Search the history of over 505 billion pages on the Internet.
Open Library
Full text of "Enforcement of equal employment protection at Immigration and Naturalization Service : a broken promise : hearing before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, November 15, 1994"
See other formats
ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROTEC-
TION AT IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE: A BROKEN PROMISE
Y4.G 74/7: EM 7/19
Enforcenent of Equal Enploynent Pro...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL
SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
Fainted for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
FEB 1 6 1995
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING oVCTCE 1^P ' ? M«rrC^l:04071?j!C? , ' ,
85-626 CC WASHINGTON t 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046441-2
85-526 0-94-1
/
J ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROTEC-
TION AT IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE; A BROKEN PROMISE
Y4.G 74/7: EM 7/19
Enforcenent of Equal Enploynent Pro...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL
SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
FEB 1 6 1995
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFTCE^^^WCWTCriCO^OT?;
85-526 CC WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046441-2
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN CONYERS,
CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina
TOM LANTOS, California
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
FLOYD H. FLAKE, New York
JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY,
Pennsylvania
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
GENE GREEN, Texas
BART STUPAK, Michigan
JR., Michigan, Chairman
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania
AL MCCANDLESS, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
JON L. KYL, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
CHRISTOPHER COX, California
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
RONALD K. MACHTLEY, Rhode Island
DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Julian Epstein, Staff Director
MATTHEW R. FLETCHER, Minority Staff Director
LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman
CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois AL MCCANDLESS, California
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JON L. KYL, Arizona
TOM LANTOS, California DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
James C. Turner, Staff Director
Miranda G. Katsoyannis, Professional Staff Member
CHERYL A. PHELPS, Professional Staff Member
ERIC M. THORSON, Professional Staff Member
Bennie B. Williams, Clerk
Cheryl G. Matcho, Clerk
Rosalind Burke-Alexander, Clerk
JANE O. COBB, Minority Professional Staff
(ID
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on November 17, 1994 1
Statement of:
Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, and chairman, Legislation and National Security Sub-
committee: Opening statement . 1
George, Carol S., immigration outreach specialist, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service 189
James, Carey, assistant chief patrol agent; Border Patrol Special Coordi-
nation Center 132
James, Charles, detention enforcement officer, U.S. Immigration and Nat-
uralization Service 168
Jenifer, Carol, district director, Detroit district office, U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service 218
Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service, accompanied by Chris Sale, Deputy Commissioner; and Wi-
nona Varnon, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 2
Padilla, Maria, consular officer, U.S. Department of State, Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico, accompanied by Reina Killfoil; and Edward Tuddenham, attor-
ney 175
Quinn, Mary, district adjudication officer, U.S. Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service, Portland, OR 183
Rochee, Debra, special assistant to the director, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Forensic Document Laboratory, McLean, VA 198
Ross, David, Esq., accompanied by Peter Szabadi, Esq 92
Smith, Clarence L., deportation officer, U.S. Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service 159
Washington, John J., senior special agent, U.S. Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service 112
Whittick, Kellogg, former district director, Washington district office, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service 205
Wills, John T., Jr., special agent, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service 122
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bowling, Timothy P., Associate Director, Federal Human Resource Man-
agement Issues, General Government Division, U.S. General Account-
ing Office • 15
George, Carol S., immigration outreach specialist, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service: Prepared statement 193
James, Carey, assistant chiet patrol agent; Border Patrol Special Coordi-
nation Center
Information regarding grievance, dated June 18, 1981 134
Prepared statement 149
James, Charles, detention enforcement officer, U.S. Immigration and Nat-
uralization Service: Prepared statement 171
Jenifer, Carol, district director, Detroit district office, U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement 222
Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service:
Memorandum dated July 21, 1993, regarding INS Task Force Study,
and INS management's response 42
Prepared statement 6
Padilla, Maria, consular officer, U.S. Department of State, Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico: Prepared statement 181
Quinn, Mary, district adjudication officer, U.S. Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service, Portland, OR: Prepared statement 186
(III)
/
IV
Page
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by — Continued
Rochee, Debra, special assistant to the director, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Forensic Document Laboratory, McLean, VA: Prepared
statement 200
Ross, David, Esq.:
Memorandum dated September 10, 1991, regarding organization of
management regional offices 109
Prepared statement 97
Smith, Clarence L., deportation officer, U.S. Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service: Prepared statement 162
Washington, John J., senior special agent, U.S. Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service: Prepared statement 116
Whittick, Kellogg, former district director, Washington district office, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement 210
Wills, John T., Jr., special agent, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service: Prepared statement 128
APPENDDC
Material submitted for the hearing record 233
ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
PROTECTION AT IMMIGRATION AND NATU-
RALIZATION SERVICE: A BROKEN PROMISE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1994
House of Representatives,
Legislation and National Security Subcommittee
of the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Member present: Representative John Conyers, Jr.
Subcommittee staff present: James C. Turner, staff director; Mi-
randa Katsoyannis, professional staff member; Cheryl G. Matcho
and Bennie B. Williams, clerks; and Jane O. Cobb, minority profes-
sional staff.
Full committee staff present: Julian Epstein, staff director.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CONYERS
Mr. Conyers. Good morning. The Committee on Government Op-
erations, Legislation and National Security Subcommittee will
come to order.
The hearings this morning are on the enforcement of equal em-
ployment protection at the Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice, and we have a number of witnesses. Before they join us, I
would like to observe that we meet to examine the failure by our
government to keep its promise of equal opportunity to all its citi-
zens. The employment practices at the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service have been very well documented, but have not
been corrected. Thirty years after the passage of the Civil Rights
Act, African -Americans and others are still excluded from senior
positions at the INS. In the last decade of the 20th century, I find
this intolerable.
Over the past 3 years, our committee has received literally hun-
dreds of allegations of racism, sexism, nepotism, and cronyism at
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In case after case re-
viewed by our investigators, these allegations appeared to have
substance.
In response to the committee's inquiries two years ago, a special
panel led by INS assistant general counsel, Michael Creppy, con-
ducted an independent internal review of employment practices at
the agency. This internal review revealed that, if anything, INS
employment practices were worse than suspected. Specifically, the
(l)
so-called Creppy Report concluded that EEO was an empty prom-
ise, and that INS hiring and promotions were controlled by a "good
old boys" network.
In addition to this internal review, an EEOC class action has
provided further evidence of pervasive discrimination in this agen-
cy. Now, after 2 years of litigation, the INS is still in a state of de-
nial and has not come forward in this lawsuit to resolve it. The sta-
tistics paint a grim picture: fewer than 50 African- Americans serve
in the 5,000 agent border patrol. No African-American has ever
held an SES position at the INS. Entire INS district offices have
no African-American employees at all. That is, some INS district
offices have no African -Americans.
And the experiences of individual African-American employees
confirm that this racial exclusion is not an accident. A well-quali-
fied black border patrol agent was denied over 150 promotions and
reassignments, even though some of the positions he sought were
at lower grades than the job he held. Another INS agent was ver-
bally abused and physically threatened by his supervisors, who in-
stead of meaningful discipline were merely given slaps on the
wrists.
Another whose discrimination complaint was substantiated after
three investigations and was harassed until she was forced to take
disability leave.
These kinds of discriminatory employment practices have long
been illegal, but at INS it seems to be operating in some kind of
a time warp. I am deeply disturbed that this Government agency,
a part of the Department of Justice, of all things, is so far out of
control in 1994.
So we want to receive testimony; we want to get some answers,
and we want to correct this very disgraceful situation.
The people that we will be calling are outstanding citizens, law
enforcement people in many respects, experienced, distinguished,
hard working, loyal people that makes it very hard to understand
why this kind of treatment has been subjected upon them in such
great number. We will begin our hearings with the Commissioner
of Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Honorable Doris
Meissner, who we invite to join us with her Deputy Commissioner,
Ms. Chris Sale; and her Director of the Office of Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity, Winona Varnon. Would you please join us?
Ms. Meissner has a long career of Government, academic service;
has in fact been an Acting Commissioner of Immigration in the
1980's, a Deputy Associate Attorney General, a White House fellow;
has worked with the National Women's Political Caucus and many,
many other organizations and activities. We welcome you here this
morning and invite you to open the discussion on a subject matter
that I am very sorry brings us all together here in this room.
STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER, U.S. IMMI-
GRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED
BY CHRIS SALE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; AND WINONA
VARNON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP-
PORTUNITY
Ms. Meissner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the op-
portunity to appear before you today to brief you on the status of
equal employment opportunity in the Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service.
Equal employment opportunity is of primary importance to me
personally and to the agency and the agenda that we are pursuing
at the Immigration Service. I was glad to join the Clinton adminis-
tration with the administration's commitment to enhance diversity
in the Federal workplace. Workplace diversity is particularly im-
portant at the Immigration Service because we are the first point
of contact with the U.S. Government for foreign visitors and immi-
grants. We represent America and we should look like America.
The statement that we have submitted covers four topics: the
status of INS employment diversity; the status of actions taken to
address the Creppy Task Force Report of June 1993; the goals that
we have for diversifying the senior ranks of INS; and my own per-
sonal involvement and commitment to the area of equal employ-
ment opportunity.
Let me begin by saying that during the past year during the pe-
riod that I have been Commissioner of the Immigration Service, a
total of 601 supervisory and managerial positions have been filled.
Seventy-three percent of those were minorities and women. The
percentage for African-American promotions has increased from 8
percent in 1993 to 12 percent in 1994.
In the two major recruiting campaigns that we conducted last
year, which were for border patrol agents and for asylum officers,
we used special techniques specifically designed to reach qualified
minority applicants. We hired 102 minorities and women which
represents a 76 percent increase in minority border patrol hiring
over the prior year. In our hiring of asylum officers, during this
past fiscal year, one-third were minorities and women. This dem-
onstrates, I believe, a very clear commitment to equal employment
opportunity at the INS.
In the early part of 1993, as you noted, the INS recognized that
issues regarding equal employment opportunity required a full-
scale review. Chris Sale, who is at my right, was then the Acting
Commissioner. She convened a special task force of middle and sen-
ior INS managers to conduct that study and to make recommenda-
tions that would improve the Services equal employment oppor-
tunity environment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I did not know Chris Sale
before I came to the Immigration Service. I asked her to be Deputy
Commissioner for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons was be-
cause of the work that she had done on EEO. She took bold actions
at a time when she was in an acting position, and that is an un-
usual thing to do. But that organizational courage, that no-non-
sense attitude, is what we need, and it represents one of the rea-
sons that she is now Deputy Commissioner and the kind of an ap-
proach that we are taking institutionally to deal with the equal em-
ployment history that we have inherited.
That study was completed and it was released in June 1993, as
you know. It outlined issues of under-representation and made 36
recommendations to improve the EEO environment in the agency.
Thirty-four of those recommendations since that time have been
acted upon and implemented. My first official act as Commissioner
was to establish a National EEO Advisory Committee to the Com-
missioner, one of the main recommendations of that report. That
National EEO Advisory Committee has met three times since it
was established. I have met with the full group at two of our meet-
ings; I have met with the Chairman on several other occasions.
Chris Sale has met three times, each of the times that that group
has been together.
In addition, the recommendations of the Creppy Report included
strengthening the overall equal employment opportunity by adding
resources to the program, creating systems that would assure ac-
countability, training all of our managers and supervisors, revising
hiring promotion and training processes, communicating the rights
and responsibilities of employees and managers, and establishing
monitoring systems regarding the effectiveness of EEO efforts.
Our testimony and the GAO report that you requested outline in
greater detail the specific measures that are underway to carry out
those recommendations. Let me simply highlight a few at this mo-
ment.
We have developed an aggressive EEO implementation plan. It
is the foundation of a wide range of actions that are advancing
equal employment opportunity at the Immigration Service. We
have enlarged the budget for the Office of Equal Employment Op-
portunity from 890,000 to 2.1 million, and we have added six new
positions to the program. This fiscal year we are increasing the
budget further for the EEO office to $3.1 million. This increase
places the program in a very strong position to implement broad-
based guidance and to monitor EEO activities in the Service.
The Director of EEO attends our weekly management staff meet-
ings. She has direct access to me, to the Deputy Commissioner, and
to the entire executive staff. We have eliminated our backlog of
EEO complaints. The complaint inventory is current at the present
time. All of our executive and senior managers at INS, including
myself and the Deputy Commissioner, have received EEO training
in the last year.
