U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

44–913 PDF 2008

MANAGING DIVERSITY OF SENIOR LEADERSHIP IN

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND POSTAL SERVICE

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE

FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 3, 2008

Serial No. 110–82

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

and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

——— ———

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

JOHN M. MCHUGH, NEW YORK

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

TANIA SHAND, Staff Director

(III)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri

JON TESTER, Montana

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

TED STEVENS, Alaska

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

JOHN WARNER, Virginia

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

TED STEVENS, Alaska

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

JOHN WARNER, Virginia

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director

THOMAS RICHARDS, Professional Staff Member

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY. Minority Staff Director

THERESA MANTHRIPRAGADA, Minority Professional Staff Member

JESSICA NAGASAKO, Chief Clerk

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 3, 2008 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Bransford, William, general counsel, Senior Executives Association; William Brown, president, African American Federal Executives Association; Rhonda Trent, president, Federally Employed Women; Carson

Eoyang, executive director, Asian American Government Executives

Network; Jose Osegueda, president, National Association of Hispanic

Federal Executives; and Darlene Young, president, Blacks in Government ............................................................................................................... 143

Bransford, William .................................................................................... 143

Brown, William .......................................................................................... 152

Eoyang, Carson .......................................................................................... 165

Osegueda, Jose .......................................................................................... 172

Trent, Rhonda ............................................................................................ 158

Young, Darlene .......................................................................................... 173

Kichak, Nancy, Associate Director, Strategic Human Resources Policy

Division, Office of Personnel Management; and Susan LaChance, vice

president of employee development and diversity, U.S. Postal Service ... 25

Kichak, Nancy ........................................................................................... 25

LaChance, Susan ....................................................................................... 31

Stalcup, George H., Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability

Office; and Katherine Siggerud, Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office ..................................................................... 53

Siggerud, Katherine .................................................................................. 108

Stalcup, George H. .................................................................................... 53

Williams, Steven W., secretary and chief administrative officer, Postal

Regulatory Commission; Ronald Stith, assistant inspector general for

mission support, U.S. Postal Service, Office of the Inspector General;

Nicole A. Johnson, assistant chief inspector investigations and security

support, U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Bray Barnes, Acting Chief

Human Capital Officer, Department of Homeland Security; and Carmen Walker, Deputy Officer, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,

Department of Homeland Security .............................................................. 116

Barnes, Bray .............................................................................................. 132

Johnson, Nicole A. ..................................................................................... 124

Stith, Ronald .............................................................................................. 118

Williams, Steven W. .................................................................................. 116

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

Akaka, Senator Daniel K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Hawaii, prepared statement of ................................................................ 11

Barnes, Bray, Acting Chief Human Capital Officer, Department of Homeland Security, prepared statement of .......................................................... 134

Bransford, William, general counsel, Senior Executives Association, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 145

Brown, William, president, African American Federal Executives Association, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 154

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 23

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

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Eoyang, Carson, executive director, Asian American Government Executives Network, prepared statement of ......................................................... 167

Gonzalez, Hon. Charles A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, prepared statement of .................................................................. 19

Page

VI

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Johnson, Nicole A., assistant chief inspector investigations and security

support, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, prepared statement of ............... 126

Kichak, Nancy, Associate Director, Strategic Human Resources Policy

Division, Office of Personnel Management:

Letter dated May 15, 2008 ....................................................................... 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

LaChance, Susan, vice president of employee development and diversity,

U.S. Postal Service, prepared statement of ................................................ 33

Marchant, Hon. Kenny, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, prepared statement of .................................................................. 7

Stalcup, George H., Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 55

Stith, Ronald, assistant inspector general for mission support, U.S. Postal

Service, Office of the Inspector General, prepared statement of .............. 120

Trent, Rhonda, president, Federally Employed Women, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 160

(1)

MANAGING DIVERSITY OF SENIOR LEADERSHIP IN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND

POSTAL SERVICE

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, JOINT WITH THE SUBOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Danny K. Davis (chairman of the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal

Service, and the District of Columbia) presiding.

Present from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,

and the District of Columbia: Representatives Davis of Illinois,

Cummings, Kucinich, Clay, Norton, and Marchant.

Present from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia:

Senators Akaka and Carper.

Also present: Representative Charles Gonzalez.

Staff present from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce,

Postal Service, and the District of Columbia: Tania Shand, staff director; Lori Hayman, counsel; William Miles, professional staff

member; Marcus A. Williams, clerk; Earley Green, chief clerk,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Jim Moore, minority counsel; and Alex Cooper, minority professional staff member.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The subcommittees will come to order.

Welcome, Ranking Member Marchant, Senator Akaka, Mr.

Chairman and members of both subcommittees, hearing witnesses,

and all of those in attendance, welcome to the House Subcommittee

on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia and the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia

joint hearing on managing diversity of senior leadership, Postal

Service and the District of Columbia.

2

The purpose of the hearing is to continue the subcommittee’s

oversight of diversity at the highest levels of the Federal Government and the U.S. Postal Service.

Hearing no objection, the Chair will ask unanimous consent to

allow Representative Charles Gonzalez to give an opening statement and ask questions. And also the ranking member and the

subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make opening

statements, and all Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record.

Hearing no objection, it is certainly indeed a pleasure to be

joined with Senator Akaka and his staff and any other Members

of the Senate who come over to this side of the Capitol and jointly

participate with us.

I will begin with an opening statement.

Senator Akaka, Ranking Member Marchant, members of the subcommittee, and hearing witnesses, welcome to the subcommittee’s

hearing on managing diversity of senior leadership in the Federal

work force and Postal Service.

I would also like to welcome Representative Charles Gonzalez,

Second Vice Chair of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. I ask

unanimous consent that Representative Gonzalez be permitted to

give an opening statement and ask questions during the hearing.

Hearing no objection, so is the order.

He has worked tirelessly to ensure that Hispanics are included

in the diversification of the Federal work force.

Today’s hearing is to examine H.R. 3774 and its Senate companion, S. 2148, the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act

of 2007.

H.R. 3774 is the culmination of several Government Accountability Office [GAO], reports I have requested on diversity in the Senior Executive Service [SES], and three previous hearings I have

held or requested on the subject.

GAO is expected to testify that, while doing research for the most

recent diversity report, a report that I and Senator Akaka requested, it found that between 2000 and 2007 there was a decrease

in African American men in the SES. I believe that H.R. 3774 is

the first step in tackling several of the issues that have come to

light regarding the lack of diversity in the SES. It should be enacted as soon as possible to prevent any further deterioration of minorities in the Senior Executive Service.

The subcommittee has taken its first steps in researching diversity issues in postal-related agencies. Today the postal community

and GAO will testify as to how diverse the senior levels of postal

management are or not, and why. When its research is complete,

the subcommittee will determine whether legislative action is necessary to address diversity in the postal work force.

The Department of Homeland Security [DHS], has been asked to

testify because last month the Committee on Homeland Security

issued a report entitled, ‘‘The Department of Homeland Security:

Minority and Gender Diversity in the Workforce and Career Senior

Executive Service.’’ The report stated that DHS had lower proportions of racial minorities, Hispanics, and women in its overall work

force than there are in the overall executive branch work force, but

the DHS career SES was even less diverse than the overall DHS

3

work force, suggesting that relatively few members of minority

groups and woman rise in the DHS career SES leadership ranks.

Diversity in the Federal and postal work forces is a priority for

me and for this subcommittee. When agencies are called upon, they

should be prepared to come before this subcommittee and testify on

its diversity numbers and objectives.

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

4

5

6

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Now I will go to Ranking Member

Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing today, Managing Diversity of Senior Leadership in the Federal

Workforce and Postal Service. I commend your efforts to improve

the operations of the Federal Government, as well as your vigorous

promotion of increased diversity in the workplace. I look forward

to this and continued discussions of how we can make the Federal

Government a better place to work.

Obviously, the American business landscape is changing much

faster than Federal agencies. In a sense, this creates a giant laboratory for policymakers to observe and learn what is working in

the private sector and what might not be best for the Government

setting. If done correctly, this oversight process can improve the

workings of the Federal Government and make it an even better

place to work. However, implementing policy changes without full

consideration of the consequences, both intended and unintended,

could end up adding additional bureaucracy to a system already beleaguered by low application numbers and relatively uncompetitive

compensation packages.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving us a chance to study

this issue. I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses before the subcommittee.

I hope we can all work together to determine the best ways to

reach our diversity goals, while avoiding creating a bureaucratic

morass where everyone is unsatisfied.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Kenny Marchant follows:]

7

8

9

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I need to offer my apologies to

the witnesses and you today. The largest city in my district has decided that this afternoon they are going to visit me, so shortly I

will have to excuse myself and go and take care of some of my constituents. My apologies for that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. How large is that city?

Mr. MARCHANT. It is Dallas.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. That is a pretty large city. Well, thank

you very much, Mr. Marchant. We certainly understand, and we

certainly want to thank you for your statement and hope to have

you with us as long as you can stay.

It is now my pleasure to yield for an opening statement to the

distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is great

to be here with you, and always great working with you, Chairman

Davis. I want to thank you for leading this joint hearing on diversity in the Senior Executive Service, and I want to commend you

for your leadership in this area, not only now but in years before

this.

I am pleased to partner with Chairman Davis, both on this hearing and in legislation to improve diversity in the senior ranks of

the Federal Government.

I also want to thank him for joining me even yesterday to introduce a resolution honoring all public servants during Public Service

Recognition Week this year.

Diversity of race, gender, heritage, and experience provides any

organization with a valuable range of perspectives and ideas that

can improve effectiveness. That is our belief.

When an agency is developing new policies and initiatives, a diverse work force helps ensure a cultural understanding that can

lead to new creative directions or avert unintended problems before

they arise. Unfortunately, the number of minorities and women in

the SES across the Federal Government has not reflected the diversity of the Nation, nor the diversity of the Federal work force as

a whole.

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office evaluated data

from 2000 on diversity in the SES. At that time, the report showed

67 percent of senior executives were White males, 19 percent were

White females, and about 14 percent were minority males and females. According to GAO’s testimony last year, using 2006 data

there were small improvements made in the overall representation

of women and minorities over the past 6 years, but gains were inconsistent among the 25 Federal agencies analyzed, and offset by

losses of women and minorities at 9 of those agencies.

The door to diversity seems to be narrowing, even as American

work force becomes more diverse. And Federal retirements continue to increase. That is what we are facing today.

In its 2003 report GAO speculated that 55 percent of the SES

would retire and diversity of the SES would improve, given the diversity of the talent pool. The Office of Personnel Management, in

its response to GAO, insisted that increasing diversity in the senior

ranks was a top priority, but OPM’s own numbers prove it wrong.

While 63 percent of the SESers retired since 2000, the potential

gains estimated by GAO and OPM to improve diversity have not

10

been made. We need to examine why more minorities and women

are not becoming part of the SES and how to improve that shortfall.

With an estimated 90 percent of Federal executives eligible to retire in the next 10 years, agencies must take this opportunity for

agencies to bring in a new group of diverse and talented leaders.

One way that Congressman Davis and I propose we address this

issue is through the enactment of the Senior Executive Diversity

Assurance Act. Our legislation would create a panel of diverse employees responsible for reviewing candidates for merit appointments and passing them along for review. Too many executive candidates are accepted into the SES without a woman or minority

ever looking at the available pool of applicants.

Our bill requires that diversity be incorporated into the process

of review, but not in the standards of the review. The standards

are high for entry into the SES, and we need to continue to ensure

that the merit system principles are supported in the process of

candidate review. However, diversity is not at odds with merit system principles, and we believe that our legislation supports merit

principles, while promoting diversity.

Furthermore, our legislation re-establishes the Senior Executive

Resource Office, which was dissolved by OPM’s reorganization in

the year 2003. This office would be responsible for ensuring diversity within the SES through strategic partnerships, mentorship

programs, and more stringent reporting requirements. New cultures bring new ideas, and in our Civil Service, America’s work

force, in that work force we need leadership that reflects those varied cultures and backgrounds.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss this

official and critical issue, and I look forward to hearing your

thoughts on improving diversity in the senior leadership of the

Federal Government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Daniel K. Akaka follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.

Delegate Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think all

of us are indebted to you and Senator Akaka for your leadership

on moving forward to do something about what has become a

chronic problem in the SES. We talk a lot about it. We hear back

from various administrations that they are working very hard to do

something about it, but with matters of this kind, unless the kind

of action your Diversity Assurance Act takes, you are not going to

see, in my judgment and in my experience, what you are expecting.

Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka, as we look at a country that

is becoming more and more diverse, with some States already majority minority States, we are seeing a Senior Executive Service

that is less and less diverse. The tiny incremental change really

means that it is going down; that as retirements come, replacements are being made from the same pool of people who already

occupy the Senior Executive Service. It is stunningly at odds with

what we see in certain sections of the private sector, for example.

What Chairman Davis said about Black men actually being reduced is just the tip of the iceberg. I think we can predict that

without some definitive action you are going to see this kind of reduction throughout, for two reasons: one, minority applicants today

do not have the same incentive either to work for or stay in the

Federal Government that they had in my generation and in my

parents’ generation. The private sector is out there looking for

them, reaching for them, giving them the kind of benefits and pay

that, frankly, we do not give them.

Second, we should be focusing on two things: recruitment, to be

sure, beginning at the levels where people can move up, and retention. Yes, there is every incentive to get out of the Federal work

force now. You have been in the work force, you have received all

the benefits and training of the Federal work force, you look at the

private sector and it does seem to me that economically there is

every incentive to leave early retirement, certainly for retirement,

itself.

I have a special interest and concern, frankly, for newer minority

entrants to the work force like Hispanics. It does seem to me one

would have to make a very special effort when we see what is the

fastest-growing minority population in our country, a population

that may not be as accustomed to looking to the Federal sector as

a place for employment, where a very special effort needs to reach

out to draw them in and to encourage them to move up so that

they, in fact, become a larger part of the SES.

I have a very special, very special concern about African Americans who have a very, very long history of work in the Federal sector, who were able to work in the Federal sector, frankly, when

they couldn’t work anywhere else, albeit in the bowels of the Federal sector, and then have found themselves for a long time stuck.

And now, although they are long-term employees going back for

decades, even when, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, as a native

Washingtonian, when Black people couldn’t even eat lunch in the

cafeterias of Federal agencies, still there were Federal employees

working in the lower levels. Long history of work in the Federal

16

Government. So there would be very special disappointment to see

that the Senior Executive Service looks the way it looks today.

