 8 10

Formal performance appraisals/ratings 9 13

Monetary awards and bonuses 15 21

Promotion or career advancement 19 36

Nonmonetary awards and recognition 20 32

aFor ease of presentation, “unfairly” refers to the responses of employees who believed they have

been treated either very unfairly or generally unfairly.

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Table V.4: Percentage of Employees

Indicating They Believed They Have

Been Treated Unfairly, by Position

Percentage who believed they have

been treated unfairlya

Type of personnel/pay decision Attorneys Nonattorneys

Job or project assignments 9 18

Training 4 12

Formal performance appraisals/ratings 8 11

Monetary awards/bonuses 12 19

Promotion or career advancement 12 32

Nonmonetary awards and recognition 17 26

aFor ease of presentation, “unfairly” refers to the responses of employees who believed they have

been treated either very unfairly or generally unfairly.

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Figures V.2 through V.4 show how employees’ perceptions of MSPB’s

success in fostering an environment of trust, respect, and fairness in the

workplace varied with their gender, nonminority/minority status, and duty

station. More women (47 percent) than men (26 percent), more minorities

(42 percent) than nonminorities (37 percent), and more headquarters

(42 percent) than nonheadquarters (34 percent) employees indicated they

believed that MSPB had been unsuccessful in fostering such an

environment.

Page 66 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on Selected MSPB

Employee Survey Results

Figure V.2: Employees’ Perceptions of

MSPB’s Success in Fostering an

Environment of Trust, Respect, and

Fairness, by Gender

Percent of respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Successful As successful

as unsuccessful

Unsuccessful

Level of success perceived by respondents

Men

Women

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Page 67 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on Selected MSPB

Employee Survey Results

Figure V.3: Employees’ Perceptions of

MSPB’s Success in Fostering an

Environment of Trust, Respect, and

Fairness, by Nonminority/Minority

Status

Percent of respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Successful As successful

as unsuccessful

Unsuccessful

Level of success perceived by respondents

Nonminority

Minority

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Page 68 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix V 

Figures and Tables on Selected MSPB

Employee Survey Results

Figure V.4: Employees’ Perceptions of

MSPB’s Success in Fostering an

Environment of Trust, Respect, and

Fairness, by Duty Station

Percent of respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Successful As successful

as unsuccessful

Unsuccessful

Level of success perceived by respondents

Headquarters employees

Nonheadquarters employees

Source: GAO’s Survey of U.S. MSPB Employees’ Attitudes and Views About Their Work

Environment.

Page 69 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Merit Systems

Protection Board

Page 70 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Merit Systems

Protection Board

See p. 2.

Page 71 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Appendix VII 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Stephen Altman, Assistant Director (202) 512-3712

Mary Y. Martin, Evaluator in Charge (202) 512-4345

William Trancucci, Senior Evaluator (202) 512-5043

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals in GAO’s

General Government Division (GGD), Accounting and Information and

Management Division (AIMD), and Office of the General Counsel (OGC)

made important contributions to this report: Philip Kagan, Senior

Evaluator (GGD), assisted with the design of the job; Stuart M. Kaufman,

Senior Social Science Analyst (GGD), assisted with the design and

development of both questionnaires and prepared the computerized

analyses of the MSPB employee questionnaire results; Gregory H. Wilmoth,

Senior Social Science Analyst (GGD), assisted with selecting the

appropriate methodology to accomplish the job’s objectives; Jerome T.

Sandau, Social Science Analyst (GGD), prepared the computerized analyses

of the MSPB appellate process questionnaire results; Jackson W. Hufnagle,

Assistant Director (AIMD), reviewed MSPB’s internal oversight activities;

Clarence A. Whitt, senior accountant (AIMD), did the comparative analysis

of MSPB’s internal oversight activities with 10 other federal entities; Alan N.

Belkin, Assistant General Counsel (OGC), and Jessica A. Botsford, Senior

Attorney (OGC), provided legal advice.

(966605) Page 72 GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/GGD-95-213 Merit Systems Protection Board