In September of this year, our chief patrol agents and our district
directors in one of our regions have received three days of cultural
diversity training put on by the Defense Equal Opportunity Man-
agement Institute. This training will continue for all INS managers
this fiscal year.
We are utilizing a combined training core of 30 INS employees
and private contractors to train all of our supervisors and employ-
ees in EEO during the coming year. We have developed an auto-
mated statistical system to provide headquarters and field man-
agers with information and guidance regarding under-representa-
tion. The system gives the EEO office and managers the ability to
track trends by identifying trends. We have a strong early warning
system that will allow us to respond.
Our special emphasis program managers who recruit have re-
ceived training in the last year to assist all of our managers in re-
cruiting and hiring minorities, women, and disabled persons.
I have already mentioned our national EEO Advisory Council
which was formed to advise me on the effectiveness of our EEO
program. This council is comprised of 17 members. They range in
grade from GS-9 through GS-15. There are four African-American
females, one African -American male, one Asian Pacific Islander
male, one Asian Pacific Islander female, five white males, two His-
panic males, one Hispanic female, and one disabled female and
white female. These members are located in offices throughout the
three regions of INS.
The council has a mix of management supervisors, union and
employee representation. I have asked them personally to be the
eyes and ears of the Commissioner on this issue throughout the
agency, and that is working. We have very recently received infor-
mation directly from our EEO Advisory Committee, a very, very
suspect practice that regarded some promotion and transfer posi-
tions in one of our districts. We have immediately acted to cancel
the list and deal with that situation.
Our hiring plans are being revised to ensure that all hiring and
promotion processes are neutral and fair. Formal training pro-
grams are being developed for career-enhancing assignments to
eliminate underrepresentation in the pipeline, which, as you know,
leads to the senior management and SES positions.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my opening statement, I would like
to say that I very much regret the historical problems of
underrepresentation, of employment discrimination, and of the hos-
tility that African-Americans have experienced at the Immigration
Service. However, we are confronting these problems and we are
addressing them on a broad range of fronts.
I have told the staff, I am telling you today as I have told you
before, that I am fundamentally opposed to workplace discrimina-
tion of any kind, and I will take, as the Commissioner of this orga-
nization, whatever actions are required to eliminate it. We have
designated professionalism and diversity in the work force as one
of the nine major strategic directions that must guide all of our fu-
ture planning and actions.
Equally, EEO is a top priority for the personnel decisions that I
make. I nave promoted four highly qualified African-American em-
ployees into senior level positions. Two of them are district direc-
tors; one is a deputy district director, one is the director of an asy-
lum office. These are firsts for INS. They are testament to my per-
sonal commitment to promote African- Americans to senior field
manager positions. We are diversifying the senior ranks within the
Service every step of the way.
The lawsuit that we are involved in is one where we will be mak-
ing a settlement offer imminently. Our recruitment in the past
year, as our testimony outlines, has shown substantial improve-
ments. Currently, the recruitment strategies that we are putting
into place for future hiring during this fiscal year of attorneys, bor-
der patrol agents, immigration inspectors, asylum officers, criminal
investigators and support staff have especially targeted provisions
so that we can increase our ranks of minorities.
As you know, minorities represent fully one-third of the INS
work force. We are committed to hiring selections and employment
processes that ensure the full representation of African-Americans
within that minority workforce of the Immigration Service. You
have my personal commitment to that goal.
Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Meissner and Mr. Bowling fol-
low:]
6
Statement of
Doris Meissner
Commissioner
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
before the
Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security
Committee of Government Operations
concerning
Equal Employment Opportunity Practices at the Immigration
and Naturalization Service
Room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building
9:30 a.m., November 17, 1994
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to brief
you on the status of equal employment opportunity in the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) . Equal employment opportunity is of
personal importance to me. I was glad to join the Clinton
Administration with its commitment to enhance diversity in the
Federal workplace . Workplace diversity is especially important at INS
because we are the first point of contact with the U.S. government
for foreign visitors and immigrants . We represent America and should
look like America.
My statement will cover four topics: the status of INS
employment diversity; the status of actions taken to address the Task
Force report of June 1993 ; the goals for diversifying the senior ranks
in INS; and in closing I will speak to my personal involvement and
commitment to the area of equal employment opportunity.
STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT DIVERSITY
Prior to my becoming Commissioner in October 1993, there had
been 411 selections for GS-9 through SES supervisory and managerial
promotions from January through September 1993. Of those
promotions, 134 (32.60%) were women (1 Native American, 6 Asian
Pacific Islanders, 20 African Americans, 25 Hispanics and 82 Whites) ,
106 (25.79%) Hispanics, 35 (8.52%) African Americans , 12 (2.92%) Asian
Pacific Islanders and 3 (.73%) Native American.
8
During the past year while I have been Commissioner a total of
601 supervisory and managerial positions have been filled. The 1994
promotions include 188 females (31.28%) ( 3 Native Americans , 13 Asian
Pacific Islanders, 43 African Americans, 35 Hispanics and 94 Whites) ,
148 Hispanics (24.62%), 75 African Americans (12.47%), 27 Asian
Pacific Islanders (4.49%) and 5 Native Americans (.83%). The
percentage for African American promotions has increased from 8 . 52%
in 1993 to 12.47% in 1994.
In our two major recruiting campaigns for Border Patrol Agents
and Asylum Officers in FY 94, we employed special techniques to
reach qualified minority applicants, hiring 102 minorities and women,
a 76% increase in minority Border Patrol hiring over 1993 . In hiring
237 Asylum Officers during FY 94 and this fiscal year, 81 or over
one-third were minorities or women. The appointments made in the
past year illustrate a clear commitment to equal employment
opportunity in INS.
1993 EEO TASK FORCE
In early 1993, the INS recognized issues regarding equal
opportunity and acknowledged that a full-scale review was needed.
Then Acting Commissioner Chris Sale convened a special task force
of middle and senior INS managers to conduct a study and to make
recommendations to improve the Service's equal opportunity
environment.
The study was completed and released in June 1993 . It outlined
issues of underrepresentation within INS and made 3 6
recommendations to improve the EEO environment in INS.
The recommendations included: (1) strengthening the overall
equal employment opportunity program by adding resources to the
program and broadening the role of the program ; ( 2 ) creating systems
to ensure accountability of managers and supervisors; (3) training all
managers and supervisors regarding EEO responsibilities and issues
regarding underrepresentation; (4) revising the hiring, promotion and
training processes within the Service to ensure fair and neutral
opportunities for developmental assignments, training and selections
for promotions; (5) communicating the rights and responsibilities of
employees and managers regarding EEO; (6) creating a national EEO
Advisory Council ; and (7) establishing a monitoring system regarding
the effectiveness of the program.
EEO IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND ACTIONS
In July 1993 , INS responded to issues outlined in the report. The
agency developed an aggressive EEO Implementation Plan as a key
component of INS' Professionalism initiative, which is an outgrowth
of the Service 7 s broad-based Strategic Plan developed during 1993 and
1994.
Our EEO plan has served as the foundation for a wide range of
actions to advance equal opportunity in INS. In FY 94, we enlarged
10
the budget for the Office of EEO from $893,000 to $2.1 million and
added six new positions to the program.
This fiscal year, we increased the budget of the EEO Office to
$3.1 mil lion. This increase places the program in a strong position to
implement broad based guidance and monitoring of EEO activities in
the Service. The Director of EEO attends weekly management staff
meetings in which she has direct access to me, the Deputy
Commissioner and the entire executive staff of the Service.
All executive and senior managers in INS, including myself and
the Deputy Commissioner, received EEO training in 1993. Topics
covered included EEO laws and principles, alternative staffing
procedures, manager accountability, and cultural diversity.
In September of this year, Chief Patrol Agents and District
Directors in our Central Region received three days of cultural
diversity training presented by the Defense Equal Opportunity
Management Institute (DEOMI) .
The DEOMI training is planned for all INS managers this fiscal
year. We are utilizing a combined training corps of 30 INS employees
and private contractors to train all INS supervisors and employees in
EEO by October 1995.
We have developed an automated statistical system to provide
Headquarters and field managers with information and guidance
regarding underrepresentation of minorities, women and disabled
11
persons within each Region, District, Sector, Service Center, Asylum
Office and in Headquarters offices . The system gives the Office of
EEO the ability to track trends regarding hiring, promotions, awards,
training and separations in the Service. By identifying trends in the
data, we have an 'early warning system* if problems are developing
in the work force.
Our 246 Special Emphasis Program Managers (SEPM's) , who
recruit from local job fairs, minority universities and community
organizations received training in FY 94 to assist the Field and
Headquarters managers in recruiting and hiring minorities, women and
disabled persons. SEPM's are located in INS field offices and
Headquarters .
In order to ensure manager accountability, each supervisor has a
critical EEO element in his/her performance work plan. Each year
all executives, supervisors, and managers are rated on their
performance.
I approved a new Affirmative Employment Program Plan (AEP) to
address systemic problems and barriers to minorities, women, and
disabled persons. The plan covers recruitment, training, promotions
(career development) , manager accountability, and retention.
A national EEO Advisory Council was formed to advise me on the
effectiveness of the Service's employment and training processes.
The Council is comprised of 17 members who range in grade from
GS-9 through GS-15. There are four African American females, one
12
African American male, one Asian Pacific Islander male, one Asian
Pacific Islander female, five White males, two Hispanic males, one
Hispanic female, one disabled female and one White female. The
members are located in offices throughout the three regions of INS .
The Council has a mix of management, supervisors, union and
employee representation.
The Council met three times during FY 94 and has provided input
to me regarding employee concerns in the field. I met with them
twice and Deputy Commissioner Sale attended their other meeting.
During FY 95, the Council will serve as a 'sounding board" for
employees and managers regarding implementation of the new AEP
and the effectiveness of the EEO program. I will next meet with
them in February 1995 and get an update on our effectiveness.
The INS hiring plans (Merit Staffing Plan II and the Merit
Promotion and Reassignment Plan) are being revised to ensure that
all hiring and promotion processes are neutral and fair. We
anticipate completion of the revisions this fiscal year and
implementation of the new processes in FY 96. An EEO handbook
has been developed for all managers, supervisors and employees in
INS. The handbooks will be distributed in January 1995. Formal
training programs are being developed for career enhancing
assignments to eliminate underrepresentation in the pipeline leading
to senior management and SES positions.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is currently
developing a competency-based study for INS. The study will identify
13
desired skills and competencies necessary to perform duties within the
Special Agent (Criminal Investigator) occupation and supervisory
positions . The study will assist in defining skills , knowledge and
abilities needed to compete for supervisory Special Agent positions.
CONCLUSION
Through a bottom-up, Servicewide strategic planning initiative,
INS has designated professionalism and diversity in the workforce as
one of nine major strategic directions that must guide all Service
future planning and actions . EEO is equally a top priority for me as
Commissioner. Our mission includes assessing performance on EEO
goals and milestones for all managers at Headquarters and in the
field.
During my tenure, I have promoted four highly qualified African
American employees into senior-level positions (two District Directors,
one Deputy District Director and one Asylum Office Director) . These
employees are career INS employees who were more than qualified to
assume the positions they currently have. I believe this is a
testament to my personal commitment to promote African Americans
to senior field manager positions. These appointments serve as an
important starting point in diversifying the senior ranks within the
Service.
I have made a personal commitment to ensure that INS has a
diverse work force that is representative of the people we serve. To
that end, an aggressive recruitment strategy is underway to ensure
14
diversity in INS 7 hiring of Attorneys, Border Patrol Agents,
Immigration Inspectors, Asylum Officers, Criminal Investigators
(Special Agents) , and support staff. We have especially targeted
recruitment to attract African Americans, Native Americans, and
Asian Pacific Americans to entry level Border Patrol Agent positions.
During the course of the next 90 days targeted recruitment will be
conducted throughout the nation to ensure the recruitment and hiring
of minorities and women. INS has committed $200,000 for targeted
recruitment this year.
I am committed to hiring, selections and employment processes
that enable any employee to fairly compete for training and
promotion opportunities in INS. Your Subcommittee has provided
valuable oversight on this matter and I will be pleased to answer any
questions.