I recognize the bill that you and Chairman Akaka have put in,

particularly with its requirement that there be a woman and a person of color on panels, may seem to be radical. All I can say is,

after years and years of jawboning the issue, I am grateful that you

are willing to take the leadership on doing something about it. The

courts have said that it, in fact, is legal and Constitutional and in

keeping with merit system principles.

If I may offer a legal opinion as the former Chair of the EOC,

I regard it as an action that would withstand and has withstood

court scrutiny because it is an action to correct a disparity that the

Federal Government cannot explain, cannot justify. It will disappear and the courts will make it disappear at such point when,

in fact, the system corrected itself. That is the way this kind of affirmative remedy works.

Unless the administration has something to offer the two chairs

that will assure that we get some movement on this issue, as we

have not gotten for decades, then it seems to me this is the only

recourse before us, and we all should be grateful to you for having

the guts to move forward with the provisions in the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Delegate Norton.

We will now go to Representative Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my good friend,

Congressman Davis, and to my good friend, Senator Akaka, thank

you very much for holding this hearing.

When you look through the table on the GAO report which

charts the comparisons of various demographic profiles year to year

at various supervisory levels in the departments of the Federal

Government, it makes it clear that the work of this committee is

well taken in causing these statistics to be reviewed, because they

tell a very important story of the progress or lack thereof when it

comes to various individuals who have committed themselves to

serve the people of the United States of America.

When we understand, as we do today on this commemoration day

of Dr. Martin Luther King, that true equality means equality of opportunity within organizations once you become a member of that

organization, studying these figures becomes very important to give

this committee and this Congress an opportunity to develop policy

guidelines so that the diversity which the people of the United

States have a right to expect in their Government since our first

motto, e pluribus unum, out of many we are one, ought to be reflected in the Government, but we also ought to see how it is reflected in the highest-ranking positions within the Civil Service.

This is an important hearing, and I thank my colleagues from

the House and the Senate for your leadership in this. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Representative

Kucinich.

Now it is my pleasure to yield to Representative Charles Gonzalez.

Yes, Senator Akaka?

Senator AKAKA. I just received word that we are going to have

votes in the Senate, and I just want to apologize for leaving, but

17

I want to again commend your leadership on this issue and tell you

and all of our witnesses here that I look forward to working with

all of you to improve the diversity of the senior levels of the Federal Government.

Thank you for all that you are doing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Senator. We know

that when the Senate votes, good things are happening, so we understand. Thank you.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis and Senator

Akaka and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for allowing

me to participate in today’s hearing. On behalf of the Congressional

Hispanic Caucus, I appreciate your efforts to address the underrepresentation of minorities at the executive level in the Federal

work force.

The legislation that both of you have introduced, H.R. 3774 on

the House side, the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance

Act, is a step in the right direction to address the severe problem

of under-representation of minorities at the Senior Executive Service level.

I support this legislation because it will do one thing that a number of Hispanic employee groups have requested for a number of

years: it will introduce accountability into the process of hiring and

promoting candidates for senior positions in the Federal Government.

Let us look at the numbers. I know that we have gone over

these, but they bear repeating. In the pathway positions for SES,

the GS–13 to GS–15, Hispanic hiring has dropped by 2.8 percent.

The latest OPM report cites the reduction from 5.8 percent to 3.2

percent of Latinos in management positions entering the SES. The

majority of Hispanic hires in the Federal work force are concentrated at the GS–1 through GS–8 categories.

Now, we received a great deal of information about the outreach

conducted by agencies in Hispanic and other minority communities,

and the guidance OPM has provided to help recruit for those various positions. Yet, there is very little in the way of data that tells

us about the effectiveness of those outreach efforts.

The current agency initiative process of moving along candidates

has failed to produce the results we should be seeing. Despite the

outreach and Federal requirements, agencies just haven’t been up

to the task of promoting diversity in the senior ranks in a way that

is convincing. The results of their efforts thus far speak volumes

to that point.

Members of our communities can no longer wait for agencies to

wake up to the fact that they have to consider diversity in their

succession planning. The bottom line is they have not done a good

job of this, despite the requirement to do so; therefore, something

different is in order.

It is no mystery. The Federal Government will begin to see a

mass exodus of employees due to retirements in the coming decade.

This provides an incredible opportunity for OPM to work with the

agencies to develop the future work force. Agencies, by themselves,

cannot and will not do it and, frankly, will not succeed, at least

when it deals with considering diversity in that equation; therefore,

it is up to OPM to demonstrate leadership.

18

This legislation puts the responsible of promoting diversity with

the agency that recruits the candidates for public service, the Office

of Personnel Management. It will require a hands-on approach,

genuine engagement, and active direction, and not the mere

issuance of passive directives to do the right thing, which are rarely enforced. It is a first step in providing OPM with the tools it will

need to affect the problem and requiring that once and for all they

get engaged. However, this will not stop here, for we will tackle the

issue at the agency level and bring more accountability to the process so we develop a work force that actually looks like America.

When Congress passes this legislation, which I believe they will,

and it becomes law, I know that the Members here today and many

of my colleagues who support this issue will be eagerly looking for

results; therefore, expectations are, indeed, high for OPM to

produce notable and positive outcomes.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Davis and Senator Akaka and

members of this subcommittee for allowing me to participate today

and, of course, for the introduction of this important legislation.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles A. Gonzalez follows:]

19

20

21

22

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Representative

Gonzalez.

We have been joined and I would yield to Representative Clay

from Missouri.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will forego an

opening statement and wait and anticipate the testimony from the

five panels.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Representative

Clay.

I would yield to Representative Cummings from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I first of all thank you for calling

the hearing. Considering the fact that we have Members that have

to get home, I will submit a written statement. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

23

24

25

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Representative Cummings.

We will now go to our first panel. Let me introduce the panel.

Ms. Nancy Kichak is the Associate Director of the Strategic

Human Resources Policy Division at the Office of Personnel Management. She leads the design, development, and implementation

of innovative, flexible, merit-based human resource policies.

We welcome you, Ms. Kichak.

Ms. Susan LaChance is the vice president of employee development and diversity at the U.S. Postal Service. Ms. LaChance reports to the chief human resources officer and executive vice president and is responsible for employee and leadership development,

succession planning, equal employment opportunity, and diversity

initiatives.

Ladies, as you know, it is procedure of our committee to swear

in witnesses. If you would, stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

Ms. Kichak, thank you so much. We will begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF NANCY KICHAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY DIVISION, OFFICE

OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND SUSAN LACHANCE,

VICE PRESIDENT OF EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

STATEMENT OF NANCY KICHAK

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you for the invitation to discuss our efforts

to create a diverse Senior Executive Service and improve the overall diversity of the Federal work force.

I also welcome the opportunity to review the Senior Executive

Service Diversity Assurance Act with you and update you on our

efforts to build the most effective Federal civilian work force possible.

We have long recognized that reaching the broadest possible pool

of applicants for Federal jobs is essential to achieve the goal of having an effective civilian work force.

Our efforts in this regard are conducted within the framework of

merit system principles. We must ensure that all Americans have

equal access to Federal employment opportunities at all levels of

the work force, and that their knowledge, skills, and abilities are

evaluated fairly.

The Office of Personnel Management promotes Federal employment expansively, including in areas where the potential applicant

pool is very diverse. One of the techniques we use is conducting job

fairs and Federal career days at colleges and universities, including

community colleges, that are likely to help us establish a pipeline

of diverse and highly qualified individuals.

Our efforts to build the most effective core of senior executives

depend, in part, on ensuring an effective pipeline into the Senior

Executive Service. Many of our efforts are aimed at supporting

agencies’ development of future leaders through leadership training

and succession training programs. Federal agencys often include

SES candidate development programs in the leadership succession

26

strategies they are required to implement. Data clearly show these

programs are proving to be an excellent vehicle for minority entry

into the SES. Candidates placed into the SES from these programs

represent higher percentages of both minorities and women than

are in the SES today.

OPM reports to Congress annually on minority representation in

the Federal Government in relation to the overall civilian labor

force. Our most recent report was submitted to the Congress and

to your subcommittee in January. The report shows that the Federal Government continues to compare favorably to the civilian

labor force in employing minorities, with the exception of Hispanics. The Federal Government also employs a slightly lower percentage of women than the non-Federal sector.

The proposed bills, H.R. 3774 and S. 2148, are designed to enhance diversity and make other improvements within the SES. I

appreciate the attention and commitment you have devoted to this

issue; however, although the administration has not yet taken an

official position on the legislation, I want to share with you some

initial concerns.

First, these bills would establish a new office within OPM which

would assume all functions relating to the Senior Executive Service. Today there are several offices within OPM supporting the

SES. We believe the current structure allows the agency to bring

a higher level of expertise to issues that arise, and thus serves the

SES community well. Also, the proposed separate office would have

substantial cost implications.

In addition, the bills would create new entities called SES evaluation panels that would be inserted into each agency between the

recommending official and the executive resources boards. Their

task would be to review the qualifications of each candidate for career SES appointments and to certify the names of candidates the

panel believes to be best qualified.

Each SES evaluation panel would have three members, at least

one of whom would have to be a woman, and one of them would

have to be a member of a racial or ethnic minority.

The Department of Justice has advised that these race- and gender-based requirements are very likely unconstitutional under governing and equal protection precedents. I assure you that OPM

shares your goal of a Federal work force that is effective in large

part because it draws on the strengths of a broad and diverse applicant pool. This will continue to be our goal with respect to developing and recruiting senior executives, as well as the rest of the

Federal civilian work force.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kichak follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Kichak.

Ms. LaChance.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN LACHANCE

Ms. LACHANCE. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis and members

of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to highlight

our efforts to develop and recruit a diverse talent pipeline ready to

accept the challenges of leadership to tomorrow.

Our recruitment and development efforts have been extremely

successful, resulting in many prestigious awards and other recognition for the Postal Service. We are the second-largest employer in

the Nation, with almost 700,000 employees. Key to the Postal Service’s business objectives is the development of talented individuals

who are prepared to assume leadership positions quickly and successfully. The Postal Service recognizes the business imperatives of

creating a pool of talented employees with diverse backgrounds,

perspectives, and experiences. Employees are developed throughout

their careers to take on new roles, new assignments, and new challenges.

We have created a number of processes and programs that assess

and identify high-potential employees. We train, develop, and ultimately foster their career advancement. Our developmental programs include those designed to prepare employees to become initial level supervisors, mid-level managers, and executives. The

Postal Service is identifying tomorrow’s leaders today.

Succession planning is a systematic process to ensure that our

organization has a steady, reliable pool of talented individuals who

will be ready and able to meet the Postal Service’s future leadership needs. The Postal Service’s corporate succession planning offers a structured, corporate-wide, and transparent process for identifying those employees with the potential to become executives in

our organization.

The self-nomination process puts employees in control of their careers by allowing them to express their interest in career advancement and leadership roles. Our multi-tiered review process and approval process ensures objective and fair treatment of all applications.

Finally, corporate succession planning allows ongoing development for program participants. We are proud to reflect the diversity of America. Over 38 percent of our total work force is minority,

and almost 40 percent is female. Minority and female representation continues to be strong in our management, executive, and officer ranks. In 2007, 32 percent of our managers were female, while

30 percent while minorities.

The number of employees occupying executive positions is fairly

small, as compared to our entire work force. These individuals are

responsible for operating our plants, districts, and headquarters

functions. In 2007, there were 748 executives, and of these, 26 percent were minorities while nearly 29 percent were female.

We understand that developing our talented employees does not

guarantee us a viable future in our organization. We recruit talented individuals from outside the Postal Service who have knowledge and expertise that may not be available in-house. The Postal

Service requires leaders with a broad range of knowledge and expeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:28 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44913.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
32

riences, excellent business acumen, and an understanding of the

market drivers that influence our business.

Last year, the Postal Service created an office dedicated to recruiting the best and the brightest. We recruit talented individuals

at colleges and universities through professional organizations and

at career fairs. The Postal Service participates on panels, sponsors

events and conferences targeting women and minorities, and promotes the Postal Service as an employer of choice.

In addition, we are leveraging technology to reach new generations interested in postal careers. Our job postings appear on a variety of specialized Web sites. In the increasing competition for talent, we must continue to attract and retain the right people. We

believe that our new recruitment office and our diversity professionals’ continuous community outreach will succeed in attracting

talent and diverse individuals with the skills and expertise we need

for ongoing business success.

In conclusion, the Postal Service has a long and proud history of

employing a diverse work force and is committed to providing employees with the information, training, and development that they

need to do their jobs today and tomorrow.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. LaChance follows:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. I thank both of

you for your testimony.

Let me begin with our questioning.

Ms. Kichak, you indicated that the Justice Department has indicated that there might be some difficulty with the requirement of

panels, which is included in our legislation——

Ms. KICHAK. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS [continuing]. That might have Constitutional issues and pose problems. You also indicated OPM had not

taken a position on the legislation, itself.

Ms. KICHAK. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me ask, does OPM have a position

relative to why it is so difficult to reach a level of some semblance

of parity within the ranks of the SES?

Ms. KICHAK. Well, our data does show that the situation, the minority representation in the SES is improving, although not to the

level that minority representation exists today in the rest of the

Federal Government.

We believe that the best way to bring people into the SES is to

train them and develop them and bring them along, and if you look

at the pipeline of people currently in the Federal Government in

the 13 to 15 level and in the senior pay level, No. 1, it is definitely

increasing for both minorities and women; No. 2, it is substantially

higher than the minority and women representation in the SES. So

we contend that, as new members come into the SES, that the demographic profile of the SES will change.

It does take time. We only had about 300 new hires, and not new

hires to the Federal Government but people moving into the SES

in 2007, about 330, I think it is. So out of a 7,000 person service,

when you only bring in about 5 percent a year it definitely just

takes time for the numbers to change.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so the time that it takes, the most

recent study that I looked at suggested that if we continue at the

rate we are going, that we would be into the next 25, 30 years and

still will not have seen any significant movement or any significant

progress.

Do you have any ideas? Well, let me just ask this: what is the

status of the training and development program?

Ms. KICHAK. Agencies run their own Federal career development

programs. Again, we have been very successful when we look at

those at the agency level in recruiting people into the SES. The

Federal CDP program that OPM was running, right now we are reevaluating and reviewing what is going on in that program. We

have had some difficulties in its operation, and we are reviewing

that. We have told the candidates and the agencies that we are

currently on hold while we look to get that back, and we will be

restarting it shortly.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So it is actually on hold right now?

Ms. KICHAK. Well, we have to review certain things that are

going on that are not as we would like them to be. We want a very

high-quality process in that program.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well thank you.

Let me just ask you, Ms. LaChance, according to Postal Service

data in GAO’s testimony, the representation of African American

44

men among postal managers has declined in recent years, while

overall representation of women and minorities has increased at a

slow rate. For example, the percent of minority executives increased less than 1 percentage point per year, and the representation of female executives has not increased much faster. What actions has the Postal Service taken to enhance the diversity of executives? I know you talked about the recruitment, job fairs and

visiting colleges and universities and bringing in people. Specifically as it relates to the recruitment and development of executives, what is the Postal Service doing?

Ms. LACHANCE. In terms of looking at what I describe as the

feeder pool of individuals who will move into executive ranks, we

recognize that we need a two-pronged structured approach to that.

As you mentioned, recruitment is one of those areas; however, the

second area is to really look at the feeder pool and make sure that

we have processes in place that are open for individuals to selfnominate and have an opportunity for development.

In the mid-level ranks, or our managerial ranks, we have put in

place what we call an EAS leadership development program.

We also have used programs such as management intern programs, which allow us to go out and, in fact, recruit broadly in

America for additional applicants to come in to the organization at

a level that is in that mid-level manager area.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Thank you both.

We will go to Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. I guess it is Ms. Kichak I have to ask whether or

not you are familiar with this decision or, for that matter, the Justice Department is familiar with Phillips v. General Services Administration 917 Fed. 2nd 1297 from the Federal Circuit in 1990.

Are you familiar with that decision?

Ms. KICHAK. No, I am not.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it seems to imply that the Federal Government or at least the General Services Agency indeed had a panel

like the one in the chairman’s bill that has been taken to court and

approved by the courts. Could I read you what the court said, the

Federal Circuit Court, in 1990, ‘‘Requiring that each SES evaluation panel shall include at least one woman and one member of a

racial or ethnic minority group does not appear to violate merit

system principles or constitute a prohibited personnel practice.

Merit system principles, which appear in Section 2301 of Title V,

United States Code, do not themselves provide independent causes

of action or independent bases for jurisdiction and cannot be considered in the absence of a violation of a statute, rule, or reg.’’ Phillips v. General Services Administration.

It would appear that there is precedent for what the chairman

and respective chairmen are trying to do in their bill, and you are

telling me that there is a problem with it?

Ms. KICHAK. First of all, we would defer to the Justice Department. That is their advice on that. But I want to assure——

Ms. NORTON. Their advice was based on what?

Ms. KICHAK. Their reading of the proposed legislation.

Ms. NORTON. And they then said that it is in violation of what?

You can’t come before this committee and say, well, the Justice Department says so, so that is the way it must be. What was the view

45

of the Justice Department, and on what was it based? I just read

you the view of the Federal Circuit Court of the United States of

America, which is over and above, stands above the Justice Department, so I am just trying to find a basis for their view.

Ms. KICHAK. And I think the Justice Department is going to have

to answer that question.

Ms. NORTON. I think what you are going to have to do is, within

30 days, have the basis for your coming before this committee to

testify—the Justice Department is not here—submit to the Chair

the legal basis for your view. You are now representing this as your

view. You come to testify. I understand OPM hasn’t taken a view,

but you have given us a view that you consider apparently even

more important than the OPM view, and that is that the Justice

Department says that there is a violation of something, and within

30 days would you, the Justice Department, or somebody—show

the Justice Department this. You have this cite.

Ms. KICHAK. OK.

Ms. NORTON. And ask the Justice Department how they reconcile

their view that there is a violation here with the view of the Federal Circuit opinion in Phillips v. General Services Administration,

1990, which appear to condone precisely what this bill says.

Ms. KICHAK. We do encourage the quality review boards or the

review boards that review the SES selections to be diverse, to welcome members that are female, minority. It is just that we don’t

mandate that.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. I have given you a cite that said

precisely what the chairman said.

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. Thank you. We will do that. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

46

47

Ms. NORTON. I want to go to Ms. LaChance and the Postal Service.

Ms. LaChance, you have something here that is quite unusual.

Largely because of the absence of opportunities for African American, Hispanic men and women elsewhere, you have a very largely

minority work force. The GAO figures are stunning in that regard.

I would like to ask you about figures that appear to go down—

these figures are reported in the GAO report—looking at executives. Looking at September 1999—I think these are percentages—

looking at executives at large—that is a very broad title, so I don’t

know what kinds of executives they are talking about—but they

show a percentage. Well, let’s look at 2004, actually, because from

1999 to 2004 there was a slight increase, but if you look at 2004

and 2007 you see, even given the nature of your work force, a reduction from 9.8 percent to 8.7 percent of African American men,

and a reduction of African American women from 7.0 percent to 6.3

percent. Among Hispanic men, there is a small increase, for which

I congratulate you, from 4.9 to 5.4, but among Hispanic women in

these categories it goes from 1.5 percent to 1.8, tiny increases.

The decreases in the men are perplexing, and the women who

are African American are perplexing. Could you explain them,

please?

Ms. LACHANCE. There are certainly many influences that do

come about when you look at the statistics. We have, as you stated,

Delegate Norton, we have enjoyed a good minority population, and,

in fact, we have had and continue to have a large African American

population, relatively large in comparison with the Federal Government, in our executives as well as in our supervisory managerial

ranks.

We have seen, as the population has decreased overall for us, we

have seen retirements in our men, in general, and we have seen

like decreases in White men, as well as African American men.

There has only been a slight increase in our Hispanic population.

Those areas are areas that we are working very closely with our

internal employee affinity groups with, because we recognize that

some individuals are not putting themselves out there to actually

make application and self-nominate to our programs, so we are

working very closely with our affinity groups, encouraging individuals to self-nominate, giving them the courage to make application

and see that there are opportunities. It is an ongoing effort that we

have to make.

Ms. NORTON. Do you support the panel notion in the chairman’s

bill with a woman and a minority on the panels?

Ms. LACHANCE. In terms of the bill, I think that we have already

achieved a lot of what the legislation has called for. In fact, with

our succession planning process and our feeder pools, we are seeing

a good minority population. We have offices that——

Ms. NORTON. I just quoted you some statistics that showed decrease in both Black men and Black women, so now you are telling

me the opposite. I am asking you, in light of those decreases, do

you support the chairman’s notion, at least temporarily, of having

panels that would have a minority and a woman on them?

48

Ms. LACHANCE. We currently do have executive resource boards

that are very diverse that look at this. It is not necessarily the

same as what the SES process is, because our process is——

Ms. NORTON. You already have this, you are saying?

Ms. LACHANCE. We have that process. We have review committees that look at this, but our process is more about development,

not selection.

Ms. NORTON. When it comes to selection, do you have a process

like the one in the chairman’s bill?

Ms. LACHANCE. No, we do not.

Ms. NORTON. Do you support or oppose a process like the one in

the chairman’s bill?

Ms. LACHANCE. Again, I believe that we already have the results

the legislation calls for. To put a process in place——

Ms. NORTON. Even though I have quoted to you statistics that

show over 3 years’ time significant reduction in Black male and

Black female executive appointments?

Ms. LACHANCE. Again, let me just kind of go back. Our process

is not the same. Our process is very different. We do not post——

Ms. NORTON. I am looking at the GAO report. I am not looking

at your process. I am looking at the results. One thing we should

not expect in a work force with such a large percentage of Black

men and women is the numbers in that upper category to decrease,

and I am asking you whether, in light of that decrease, you think

something like what the chairman’s bill proposes would at least

temporarily be helpful.

Ms. LACHANCE. I do not believe that the process that has been

proposed by the chairman would be helpful to the Postal Service.

Although there has been a slight decrease in the populations that

you are citing, if you do go back to the 1999 data you will see that

there has been a good decrease in the GAO report. Further, I

think, given the fact that——

Ms. NORTON. Yes, there were increases between 1999 and 2004,

not much for Black men, 9.0 to 9.8, but at least it was an increase,

and African American women, 5.3 to 7.0. Then I look at the years

between 2004 and 2007 and I see rather significant decreases. That

is what leads me to ask the question I have just asked.

Ms. LACHANCE. Again, I do not believe that having the legislation as proposed would be of aid to the Postal Service because our

process is really not about filling jobs and promotions, but rather

about developing individuals for leadership.

What we have looked toward is identifying people and giving

them opportunities. If we look toward only——

Ms. NORTON. Rather than giving them jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I think you said you are not for it. Giving them

opportunities which result in decreases does not show the effectiveness of what you are doing, Ms. LaChance. Thank you very much.

I will go on to the next person.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton. We

will go to Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start with Ms. Kichak. You voiced two concerns about the

proposed legislation, H.R. 3774 and the Senate version. One of the

concerns is that it would create a new office and you believe in the

49

current structure that is there. You also voiced a concern that I

thought was quite interesting and have never heard from any Federal agency, that you had a cost concern about the cost of creating

this new department. I found that quite interesting. I have never

heard any agency come up here and say they did not want to create

something new because of cost. I just don’t hear it. It is not a part

of Federal agencies’ culture. I don’t hear it. But I heard it today.

Your second set of concerns was about the Constitutionality that

was pointed out to you.

Change is always difficult, and it seems to me that the culture

of the SES selection process should be what changes. When you

really think about it, it is the culture. You think that the levels of

diversity in the SES are improving, but the will must be there to

make these improvements. The will must be there to make the

changes. It must be there to actually move people up the ladder.

Is the will there to do that in OPM?

Ms. KICHAK. The will is definitely there.

The first thing is it is not a question of being afraid of change.

We did have one SES office prior to our reorganization in 2003

which was not that long ago, and so those of us with long careers

at OPM remember that. I really believe the service and the quality

of service the SES community is better today because, instead of

having a small office devoted to one topic, we bring together experts in various aspects of personnel management, such as how you

recruit, how you evaluate, how you service, how you rank applications, and things like that.

So working with the SES, there are more people working on it

today, although not full time, than there were when we had an individual office, so it is really, No. 1, an issue of quality.

No. 2, OPM always does care about cost. We are a small agency

and we want to make sure we use our dollars wisely. But we continue to support diversity in the SES. I mean, we just issued new

Executive Corps qualifications that you use to evaluate applicants,

and it requires a leadership element that evaluates whether folks

have been effective leaders in encouraging diversity. So our interest

is there.

We have a human capital score card. That is not strictly SES.

That is for measuring the management of human capital, and there

is a managing diversity element there. We require reviewing diversity and succession plans. So we are very much committed.

Mr. CLAY. Commitment is one thing, but, I mean, I heard the

chairman say that it may take up to 25 years to get to parity. To

be committed and for you to come here and say you are committed

is fine, but the numbers don’t bear that out. They really don’t. And

you are not demonstrating national diversity by your numbers, so

in actuality you don’t have a diverse SES. You don’t have a diverse

work force that allows people to climb the career ladder in SES.

You aren’t selecting numbers. Your numbers just aren’t there.

I am from Missouri, and we have a motto in that State. You have

to show me. You have not shown me that you are about fairness

and that you are about equity, that you are about upward mobility

of all of your employees. You don’t look nationally diverse.

50

Ms. KICHAK. We can show you numbers that are improving, but

not numbers that have achieved the levels of representation in the

work force in general. You are correct.

Mr. CLAY. And also I find it kind of different, too, that OPM has

come here today to take an adversarial position against this legislation. My suggestion to you and OPM is that you all figure this out

how to work with both chairmen of these two committees and to

actually come up with a product that gets us the result. Don’t come

here being adversarial, because you are.

Ms. KICHAK. We would very much like to work with the committees to come up with something that would improve the diversity

of the senior executive work force.

Mr. CLAY. And it doesn’t help when you come up here and give

us a line from the Justice Department that is really not relevant.

Let me go to Ms. LaChance before my time runs out.

Why is there a disconnect in the number of rank and file employees versus the executive level positions, the same point that Ms.

Norton was bringing up? What is the disconnect here?

Ms. LACHANCE. As I understand your question, in terms of the

disconnect between the representation in the rank and file versus

the representation in the managerial ranks?

Mr. CLAY. The 54 or 55 percent of African American male and

females in the Postal Service compared to a much drastically less

number of executives in decisionmaking positions in the Postal

Service.

Ms. LACHANCE. In terms of diversity at the managerial ranks,

one of the things that we see in the managerial ranks, in general,

is that those individuals that are sitting in those positions actually

came into the organization some time ago when the diversity of

America was different.

As we have had over the years, as we influence and start to do

hiring, we see more and more of the ranks at the initial level where

we do more hiring from external coming in and looking more like

America as it does today.

As a result, without intervention or having programs like management interns, which we have moved toward, or hiring initial

level supervisors, opening up our opportunities to what America

looks like today, our managerial ranks looks like the population as

it was perhaps 10, 15 years ago. So it takes an extra effort for us

to continue to encourage our own work force, reach out, and to retain that work force.

Mr. CLAY. And you know your line of reasoning here is similar

to Ms. Kichak in that you seem to have some challenges about

what you call leadership, but it seems to me that you have individuals making judgment calls on applicants, which may be influenced

by other factors. So it may be something in your own system that

you may want to evaluate and change.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Clay.

We will go to Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Kichak, first of all I want you to understand that Director

Springer has met with members of the Hispanic Caucus at least

twice, has addressed our concerns, and I think has shown a very

51

genuine interest in some of the worries that we have, so I am going

to start off with that basic premise and observation.

But I think what you see here is being expressed a certain frustration, trying to get to the bottom of the problem and seeing that

the approach that you take and the direction that you give the

agencies and the departments is effective, and there is some serious question about that.

I am going to refer to the Post article that came out today that

I am sure you read, and Congressman Jose Serrano’s questioning

of Director Springer yesterday, and I am going to read from it.

‘‘Jose Serrano, Democrat from New York who is chairman of the

House Appropriations Subcommittee and is interested in promoting

diversity, cited a 2007 survey that the OPM had conducted of its

own employees. About 25 percent of the OPM employees chose to

neither agree nor disagree on whether OPM policies and programs

to promote diversity in the agency, and an additional 12 percent selected do not know, as their response. An additional 9.4 percent

disagreed that the OPM’s efforts promote diversity in the agency.’’

That was what was reported in the paper today.

So you probably have about half of those within OPM that were

surveyed that either have a negative opinion or no opinion or don’t

know. Even internally, that would be unacceptable, and when you

think in terms of what you are doing basically sets the course,

guides others and such, you have to look at it and question internally what you all are doing. That is what gets our attention.