15
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Legislation
and National Security
Committee on Government Operations
House of Representatives
Not to Be
Released Before
9:30 a.m. EST
Thursday
November 17, 1994
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY
Immigration and Naturalization
Service's Equal Employment
Opportunity Program
Statement for the Record
Timothy P. Bowling, Associate Director
Federal Human Resource Management Issues,
General Government Division
GAO/T-GGD-95-41
16
Immigration and Naturalization Service's
Equal Employment Opportunity Program
Summary Statement by
Timothy P. Bowling, Associate Director, Federal
Human Resource Management Issues
General Government Division
As of August 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) had eliminated its equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint backlog of cases that were filed before fiscal year
1993. While 141 pre-1993 complaints remained in the current
inventory, all of these complaints were either pending a hearing
before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or were
awaiting a final agency decision at the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Complaints pending at EEOC and DOJ are beyond INS'
jurisdiction.
INS consistently reduced the average number of calendar days for
processing EEO discrimination complaints during fiscal years 1989
to 1993. In fiscal year 1993, INS took less than one-third of
the average time it took in fiscal year 1989 to process an EEO
complaint. The average processing time was 1,682 calendar days
in fiscal year 1989 and 484 calendar days in fiscal year 1993.
INS more than tripled EEO program resources between fiscal years
1993 and 1995. Following several years of denied budget requests
for additional Office of EEO resources, INS increased funding for
the Office of EEO from $893,000 in fiscal year 1993 to $3.1
million in fiscal year 1995. INS provided these additional funds
as a result of the June 1993 findings and recommendations of the
INS EEO Task Force on the Underrepresentation of African-
Americans .
The INS EEO Task Force also made 36 specific recommendations to
the INS Commissioner to improve the representation of African-
Americans and other minorities. According to the EEO Director,
34 of the 36 recommendations have been implemented or are in
various stages of implementation.
Between September 30, 1992, and September 30, 1994, INS promoted
1,002 employees to supervisory and managerial positions at the
GS-9 to Senior Executive Service levels. Promotions of minority
employees accounted for 406, or about 40 percent of these
promotions, while women accounted for 320, or about 32 percent.
African-American men and women accounted for 108, or
approximately 11 percent of the promotions.
17
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
This statement describes the results of our review of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) program. As agreed with the Subcommittee, we
focused our audit on four areas: (1) the status of the EEO
complaint backlog during fiscal years 1989 through 1993, (2) the
timeliness of INS' EEO complaint processing during fiscal years
1989 through 1993, (3) the status of internal proposals and
recommendations to improve INS' EEO operations and workforce
diversity between fiscal years 1989 and 1993, and (4) the number
of promotions to supervisory and managerial positions in INS
between September 1992 and September 1994 by race and gender.
We performed work from June to November 1994 at the INS
headquarters Office of EEO. We examined policies and procedures,
interviewed officials, and reviewed records and statistical data
on INS' EEO discrimination complaints and promotions to
supervisory and managerial positions.
BACKGROUND
INS is an agency of the Department of Justice (DOJ) . The
Commissioner of INS has delegated its EEO program function to the
Executive Associate Commissioner for Management, 1 who has
oversight responsibility for the INS Office of EEO, among other
administrative functions. The Director, INS Office of EEO,
manages the day-to-day headquarters EEO operations and approves
all work plans and appraisals for field EEO personnel.
An INS employee who believes he or she has been discriminated
against and wishes to pursue legal remedies must first
participate in an informal process. The informal process
requires the employee to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days
of the last discriminatory event. Within the next 30 days, the
EEO counselor must attempt to resolve the matter informally. The
employee may elect to forgo this counseling procedure and use EEO
conciliation, the mediation method INS uses in its alternative
dispute resolution program. 2 Under EEO conciliation, the
period for counseling is extended to 90 days. If resolution is
'The same individual held the positions of Executive Associate
Commissioner for Management, Acting Commissioner, and Deputy
Commissioner referred to in this statement.
2 The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, dated
November 15, 1990, authorizes federal agencies to consider using
alternative resolution techniques such as mediation,
conciliation, and arbitration to settle disputes without
litigation or administrative adjudication.
18
not reached using either procedure, the counselor must hold a
final interview with the complainant and advise him or her of the
right to file a formal complaint within 15 days.
If the employee files a formal complaint and INS accepts it, INS
must complete an investigation within 180 calendar days. At the
conclusion of the investigation, the complainant may receive an
immediate final decision from INS or reguest a hearing. If a
hearing is reguested, INS must reguest that the Egual Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) appoint an administrative judge to
conduct a hearing. Within 180 days, the administrative judge
must issue findings and conclusions on the merit of the
complaint. Within 60 days of the complainant either reguesting
an immediate final decision or receiving the findings and
conclusions of an administrative judge, DOJ must issue a final
decision. Once the case is forwarded to EEOC or DOJ, INS no
longer has jurisdiction over it.
In early 1993, the acting INS Commissioner convened a task force
to study the underrepresentation of African-Americans at the
agency. The task force recommended a number of changes to INS'
EEO and affirmative action programs to increase representation of
African-Americans and other minorities in supervisory and
managerial positions.
INS' PRE-FISCAL YEAR 1993
EEO COMPLAINT BACKLOG ELIMINATED
While the number of EEO complaints filed at INS has increased
steadily since 1989, INS has eliminated the backlog of complaints
that were awaiting investigation during fiscal years 1989 to
1992.
Over the past 5 fiscal years, INS has experienced growth in its
EEO complaint activity, including the number of complaints in the
pending inventory, employees counseled, and complaints filed.
The EEO Director attributed the increase in the number of formal
complaints filed to, among other things, actions taken by
employees as a result of the Attorney General's 1992 hiring
initiative and the 1993 class action suit filed by African-
American special agents.
19
Figure 1 shows the increase in EEO complaint activity for fiscal
years 1989 through 1993.
Figure 1: EEO Complaint Activity. Fiscal Years 1989 to 1993
600 Number
19M
Fiscal year
•* a '*^ Complaint inventory (end ol reporting period)
" "^ Employees counseled
• ••••• Complaints died during reporting period
SOURCE: INS, Office of EEO.
Despite the increase in EEO complaint activity, INS has
eliminated the pre- 1993 backlog of cases awaiting investigation
at the agency. As of August 31, 1994, the inventory of 334
complaints did not include any complaints that were filed before
fiscal year 1993 that were still at INS awaiting
"acceptance/rejection" or "investigation." The 141 still-active
EEO complaints that had been filed before fiscal year 1993 were
either pending a hearing at EEOC or a decision at DOJ. (See
table 1 . ) Complaints at these stages of the process are beyond
INS' jurisdiction.
20
Table 1; Status of Inventory of EEO Complaints, as of
August 31, 1994
Year
filed
Acceptance
rejection
(INS)
Investigation
(INS)
Hearing
( EEOC )
Final
agency
decision
(DOJ)
Total
1988
1
1
2
1989
2
5
7
1990
6
9
15
1991
21
17
38
1992
61
18
79
1993
76
35
24
135
1994
57
1
58
Total
133
127
74
334
Percent
40
38
22
100
Source: INS, Office of EEO.
INS has been able to eliminate its complaint backlog because of
several externally and internally generated actions. These
actions include DOJ and EEOC mandates as well as actions INS
management and Office of EEO staff have taken to improve the
operation of the EEO program.
DOJ, which had long been criticized as being one of the slowest
federal agencies in processing discrimination complaints, ordered
INS and other DOJ agencies in 1989 to reduce their backlog of EEO
complaints by 50 percent by June 30, 1989, and to zero by the end
of fiscal year 1989. The INS Office of EEO developed a plan that
eliminated the then-existing backlog by September 30, 1989.
However, in the subsequent 2 -year period the increase in
complaint activity resulted in a new backlog.
In 1989 and again in 1991, the DOJ Assistant Attorney General for
Administration requested that the directors of its agencies
report on the current status of their respective EEO programs and
efforts to alleviate their backlog of EEO complaints. In
response, INS indicated that it would reprogram 20 full-time
permanent positions into the Office of EEO and $267,000 to
increase the personnel resources within EEO. According to the
Director of EEO, INS did not provide all of these resources, and
21
the Office of EEO was only given an additional $80,000 for
contract EEO investigations and $75,000 for overtime for EEO
staff in 1991.
EEOC also made some changes to the complaint processing
regulations in October 1992 that required INS and all other
federal agencies to act more quickly in resolving EEO
discrimination complaints. The new regulation, 29 C.F.R. part
1614, requires agencies to complete the investigation of EEO
complaints within 180 calendar days. Under the former
regulation, 29 C.F.R. part 1613, no time limit was established
for the completion of investigations.
According to the Director of EEO, INS took several steps to
reduce the complaint backlog. These actions included
reorganizing the Office of EEO's discrimination complaint branch,
obtaining funds specifically to increase resources for staff and
contract investigators, and implementing an alternative dispute
resolution program, which is designed to provide early fact-
finding and resolution of complaints before they reach the formal
process .
INS has increased funding for the Office of EEO for fiscal year
1994. The office's requests during fiscal years 1989 to 1993 for
additional funds and staff to process the increased number of EEO
discrimination complaints were largely denied. According to the
Deputy Commissioner, administrative services, such as financial
management and human resource management, were significantly
understaffed in previous years. Two 1992 internal management
studies of the administrative services recommended that the
number of administrative positions in INS headquarters and
regional offices be increased.
In fiscal year 1994, INS increased the Office of EEO's operating
budget from $893,000 in fiscal year 1993 to $2.1 million in
fiscal year 1994, followed by an increase to $3.1 million in
fiscal year 1995. The increase in funds was the result of the
recommendations of a task force on the underrepresentation of
African-Americans .
INS EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING TIME REDUCED
The actions INS took to reduce the complaint backlog also helped
the agency improve the timeliness of its complaint processing.
Data developed by INS' Office of EEO indicates that INS has been
successful in consistently reducing the average processing time
for discrimination complaints. The average complaint processing
time in fiscal year 1993 was 484 calendar days compared to 1,682
calendar days in fiscal year 1989.
22
Figure 2 shows the average number of processing days for EEO
complaints for the 5-year period 1989 to 1993.
Figure 2: Average INS Complaint Processing Time, Fiscal Years
1989 to 1993
2500 Calendar days
2000
SOURCE: INS, Office of EEO.
RACIAL AND GENDER PROFILE OF
PROMOTIONS TO SUPERVISORY AND
MANAGERIAL POSITIONS
Since September 30, 1992, INS has made some progress in the
promotion of women and minorities to supervisory and managerial
positions in grades GS-9 through the Senior Executive Service
(SES). Women accounted for 320 (32 percent) and minorities 406
(41 percent) of the 1,002 promotions. African-American men and
women accounted for 4 percent and 6 percent of the promotions,
respectively. Of the two SES appointments announced on September
1, 1994, and awaiting approval by DOJ and the Office of Personnel
Management (0PM), one is an Hispanic man and the other a white
woman. No African-Americans have been appointed to the SES.
Table 2 shows the distribution of supervisory and managerial
promotions by race and gender for grades GS-9 through the SES
during the period September 30, 1992, through September 30, 1994.
23
Table 2 : Supervisory and Managerial Promotions for Grade 9
Through SES, September 30, 1992, to September 30, 1994
Grade
Total
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native American/
Alaskan Native
All
Women
Men
women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
09
92
46
18
20
10
13
15
10
3
2
1
10
21
11
7
7
1
2
2
2
11
42
20
11
10
1
7
10
2
1
12
355
79
153
30
10
10
100
29
11
8
2
2
1 '
320
109
140
69
19
19
47
15
4
5
1
1
14
121
4]
64
24
2
10
14
6
1
15
48
14
30
10
2
2
2
2
SES
3
3
o*
0*
Total
1002
320
426
170
45
63
190
66
18
17
3
4
Percent
31.94
42.51
16.97
4.49
6.29
ie.96
6.59
1.80
1.70
0.30
0.40
*On September 1, 1994, INS announced the appointment of one
Hispanic man and one white woman to SES positions. These
appointments are subject to approval by DOJ and the Office of
Personnel Management.
Source: INS, Office of EEO.
Additional details about the distribution of these supervisory
and managerial promotions by race, gender, and location are
included in attachment I.