And then if you spread that throughout the agencies and departments that are not meeting any of the mandates or goals or recommendations set out by Executive orders and such, now you have

really got us worried. It seems like the frustration only grows from

year to year because the numbers don’t seem to be improving.

Now, I understand that a certain agency or a department may

have a better record of diversity in hiring at all levels and at the

senior executive levels, and it is always amazing to see which ones

are more successful than others. In our discussions with Director

Springer we were trying to say, Would you identify those programs

that are more successful, and such.

One of the recommendations of this legislation—again, this is

from a memorandum that is prepared by staff for the benefit of

members of the committee. It says, ‘‘The bill is divided in two primary sections. The first section would recreate the Senior Executive Resources Office at OPM, which was dissolved a number of

years ago. According to Senior Executives Association—’’ and I

think they have a representative here—‘‘During most of the existence of Senior Executive Service there exited at OPM a single Office of Executive Resource, which was responsible for thinking

about and overseeing the specialize corps of senior executives and

related classifications constituting the career leadership of the U.S.

Government. Ever since the division of this office’s responsibility a

number of years ago, concerns and issues relating to the career

leadership corps has been parceled out among many different and

sometimes hard to identify, let alone locate, parts of OPM.’’

And your position would be in opposition to that particular aspect of this legislation?

52

Ms. KICHAK. I think we are serving that community better by

giving them access to all the experts that touch on all facets of

SES, and my particular office will take any call from that organization and make sure it gets to the right place. We are committed

to serving that population; we just don’t think this is the way to

do it.

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think it has been our experience that we like

to see things institutionalized within departments, agencies, and so

on that have certain duties and responsibilities that address the

issues that are before us. I think that is the approach of this piece

of legislation. I don’t speak for the author or anyone at this point,

but that would just be my understanding. I think we had something that was in place truly dedicated to the proposition of looking

at, of course, senior executive levels and how you promote, what

you do to retain, and even the outside hires, as you were saying,

which were minimal when you think in terms of what you have to

draw from and who you bring in new at those particular levels.

I do wish, and I am going to have to echo some of what my colleague, Mr. Lacy, pointed out, I wish that you all were a little bit

more open minded about that. I understand even Congress doesn’t

like sometimes when people are telling us that we have to do some

things differently and maybe have something within our own Body

that may overview certain actions of Members, but, nevertheless,

sometimes we do have to listen.

Ms. LaChance, let me ask you, where did you come up with this

model on how you approach on obviously attracting and retaining

and promoting within the Postal Service? Who gave you all these

ideas? Where did you receive your direction?

Ms. LACHANCE. Well, one of the things that we do is we constantly look at best practices in an industry, and one of the best

practices in industry is to focus in on development. That is really

why we are very different than what the rest of the Federal Government does. We do not post position by position. We post for development, developmental pools, and we identify individuals, give

them opportunities, give them coaching over time, and that is a

best practice in private industry. In fact, we were cited in 2005 by

GAO as having a best practice with our programs, as well.

While we always can improve and we continue to strive to do

that, looking at our programs and processes, making sure that

there are no barriers to any one individual or group in any of our

personnel practices is something that we, as well as the Federal

Government, do and report to EEOC.

So I think it is a combination of the two pieces: looking to best

practice and also monitoring on an ongoing basis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Let me thank both

of you. We appreciate your testimony and appreciate your being

with us. You are excused.

Ms. LACHANCE. Thank you.

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We will go to our second panel. While

they are being seated, I will introduce them.

Panel two is Mr. George H. Stalcup, the Director of Strategic

Issues at the Government Accountability Office, GAO. He oversees

a range of management and human capital issues. Mr. Stalcup also

53

oversees GAO’s high-risk program and issuance of GAO’s biennial

update to its high-risk list.

Ms. Katherine Siggerud is the Director in the Physical Infrastructure Issues Team at GAO. She has directed GAO’s work on

postal issues for several years, including recent reports on delivery

standards and performance processing, network realignment, contracting policies, semi-postal stamps, and biological threats.

Let me thank you both. As is the tradition of this committee, we

always swear in witnesses.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

Let me welcome you both and thank you for being here.

Mr. Stalcup, we will begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF GEORGE H. STALCUP, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND

KATHERINE SIGGERUD, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. STALCUP

Mr. STALCUP. Chairman Davis, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Gonzalez, thank you for the opportunity to participate in

this hearing on diversity in the executive ranks. I will first discuss

the SES, and then Ms. Siggerud will talk about the Postal Career

Executive Service.

Our Government continues to face new and more complex challenges associated with long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics, and other factors. Senior leadership in agencies across

Government, including the Postal Service, is essential to providing

accountable, committed, consistent, and sustained attention to

human capital and related organizational transformational issues.

A diverse executive corps can be an organizational strength by

bringing in a wider variety of perspectives and approaches to bear

on policy development and implementation, strategic planning,

problem solving, and decisionmaking.

In 2003 we issued a report that looked at diversity in the SES

as of October 2000. We estimated by race, ethnicity, and gender the

number who would leave Government service by October 2007 and

projected what the profile of the SES would be at the end of 2007

if appointment trends did not change. We made similar estimates

for the GS–15 and GS–14 levels, which are viewed as the primary

developmental pools for the SES.

In testimony last year, we provided data on representation at

senior executive levels as of the end of fiscal year 2006. Our statement today presents the baseline data from our October 2000 that

we used in our previous study and updated representation data as

of the end of fiscal year 2007 for both the SES and the developmental pool.

As requested, our full statement also compares the fiscal year

2007 data to the projections we made in our 2003 study.

For both the SES and the developmental pool we included data

both Government-wide and for each of the 24 CFO Act agencies.

One of the charts to my right, your left, shows a breakdown of repVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:28 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44913.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
54

resentation in the SES as of 2000 and as of 2007, as well as the

changes over that span. The other chart presents similar data for

the SES developmental pool.

Our 2003 report projected some increases in representation in

most categories of SES. You can see that fiscal year 2007 data

show that increases did take place overall among both women and

minorities, as well as in most categories, although the amount of

those increases varied.

The only decrease in representation among minorities occurred in

African American men, whose representation declined from 5.5 percent in the year 2000 to 5.0 percent in 2007.

Our 2003 report also projected some increases in representation

among both minorities and women in the SES developmental pool.

The 2007 data show that increases generally did take place, but

again the magnitude of those increases varied.

It is important for me to note that we did not analyze the factors

that contributed to these changes, and therefore care must be

taken when comparing actual changes in demographic data to the

projections we made. Specifically, we have not determined whether

or not the estimated retirement and appointment trends used in

our projections continued.

Now, while we have not done that analysis, agencies are required

to analyze their work forces and, where representation levels for

covered groups are lower than the civilian labor force, take steps

to address those differences. Agencies must also maintain effective

equal employment opportunity programs and develop strategies to

mitigate or eliminate any barriers to participation.

It is also important for agencies to consider retirement eligibility

and actual retirement rates of the SES.

In 2006, OPM reported that approximately 60 percent of the executive branch’s white collar employees and 90 percent of its executives would be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years. Significant retirements could affect the leadership continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise among the SES corps. This has important implications for Government management and emphasizes

the need for good succession planning for this leadership group.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stalcup follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Siggerud.

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE SIGGERUD

Ms. SIGGERUD. Chairman Davis, Ms. Norton, Mr. Gonzalez, I

would like to echo my colleague’s thanks for inviting GAO to be a

part of this hearing.

The Postal Service faces similar challenges as the executive

branch. The Service expects nearly half of its executives to retire

within the next 5 years, which underscores the need for effective

succession planning, but also presents opportunities for the Postal

Service to alter the composition of its executive ranks.

Today I will provide similar information regarding the Postal

Service to the overview Mr. Stalcup provided with regard to the

SES. I will discuss first representation information for the Postal

Career Executive Service [PCES]; second, representation from the

ranks of postal employees who can be promoted into the PCES;

and, third, how the Postal Service selects employees for executive

promotion.

Turning to the PCES, our chart on my right does show increases

in the percent of women and minorities from 1999 through 2007 for

the Postal Service. However, the trends did vary in this group,

which currently includes about 750 executives. For example, during

the past 8 years there was a decrease in representation of African

American men, while numbers for other minority men stayed largely steady. For women, percentages stayed steady or increased.

The story is similar for employees in the ranks of the Executive

and Administrative Schedule [EAS]. They could be selected for

PCES positions. As shown in our chart, from 1999 through 2007,

percentages increased for minority men, minority women, and

women overall, but there was a decrease in representation of African American men.

We have not analyzed factors that contributed to changes in the

representation in the PCES or EAS. The Postal Service, like executive branch agencies, has responsibility for analyzing its work

force, identifying barriers, and developing strategies to counteract

them.

Mr. Chairman, as the previous panel discussed, the process for

selecting new PCES employees differs from that used to select SES

members. Because the Postal Service has statutory authority to establish procedures for its appointments and promotions, it does not

fall under the jurisdiction of the OPM process my colleague described. Instead, the Postal Service promotes employees to the

PCES when there is a vacancy that needs to be filled. There are

no requirements to advertise PCES vacancies. Selecting officials

are not required to interview candidates for such vacancies, and

there is no board to certify candidates’ qualifications.

However, the Service strongly encourages its executives to select

PCES promotees from the corporate succession planning program.

The Postal Service created this program in 2004 for the purpose of

identifying pools of potential successors for PCES positions and for

developing these employees. While the corporate succession planning program could be viewed as similar to SES candidate programs, there are important differences.

109

There are about 400 corporate succession planning position pools

which correspond to specific positions in the PCES. Members of

these pools are selected by committees convened by each of 43 postal officers and include at least three executives. Once selected,

members participate in development activities.

While the SES candidate programs have high rates of placement

in the SES, in 2007 about a tenth of corporate succession planning

participants were tapped to be executives.

In reviewing information about the corporate succession planning

program, we determined that about 87 percent of employees selected for the PCES were, in fact, program participants. We reviewed representation for program participants for those EAS levels most likely to produce PCES promotions. In this group, percentages increased for both women and minorities from 2004 through

2007, but the percentage of African American men decreased.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, racial, ethnic, and gender diversity

in the Government’s executive ranks is an important component of

the effective operation of the Government. Succession planning provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to affect the diversity of the executive corps through new appointments.

We have reported that the agencies in other countries use succession planning to achieve a more divers work force, maintain leadership capacity, and increase the retention of high-potential staff.

GAO has said that an agency’s human capital plan should address the demographic trends that the agency faces with its work

force, especially retirements. Leading organizations go beyond a socalled replacement approach that focuses on identifying particular

individuals as possible successors; rather, they focus in broad, integrated succession planning that focuses on strengthening both current and future capacity, anticipating the need for leaders and

other key employees with the necessary competencies to successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statements, and we are certainly happy to answer any questions.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Siggerud. I

appreciate both of you for being here and testifying.

Mr. Stalcup, let me ask, you mentioned the fact that GAO did

not analyze factors that affected changes in representation. Let me

ask you, you indicated that the agencies, themselves, would have

responsibility for doing that. Do we know whether or not agencies

are actually doing this?

Mr. STALCUP. Both the EEOC and Office of Personnel Management, as you say, Mr. Chairman, do require agencies to analyze

their work forces, identify where there are disparities with the civilian labor force, and work to overcome any barriers that they

identify. They are to report annually to those respective organizations on how well they have done, and those organizations, in turn,

report to the Congress. So there is information out there on what

is being done in that regard, but with 25 different agencies making

it up you have a varying situation in each agency.

So OPM and EEOC are the ones with that important oversight

role to be working with those agencies and getting those numbers

where they need to be.

110

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so if we end up requesting from

OPM and from the Government Accountability Office that we receive that information from the agencies, then we could expect to

be able to get it?

Mr. STALCUP. Yes. Typically on an issue like that we would look

for OPM to provide that information and we would then work with

your team in your office in analyzing those responses.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes, because I think it is very important,

especially if we find, as we are finding, that there is regression

among some population groups, which is difficult to, quite frankly,

understand, as we consistently suggest that we are moving forward. We certainly would be in need of that information.

Let me also ask you, what work has GAO done to take a look

at retirement expectations of SESers over the next 5 years?

Mr. STALCUP. We have not updated the study that we did going

back into 2003, which did that projection based on 2000 numbers

for this year or this recently completed year of 2007.

Again, it is the responsibility oversight the individual agencies

under the leadership of both OPM and EEOC to analyze, to make

those analyses of their work force. It is a very important function

to know, have a feel for what retirements are in play, and to plan

and do work force planning accordingly, not to do one-for-one replacements, but to figure out where you need to move your organization from where it is at today and where you need to be in the

future and use recruitment and hiring and appointments to get

there.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Based upon your knowledge, would you

suggest that there will be significant opportunity to really change

the face of the SES over the next 5 to 10 years, given the numbers

of people who in all likelihood will be retiring, therefore opening up

additional opportunity?

Mr. STALCUP. Well, clearly the numbers that OPM has presented

are large in terms of people that will become eligible for retirement

in coming years. The next number that is important is how many

of them will, in fact, retire. But assuming a good portion of them

retire, the opportunity will be there in terms of replacements and

appointments for those folks to, in fact, make a change.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Siggerud, let me ask you how much

change has there been in the representation of women and minorities among postal executives in the Executive Service?

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Chairman, this is really sort of a mixed bag,

I would say. When you look at overall representation in the PCES

over the time period from 1999 through 2007, which is the data

that we have available to us, we do see increases in women of nearly 9 percent. We see increases in minority groups of about 4.7 percent, a lower number than for women. But when we look at the

number of men, and in particular African American men, there is

a decrease over that time period, and we see similar sorts of trends

in the groups that could be promoted into those positions.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you have any idea as to why this phenomenon is occurring among African American males?

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Chairman, as with the executive branch, we

have not at this point gotten beneath these numbers and tried to

identify causes and factors. As Mr. Stalcup said, I would certainly

111

be very interested in seeing what the Postal Service has done in

response to OPM and EEOC requirements to do this analysis.

In its report to the Congress that was required in the Reform Act

looking at diversity among managers and supervisors, in general—

a little bit different group from what we did—the Postal Service did

mention significant retirement numbers among men, in general, as

perhaps being behind this issue.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

I will go to Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First let me ask a threshold question to try to understand these

figures. Has there been a reduction in the number of SES employees between 2000 and 2007?

Mr. STALCUP. I believe the answer is there has been an increase.

Ms. NORTON. Altogether?

Mr. STALCUP. Altogether.

Ms. NORTON. White, Black, whoever is in there. Has there been

an increase, or has there been stability in the number of SES employees between 2000 and 2007?

Mr. STALCUP. In the year 2000, based on our 2003 report, there

were 6,110 SESers. In the year 2007 there are 6,555, an increase

of 445.

Ms. NORTON. All right. I am trying to figure out who have taken

all of the positions. You might ask where have all the White men

gone. Well, if you look at your figures, they have probably retired,

because the White male figures are even larger in decreases, or

there is even a larger decrease in White men than in anyone else.

I am talking about SES now. In men, period, there is a 5.5 percent

decrease. We see that in the work force throughout. Men have, for

various reasons—some of them having to do with pensions and the

rest. But if we look at White men, there is an even greater reduction.

Who is getting these positions, Ms. Siggerud or Mr. Stalcup, if

you have an increase in the SES and we see these tiny increases

over 7 years—if you look at 7 years, these increases are quite

unimpressive, 0.6 percent for African American women, of course

a decrease for African American men, 0.9 percent for Hispanic

men, 0.2 percent for Hispanic women, White women do see an increase of 4.2 percent. You talk about successive planning. We are

told by Mr. Stalcup there is an increase in employees. Well, who’s

getting the jobs?

Mr. STALCUP. Well, the numbers are in our appendix one of the

statement we did. The total number of White males at the SES

level actually did go down from 4,097 to 3,976, a small decrease.

Ms. NORTON. Or 6.4 percent. Yes. That is what leads me to ask

the question. But the numbers of SES employees went up.

Mr. STALCUP. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. So not only do you have vacancies that can be

filled, you got more employees than you had before in 2000, so I

am trying to figure out who are getting the jobs.

Mr. STALCUP. And the answer to who got the jobs is in that column on the right. I can do the math and I can provide more detail

to you if you wish.

112

Ms. NORTON. I don’t see the numbers in here, frankly, in the

math, not when you consider the increases.

Mr. STALCUP. Page 19 of our statement.

Ms. NORTON. I am looking at the blue chart. I am sorry. I am

looking at the blue chart at the moment. I wish you would break

down where have all the jobs gone. You have more SES employees.

You have men, White men who held the great majority of them, reducing in even larger numbers. You see tiny increases in all but

White women. So I don’t see why there aren’t greater increases,

since White males aren’t necessarily filling the new positions. Or

maybe they are. They are leaving, but maybe more White men are,

in fact, filling the positions.

Mr. STALCUP. The details on page 19 of our statement, which you

may not have with you——

Ms. NORTON. I am looking at 19 now.

Mr. STALCUP. You can see on that first set of data under SES

that White women went from a number of 1,164 to 1,526, so the

increase——

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is reflected in this data. That is 4.2 percent.

Mr. STALCUP. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t want to belabor the point. I am looking at

increases, not large increases but 6,100 to 6,500.

Mr. STALCUP. Correct.

Ms. NORTON. I am looking at decreases in White males. And

when you consider the increases overall plus the decrease in White

males, you would expect, it seems to me, that the White women are

not taking all these positions. I don’t see that.

Mr. STALCUP. I understand your point. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. And I would like to see you do that math.

Mr. STALCUP. We will.

Ms. NORTON. I would very much appreciate that.

Ms. Siggerud, you said, interestingly, that the Postal Service

doesn’t do advertisements, recruits from within. Is that what you

were testifying?

Ms. SIGGERUD. The Postal Service can either promote from within, or occasionally will, in fact, hire someone outside.

Ms. NORTON. They don’t advertise for positions? Was that your

testimony?

Ms. SIGGERUD. There is a requirement to advertise for positions.

There may be occasions when the Postal Service does, in fact, do

advertisement.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know which they do. Do they tend to recruit

from the ranks?

Ms. SIGGERUD. Primarily, yes.

Ms. NORTON. That is good.

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Where you have this large pool of minorities and

women, you have this ready-made pool of people to recruit from. I

am trying to discover whether, when they get to these SES-type positions, whether they are recruiting—it might be quite all right—

from laterally, whether they are recruiting up the ranks. I am trying to account for the disparity.

113

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes. The Postal Service does encourage recruiting

from this corporate succession planning program that I mentioned,

which are the pools of people that are being developed to fill specific disciplines within the executive corps of the Postal Service.

What we found was that about 87 percent of the promotions into

the PCS came from people who are members of the corporate succession planning program. As I said, there were occasionally outside hires that may also be used to provide a very specialized skill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go on, since the bell

has rung, to the next person, but I think we need to know what

kinds of positions require lateral, because I think it is very good

to be in the Postal Service at the ranks and know that you may

1 day get to be in the whatever is the SES of the Postal Service,

and so it would be important to know where are the lateral hires

and where are the promotions from the succession planning, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.

Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is good to see you again, Mr. Stalcup, and I want to extend

my thanks for the assistance that GAO provided us at the request

back in that time of the ranking member of the full committee and

the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Davis, and getting

your services to address a very serious question that the Hispanic

Caucus had regarding Hispanic under-representation.

What we learned then was very enlightening. There are many

different conditions that may, I guess, mitigate why an agency or

department may not be meeting certain numbers that are out

there, or they are encouraged to, so that is interesting. I guess

what I learned is that many times you can tell us the what but not

necessarily the why’s. Today I think again I am getting that sense

that you can give us the raw numbers, you can go in there and you

can analyze this and say this is what you have in the way of

women, African American women, Asian American women, Hispanic, and so on, but you can’t really tell us what might be the best

practices or why one agency does better than another.

My experience from the previous assistance that you provided us

is that in the final analysis it really is going to be OPM and, of

course, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC].

In everything, that is what we end up at the end of this whole

process.

I don’t know if GAO is ever going to go in there and analyze all

the different departments and agencies and figure out why they

have greater success at attracting and retaining a more diverse

work force. I don’t know if that would ever be your charge. So if

we told you go out there and we want you to analyze all the different departments and agencies, not just the senior executive levels, but across the board, who does a better job and why do they

do a better job, would that be a legitimate request? Would you be

able to ever do anything like that?

Mr. STALCUP. Well, that would be a major undertaking. We

would obviously talk to you and work through what would be best

in terms of getting at that.

114

As you state, clearly OPM and EEOC have those very important

leadership roles to do that.

Let me also say that we have done a body of work not directly

focused on agency-by-agency and story-by-story, but we have done

a series of other reports. We have looked at the overall framework

for EEO in the Government for achieving diversity. We have talked

about various roles of both the EEOC and OPM, what is rooted in

law, what is rooted in regulation, and presented some things out

there, some observations in terms of how that works. We have

made recommendations based on the Hispanic representation work

we did for you, which was a very important job. But we haven’t yet,

like you say, gone and attempted to develop a story agency-byagency. Chances are it is going to be a different story for every

agency, but there will be common themes also.

Mr. GONZALEZ. One thing that we were trying to arrive at back

then with the work that you assisted us with was really the accountability or consequences of failing to be aggressive and effective in the efforts of any agency and department, and that is why

we ended up with OPM and EEOC as really probably being the entities that you would look for as far as maybe exercising some sort

of decisionmaking and policy implementation that would result in

the accountability and responsibility of all those agencies and departments that maybe aren’t doing as good a job as we believe that

they should.

But I know that cause and effect is an important thing here, and

these numbers I think are really important, but I do believe they

just provide us with some raw data, unless what is attempting to

be accomplished by this piece of legislation. If we don’t move aggressively ourselves and try to institutionalize within OPM or an

agency or a department some sort of, again, either a body or a section that is truly dedicated to this proposition of diversity in the

work force, I am not sure that we will make that kind of progress.

Again, I just want to commend the chairman of this subcommittee for being not just creative, but again assertive, and maybe we

will get there.

I would ask the agencies and the departments and the administration if they don’t like this particular suggestion, then what can

we do to arrive at better results than where we are today.

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

We appreciate your testimony and your answers. You are excused.

Mr. STALCUP. Thank you.

Ms. SIGGERUD. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

We will go to the third panel. While we are transitioning, I will

just go ahead and introduce the witnesses.

Panel three is Mr. Steven Williams. He is the secretary and director of the Office of Secretary and Administration at the Postal

Regulatory Commission. He manages the Office of Secretary and

Administration, which encompasses the functional and administrative areas of human capital, Federal advisory committees, information technology, budget, and purchasing.

115

We have Mr. Ronald Stith, who is the assistant inspector general

for mission support at the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector

General. He is responsible for budgeting, contracting, purchasing,

human resources, Federal advisory committees, and vehicle management and professional development activities.

We have Ms. Nicole A. Johnson. She serves as an assistant chief

inspector for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. She is responsible

for leading the Inspection Service’s mission critical support functions, which include finance, training, work force management, information, business requirements and solutions, and technical support.

Ms. Johnson, thank you.

Mr. Bray Barnes is the Department of Homeland Security’s new

Acting Chief Human Capital Officer. In this position he oversees

DHS’s human capital policy, strategic planning, learning and development, recruitment, performance management, work force engagement, compensation, benefits, labor relations, employee relations,

and other areas. Mr. Barnes first joined DHS in May 2007 as the

Director of Workforce Relations.

Mr. Barnes, thank you.

And Ms. Carmen Walker has been the Deputy Officer for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security since its inception in March 2003. Prior to joining the

Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Walker was the Deputy Director of the Department of Treasury, Office of Equal Employment

Opportunity Programs, where she managed the Civil Rights complaint operations and Equal Opportunity Policy and Evaluation Divisions.

Thank you all so very much.

If you would stand and be sworn in, as is our tradition, and raise

your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

Let me thank you all for being here with us this afternoon. Of

course, you know that a full copy of your testimony is in our record.

The green light means that you have 5 minutes, down to the yellow

light, you have 1 minute in which to wrap up, and, of course, the

red light means that your time is up, and then we can end up having questions.

Let me thank you so much for being here. We will begin with Mr.

Williams.

116

STATEMENTS OF STEVEN W. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY AND

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, POSTAL REGULATORY

COMMISSION; RONALD STITH, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR MISSION SUPPORT, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OFFICE

OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; NICOLE A. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT CHIEF INSPECTOR INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY

SUPPORT, U.S. POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE; BRAY

BARNES, ACTING CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND CARMEN WALKER, DEPUTY OFFICER, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL

LIBERTIES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

STATEMENT OF STEVEN M. WILLIAMS

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to be

here. I thank the rest of the members of the subcommittee for also

being here.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Commission on Workforce Diversity. You have my full statement, and I will

summarize.

I am the Commission’s Chief Administrative Officer with responsibility for providing support to the Commission by recording official actions and overseeing general Commission administration, including human resources, our docket section, information technology, and other support services.

The Commission is an independent agency that has exercised

regulatory oversight over the Postal Service since its creation by

the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

Initially, this oversight consisted primarily of conducting public,

on-the-record hearings concerning proposed rate changes, mail classification, or major service changes, and then recommending for a

decision for action by the Postal Board of Governors.

The Postal Accountability Enhancement Act significantly

strengthened the Commission’s authority to serve as a counter-balance to new flexibility granted to the Postal Service in setting postal rates. The act requires the Commission to develop and maintain

regulations for a modern system of rate regulation, consult with

the Postal Service on delivery service standards, performance

measures, consult with the Department of State on international

postal policies, prevent cross-subsidizations or other anti-competitive practices, promote transparency, accountability, and adjudicate

complaints.

The Commission is a micro-agency as defined by OMB, its term

for an agency with fewer than 100 employees. The Commission has

55.

It has been almost 16 months under the leadership of our Chairman Dan Blair and the enactment of the new law, and during this

time the Commission has transitioned from the role in recommending postal rates into an expanded regulator.

On March 7, 2008, the Commission released its first strategic

and operational plan. The plan outlines the strategies and activities we will employ to meet our goal of ensuring transparency and

accountability of the Postal Service and foster vital and efficient

universal mail system.

117

Strategic goal No. 6 ensures a system that fosters recruitment,

development, and retention of a talented and skilled work force and

recognized our work force as a valuable asset. As stated in the

plan, the Commission is committed to a merit-based human resources program.

With the enactment of postal reform and shift in responsibilities,

the Commission benefited from the thorough review of its work

force needs. Over the past year the Commission has analyzed its

work force in terms of demographics, position characteristics, work

force trends, and competencies. As noted, the Commission’s strategic plan articulates short-term and ongoing operational strategies

that include recruiting, developing and implementing the succession planning system, and sustaining a capital plan to encourage

diversity.

AS noted, the Commission has 55 employees. Our expectation is

to grow to approximately 70. Of those currently employed, 49 percent or 27 are female, and 51 percent or 28 are male. Women have

assumed leadership roles as directors, assistant directors, and policy advisors. The addition of women to our successor pools increases our opportunity to improve the representation of women in

higher leadership positions as we experience the turnover in the

coming years.

Our progress in recruiting and hiring minority members is an

improving story, but much still needs to be done. Last year more

than 25 percent of our new hires were minorities. There were two

minority females. And 80 percent of the new hires were women, 30

percent of those were hired into senior leadership positions.

The Commission office heads are committed to broadening our

outreach actions. As one example, we have engaged in discussions

with the Department of Economics at Howard University in order

to assist in our recruitment efforts to fill entry level and intern positions. Managers are now held accountable for their efforts to increase diversity by including provisions in their individual performance plans.

There is a commitment from the top down to support initiatives

to recruit, develop, and retain skilled, high achieving, diverse work

force.

The Commission has been exploring additional avenues in reaching out to recruit from diverse pools. One such avenue would in

participation in the Presidential management fellowship program.

Over the years, many of those accepted have gone on to become

senior leaders in the Government, but unfortunately OPM’s regulations will not allow us to participate this year.

Similar to the work force in other agencies, Commission employees are graying. By 2011, approximately 40 percent of our work

force will be eligible to retire. That includes one-half of our legal

staff and a third of our technical staff. While we have not finalized

our succession strategy, we have been taking steps to address the

gaps in our existing skills.

In closing, I wish to reiterate the Commission’s believe that our

most valuable asset is our employees. The Commission is committed to a merit-based human resource program that ensures an exemplary, responsive, and diverse work force.

I thank this subcommittee for its time.

118

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

We will go to Mr. Stith.