While women and minorities accounted for a majority of the recent
promotions to supervisory and managerial positions, the overall
representation of women and minorities in INS' workforce as of
September 30, 1994, has remained relatively stable--42 percent
white male, 41 percent minorities, and 34 percent women since
September 30, 1992. The proportion of African-American men and
women in INS' workforce has also remained relatively stable at 12
percent for the same period. Attachment II contains INS'
workforce profiles for September 30, 1992, and September 30,
1994.
EEO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of internal proposals and suggestions to improve the
operation of the EEO program, were submitted with the annual
budget requests during fiscal years 1989 to 1993. A major
24
internal proposal was generated by the INS task force on the
underrepresentation of African-Americans. The acting
Commissioner convened the task force in early 1993 to address
several issues, including the underrepresentation of African-
Americans and other minorities in the agency's officer corps 3
positions at the supervisory and managerial levels. The
recommendations of the task force addressed issues in six areas:
(1) fostering support for affirmative action among managers,
supervisors, and employees; (2) strengthening the operations of
the INS EEO program; (3) improving EEO performance through
training; (4) establishing EEO and affirmative action
accountability for managers; (5) improving the level and quality
of service; and (6) improving personnel practices.
According to the EEO Director, 34 of the 36 recommendations have
been implemented or are in various stages of implementation.
With respect to the two recommendations that have not been
implemented, the EEO Director stated that (1) INS will continue
to have the EEO Director report to the Executive Associate
Commissioner for Management and (2) no decision has been made to
increase resources for the Tuition Assistant Program. Attachment
III summarizes the 36 recommendations and actions reported taken
as of November 1, 1994.
According to the INS Commissioner, some of the key actions taken
in response to the task force's recommendations include the
following:
-- All executive and senior managers in INS, including the
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, have received EEO
training.
— An automated statistical system has been developed to provide
headquarters and field managers with information and guidance
regarding underrepresentation of minorities, women, and
disabled persons within each region, district, sector, service
center, and asylum office and in headquarters offices.
-- Special emphasis program managers have been trained to assist
the field and headquarters managers in recruiting and hiring
minorities, women, and disabled persons.
-- Each supervisor is now evaluated on a critical EEO element in
his/her performance work plan.
'Officer corps positions are Border Patrol Agent, Immigration
Inspector, Immigration Examiner, Criminal Investigator (Special
Agent), and Deportation Officer.
8
25
-- During fiscal year 1994, a new Affirmative Employment Program
(AEP) Plan was developed to address systemic problems and
barriers to minorities, women, and disabled persons. The plan
covers recruitment, training, promotions, manager
accountability, and retention and is scheduled to begin in
November 1994.
-- A national EEO advisory council was formed to advise the
Commissioner on the effectiveness of INS' employment and
training processes.
-- The Merit Staffing Plan II and the Merit Promotion and
Reassignment Plan are being revised to ensure that all hiring
and promotion processes are neutral and fair.
--An EEO handbook has been developed for all INS managers,
supervisors, and employees.
-- Formal programs are being developed for developmental
assignments and training to eliminate underrepresentation in
the pipeline leading to senior management and SES positions.
-- OPM is currently developing a competency-based study for INS.
The study will identify desired skills and competencies
necessary to perform duties within the special agent
occupation and supervisory positions; its results should
provide more objective basis for competition for promotions.
Eventually, the study will be expanded to include all officer
corps positions.
On October 19, 1993, the acting Commissioner formed an EEO
Advisory Council, with representation from all minority groups
and disabled employees, to advise the Commissioner on the status
of the implementation plan for the EEO program and to consider
other employment and training issues.
This completes our statement for the record. This statement was
prepared by Linda Elmore, Evaluator-in-Charge, and Xavier
Richardson, Assistant Director.
26
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
NUMBER OF INS SUPERVISORY PROMOTIONS FOR
GRADE 9-SES, BY LOCATION,
September 30. 1992-September 30, 1994
Location/Organization
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native American/
Alaskan Native
Total
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Headquarters
157
77
37
5
12
16
9
1
Rastern Region
214
99
45
12
26
16
S
5
1
1
1
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Operations
5
3
2
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Management
7
5
1
1
Buffalo District
29
21
6
2
Newark District
14
5
4
1
2
1
1
New York District
72
33
9
5
14
5
1
4
1
Portland, Maine
District
14
12
1
1
Buffalo Sector
2
2
Swanton Sector
1
1
Boulton Sector
1
1
Boston District
13
6
5
1
1
Baltimore District
12
3
3
2
3
1
Philadelphia
District
10
3
4
3
San Juan District
15
4
a
3
Washington, D.C.
District
13
3
2
4
3
1
Eastern Service
Center
3
1
2
Office of Field
Operations Refuge
Asylum and Parole
Division
3
2
1
10
27
ATTACHMENT I
V
ATTACHMENT I
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native
American/
Alaskan Native
Location/Organization
Total
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Soatnaro Region
228
79
23
«
7
85
24
1
1
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Operations
2
1
1
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Management
S
2
5
1
Atlanta District
13
6
3
2
2
El Paso District
25
5
13
7
Miami District
18
4
2
3
2
3
3
1
New Orleans
District
7
3
3
1
San Antonio
District
30
6
1
20
3
Houston District
16
8
2
1
4
1
Marts Sector
6
4
2
Hew Orleans Sector
5
4
1
Miami Sector
3
2
1
El Paso Sector
15
9
6
Del Rio Sector
21
13
1
2
5
Laredo sector
5
1
4
McAllen Sector
11
4
7
Dallas District
10
5
3
1
1
Barllngen District
28
2
17
9
0,
Southern Service
Center
3
2
1
Office of Field
Operations Refuge
Asylum and Parole
Division
2
1
1
11
28
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
Location/Organization
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native American/
Alaskan Native
Total
Men
Women
Hen
Women
Hen
Women
Hen
Women
Hen
Women
Northern Raglan
117
59
35
4
5
8
3
1
1
1
Regional
Administrator
e
1
5
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Operations
4
4
Chicago District
14
6
3
2
1
1
1
Detroit District
22
13
3
1
3
1
1
Helena District
3
2
1
Kansas City
District
3
1
2
Omaha District
3
1
2
Portland Oregon
District
8
3
1
2
1
1
St Paul District
11
6
4
1
Seattle District
12
8
2
l
1
Blaine Sector
2
2
Spokane Sector
1
1
Havre Sector
2
2
Grand Forks Sector
1
1
Detroit Sector
1
1
Anchorage District
4
3
1
Cleveland District
7
2
3
2
Denver District
a
2
5
1
Northern Service
Center
4
1
3
Office of Field
Operations Refuge
Asylum and Parole
Division
1
1
12
29
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
Location/Organization
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native American/
Alaskan Native
Total
Hen
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Western Raglan
266
112
30
16
13
65
22
12
13
1
2
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Operations
7
5
1
1
Associate Regional
Commissioner for
Management
6
3
3
San Francisco
District
25
5
6
1
1
7
2
3
Los Angeles
District
55
15
6
4
10
7
5
5
2
1
Phoenix District
31
15
4
9
2
1
Tucson Sector
9
7
2
Yuma Sector
7
4
1
2
El Centro Sector
13
6
5
1
1
Llvermore Sector
2
1
1
San Diego Sector
47
23
3
1
16
4
San Diegc District
55
21
3
6
1
15
8
1
western Service
Center
5
2
1
1
1
Honolulu District
23
7
2
2
2
10
Office of Field
Operations Refuge
Asylum and Parole
Division
1
1
SOURCE :
INS, Office of EEO.
13
30
ATTACHMENT II
ATTACHMENT II
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
WORKFORCE PROFILES
Table II. 1: INS Workforce Profile, by Grade, as of September 30. 1992
Grade
Total
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native American/
Alaskan Native
All
Women
Hen
women
Hen
Women
Hen
Women
Hen
Women
Hen
Women
01
14
12
5
2
6
1
02
7
4
2
1
1
2
1
03
114
82
20
39
8
30
2
9
2
4
04
744
576
80
258
44
172
32
105
10
32
2
9
05
2310
1235
635
580
65
303
324
263
45
75
6
14
06
685
467
108
236
40
124
53
81
15
23
2
3
07
2466
1053
782
516
125
259
430
224
66
52
10
2
08
195
107
48
42
13
49
25
13
2
2
1
09
3628
722
1669
377
110
142
1047
148
68
48
12
7
10
193
12
77
7
3
3
94
2
5
2
11
2555
679
1150
332
63
158
604
137
50
48
9
4
12
2501
519
1372
320
90
93
468
83
46
20
6
3
13
1022
253
627
169
30
46
107
25
5
12
1
14
742
161
S15
126
17
19
48
11
5
1
15
257
42
194
35
6
3
15
3
1
SES
36
5
25
4
4
1
2
Total
17469
5929
7304
3047
617
1409
3253
1107
316
32 2
50
44
Percent
3 3.94
41.81
17.44
3.53
8.07
18.62
6.34
1.81
1.84
0.29
0.25
SOURCE: INS, Office of EEO.
14
31
ATTACHMENT II ATTACHMENT II
Table II. 2: INS Workforce Profile, by Grade, as of September 30, 1994
Grade
Total
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
Native American/
Alaskan Native
All
Women
Hen
women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
01
30
20
1
4
14
5
6
02
3
1
2
1
03
42
28
5
8
7
11
2
4
3
2
04
497
368
66
160
29
110
29
75
3
19
2
4
OS
2006
1207
466
566
68
296
230
255
30
75
5
15
06
630
450
90
221
34
114
36
82
17
28
3
5
07
2241
930
710
470
129
229
407
178
55
51
10
2
08
440
302
65
130
21
101
41
59
11
11
1
09
4516
858
2162
469
116
141
1288
194
78
45
14
9
10
202
21
79
13
3
5
90
3
7
2
11
2366
578
1094
313
68
104
572
119
48
42
a
12
3076
808
1513
421
104
186
567
145
73
50
n
6
13
1155
317
648
208
51
60
130
33
8
14
l
2
14
782
199
516
154
15
25
51
12
8
l
15
270
56
188
46
7
5
16
4
2
1
l
SES
26
4
19
3
2
1
1
Total
18284
6147
7624
3182
656
1401
3466
1170
333
348
58
46
Percent
33.62
41.70
17.40
3.59
7.66
18.96
6.40
1.82
1.90
0.32
0.25
SOURCE: INS, Office of EEO.
15
32
ATTACHMENT III
ATTACHMENT III
INS EEO TASK FORCE REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reconmendation
Action taken
Date completed
1. Include managers and supervisors In the
development of the affirmative action plan (AAP);
assign managers and supervisors specific
responsibility In achieving the objectives of the
AAP; provide mandatory training to managers and
supervisors In their responsibilities under the
AAP; and hold managers and supervisors
accountable for their accomplishments under the
AAP.
Management met and developed plan
that will be ready for signature
mid-November.
Mandatory training provided to all
senior executives, field managers,
and OS- 15 staff and above since
N vember, 1993.
November 1993;
ongoing training.
2. As part of the training that is to be given to
managers and supervisors on affirmative action,
there must be a section of the training that will
be devoted to teaching managers and supervisors
how to address underrepresentation of minorities
and women by uelng the services of Personnel and
EEO officials.
See number 1.
November 1993;
Ongoing training.
3. Require EEO bulletin boards In ALL offices —
local, eubofflces, ports, and other Service
facilities that do not now have them. Post names
of EEO Counselors and Special Emphasis Program
Managers (SEPMs); develop a brochure identifying
the procedures' for filing complaints of
discrimination.
Poster listing EEO policy and name
of counselors placed in all
offices.
130-page EEO handbook for all
employees completed and at
publisher for printing. To be
distributed January 1995.
September 1993.
(January 1995.)
4. Require that managers use written communication'
as well as verbal in providing guidance and
direction in promoting their EEO program.
Managers have been rated on this
performance element since fiscal
year 1994.
September 1993.
5. Elevate the EEO office within the Service to
report directly to the Commissioner to give it
greater visibility and authority.
Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner made decision to
continue to have EEO Director
report to Executive Associate
Commissioner for Management.
6. Place all full-time EEO personnel in the regions,
districts, and sectors under the direct control
of the Headquarters EEO Director. Require
Headquarters approval of all regional, district,
snd sector Multi-Year Affirmative Employment
plans and reports to ensure full compliance with
EBOC directives and guidelines.
Dual reporting authority for field
EEO managers. EEO Director
approves all work plans and
appraisals for EEO regional staff
and has approval authority and
provides guidance on all multlyear
and annual affirmative action
plans.
September 1993.
7. Allocate additional resources to the EEO effort,
both human and financial, so that the Office can
be effective In its efforts to improve the
representation of African-Americans, women, other
minorities, and disabled persons In the Service.
Office of EEO budget increased from
$693,000 in fiscal year 1993 to
$2.1 million in fiscal year 1994,
and to $3.1 million In fiscal year
1995. Six new positions were added
to headquarters EEO staff.
Plscal year 1994.
16
33
ATTACHMENT III
ATTACHMENT III
Recommendation
Action taken
Date completed
8. Give serious consideration to allocating
sufficient resources to replace collateral duty
EEO officials with full-time EEO officials in
critical field locations.
Created one full-time equivalent
position in Lob Angeles, Miami, and
New York for mediation, AAP
monitoring. Continue to use
collateral duty EEO officials.
Partially completed,
fiscal year 1995.
9. Allocate adequate funding to support the field
managers affirmative action (AA) efforts,
consistent with their assigned AA tasks.
See number 8.
Partially completed,
fiscal year, 1995.
10. Provide immediate and mandatory EEO training and
yearly refresher training to all employees,
including supervisors and managers. Include
within this training rights and responsibilities
associated with the complaint process.
Training in process.
Ongoing process to
be completed by
September 1995.
11. Train all 3EPMs before the end of fiscal year
1993.
Provided training for all SEPMs
beginning In July 1993.
June 1994.
12. Educate IRS managers and supervisors on their
eeo/aa roles and responsibilities, and the
expectations of higher management in this regard.
Such training should be mandatory. Work actively
to establish and "sell" a policy of racial and
ethnic diversity to the entire IRS workforce.
Included in handbook. See
number 1.
Ongoing . September
1993.
13. Require mandatory EEO/AA training for all senior
executives, managers, and supervisors within six
months of their appointments to these positions.
All new managers have received
training within the first 6 months.
Ongoing.
14. Provide "people skills" training designed to
promote good relations and improve communication
between supervisors and managers.
Included in overall training. See
number 1.
Ongoing.
15. Establish accountability for AAP objectives.
Quarterly statistical report
showing underrepreaentation
compiled. Guidance provided on how
to fill Blots.
September 1993.
16. Establish specific affirmative action targets for
supervisors and managers at the District/Sector
and equivalent levels. Train them on how to
fulfill these responsibilities and hold them
accountable for achieving their AAP objectives.
See number IS.
September 1993.
17. Require a separate critical EEO element In the
performance workplace of Senior Executives,
supervisors, and managers that has clear
standards to measure positive accomplishments in
the EEO and AA Programs.
Critical EEO element placed In
annual workplans. Critical
elements will be revised annually.
September 1993
18. Take immediate action to address the backlog of
complaints pending EEO Investigation and conduct
an assessment of the complaints process to
determine where the bottlenecks exist and what
can be done to expedite the process.
Backlog of EEO complaints at IRS
eliminated.
Ongoing.
17
34
ATTACHMENT III
ATTACHMENT III
Reconmendation
Action taken
Date completed
19. Place full-time EEO officials In larger field
locations, under the Immediate supervision of the
Director of EEO to ensure greater
confidentiality, access iblllty, and singularity
of programmatic priorities.
See number 8 .
Partially completed,
fiscal year 1995.
20. The Service should undertake the immediate
appointment of African-American to SES and senior
management positions (GM-15).
Three appointments to GS-15,
(2 District and 1 Deputy District
manager). No African-Americans
appointed to SES.
Ongoing.
21. Serious consideration should be given to the
appointment of African-Americans to supervisory
positions as a means of addressing
underrepresentation in the workforce.
Of the 601 fiscal year 1994
appointments to supervisory and
management positions, 255 were
minority candidates including 186
women. Seventy- five (12%) were
African-American men and women.
Fiscal year 1994;
Ongoing.
22. Revise the Merit Promotion and Reassignment Plan
(MPtRP), the promotion plan for bargaining unit
employees, for accuracy and consistency with
Merit Staffing Plan II (MSP II), the promotion
plan for supervisors and managers.
Began revising the plans in October
1994. Completion expected by the
end of fiscal year 1995.
In process.
23. Devise a uniform procedure for conducting
interviews as well as a uniform method of
documenting the interview results and the
recommendations of the interviewed s) .
See number 22.
In process.
24. Implement a comprehensive effort to correct the
current race/national origin (RNO) and gender
data for IRS employees, and establish policies
and procedures to ensure the timely and accurate
collection of the data on new employees.
In November 1993, began requiring
employees to self -Identify race.
Still in process of compiling data.
Ongoing process.
25. Utilize data systems to track training,
disciplinary actions, and awards Servlcewide by
RHO and gender.
In April 1994, Applicant Survey
System began tracking training,
will be adapted to include
disciplinary actions and awards.
Ongoing.
26. Implement targeted recruitment efforts to
identify and employ African- Amer leans in Officer
Corps occupations, especially Special Agents,
Border Patrol Agents and Immigrations Inspectors.
In September 1993, began nationwide
recruiting program for applicants
targeting 2- and 4-year colleges
and military bases in the midwest
and southwest for minority
candidates.
Ongoing process.
27. Conduct a specialized study of Border Patrol
hiring and retention to identify worthwhile
sources of recruitment of African-Americans and
methods for retaining African-American employees
In the Patrol.
A study was done in 1967. 0PM Is
developing a competency- based study
to identify skills within the
Special Agent occupation and
supervisory positions. The study
will also include all officer corps
positions, i.e., Border Patrol
Agent, Immigration Inspector,
Immigration Examiner, and
Deportation Officer.
Ongoing.
18
35
ATTACHMENT III
ATTACHMENT III
Recommendation
Action taken
Date completed
20. Increase resources allocated to the Tuition
Assistance Program and publicize It In
Servlcewlde, regional and local employee
publications, and through the use of posters and
brochures.
INS has not acted on this agency-
wide funding issue.
29. Revitalize the Upward Mobility Program. Working
through the BEO Office, establish a percentage of
new/vacated positions In targeted locations and
occupations to be filled through the formal
Upward Mobility Program.
As part of affirmative action plan,
slots are to be placed in several
underrepresented offices.
To be implemented
November 1994.
30. Develop a systematic way of providing training to
ensure equal access by all employees. Develop
criteria for selections for training and
publicize this information to all employees.
See number 25.
Ongoing.
31. Make greater use of Upward Mobility, Cooperative
Education, 8i-llngual/Bi-cultural, and
Outstanding Scholar Programs to address
underrepresentatlon .
INS is making greater use of
Veterans Readjustment Appointments
and the Outstanding Scholar Program
to address underrepresentatlon
Ongoing process.
32. Train managers and supervisors to effectively use
hiring tools such as the Administrative Careers
with America (ACWA) register and exception to
ACWA, including special appointing authority--
auch as Bi-cultural/Bi- lingual . Outstanding
Scholar, Veterans Readjustment and Cooperative
Education Program, and Upward Mobility--to meet
AA objectives.
Part of training received by senior
managers. See number 1.
November 1993.
33. Allocate a greater percentage of officer Corps
positions for Internal candidates and clarify the
May 1992 instructions regarding staffing sources
for these positions. Clarify instructions
regarding outside hiring to correct a prevalent
misunderstanding that ACWA may serve as the only
source of outside hires.
Agency has no policy of hiring
exclusively from ACWA.
Clarification provided that no
policy that ACWA would be used
solely.
November 1993.
34. Involve the EEO Office in the selection process
for managers and supervisors, especially in those
locations and occupations in which
underrepresentatlon of minorities and women
exists; (e.g. provide to a selecting official,
along with the selection list, a notice of
underrepresentatlon in that occupation and that
locality).
The EEO Director is involved in the
review of every selection package
in all locations.
Ongoing process.
35. with Issuance of the selection list for certain
occupations and locations, notify selection
official of underrepresentatlon, as appropriate.
See number 34.
Ongoing process.
36. Establish a mechanism to implement and monitor
the recommendations contained in this report and
to ensure continued efforts in support of the
EEO/AA program.
EEO Implementation plan developed
In October 1993 to track
implementation of recommendations.
Ongoing.
SOURCE: INS, Office of EEO.
(966624)
19
36
Mr. Conyers. You know, you make me believe that there isn't
any reason to have held this hearing today. If that is correct, then
all the complaints of cronyism, all of the complaints of resistance
and the old boy network, all the statistics that show that in the
areas of where there is promotion, where promotion eligibles would
be involved, that there are very few African-Americans. Much of
this seems to have come as a result of pressures from the outside
that started perhaps before you arrived, but I don't hear you,
frankly, talking about the historic problem and the fact that there
is very little way that we can get rid of this without some very
strong enforcement at the top.
The fact of the matter is, the senior INS officials are
stonewalling all the way, and there is no way in the world that I
can leave this hearing feeling good about all of the practices and
training and programs, because that doesn't change anything if
there is no enforcement. And that is what brings us all here to-
gether.
I don't know how many times you get a letter signed by three
full committee chairmen, but we never got a response to a March
1 request that was merely trying to inquire into whether this class
action suit could be expeditiously resolved. We have got documents,
and the case is pretty clear in INS, that this is probably the — I
hate to say this — stand-out agency, and we are checking through
everybody else. But there is nothing obscure about the employment
discrimination going on at INS.
You do not have to be a detective to figure out what is happen-
ing. It is all over the place, and it has been there for a long time.
It is perfectly clear. And the fact that we are here exchanging
promises is no satisfaction to me at all. INS could be in a time
warp as far as I am concerned. It is like we are back in the 1950's,
maybe even further, in which we are just discovering that there are
laws against racial discrimination in the Federal Government.
And I am so disappointed that this is coming out of the Depart-
ment of Justice, of all places. I mean this is not some Government
agency, this is a law enforcement agency that determines who
comes into the country. And my disappointment is profound. I can't
for the life of me understand why we won't get down to business
and bust up the resistance to all of these practices, statements,
pledges that have been passed back and forth for years.
This kind of thing doesn't work any more, Ms. Meissner. We
can't be snowed. We have been through this dozens and dozens of
times in the Federal Government and in private practice. And I al-
most feel like asking you if you have ever heard of these witnesses
and the cases that tney are about to present. I mean it makes you
wonder if we are in America. It is incredible.
And I am hoping that these matters will be brought to your at-
tention as a result of the fact that they are being made public. I
have no way of knowing how much you know about any of these
matters, but we are all going to know about it from this point on.
And I can assure you that this hearing is not a one-time deal
where we all leave this afternoon and say well, that is that.
The frightening thing is that there has been so much retaliation
involved against people who even dare to file an EEOC grievance.
It is well-known. It is out there. And so I am going to need a lot
37
more than the exchanges and pledges of your personal commitment
about this. Because if those were sufficient, we wouldn't have to
have the hearing. I would say, well, they are being worked on and
let's go on from here.
But this matter is clearly not going to be resolved by sensitivity
sessions for people who don't give a damn. You can send them to
any training you want to. As long as they don't have to face the
boss, they will do anything.
Some of the reports that have come to my attention which were
filed with EEOC border on arrogance. Some parts of the country
are worse than others in INS. On the west coast, I don't know what
is going on in Los Angeles. But I can tell you that this statement
of your personal concern is why I called the hearing. It is not
enough.
As a matter of fact, all I want is results. I don't ever have to get
a personal commitment from anybody else in government about
their own personal feelings, because the story is going to be told.
So I would hope that you can spend as much time as you can to
share the point of view that this committee has about the racial
discrimination in employment practices that exist in INS.
If the progress that is being made was satisfactory, we would not
be here. We can't go on like this. This administration needs to have
an INS that is on-line, doing the job, leading the way in resolving
these kinds of problems. And that is what we don't have, and that
is what I am going to spend a great deal of my energies in the next
Congress working I hope with you to help get to the point where
I think most people will agree that we should be.
And I would invite you to make any comments that you choose.