STATEMENT OF RONALD STITH

Mr. STITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss diversity in the

Office of the Inspector General, focusing in particular on the diversity of our senior executive staff and our developmental pool, our

GS–14s and GS–15s. I will also discuss our programs that assure

we continue to gain insight into diversity and the factors that affect

it.

The Office of the Inspector General values and is committed to

diversity. We understand that diversity is important in developing

and maintaining a high quality and high performing work force.

Overall, 35 percent of our employees are minorities, as compared

to 33 percent in the Federal work force; 40 percent are women, as

compared to 44 percent in the Federal work force.

The makeup of our senior executive staff and our developmental

pool also reflects our commitment to division. Currently, 33 percent

of our senior executives are minorities, as compared to 16 percent

of the Federal Government, and 42 percent are women, compared

to 29 percent in the Government.

Turning now to our executive developmental pool, minorities are

26 percent of our pool, compared to 21 percent in Government, and

women are 35 percent, as compared to 32 percent in Government.

Each year we look at how our retirement may affect our diversity. We expect that a third of our women and minorities who are

senior executives and one-tenth of our minorities and women in our

executive developmental pool will likely retire by 2011. However,

with the diversity of our developmental pool and our programs that

support division, we are confident that we can continue the diversity of our senior executive staff.

We have several programs that support our diverse work force.

For example, we review quarterly reports to gauge diversity in our

hiring and promotions. In our hiring and promotions we ensure

that we focus on including women and minorities. In addition, our

rating and ranking panels are diverse to ensure that candidates

are evaluated equitably.

As part of our hiring program, each year we recruit at conferences such as those sponsored by the National Organization of

Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Asian Peace Officers Association, the National Latino Law Enforcement Peace Officers Association, and the Women in Federal Law Enforcement.

Our leadership development program includes all of our managers, including our executives. This program ensures that all

managers, regardless of gender, race, or performance receive the

same core leadership training.

The focus of this training is to enhance their effectiveness in

their current positions and to prepare them for the executive ranks.

As part of this program, students receive theoretical and practical

training to improve their ability to manage a diverse work force.

For example, the program provides practical applications on how to

address individual and generational differences, recognize and prevent bias, and assure equity.

119

In closing, we will continue these programs and seek other avenues to ensure and to improve diversity in our senior executive

ranks and in our developmental pool and throughout or organization. Diversity is a key element of our culture. We recognize that

the strength of our diversity increases our ability to perform work

that adds value to the Postal Service.

Again, I want to thank you, and I would be pleased to answer

any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stith follows:]

120

121

122

123

124

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Stith. We will

proceed to Ms. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF NICOLE A. JOHNSON

Ms. JOHNSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis and members of

the subcommittee. It is my honor to be here today to discuss the

Inspection Service’s commitment to a diverse and inclusive work

force. As one of our country’s oldest Federal law enforcement organizations, the Inspection Service has a long, proud, and successful

history of securing the Nation’s mail system and ensuring public

trust in the mail.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to highlight our diverse recruitment, retention, and leadership development programs.

The Postal Inspection Service embraces diversity as uniqueness

and backgrounds, experiences, perspectives, and personal characteristics of our employees, customers, and stakeholders. Our 2,900-

plus employees are multi-generational and represent people with

diverse and varied backgrounds. We adhere to the philosophy that

a diverse and inclusive environment makes good business sense

and promotes a strong, successful organization. We recognize the

challenges in recruiting and retaining a diverse work force. Along

with the exit of baby boomers from the work force, we must also

consider the mandatory retirement of Federal law enforcement officers.

We are developing our future leaders through local development

programs, a national career leadership program, corporate succession planning, and training.

Local development programs focus on the early identification and

development of employees with strong leadership potential. The career leadership program is a National Inspection Service program

designed to develop and prepare initial level supervisors for senior

management positions. The corporate succession planning process

allows us to identify and manage successor pools for executive positions. We provide our future leaders with the opportunities to develop their skills and abilities and gain experience by leading major

national projects or teams and by serving in acting executive or

mid-level manager positions.

The Postal Inspection Service concentrates recruitment and retention efforts on identifying talent within the organization and

from outside labor markets. Field division recruitment specialists

use various outreach methods to communicate awareness of our organization to potential applicants. Recruiters partner with colleges,

universities, and organizations as part of their outreach strategy.

As an example, in November 2006 the Inspection Service partnered

with the Woman in Federal Law Enforcement to sponsor and create a video honoring women’s 35 years of service in Federal law enforcement. The Inspection Service was recognized by the Women in

Federal Law Enforcement for contributing to the recruitment of females to Federal law enforcement positions.

Concerning the demographics of our law enforcement executives

and managers, I would like to share with you some information

concerning the composition of this group. Today, of the 31 InspecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:28 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44913.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
125

tion Service law enforcement executives, women comprise 17 percent of our executive ranks, and minorities comprise 27 percent.

In regards to our current executive feeder pool of 379 employees,

minorities comprise over 26 percent and women comprise nearly 21

percent.

Over the past 10 years, we have seen increases in the participation rate of females, African American and Hispanic males and females, and Asian Americans. We seek to build, foster, and sustain

an inclusive and highly skilled work force. We embrace the same

belief as the Postal Service, which is open and inclusive development systems that allow employees to align their individual career

goals with the goals of the organization. Our directive is to provide

our employees with opportunities to fully participate, contribute,

and engage in our mission.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee members may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.

Mr. Barnes.

STATEMENT OF BRAY BARNES

Mr. BARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. It is truly an honor for me to appear before you today

to discuss diversity issues within the Department of Homeland Security, especially regarding our career Senior Executive Service.

Also with me today, Mr. Chairman, is Carmen Walker, Deputy Officer, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from the Department.

Secretary Chertoff, Acting Deputy Secretary Paul Snyder, and

Deputy Under-Secretary for Management, Elaine Duke, are committed to increasing diversity within the Department, particularly

within the Department’s career Senior Executive Service. For example, under Secretary Chertoff’s leadership, the number of career

senior executives who are persons with disabilities has increased

dramatically.

It is my privilege to serve as the Department’s Acting Chief

Human Capital Officer, a position which I was just appointed to

last month, and also as its Director of Workforce Relations and

Performance Culture, a position that I held since joining the Department in May 2007. My service to the Department has

furthered my understanding of the importance and benefits of

maintaining a qualified and diverse work force.

The Department has continued its efforts to develop such a work

force, particularly with regards to its core career senior executives.

To date, that effort has enjoyed achievements that DHS will continue to buildupon. DHS will continue to address the challenges

that remain. Indeed, we are making an effort to develop a qualified

and diverse pool of applicants for SES positions by preparing current GS–14 and GS–15 employees through new programs such as

mentoring and coaching programs, rotational assignments, the

DHS fellows program, and the SES candidate development program, of which of the 23 DHS employees just selected for the next

SES candidate development program, 22 percent are African American, 13 percent are Hispanic, and 30 percent are women.

We believe it is imperative to explore a variety of means to ensure more diverse applicant pools for all of our jobs for the present

and future years to come.

Starting with recruitment efforts, we have implemented Department and component recruiting strategies designed to improve the

diversity of DHS talent pool, including creating an SES-level Director of Recruiting and Diversity within our Chief Human Capital Office who is responsible for implementing strategic programs to recruit a larger diversity talent pool for all jobs within DHS, including the SES; establishing a formal partnership with Urban

League’s Black Executive Program [BEP], whereby 150 DHS employees have volunteered with managerial endorsement to serve as

presenters and speakers at BEP events at historically Black colleges and universities, pursuing similar partnerships with the National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives and the African

American Federal Executive Association, and exploring the assistVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:28 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44913.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
133

ance of an executive search firm with a proven record with enhancing diversity.

In my previous role as Director of Workforce Relations and Performance Culture, I initiated plans to create a Labor/Management

Council within DHS. As Acting Chief Human Capital Officer, I will

ensure that diversity is a focus of these councils.

In order to demonstrate the Department-wide commitment to diversity, DHS has designed our Management Council to be a Diversity Council. This council is composed of top-level officials from

every component and is chaired by the Deputy Under-Secretary for

Management. Among the Council’s most pressing actions will be to

issue DHS corporate diversity strategy and to implement a diversity action plan for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 through 2010.

In the coming year, DHS will pursue a number of other avenues

aimed at increasing diversity. As a first step, we have begun to

identify requirements for a consultant to conduct a cultural audit

of the Department. We are reviewing our SES hiring procedures to

identify potential practices and procedures that would integrate attention to diversity in our process. Our plans include establishing

an external diversity outreach advisory forum of interested stakeholders, ensuring accuracy of current racial and gender information, prototyping diversity management training for managers and

executives, and issuing specific guidance to executives holding diversity advocate competencies in their performance plans.

These efforts are critical, given that 26 percent of our career executives are eligible to retire in 2008, 34 percent in 2009, and 41

percent in 2010.

The Department of Homeland Security is only 5 years old. When

the President and Congress called for the integration of 22 disparate agencies, we answered the call and stood up the agency that

is today nearly 210,000 employees strong. By reflecting on America’s diversity, our employee work force will provide a wide range

of ideas and solutions to protect America, and we are committed to

achieving a DHS diverse work force, including our executive cadre.

We are pleased with your interest and support in ensuring that

DHS continues to increase the diversity in its work force, and we

do look forward to working with you further to ensure continued

success.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]

134

135

136

137

138

139

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Barnes.

Mr. BARNES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We will go to a round of questioning. We

thank you, Ms. Walker. We understand that you will not testify,

but you are, indeed, available to respond to questions. Thank you

very much.

Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what recruitment and outreach efforts is the PRC taking to enhance the diversity of its work force,

including its profile of women and minorities? And in this context,

can you discuss the efforts that the PRC recently made as it hired

staff to support its expanded activities under the Postal Reform

Act?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will try. We are in the process of hiring and expanding. In fact, we put up three again today. In the past year, we

have hired eight females, lost two males, and four females and

three males retired, so we netted in the past year four females and

one male.

Like I said, we have been very struggling with attracting minority males. We have certainly had a couple, and I think both retired

recently, so this is a snapshot for us. It leaves us with fully recognizing our lack.

The chairman has been very strong. Since he came down, he has

made this quite clear that this is something he wants to see corrected. He has developed performance plans for all of his managers,

which did not exist a year ago, and he has put that at the top of

the goal list for each manager. And the managers do the hiring.

They are reviewed by a panel that is selected.

We are on the way. We are beginning to recognize it. But I don’t

have anything to show you now.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me also ask you what is the

PRC’s executive development selection process, and how does that

compare with the Postal Service’s selection process?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is different. We do not participate in their

PCES, nor are we eligible to participate in SES, so it is somewhat

different there. If we need a director, which is our highest staff office, those are paneled and selected, usually by the chairman with

the concurrence of the other Commissioners. Your Assistant Directors are similarly paneled. They are vacancy announcements. Usually all are, the directors and the assistant directors. So you do

have a panel review. The Directors are reviewed by the Commissioners.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Stith, I was somewhat intrigued and certainly impressed by

the numbers that you gave. Could you share those with us again?

Then I am going to want to know how did you really get there, to

those?

Mr. STITH. Seeing that overall 35 percent of our employees are

minorities, compared to 33 percent in the Federal work force; 40

percent are women, as compared to 44 percent in the Federal work

force; of our senior executives, 33 percent are minorities, 42 percent

are women; of our executive developmental pool, 26 percent are minorities and 35 percent are women.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me just ask about the 33 percent of

the senior executives minorities. I am intrigued by that number.

140

The process that you actually have gone through to arrive at those

numbers consists of what?

Mr. STITH. Well, we have looked at all of our senior executives.

We have 24 senior executives, and 18 of our senior executives are

either women and/or minorities, and that includes Hispanics,

Blacks, and women.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so it is pretty obvious to me that the

agency has put forth—that didn’t happen accidentally. I mean, it

didn’t just happen without some tremendous focus to make sure

that there was real diversity within the agency. I think that is

quite good, myself, especially as I compare your agency or your entity with lots of others that I come into contact with.

Ms. Johnson, what is the Inspection Service’s executive development and selection process?

Ms. JOHNSON. Chairman Davis, the Inspection Service fully embraces the Postal Service’s corporate succession planning process;

however, we also supplement it with the career leadership program, which is our developmental program that helps to establish

a strong feeder pool to our succession planning process.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me ask, how do people get into the

career leadership development program?

Ms. JOHNSON. We use what we believe to be a very effective,

comprehensive approach. It begins with early identification at the

local level. We utilize and encourage our managers to coach and

mentor. They identify leadership, and each of the executives within

the field have established local development programs. The local

development programs feed into our career leadership programs.

Individuals self-nominate or managers nominate individuals into

our career leadership program.

Our career leadership program has a five-member board of diverse executives that are responsible for reviewing the applications.

They interview the participants and the managers. They track the

developmental activities, and they monitor our success indicators.

From there, nominations occur to our career succession plan.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And how are managers held accountable

for diversity in the Inspection Services?

Ms. JOHNSON. In several ways, Chairman Davis. We believe in

managerial and organizational accountability. First, from the

standpoint of recruitment, we believe it is important to begin with

accountability at the point of recruitment. From that standpoint,

we have ad hoc field recruitment specialists that have the responsibility for submitting after-action reports to the headquarters recruitment program manager. The headquarters recruitment program manager evaluates these after-actions reports which detail

recruitment activities on a quarterly basis. These after-action reports are evaluated from a diversity and operational need perspective, and information concerning trends, concerns, things related to

recruitment are provided in terms of feedback to executive managers.

With regards to our feeder pool, our L–14, L–15 feeder pool,

which represents comparability to the GS–14 and GS–15 feeder

pool, we feel that we achieve accountability there with the career

leadership program. The role of the Career Leadership Board is to

interface across the complexities of the organization. They interface

141

with senior management, as well as local executives, looking at the

representation of the career leadership participant, providing feedback, working with the managers, and that helps to strengthen our

feeder pool, which evolves into our career succession plan. There

we believe that the career succession planning process, in and of

itself, holds managers accountable because the components of the

career succession plan include nominations, reviews, evaluations,

and significant manager participation.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Barnes or Ms. Walker, what recruitment efforts does the Department of Homeland Security have as it relates to efforts to enhance diversity, and especially relative to its profiling of women

and minorities?