Ms. Meissner. Well, Mr. Chairman, I absolutely intend to work
with you on this proposition. I am aware of the cases that are —
that have come to your attention, of the cases that are represented
here today, but this is not the first time that I have become aware
of them. I was aware of them a year ago when I came to the agen-
cy.
As I told you, the Creppy Report and the detailed work that it
laid out was a very, very important road map which I immediately
endorsed and which we have been pursuing. I am giving you my
personal commitment only in combination with a strong record that
we have built in the last year. I am very distressed about the his-
torical situation. I find it an unacceptable situation. I can only be
responsible, however, for what I have been able to do during the
period that I am responsible, and obviously for what occurs during
the future.
Now, we have solid numbers, we have solid actions that we have
taken. Those have been corroborated by the GAO investigation and
we have established not only a strong record, but we have set a
tone for a different kind of an INS atmosphere than has existed in
the past. These are not problems that can be solved overnight, but
we are in a strong position, taking action to resolve them, and I
think that during the period that I will have the opportunity, how-
ever long that will be, to be responsible for this agency that over
that period of time there will be serious and effective corrective ac-
tions and a different and a new work environment.
38
Mr. Conyers. Well, I am glad to hear you say that. But let me
talk to you from my experience in these kinds of matters. It is my
fear that the officials at INS under you who are creating the resist-
ance will be very happy to hear wnat you have said today. They
will take solace. Because you have personally pledged to me that
you are a straight-shooter and don't discriminate ana won't tolerate
it. But the fact of the matter is, I can't name another part of the
Federal Government that has a worse record.
So what we do is create the perfect smoke screen for people who
have indicated structurally for many years that they don't care who
comes and goes, and you know that. It exists all over our govern-
ment. There are people who don't care who the President is, who
the Attorney General is, who is in Congress, because they have al-
ready made it clear in their attitude that they are going to be there
when you are gone and when I am gone. So we can dance around
hearings and issue statements all we want.
But they are the ones that have been running it before we got
here, and as far as they are concerned, they will be running it after
we are gone. And until we penetrate that, until something hap-
pens, until these plans are actualized, today's hearing will go down
in the record book as the Commissioner came in and took a public
spanking and Conyers' committee had their moment to exorcise
their worst fears, and now it is back to business as usual. And by
the way, maybe we ought to take a look at some of these witnesses.
You know, you haven't made one suggestion about protecting any-
body under this business. And we already know that they are put
in jeopardy all the time, historically, not just in INS, but EEOC,
one of its failings is you got to step forward, and after enough peo-
ple have been slapped down for stepping forward, then people stop
stepping forward. For what?
And so there is nobody going back here saying you know, I think
we have really made some headway today. They are as vulnerable
as they have always been. And that makes our responsibility on
this oversight committee even stronger, because I know that that
is the way these things happen. And I am not being pessimistic,
but my experience with human nature is that until you deal with
the people that are the obstructionists, they are going to keep on
obstructing. No way they are going to change because you and I
have pledged to work harder to eliminate discrimination at INS.
They could care less.
As a matter of fact, it is their view that is what you are supposed
to say, and you said it, I accepted it, everybody heard it, so what
is the problem? Let's get on with the business. But it won't change,
and it won't change until we get a hard-hitting strategy that will
make it change. And that has not been presented. Your commit-
ment is important, but your commitment alone, even my commit-
ment alone, won't make anything different happen.
Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, I take your point about the dif-
ficulty of institutional change, and I understand how difficult it is
to bring about the kind of structural shifts that you are asking for.
Those are exactly the kinds of shifts that we are looking for.
The leadership tone is obviously one level of — one dimension of
this. But the changes that are required within an institution so
that past practices do not continue to be pervasive and the norm
39
are the underpinnings of what has to be combined with that. We
are putting those institutional changes into place.
Let me give you iust a few examples of what I would illustrate
to be the structural changes that will make a difference and are
making a difference.
We are first and foremost revising our merit promotion and hir-
ing plans. Those are the fundamental vehicles and systems that we
use for moving people forward; the way in which people are evalu-
ated, the treatment which seniority receives as compared with
other factors are built into those plans. Those are all being rewrit-
ten and they are being reviewed and redone to reflect the ability
or to create the ability on all of the range of individual promotion
decisions that are made, panels, et cetera, to be able to be more
fair and allow minority advancement within the organization.
Second, we are working with the Office of Personnel Manage-
ment on competency based criteria, so that our skills and qualifica-
tions that are written into job descriptions and that are required
for advancement actually reflect people's work rather than, as you
referred to it, old boy network kinds of manipulation.
Third, where our recruitment is concerned, we have, as I ex-
plained, developed entirely different recruitment strategies. Those
recruitment strategies are designed to elicit minority applications
and those recruitment strategies are paying off. They are the bases
upon which we have done our hiring in this last year, are currently
carrying forward hiring, and we are finding that they are produc-
ing highly qualified applicants for us and at the same time making
major contributions to the diversity of our workforce.
I think that those are solid achievements that deal with the in-
stitutional concerns that you have raised. They are also our con-
cerns, and I am telling you that we are not simply dealing with
this as a 'leadership be nice" issue; we are backing it up with the
hard management changes and the structural methods that are
necessary in order to create the transformations that we are seek-
ing.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much. Maybe we can move for-
ward from here. I hope tnat we can.
You. see, this matter surfaces at a particularly embarrassing time
for the administration, and I feel very badly about that. I have to
tell you that. It is not just the long existing problems of racial dis-
crimination, it is that here we are last year having the Los Angeles
offices arrogantly attack the Creppy Report as if this person isn't
a member of the INS himself, as if it is some outside agitating
group that is trying to smear the INS.
I mean the Los Angeles office is outraged that someone would
raise these kinds of allegations and would author a document that
they claim contained false information. That is their response. I
mean it is not let's talk about this, we will explain it. The tone of
this document is, how dare you investigate racial discrimination in
Los Angeles, CA. I mean by what authority? What do you know
about it? We want somebody else. This is a one-sided report, and
it is just amazing the kind of language that starts off as a response
to the study made by Mr. Creppy.
Ms. Meissner. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that we did do
that report, and that we asked Mr. Creppy to look honestly and in-
40
tensively at agency practices and agency problems. He did that; he
produced a fine work product. It has been endorsed by manage-
ment, and we are carrying forward with it. So it seems to me that
speaks for itself.
Mr. Conyers. Well, it has been — that is what is so interesting.
It has been endorsed Dy you, but it has been rejected by the Direc-
tor of Investigations in Los Angeles, and I mean seriously rejected.
I don't mean a few points in disagreement or some factual prob-
lems; I am talking about deep-seated contradictions.
I accept the report, you accept the report, leadership accepts the
report, but the people that are supposed to be implementing these
changes reject the report. And that is why I brought this to your
attention.
And, they don't reject it privately, they put it in writing and send
it back, public document, Creppy is wrong. Well, Meissner thinks
it is right, Conyers thinks it is right. Reasonable people think it is
right. The GAO thinks it is right. But they think it is wrong. And
that is July 21, 1993. And therein lies the problem.
And until this is changed, you and I will be meeting in much
agreement in the future, but unless this is changed underneath,
and you don't have to think I don't know about the problems of
civil service, because I do. But I can't take solace that we both
agree that Creppy did a good iob on the report because that is the
problem, the people that should be implementing the change think
it is a lousy report. And not only that, they don't mind telling me
and you that that is what they think.
And that, to me, is why we are all here today, and we may be
here some more before this is all over. So please, Commissioner,
don't satisfy the people that are iamming you, don't let this hearing
get blown off as an incident and burden of leadership, because we
are going to have to deal with this. This is America, 1994. We are
talking about an administration that has taken the lead on diver-
sity, and here within their most sacred department we find the
most flagrant government abuses.
So your personal pledge, as much as I revere it, is not going to
help us out of this situation. I can give you my personal pledge
back. As a matter of fact, I will. I am not going to stop after this
hearing.
As a matter of fact, this hearing is going to intensify the focus
that we must bring about for meaningful change. Who could believe
that it could take 2 years to come up with an offer on one of the
biggest class actions that have ever been filed? We are still, we are
still acting like this isn't an obvious situation.
So my disappointment has not been reduced a bit. I welcome
your pledges and your assurances, but we are going to have to
measure much more carefully what other people are doing at INS
besides yourself, and you will have to be held accountable for what
they do or don't do. I can't go into every region and pull out people
and haul them in here. That is not the way the system works, and
you know that better than most.
Ms. Meissner. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt of what you
are quoting from the Los Angeles supervisor. I would like to say,
however, that I don't believe that that is a typically shared view
across the board within INS any more. And the reason that I say
41
that is because during the past year, we have engaged in, among
many other management changes and management challenges, we
have engaged in a thorough going strategic planning process that
has to do with charting the future of this organization. That plan-
ning process has been a bottoms-up process.
It has involved literally hundreds of INS employees in various
working groups trying to put together their best thinking on what
the future of this agency needs to look like and what the commit-
ments need to be, the snared values of the employees of this orga-
nization. As I said in my statement, one of the nine points that
came as a result of that process, one of the nine major strategic di-
rections that will be guiding our work as an organization into the
next century and diversity in the workplace, is professional work
attitudes.
So I am certainly giving you pledges and promises. I take full re-
sponsibility for what happens with this agency where equal em-
ployment opportunity is concerned. But I would like you also to
know that there is a strong wellspring of support within our orga-
nization, within the rank and file among our best and brightest for
what it is that we need to do, and I think that that addresses the
kind of a future that we see for ourselves.
Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you very much for coming. I hope you
can stay as long as you can. You are invited to remain here to hear
the witnesses. You know, it might make somebody at INS feel good
that the Commissioner stayed and heard them, at least at one time
in history, they heard you and you heard them. We have got to get
this thing a lot better together than it has been, and I am glad that
you are aware that we will be working together in the future, and
I thank you for coming.
Ms. ft&lsSNER. Thank you.
[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]
42
Memorandum
DOCUMENT 1
LOS3270.26
Subject
INS Task Force Study Regarding
Underrepresentation of African-
Americans
Date
JUL 2 1 T393
To
From
Chris Sale
Acting Commissioner
Headguarters
THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNEL
Offices of the
Deputy District
Director and
Investigations
Los Angeles, CA
This is in response to the- above referenced report. We are shocked
and concerned by the findings and recommendations of the Task
Force. Their report is seriously flawed by a plethora of
inaccurate statements. Chapter V is nothing more than a collection
of unsubstantiated rumors, conjectures and innuendos that were
printed as fact and then distributed servicewide without being
-^verified. It should be noted that Mr. Creppy had the opportunity
to verify his findings, but instead, he chose to author a document
that he knew or should have known contained false information. By
his actions, he has caused serious damage to the careers and
reputations of several high level management officials of the Los
Angeles District office. For that reason, we feel compelled to
respond to Mr. Creppy 's report.
We are reguesting that Chapter V of the INS Task Force Study
regarding the Underrepresentation of African-Americans within the
Immigration and Naturalization Service be withdrawn immediately and
that a public statement be made to that effect. We are also
-> reguesting that a neutral, unbiased body, such as the General
Accounting Office (GAO) be reguested to perform the study.
y We agree that Headguarters has failed to provide training and
support to field managers on the front lines. Because of Los
Angeles' size, the racial tensions in the community and ethnic
diversity, it is a natural site for these failures to erupt into
severe problems. Typically, Headguarters chooses to blame field
management rather than accept the responsibility for their actions
or inactions. By allowing unsubstantiated allegations to be
published in a public document, the Service has irreparably damaged
the reputation of field managers and further embarrassed the
Agency.
Form C-2
««*- 1-2-M
43
-^To allow these unsupported, biased and damaging statements to stand
unchallenged is a disgrace and disservice to the well-meaning and
conscientious managers of the Service as a whole and of Los
Angeles, in particular. We, in particular, feel that we have been
abandoned by Headquarters management without just cause. This
abandonment has had a disabilitating effect on the morale of
employees and managers of the district.
The Task Force did not conduct a systematic study aimed at
disclosing the full facts about problems in Los Angeles. It
^appears that they came with a single goal — that is, gather enough
anecdotal information to provide the pabulum for their report and
support their preconceived views. For example, none of the
managers were confronted with the initial findings of the Task
Force. Most, if not all, of the statements about Los Angeles are
absolutely wrong or misleading.
_^The purpose of the EEO Task Force was to assess and analyze the
present system utilized by the INS to recruit, hire and promote
African-Americans and other minorities and to determine if there
-} was any underrepresentation. As the Task Force began to assemble
statistical data and information from the field offices, it was
apparent that the problem of underrepresentation of African-
Americans within the supervisory ranks of the Service was
systematic and not just isolated to any one office. ^>Yet, the Task
Force report only recommends personnel changes for high level
management of the Investigations Division of the Los Angeles
Office, SLt should be noted that the report does not cite a single
act of discrimination by these high level Investigations managers
of the Los Angeles Office against any African-American agent, sit
appears that the Headquarters is looking for someone to affix blame
for the failure of the Service to properly implement its own
EEO/Aff irmative Action Program.
_^You asked for and expected a fair and impartial inquiry.
Unfortunately, others had a far different agenda, vln Los Angeles,
Task Force interviews of Investigations personnel were limited to
only those individuals with anti-management sentiments. OThe silent
majority of people who are concerned about doing a good job were
not heard from. -)In fact, some were turned away. Why? It seems to
us that a fair and impartial inquiry would have attempted to
explore both sides of the issue. -^No reputable research group would
attempt to promulgate a report by utilizing such techniques.
Moreover, Mr. Creppy assured Mr. Brechtel that he would be given
the opportunity to respond to all complaints arising from the Task
Force interviews with regard to the Investigations Program. To
date, Mr. Creppy has not fulfilled that promise. As a result,
Chapter V of the report contains numerous inaccurate statements.
>■ The Los Angeles District Office has been successful in spite of the
lack of Headquarters support. .2)This office was left without a Labor
44
Management Specialist (LMR) for more than two years. During that
period, the District made numerous written and oral requests to the
Region and Headquarters requesting a detail of an LMR specialist to
Los Angeles — all were denied. In fact, the LMR position was
finally announced and filled using creative financing at the
District level. -j>It is more than mere coincidence that the LMR and
EEO problems discussed in the report occurred within that same
period. High level management of the Los Angeles District did not
create this situation and had no ability to correct it at that
time — but Headquarters did.
On page 12 the report states "There is a significant under-
representation of African-Americans in supervisory positions in the
Los Angeles District." This is inaccurate. Twenty-two point one
per cent (22.1%) of the Los Angeles District Office supervisory
staff are African-American. This compares to 14.2% in the federal
work force and • only 5.4% in the civilian work force. We would
characterize the district's percentage as outstanding when compared
to those two baselines (see attachment) .
Whoever started the myth aboutl the importance of perceptions is
attempting to cloud the issues-^acts are what should count! There
is a dearth of facts in the EEO Task Force report. a While anecdotal
material is useful, it must be used to support factual and
statistical information. It is mandatory that when used to
criticize the entire management structure of an office, the
information should at least be verified. _»This is a fundamental
investigative requirement. The wildly stated accusations in the
report, using pejorative and biased language, are tremendously
damaging.
The Task Force report makes sweeping statements implying widespread
basis for their conclusions. For example, a reader would think
that all African-American agents were interviewed. This is not
correct, -yrhe fact is that only a small number of agents were
interviewed and only those with a strong anti-management bias.
The report characterizes two camps in investigations: the
individuals alleging wrongdoing in one camp, and those individuals
in the Fraud Unit in the other. Of course! The Investigations
staff has been polarized since the non-selection of two of the
complaining African-American agents. The disaffected have engaged
in inciteful and outrageous conduct, displaying disparaging
cartoons and other written and verbal negative commentary about
management.
-^ Many of the disaffected and outspoken individuals are complaining
not because they were not selected for a position on their merits,
but rather because they have had a history of performance and
conduct problems and deficiencies. They have seized the
opportunity to espouse their disaffection and to air unsupported
grievances about management.
45
Fraud agents have never participated on panels for the selection of
supervisory special agents in Los Angeles. Bargaining unit
personnel have never been involved in the process. Mr. Creppy
could have corrected these errors had he taken the time to verify
his information. But yet, he used these inaccurate statements to
support career threatening recommendations against Los Angeles
management.
Another mischaracterization in the report is that management failed
to sooth the distressed feeling of African-American special agents.
When requested by interested agents, attempts were made to explain
why candidates were not selected. It is difficult for them to
accept that they have not been selected and that the selections
were based on merit. It is permissible to explain to someone why
their qualifications were lacking, but it is not permissible to
disclose the personal and sometimes confidential information to
them about the selected individuals.
The panel that interviewed individuals for the supervisory
positions selection in August 1992 made independent judgements
about the best qualified applicants for the positions announced.
The candidates were listed in the order of their ranking which was
Abased on many factors} and recommended to the selecting official.
Among these factors evaluated for each candidate were: quality of
experience, demonstrated ability to effectively supervise and
manage, variety and significance of prior assignments and positions
held, educational background, and ability to express themselves
orally and in writing in a coherent manner. Significantly, the
members of the interview panel were never interviewed about this
process by the EEO Task Force.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
1. The report alleged that the Los Angeles management team
was afforded unbridled discretion to screen-out or select
whomever they wished. MSP-II dictates the process by
which selections for supervisory selections will be made.
Los Angeles management followed MSP-II procedures. _ >If
fault lies with MSP-II, then change MSP-II, don't fault
Los Angeles management for complying with a program that
is sanctioned by Headquarters.
We strongly disagree with the report's findings that
African-Americans appear to have been treated unfairly.
Since May 1988, only five Supervisory Special Agent
positions have been announced and filled.
The Los Angeles District relies on the Merit Staffing
Plan II to fill supervisory positions in the
Investigations Branch. _yrhe MSP-II focuses exclusively on
the best qualified candidates irrespective of other
46
factors. Selections are then made from the best
qualified list compiled by regional personnel from the
list of candidates who applied for the position.
MSPII ?l-WSM-046 (Westminster) was announced April 12,
1991. This was a nationwide announcement. A group of
four applicants were interviewed by Robert M. Moschorak,
then Los Angeles District Director; Donald B. Looney,
Deputy District Director; Michael H. Flynn, Assistant
Regional Commissioner for Investigations, Western Region;
and John Brechtel, Assistant District Director for
Investigations, Los Angeles. One candidate was selected.
MSPII 91-LOS-88 (Los Angeles) was announced April 2,
1991. This was a nationwide announcement. There were
seven (7) candidates on the competitive list. There were
eight (8) candidates on the non-competitive list. Since
none of the candidates were interviewed for this
position, it is difficult to determine which of the
candidates fell within the underrepresented group. It
appears, however, that one of the eight (8) candidates on
the non-competitive group may have been an African-
American. One candidate was selected from the non-
competitive list.
MSPII 91-LOS-020 (Westminster) and MSPII 92-LOS-0219 (Los
Angeles) were announced April 28, 1992. These positions
were temporary in nature and therefore limited to the
immediate commuting area. A group of 15 candidates were
interviewed by Emily Gleason, Deputy Assistant District
Director for Investigations; Robert Reed, Section Chief,
Westminster; and Richard A. Rhone, Section Chief for the
Alien Criminal Apprehension Program (ACAP) . Two of the
15 candidates fell within the African-American group. A
total of three candidates were selected. It should be
noted that one of the candidates selected appeared to the
interviewing committee to fall within the
underrepresented group. It was not until the selection
was made that his actual ethnic background was made known
and that he, in fact, is not an African-American. At the
time of selection, this candidate was believed to be an
African-American.
The selecting official for all positions was Robert M.
Moschorak, then LOS District Director.
The Fraud Unit personnel did not serve on any of the
supervisory panels as indicated in the Task Force Study.
In Article B, Discussion , page 37, paragraph 5, it
states, "Positions are filled in accordance with Merit
Staffing Plan (MSP-II) . Candidates referred by Personnel
47
are screened by a panel of supervisors who interview the
individuals on the list." As evidenced from the previous
paragraphs, in all but MSPII 91-LOS-88, managers have
interviewed the candidates. The paragraph continues to
state in part, "...the interview panels for the
Investigations Branch have been comprised mostly of
personnel from the Fraud Unit. The local union, in fact,
complained that the former practice of having a union
representative on the panel has been discontinued." This
statement is incorrect. During the selection process of
the five (5) Supervisory Special Agents, the Fraud Dnit
has never been on the interview panels. Further, the
Union has never been involved in the selection process of
supervisors. It appears that the Task Force has been
misinformed with regard to this matter.
The report also claims that the Los Angeles District
Office was fully aware of the concerns of the African-
American agents, and failed to address their concerns.
This is false.
Prior to non-selection of Agent Potter for a supervisory
position in late August 1992, no African-American had
expressed any concern about discrimination in the
workplace. Shortly thereafter, the Coleman EEO lawsuit
went to trial. There is little doubt that the lawsuit
acted as a catalyst to stir emotions following the civil
unrest in Los Angeles. To compound matters, the ADDI was
asked to testify on behalf of the government and against
Agent Coleman, an African-American. Agents Potter and
John Washington (HQINV) used the event to promote their
claim of discrimination. J^The government prevailed in the
Coleman case, and the ADDI subsequently became a
lightning rod for the agents' discontent with the system.
The case involves allegations of discrimination dating
back to the early 1980s. Yet the ADDI is being labeled
as having polarized the agents into two camps, and with
creating a hostile environment in the Investigations
Branch. These allegations are without merit.
It should also be noted that only Agents Potter and
Coleman were applicants for supervisory position
announced on April 2, 1992. The other African-American
agents did not apply.
The report alleges Management's appointment of
Supervisory Special Agents is based upon a double
standard — favoritism and the "buddy" system. This is
false and the report provides no evidence of
inappropriate selections. It should be noted that the
District Director make the selections, not nigh level
Investigations managers. It is impossible for the
48
District to defend itself against this type of
unsubstantiated claim.
Where's the proof? Of the five agents selected in recent
years, one is a Puerto Rican and District management
believed him to be an African-American as he is an active
member of the Black Peace Officers Association.
It is absolutely not true that Los Angeles Management
lacks a commitment to EEO/AA programs. We have attached
a report reflecting the Supervisory/Managerial profile of
the Los Angeles District which completely refutes this
statement. In fact, we urge you to compare the Los
Angeles District against any other District in the
Service with respect to minorities at the
supervisory/management level and how that percentage
compares to the Federal and Civilian workforce numbers.
The Los Angeles District has done a significant amount of
work with regard to hiring minorities and the physically
disabled, none of which is mentioned in this report.
In reference to Page 36 of the report item A-5 "there is
a heightened perception among such agents in the Los
Angeles District that management has engaged in
surveillance, as well as harassment directed against them
and their families." This is simply not true. We don't
know who made this statement, but whoever did, lied!
It can be clearly stated that not one special agent in
the Los Angeles District Office has informed upper
management Investigations of their beliefs that they or
their family were under surveillance. The Task Force
members while in Los Angeles did not inquire of
Investigations Management as to this issue although
members of the Task Force felt strongly enough about the
allegations to print them.
For the record, there has never been targeted
surveillance of any African-American Special Agents or
harassment directed against them and their families by
Investigations Management. This claim is unsubstantiated
rhetoric. It doesn't belong in this report.
Also during the last five years there have been two
special agents desks searched. One search was conducted
by the Drug Enforcement Agency on the basis of a federal
search warrant and the second search was by the Los
Angeles Police Department in possession of Los Angeles
County search warrant. There have been no Los Angeles
Investigations Management authorized searches of African-
American work areas. Again, this is a fact.
49
This part references Chapter five, section six of the
Headquarters report entitled "Underrepresentation of
African-Americans in the Immigration and Naturalization
Service". Chapter five details the committee's findings
with regard to the Los Angeles District Office. Section
six specifically refers to the Fraud Program within the
Los Angeles District Office.
The first point identified by the committee was the
purported "favored" status enjoyed by members of the
Fraud Program and how assignment to that unit was viewed
as a "premier" assignment. The Fraud Program supposedly
received more and higher quality training, the best of
equipn\3nt and the newest government vehicles. In
addition, the Fraud Program was "instrumental" in the
selection of new supervisors.