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, as I outlined in my speech, we have

a number of recruiting efforts. The first I would like to point out

is the fact that we now have a dedicated executive in charge of diversity within the Department, and additionally under his office we

have a Coordinator of Diversity and Veterans Outreach, two people

that are full-time, dedicated to these efforts. As such, sir, we have

reached out to the organizations such as the Black Executive Program, where we have engaged them to reach out to historic Black

colleges and universities. Our members within the DHS work force

are going out to career fairs within these colleges to recruit. Additionally, we have reached out to some of the other organizations,

as I pointed out, such as the Hispanic Federal Executives Association, as well as the African American Federal Association, and engaged them, as well as to how we can develop a more diverse and

qualified work force.

Third, sir, we are exploring an executive search firm that is

going to hopefully broaden our pool of qualified and diverse candidates to join the DHS work force.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do naturalized American citizens have

more difficulty obtaining security clearances and therefore more

difficulty obtaining employment with DHS?

Mr. BARNES. Well, sir, I don’t know the exact status of the naturalized citizens, but certainly we would be happy to supply the

chairman’s office with any information regarding that. However, it

is certainly an area that may be worth consideration once they become naturalized citizens, to include them in our pool.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We would appreciate that, because we

have had inquiries and complaints from organizations and groups

who represent naturalized citizens or from naturalized citizens,

themselves, who feel that there might be some impediment based

upon their citizenship status and the whole question of security

and how it fits in, so we would, in fact, appreciate that information.

Mr. BARNES. We will be happy to provide that information, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. We appreciate all

of you being with us, and you are excused.

We will proceed to our fourth and last panel. While we are

transitioning them in, I will go ahead and introduce them.

Mr. William Bransford is the general counsel and lobbyist for the

Senior Executives Association. Mr. Bransford is a partner in the

law firm of Shaw, Bransford, Bellow, and Roth PC, where he has

practiced since 1983. His practice is concentrated on the represenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:28 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44913.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
142

tation of Federal executives, managers, and employees before the

U.S. District Courts, Merit Systems Protection Board, the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Special Counsel, Offices of Inspector General, and with offices that adjudicate

security clearances.

Mr. William Brown has served as national president of the African American Federal Executives Association, Inc. [AAFEA], since

its founding in 2002. AAFEA promotes the professional development and advancement of African Americans into and within the

senior levels of the U.S. Government, sponsors an annual executive

leadership and training conference, and advocates for programs,

policies, practices, and processes that promote career-enhancing opportunities for African Americans. Membership consists of active

and retired Federal employees in grades GS–13 through the SES.

Ms. Rhonda Trent is the president of Federally Employed

Women [FEW]. FEW is an advocacy group that works to improve

the status of women employed by the Federal Government and by

the District of Columbia government. Ms. Trent is a contracting officer assigned to the Joint Strike Fighter Program in Crystal City,

VA.

Dr. Carson Eoyang is retired from Federal service and is currently volunteering as the executive director of the Asian American

Government Executives Network. Prior to that, he was appointed

as assistant deputy director of National Intelligence for Education

and Training, and chancellor of the National Intelligence University.

Mr. Jose Osegueda is president of the National Association of

Hispanic Federal Executives. He recently retired from the Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil

Rights, where he was responsible for the development of policies

aiming to remove barriers that have traditionally prevented the increase of Hispanic representation in the Federal work force.

And Ms. Darlene Young, who is president of the National Association of Blacks in Government [BIG]. BIG was organized in 1975

and incorporated as a non-profit organization under the District of

Columbia jurisdiction in 1976. BIG has been a national response to

the need for African Americans in public service to organize around

issues of mutual concern and use their collective strength to confront workplace and community issues. Ms. Young is currently employed at the U.S. Department of State as a computer specialist.

Let me thank all of you for coming, for staying, and for being

with us at this hour.

If you would all stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

Again, let me thank all of you for coming. As all of you have testified probably a number of times, you know that the green light

means that you have 5 minutes in which to summarize your testimony. The yellow light means you have a minute left. Of course,

the red light means that we are trying to end up for the day.

Let me thank you all for being here. We will begin with you, Mr.

Bransford.

143

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM BRANSFORD, GENERAL COUNSEL,

SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM BROWN,

PRESIDENT, AFRICAN AMERICAN FEDERAL EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION; RHONDA TRENT, PRESIDENT, FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN; CARSON EOYANG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ASIAN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVES NETWORK;

JOSE OSEGUEDA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

HISPANIC FEDERAL EXECUTIVES; AND DARLENE YOUNG,

PRESIDENT, BLACKS IN GOVERNMENT

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRANSFORD

Mr. BRANSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Senior Executives Association, the professional association

representing the interests of career Senior Executive Service members and those holding equivalent positions, appreciates the opportunity to testify about the Senior Executive Service Diversity Act.

We applaud your leadership on this important issue of achieving

diversity in the career Senior Executive Service, and we assure you

that SEA wants to work with you and others who care about this

issue. After all, the success of sound Government and the strength

of our democracy depend on it.

SEA believes that, because of our close association with career

senior executives, we can offer ideas based on practical experience

that will help attain a diverse executive corps. We do believe we

have some suggestions outlined below that can strengthen the bills.

SEA sees several areas where the Government could dramatically improve diversity. First, we believe improved and accessible,

clear data needs to be developed. Second, specific work needs to be

done to build pipelines for career development to assure that minorities and women are actually in a place to be promoted to the

Senior Executive Service.

Finally, and necessary for the other factors to work, agencies

must adopt a culture of leadership that emphasizes being fair to

and inclusive of all employees.

The first step in this is to obtain a centralized OPM Senior Executive Service office, which we believe should provide effective oversight and management to assure that those parts of the diversity

goal become a reality.

In the past, OPM has had an office for the Senior Executive

Service and it worked effectively to monitor and manage the SES

Government-wide. Currently, different offices within OPM share

the responsibility for managing the SES, with policy in one office

and implementation of that policy in another office. In our opinion,

the effect has been a diminishment in the effectiveness of the management of the Government-wide SES corps. With respect to diversity, this means that agencies use different systems and standards

for recruiting into the SES, with varying outcomes on diversity resulting in different agencies.

With one office to manage the SES, greater diversity is more

likely to become a reality sooner rather than later.

One provision of the bill does cause us concern. This is the provision that requires panels in the role as gatekeepers to the SES.

These panels could slow the already burdensome process of promotVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:28 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44913.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
144

ing general schedule employees to the SES and could further complicate and hinder the overall selection process.

SEA suggests that the current legislation be improved by allowing agencies to choose between diversity selection panels, as stated

in the bills, or effective oversight and management of its SES selection process by creating diversity subcommittees of executive resources boards with authority and responsibility to oversee the SES

selection process, including the development of pipelines.

These subcommittees would consist entirely of peer SES, a majority of whom must be minorities or women, and they would have

veto or oversight power over SES selection. This would provide a

strong mechanism to encourage diversity, while not adding any bureaucratic hurdles to an already difficult SES selection process.

SEA recommends this alternative because it has proven to be effective. It was used in the 1990’s at the Department of Energy

under the leadership of then Secretary Bill Richardson. Those who

served in the DOE Executive Resources Board Subcommittee tell

SEA that it positively improved diversity in the SES and had a

major impact on changing the culture to encourage the consideration of diversity in the SES selection process.

Last, we believe that diversity will be further helped along if

Congress and the administration constantly strive to assure that

the SES is attractive as a career goal to all general schedule employees. If quality general schedule employees are content to stay

at the GS–14 or GS–15 levels because of pay compression and a

sense that the SES pay system is not being fairly administered, diversity may be harder to achieve.

Reobtaining the Senior Executive Service’s former stature and

prestige will assure that the most qualified candidates apply, including minority and women candidates with impressive credentials.

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. SEA looks forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee on what our organization sees as one of the most important matters facing our members and our future members. We

hope to continue to be an effective voice of the Federal Government

career executive leadership on this and other matters about the

Civil Service.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bransford follows:]

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bransford.

We will proceed to Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you mentioned, I am a retired Federal Senior Executive Service and president of the African American Federal Executive Association. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking you and Senator Akaka, your committee, and staff for introducing this landmark legislation. This legislation will go a long way in correcting

the under-representation of minorities and women in the SES. This

under-representation was validated by GAO’s testimony before this

subcommittee on May 10, 2007.

With regards to African Americans, GAO testified that only 8.6

percent of the approximately 6,300 career members of the SES

were African Americans. Between October 2000 and October 2006

the percentage of African American men dropped from 5.5 to 5.1

percent. During the same period the percentage of African American women in the SES increased from 2.9 to 3.5 percent.

Looking at the total percentages, in October 2000 African Americans represented 8.4 percent of the SES, and 6 years later they

represented 8.6 percent, an increase of 2/10 of a percent in 6 years.

Approximately 90 percent of the entire cadre of career SESers

are expected to retire in the next 10 years. If current trends are

allowed to continue, in 10 years, when we would have replaced

these executives, African Americans may represent 8.9 percent, or

an overall increase of 3/10 of a percent.

Another way of saying this is: at the current trends, 10 years

from now over 92 percent of the SES will not be African Americans.

The SES Diversity Act will correct this situation by ensuring

that as agencies go about the business of filling vacancies, the selection process will be fair, consistent among Federal agencies, and

minority and women are considered and evaluated against the

same objective criterias as others.

Our organization’s 225 African American senior leaders have

written to their Members of Congress urging passing of this legislation in its present form. The responses we have received overwhelmingly support this act; yet, despite the under-representation

of minorities, some are calling for voluntary implementation of the

act’s requirement of the use of a diverse selection panel.

AAFEA does not support such viewpoints. Federal agencies have

had years to voluntarily diversify, and failed to do so, as the Government’s own statistics point out. We see voluntary implementation as an effort to slow roll the diversity mandate, deprive our Nation of the talent it desperately needs to maintain its position of

leadership in the world, and deprive our Nation of the opportunity

to avert an approaching work force crisis.

Since 2003, our organization has conducted three training workshops where we trained over 450 senior-level African Americans in

core subjects critical for any member of the SES. Many of these

courses were taught by retired senior executives like myself and

have produced for our Nation a cadre of what I refer to as leadership-ready candidates for Senior Executive Service positions.

153

Despite this training by experts, African Americans continue to

be passed over disproportionately for SES positions.

Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation at war. Our men and women,

White, brown, Black, short, tall, are being called to fight and, if

necessary, die defending our Nation’s interests around the world.

We are also a Nation at war at home with bigotry and indifference

to minorities, with access to SES positions being denied every day

to people of color. Our military is not just looking for one complexion of people to serve, so why should our Senior Executive Service

be any different?

AAFEA says full speed ahead with this act. It is a step in the

right direction. it levels the playing field and draws upon the full

resources of our Nation to solve the impeding work force crisis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

154

155

156

157

158

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

We will move to Ms. Trent.

STATEMENT OF RHONDA TRENT

Ms. TRENT. Thank you, sir. FEW very much appreciates this opportunity today to participate in this important hearing, and the

passage of the bills in both congressional chambers is a top legislative priority for FEW.

FEW also agrees with the panel compositions that is now set

forth in the bill as it is written. For 40 years, Federally Employed

Women has worked to end sexual discrimination and enhance opportunities for the advancement of women in the Government.

Every day nationwide FEW is aware of the issues facing women

throughout the Federal Government. We also provide a variety of

different types of diversity training, which is annually given in our

national, regional, and chapter training programs.

With respect to the two bills, FEW and its members have been

extremely active. First, we have hand delivered individualized

packets to every House and Senate Member that enclosed a fact

sheet on these bills. Included was a letter requesting that the legislator co-sponsor or support these measures. We also enclosed employment statistics detailing the number of Federal employees

working in each congressional District and State. Within a couple

of days several staffers contacted our Washington representative to

announce that their bosses were adding their names to the co-sponsors.

Our members also have been extremely busy sending letters directly to their legislators urging them to co-sponsor these bills. So

far, these letters have successfully resulted in two more co-sponsors, which we are very proud of.

Finally, I want to talk about, I also met with OPM on two different occasions because Federally Employed Women is very concerned about the statistics and the status of women in the Government. We wanted to pull statistics and do a Federal survey. I met

with Linda Springer and I also met with OPM counsel. They both

discouraged this survey to be sent out by FEW. However, I am glad

to report that on March 10th of this year FEW did, indeed, send

out this survey to 22 Federal agencies. The survey asked a variety

of questions regarding alternative work schedules, training opportunities, career development programs, upward mobility programs,

formal mentoring programs, and training dollars which are targeted toward women. This survey will be used to assess the areas

needing support and the direction for women to advance in their

careers. It will be compiled into a report and presented to the various agencies responding, as well as to Congress.

Our goal is to establish a tool to direct focus, identify barriers,

and plan for the future needs to ensure that the Federal female

work force is receiving the support and direction that it deserves.

In summary, FEW would like to suggest that in order to improve

the representation of women in the management and other senior

positions, we must—and I emphasize must—increase the development of those feeder pools that everybody keeps talking about.

With that in mind, we must ensure that managers and supervisors

are held accountable for diversity. We must ensure that women

159

have meaningful and decisive roles on committees, task forces, and

other decisionmaking entities, and we must ensure that the assignments given to women are not purely task oriented but rather include decisionmaking and strategic thinking roles. We must provide networking training on issues that affect women in the work

force. And this is a big one, by far, the lack of training and crosstraining has been cited as a major impediment for women moving

in the top levels of the Federal Government.

Women need to have leaders to whom they can ask questions, obtain advice about their careers, receive suggestions. Recruitment

will not happen if you will not develop the feeder pool.

Again, FEW very much appreciates the subcommittee and chairman’s interest in increasing the diversity in the Senior Executive

Service and all the support that you have given the Federal work

force in the past. And I and the over 1 million Federally Employed

Women offer to help in any way to ensure that more women and

minorities can aspire and succeed to entering the Senior Executive

Service.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Trent follows:]

160

161

162

163

164

165

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Trent.

We will proceed to Dr. Eoyang.

STATEMENT OF CARSON EOYANG

Mr. EOYANG. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis.

On behalf of the Asian American Government Executive Network, we are very appreciative of this opportunity to speak in favor

of the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance bill. We applaud your proactive leadership in addressing this critical but neglected challenge confronting our Federal Civil Service. We proudly

join our fellow Federal executive associations to support this landmark legislation.

Our issues simply mirror the central concerns of this committee.

First, Asian Pacific Americans are significantly under-represented

in the SES. Second, progress in SES diversity has been slow, uneven, and inconsistent. Third, the SES Diversity Assurance Act is

long overdue.

When AAGEN previously testified on this subject before you in

October 2003, we made the following observations. According to the

GAO, representation of APAs in career SES was the most significant disparity among all of the women and racial and ethnic groups

studied by the GAO. The GAO reports confirmed that APAs are severely under-represented at the SES and other senior levels of the

Federal Government, and that there are serious concerns about the

lack of conclusion of APAs at the pipeline levels and in succession

planning.

Regrettably, 41⁄2 years later inclusion of APAs in the SES has not

sufficiently improved. While the GAO projections may not have

been perfect in every agency, to our knowledge there is no agency

whose SES ranks matches or exceeds the APA ratio of 5.89 percent

of the entire Federal executive branch. The number of Asian Pacific

American SES in the entire Federal Government only totaled 2.4

percent in 2007.

With the potential retirement of many if not most of the career

SES over the next 5 years, ensuring diversity in our senior ranks

is even more important as we grow the next generation of senior

executives. While administration officials continue to urge progress

in making the Federal Civil Service and its top leadership look like

America, this progress has been slow, uneven, and inconsistent.

The Federal Government should have a diverse work force not

only to demonstrate that it reports the American population, but

also because diversity enhances the effectiveness of Government.

For example, our various law enforcement agencies at all levels

across the country must begin to mirror our Nation’s diversity if

they are to maintain domestic peace and equitably enforce our laws

within and across our social strata. Failure to have diversity in the

law enforcement may lead to misunderstanding and assumptions of

prejudice by communities that are not represented. However, the

Department of Justice reports that their APA percentage was only

0.7 percent, which was half of what it was in the year 2000.

There is wide disparity in the degree of work force diversity

across the Federal Government, with little concrete evidence on

why some agencies have consistently been unrepresented in the

166

Nation, as a whole, while others have made measured, if only partial, progress during the same timeframe.

Unfortunately, there has been too little study of recent executive

branch diversity efforts. While it is easy to measure the changes

in demographics, it is more difficult to understand the causes. It

is important that the executive branch and the Congress address

the various factors that promote and inhibit work force diversity,

such as minority recruitment, building talent pipelines, succession

planning, management development, and, most importantly, sustained commitment of agency senior leaders to diversity.

The SES Diversity Assurance Act is a long-overdue and welcome

correction to past policies and practices that have not been adequate to expand executive diversity across our Government. Without this legislation, it is unlikely the SES will adapt quickly

enough to meet the enormous global and domestic challenges of the

21st century.

This legislation will require the Federal Government to institute

policies, practices, and reporting processes that will clearly advance

our common goals of equal opportunity and diversity.

In conclusion, we encourage both committees to continue to exercise vigorous oversight over the evolution of the SES. We recommend that regular studies by the GAO be conducted to assess

the degrees and rates of progress in executive diversity across all

Federal agencies. Where particular challenges and obstacles for

specific minorities, such as Asian Pacific Americans, are identified,

executive branch, in cooperation with the Congress, should formulate and implement appropriate remedies and solutions to ensure

that our Senior Executive Service is truly reflective of all parts of

American society.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to share our views.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eoyang follows:]

167

168

169

170

171

172

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

We will go to Mr. Osegueda.

STATEMENT OF JOSE OSEGUEDA

Mr. OSEGUEDA. Chairman Davis, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today. I recently retired from Federal service,

and I am a true witness of the difficulties facing Hispanics who try

to achieve and pursue senior level positions in the Federal work

force. We are proud today to represent all senior level Hispanics in

the Federal work force and to speak on their behalf today at this

hearing.

It is clear that, with regard to Hispanic representation at the

senior level of the Federal Government, the current selection methodology has not improved the bottom line. Presently, Hispanics represent 3.6 percent of the career SES cadre, while making up 13.8

percent of the national civilian labor force.

Using these climate changes, it means that Hispanics today are

under-represented by close to 500 career SES positions. Even

worse, Hispanic representation is actually declining in the feeder

population leading to the career SES level, the GS–13 and GS–15

grades. According to the most recent OPM reports, Hispanic representation declined by 2.8 percent, or 570 positions, from 2006 to

2007.

That Hispanic under-representation in the Federal work force

has reached crisis proportions is born out of these telling statistics.

Hispanics remain the only under-represented ethnic group at 7.7

percent in the overall government work force. When compared to

the present level of representation in the national civilian labor

force, 13.8 percent, there is a Hispanic under-representation gap of

6.1 percent. That represents 120,000 jobs, or approximately $5.5

billion in salaries along to the Hispanic community.

To place the capstone on this dismal picture of under-representation with another annual hiring rate of 0.13 percent over the past

4 years, Hispanic representation in the Federal work force will

never reach parity with the numbers in the civilian labor force.

Yet, despite this history of institutionalized exclusion, on November

16, 2007, OPM Director Linda Springer eliminated the only Federal personnel hiring authority established with the express purpose of promoting diversity among minorities.

NAHFE supports the intended purpose of H.R. 3774 and S. 2148,

to establish an office within OPM that will promote diversity in the

recruitment and selection of career SES positions. NAHFE firmly

believes it is time that the responsibility for oversight, monitoring

accountability for SES selections, including the establishment of diversity evaluation panels, is moved from individual agencies to a

central oversight office.

Clearly, the responsibility for accountability in diversity selections rests with the gatekeepers to the recruitment selection process, and the record speaks loud and clear that leaving independent

authority for ensuring diversity in career SES selections with agencies will not improve the dismal bottom line. One need only look

at the current level of Hispanic representation in several key Executive agencies to understand why it is time to abandon the failed

173

SES selection methods of the past and turn to new, creative ideas

for improving diversity at the SES level.

For these reasons, NAHFE supports moving the gatekeeper responsibility for overseeing diversity in career SES recruitment and

selections away from agencies to a central oversight office within

OPM and the establishment of SES evaluation panels within agencies which makeup is reflective of our Nation’s diversity.

While we clearly share the Senior Executive Association’s goal of

bringing greater diversity to the Federal executive corps, unfortunately we are not in agreement with how to make this a reality.

We do not believe that continuing to rely on the failed SES selection methodology of the past will deal different, more positive results. It is time to turn over a new leaf and dramatically improve

the SES selection process.

We believe that the diversity bills as presently constituted will

do this. We believe that they will signal a welcome change toward

improving diversity at the SES level.

Chairman Davis, thank you for the opportunity to share our

views and support for the Senior Executive Diversity Assurance

Act.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

We will go to Ms. Young.

STATEMENT OF DARLENE YOUNG

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you, Chairman Davis.

I thank you for having the foresight to develop and create this

legislation that will ensure that African Americans, Hispanics,

Asians, Native Americans, and women will have an opportunity to

serve our Government at the highest level in the Senior Executive

Service.

Blacks in Government, along with my colleagues here, were ones

who participated in supplying you with comments on July 23, 2007.

You graciously incorporated our recommendations into the bill. The

recommendations are outstanding, and we appreciate all the work

that you are doing to get this bill passed. BIG is very comfortable

with the bill and looks forward to the passage. This will make our

Government leadership look like America, which is the representation of all Americans.

We have a pool of minorities in the pipeline that are currently

certified by OPM and qualified to step up and serve our Nation as

Senior Executive Service leaders. These bills are much needed, and

Blacks in Government is awaiting the day of passage of these bills.

To change the proposed legislation would suggest that minorities

would continue to be unrepresented in our senior leadership of our

Government. Essentially, not passing the bill would state that the

status quo would be maintained, and that is unacceptable to BIG.

It saddens me that we are on the eve of Dr. Martin Luther

King’s death, which we as Americans are about to celebrate 40

years after his passing, that we are still fighting for the justice and

the fairness in the workplace. When will the dream be truly lived

in all facets of our lives?

Thank you for giving Blacks in Government an opportunity to reaffirm our support for this Senior Executive Service Diversity Act,

H.R. 3774, and S. 2148.

174

Again, BIG awaits, ready to celebrate the passage of these bills.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank

all of our witnesses.

Let me just begin and let me make sure, Mr. Bransford, that I

understood and that I understand your position and your testimony. Did you indicate that you felt that institution of the panels

in the legislation might create a level of bureaucracy that could, in

fact, impede implementation of the concept and actually make it

more difficult or delay increasing minority representation within

the ranks of the SES?

Mr. BRANSFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is the view of the Senior Executives Association and the career senior executives that we have

talked about this issue with that creating a requirement that these

panels be created with one minority, one woman, and one other

would actually delay the process, would create eventually a mentality of check the box among the bureaucracy. It would be a bureaucratic requirement which, in our view, might not be effective in the

long run.

It was the belief of our association that an alternative would be

to create effective leadership. We have submitted that proposal in

detail with our written testimony. And it is our position, not that

it be a voluntary selection panel, but that agencies be required to

use the selection panels as outlined in the bill unless they implement one of these effective diversity subcommittees which actually

has the power, the authority to veto SES selections and the responsibility to create a pipeline. It is only then that we think that the

agency would be demonstrating the type of leadership necessary to

then relieve it of the requirement to have a panel.

So we are not suggesting that anything be voluntary. We are not

suggesting business as usual. We are suggesting that either they

do business as in the bill currently or they demonstrate effective

leadership in promoting diversity.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And I guess at the very core of my thinking relative to our shaping of the legislation and relative to our

look at historical efforts is the notion that absolute subjectivity is

probably as great as absolute objectivity, and that in order to arrive at this notion of objectivity, that much of it is like beauty: it

is in the eye of the beholder. And different people just see different

things based upon their experiences, based upon what they have

been taught, based upon what they have been made to believe,

based upon what they have been helped to believe.

My fear is that, as we go down the road to change, there are certain things that people will just never see unless they get the opportunity; that had Jackie Robinson not gotten the opportunity

that people just would not have seen his ability to play baseball the

way that he did, or his understanding of the game.

I guess my question would be to other panel members. How do

you react and how do you respond to Mr. Bransford’s proposal,

since we have all had an opportunity to hear and since all of you

have been engaged in these processes? Perhaps we begin, Mr.

Brown, with you.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, we do not support

that position, for a couple of reasons. One, I find the terminology

gatekeeper very interesting, but, nevertheless, in any case this is

175

not in addition, it is not to create an additional layer; this is a substitute for the process that is ongoing right now that is not working

by the Government’s own statistics. So that is what we see as key

in the bill here. It provides a diverse panel and it is a better way,

if you would, of doing business.

We have talked to our members, and many of our members—and

there are certain agencies that have a very informal process that

they are using right now. We know of a particular agency where

one individual has selected everyone from GS–14 up through the

SES, and there is no one of color at the GS–14 or above level in

that agency. Because of a confidentiality that we share with our

members I can’t mention the agency, but this is the kind of data

that we are collecting.

Then, when you look at statistics, you say where is the concrete

ceiling, not the glass ceiling, where is the concrete ceiling. And so

that is why we say it is time for change, it is time to do it different,

not to add anything on, but to substitute a process that will give

us better results.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Trent.

Ms. TRENT. Thank you, sir. FEW is very, very comfortable with

the bill as written, and I am not sure what kind of whatever we

are trying to play here, but I came over for two or three sessions

and gave up my time, queried my membership on many, many levels to ask about various words and various phrases in this. My

membership is behind this 100 percent. During the various meetings that we had when we were penning this piece of legislation

it was suggested that perhaps the word or a woman would not be

appropriate on the panel, that it might be easier to pass without

a woman on the panel, and I said no, the facts do not lie. I am

digging my heels in. These are desperate times, and they require

huge, gigantic changes, and if we are going to do it, let’s just do

it, do it right, and let’s go for it.

FEW is very, very comfortable with the way the bill was written,

or I would not have had my members go out and send letters to

their elected officials, so I like it as it is. FEW likes it as it is.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Doctor.

Mr. EOYANG. We support the bill as written. I understand Mr.

Bransford’s concern about additional delays in bureaucracy; however, I have every confidence that agency management will put sufficient resources and time to select their senior executives in an appropriate and timely way, because it is that important to them.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Osegueda.

Mr. OSEGUEDA. Chairman Davis, I would like to cite a couple of

figures. At the Department of Education and the General Services

Administration there is one Hispanic at the career SES level. At

the Department of Transportation there are two Hispanics. That is

1 percent. State, two Hispanics. The Department of Defense, with

1,200 career SES positions, 1.4 percent are Hispanics. Nearly all

other executive or legislative branches have a similar picture.

NAHFE believes that if we continue business as usual we will

never go beyond these figures, so we support the bill as it is constituted at the present time.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Young.

176

Ms. YOUNG. BIG is definitely in favor of the legislation as it is.

We also did a campaign to our Congress folks to support the bill.

At this point I am like Ms. Trent. We spent a few hours coming

over here to debate on what should and should not be a part of

that. I think during some of that we had a little bit of that information provided to us and we did not agree, so I would agree that the

bills should go forward as they are, and BIG is supporting that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me just thank all of you. I think that

there are lots of different ways to look at different opportunities,

and as you, Ms. Young, were making your comment earlier, I

thought of the fact that a few days ago I happened to pick up a

book and I was reading the Preamble to the Constitution, and I

thought of how great this country is, and those words continue to

reside with me, where men with the best of intentions wrote that

we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created

equal. Quite frankly, I really think they meant men. I really do believe that they meant men. And it has taken us a long time to have

women come full square, and we still have not gotten there into

that equation.

I also think that they were operating with the best of their intentions as they reached a compromise relative to the presence of

Black people in this country whom they counted as three-fifths of

a person with something called the three-fifths compromise.

As a result of a tremendous amount of struggle, and, as you mentioned the fact that we are on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, and, of course, tomorrow is

that day, and we commemorate his life and his legacy, that it has

taken a long time to get to the point where different population

groups are feeling a sense of equity of opportunity as we go

through even the process of electing a President for the United

States of America. There seems to be a tremendous amount of interest in where we are now.

I wouldn’t be opposed to thinking that much of that interest has

to do with the diversity of the candidates, and that diversity just

may very well propel us into a new chapter in the history of the

development of our country as people who had not surfaced surface

to another level.

I suspect that we have some of that within the ranks of the work

force in our Government, and I believe that we owe it to every single person in this country to help them believe deep down within

their hearts that they have the opportunity to rise to the highest

level of opportunity relative to the work that they choose to do.

So I thank you for coming and testifying, and give assurance that

this subcommittee is going to do everything within its power to try

and make sure that people can experience the realization of not

only the dream of a Martin Luther King, but the dreams that they

have if they are talented, willing to prepare themselves, willing to

work hard, develop leadership ability and leadership skills, that

they can, in fact, become SESers in this Government.

So I thank you for coming to testify, for the positions that you

have taken. We will adjourn this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

Æ