To begin with, the Fraud Program enjoys no "favored"
treatment or status other than recognition reserved for
a program that, since 1988, has led the nation in every
major category of major fraud and counterfeit document
suppression. In addition to leading the nation for five
consecutive years, the Los Angeles Fraud Program enjoys
a 100% conviction rate on arrested defendants. During
that time period, Fraud Program seizures included
several millions in counterfeit documents, several
million dollars in counterfeit and genuine United States
currency, several hundred pounds of illegal narcotics and
approximately 1,000 firearms.
In addition to the training offered by the service, the
members of the Fraud Program have taken the initiative to
seek out low cost or no cost training being offered by
other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
Due to the unique nature of the work in the Fraud
Program, such as felony warrant service, prolonged
surveillance and undercover operations, of which this
Service does not routinely offer training, members of the
Fraud Program have been forced to seek out alternative
training methods. Through the cooperation of the above
mentioned outside agencies, this type of training has
proven to be both cost efficient and effective. This
method of training with outside agencies is available to
any unit or program requesting such training.
The fact is that the VGTF agents are the best trained,
and best equipped in the office. It should be noted that
3 of the 10 agents assigned to the VGTF program are
African-Americans .
50
The issue of equipment and vehicles was also mentioned
within the report as being disproportionate among the
different investigative programs. Recently 36 new
vehicles were received in Los Angeles and of those, six
were allotted to each of the six sections. The issue of
basic equipment distribution does not differ from the
vehicle distribution. However, due to the large and
complex nature of Fraud Program investigations, the
Headquarters Task Force Program has been utilized for
expenses associated with high profile cases.
Through the Headquarters Task Force Program, which is
available to all of the programs within the
Investigations Branch, the Fraud Program has managed to
purchase specific case related equipment with the
approval of Headquarters Investigations. Such equipment
has included computer equipment, consensual monitoring
equipment, electronic surveillance equipment, etc. It
should be noted that all of the equipment received by the
Fraiid Program was Fraud specific, that is, such equipment
would have no application in the other investigative
programs, i.e., Employer Sanctions or ACAP.
With respect to the hiring of new trainee Special Agents
the committee inferred, in a negative manner, that the
Fraud Program was designated to oversee that process. If
the committee had inquired as to why the Fraud Program
was charged with this responsibility, they would have
been informed of the following: of the four Supervisory
Special Agents in the Fraud Program, three have Regional
Investigations experience in hiring and personnel
practices; additionally, the fourth Supervisory Special
Agent has experience as the Assistant District Director
for Deportation. No other investigative section (ACAP or
Employer Sanctions) has this type of experience. Given
the time constraints by which these new trainees were to
be hired in (approximately 21 and 24 days, respectively) ,
the obvious choice was to utilize the unique experience
offered by the Fraud Program.
On page 38 the report discusses the new rotational
schedule. We specifically stopped the posting of the
rotational schedule because we wanted to review the
criteria for rotation. It had nothing to do with the
Task Force and everything to do with the retirement of
the previous District Director. No one from the Task
Force asked management why the rotation was stopped.
The Assistant District Director for Investigations
(although not stated in the report) manages the number
one rated Investigations program statistically in the
United States in all priority areas. In fact, in some
51
priority areas his numbers double the next lower rated
District • He manages the program based on direction
from the District Director. He managed just the way the
previous District Director wanted him to manage. He
moved people so that he would continue to be #1 in all
statistical areas. He managed that way because he
thought that's what his District Director and "The
Service" wanted from him. Mr. Brechtel can and will
adjust to whatever and, however, the new District
Director wants him to manage.
We do not have an irreversible breakdown in communication
except maybe with some members of this Task Force who
didn't even bother to verify some of their conclusions
before they published them.
In reference to the reports information stated on page 23
"use of the Administrative Careers with America (ACWA)
register to select applicants to fill vacant positions,"
a copy of Headquarters Wire dated May 27, 1993 should be
reviewed. Although this wire is as close to mandating
use of ACWA as possible there is an escape clause which
states "ANY DEPARTURE FROM THIS PROCESS FOR FILLING
VACANCIES REQUIRES STRONG JUSTIFICATION AND PRIOR
APPROVAL BY HEADQUARTERS INVESTIGATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE
BASIS." The date of the wire May 27, 1993, also
demonstrates the first phase time sequence of the
scheduled arrival at the academy of Los Angeles trainees
as June 24, 1992. This represents a total time of
twenty-five calendar days to (1) locate ACWA applicants,
(2) interview, (3) process, (4) select, and (5) have
these individuals present at Glynco, Georgia on the
twenty-fifth day from receipt of the Headquarters wire
authorization. Three of the four supervisors in the
Fraud Unit had prior experience in the Western Regional
Office serving as Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioners
in Investigations and the Ant i -Smuggling Programs. These
backgrounds which include personnel, hiring, budget and
background security were instrumental in the decision to
assign this collateral duty and bring each new group of
trainees within scheduled time frames. It should also be
noted that when phase three was authorized, twenty-four
calendar days were allowed for the hiring of six special
agent trainees.
It should also be noted that the Task Force stated on
page 24, first paragraph, relating to the Chicago
District Office's efforts, that the District attempted to
address the problem of underrepresentation by minorities
by using the Bicultural/Bilingual Program, Outstanding
Scholar Program, Veterans Readjustment Act, and the
Cooperative Education Programs. Nowhere in the report
10
52
are these similar attempts by the Los Angeles District
cited, although we used the very same sources. It is
interesting to note that what was reported as a positive
attribute for one District is a negative for Los Angeles.
Under the Discussion heading the Task Force makes the
statement "....it is fair to say the Task Force's arrival
was viewed with mixed emotions — great anticipation by
employees and Union officials and some degree of
trepidation by many managers." This is not true. The
arrival of the Task Force was met with enthusiasm because
we thought we would get a fair evaluation and our
accomplishments as evidenced in the attached profile
would be justly recognized.
^Instead we lambasted because one program which comprises
less than 20% of the District personnel has low minority
numbers. The report then uses these low numbers to
condemn the entire District. When you do a fair
evaluation and look at the District's numbers as a whole,
Investigations numbers are offset by high numbers in
other programs. This would seem to indicate that maybe
the problem is not in Los Angeles.
This report does a great deal of harm to innocent people
because it is patently unfair. Unfortunately people's
careers hang in the balance. For the reasons stated in
this document we believe the report to be factually
flawed and we respectfully request that you publicly
withdraw the findings and recommendations set forth in
Chapter V until a study by an independent third party,
using real data and real comparative statistical analysis
to measure our successes or failures, has been completed.
DONALD B.
Deputy District
Director
Los Angeles, CA
JoNjaP^
OHN BRECfiTElT
Assistant District
Director, Investigations
os Angeles, CA
Attachments
11
53
District Overview
it'>_aciine:.:
An analysis of the overall representation within the Los Angeles
District shows that the District has maintained an equal
representation of minorities and wonen in comparison to the Federal
and Civilian Labor Force (CLF) statistics provided by OPM (see
Figure 1) .
As shown in Figure 2, the representation of minorities in
supervisory and managerial positions reflects that upper management
was disproportionally dominated by Whites (61%), with Blacks (4.5%)
and American Indians (2.1%) having the lowest representation.
However, a review of these positions in middle and lower management
implies that minority representation met or exceeded those in
comparison to Federal and CLF statistics, as shown in Figures 2a
and 2b respectively.
The overall breakdown for supervisory/managerial positions by grade
level is as follows:
GS-8
Sbelow
GS-9/10 GS-11
GS-12
GM-13
GM-14
iabove
Blacks
Hispanics
Whites
9
2
6
6 7
8 7
2 5
7
4
15
2
10 1
17 11
Asian-
Pacific
American
Indian
In speaking with the Assistant District Directors and the Deputy
Assistant District Directors of each program, we learned that a
concerted effort with District Personnel (DIPER) and Special
Emphasis Program Managers (SEPM) has been implemented to attract
minorities and women. Participation in joint outreach/recruiting
activities has lead to successful attraction of underrepresented
applicants who may qualify through the Outstanding Scholar and
Bilingual/Bicultural provisions of the Administrative Careers with
America (ACWA) . However, these activities have been primarily
directed at entry-level positions.
For supervisory/managerial positions, most programs indicated that
54
they were satisfied with current recruitment procedures and with
candidates that are provided to them on selection certif icaies.
These positions normally require a demonstrated knowledge of INS
rules, regulations, and organizational mission. Outside candidates
would not possess these knowledges. Supervisors and managers seem
to have some discomfort in not having the ability to finalize the
selection of new employees. Selectees to supervisory and
managerial positions are currently selected by the District
Director, with a recommendation from the ADD and the Deputy
District Director.
It was somewhat disappointing to learn that most supervisors and
managers are unfamiliar with the Service's EEO and Federal Eaual
Opportunity Recruitment Plan (FEORP) . Plans are underway with
Headquarters, Equal Employment Opportunity (HQ, EEO) to conduct
training and perfect a Los Angeles District Affirmative Action Plan
during the period of July 20, 1993 through July 22, 1993.
55
cc
C
o
CD
OS
Q
T3
">
<
CD
_i
LL
b
B
■
CD
_ cy (o _
„ r> m -
li II n ll
a> o
to o2
< s
CO
y o <2i
= ^IujzZ-j
0) CD 11 S < < t-
CD
CM
CD
c >
•
Tf
CD
CM
CO
<3"
LU
CD
T —
CM
<
-J
C\J
CM
<
>
<
z
a
CO
CD
c\i
T—
^
ir ~
" I_
CD
( .J
a
■^t
co
LO
CD
CD
cd
T-
CO
CM
O
<3"
CM
T ~
CM
T-
CM
^
c\i
^
LO
C\J
T—
CO
c
56
>
O
■ 1
JD
o
en
■ ■«■
ofl
*■
I *
CO
CO
i
■ mmmat
^
Q
CD
CO
_0
CD
H —
o
1_
CD
Q.
■D3
§j
C
E
<
D)
03
CO
o
1_
a
a
3
c
CD
m
CNJ
CT>
E
o
CD
oS
c\i
<:
m
CO
^
0)
c
in
(0
-j !
m
u
c
T-
CNJ
<
_i
^J
CM
C\J
<
>
OJ
<
F
z
<
D
(0
0.
<^
CD
O)
c
m
CD
"<—
"<^-
05
<
CO
0)
O)
**
T^
■
*
.c
<o
CO
LO
£
CD
CD
(0
o
c
T—
T -
CO
n
CD
o
M"
CO
CM
T—
CNJ
X
(0
o
ID
CM
<3"
CO
"*■
^
in
m
B
■ El
+_,
E
CD
^
CO
c
o
1_
_cc
Q.
TJ
-—
S£
zl
57
Q)
C\J
CT>
CO
-sT
Oi
CM
CO
^r
LU
_l
m
'sT
CM
_i
T ~
C\J
<
>
<
z
T —
00
O)
■^
"«"■
"sl-
LO
.,
O)
,—
CO
m
CO
CO
CD
<M
T _
CO
K
o
•^r
C\J
T_ "
C\J
CD
C\J
■*
C\]
"*
in
@
B
m
•»— •
E
a
1
^
_
0) 2 c
T3 "O ~
58
c
CD
LO
CM
CD
E
o
in
a>
CM
£
CO
CO
•si-
c
LU
ra
_l
m
CM
<
—i
i )
<
>
w
CM
0)
<
E
<
co
LO
00
CD
c
o
1 — i
•
CD
CM
T—
sl
CO
<
(/)
CI)
T —
O)
K
•
x:
■^
CO
LT)
£
CD
CD
CO
o
c
T-
CO
ca
n
CD
o
<3"
CO
•T—
CM
X
CO
o
in
CM
^
CO
CO
CO
CM
^'
LO
■
H— >
E
a
1
2
CD
f_
Q)
CD
CD
<:
TS
■;
=1
1)
III.
59
DETENTION AND DEPORTATION BRANCH
In reviewing the Detention and Deportation Branch, minority was
disproportionate in favor of Hispanics. Hispanics representation
(see Figure 4) was nearly four times that of the Federal population
and twice that of the CLF. Blacks and Asian-Pacific representation
was the lowest at 9.6% (equivalent to 2 positions each out of a
total of twenty-one supervisors) .
Recruitment efforts are normally limited to vacancy announcement
distribution and attendance to career days/job fairs at local
colleges and universities. There is minimal participation with
SEPM in recruitment activities.
Most positions within this program, whether entry-level or
supervisory, have a requirement that the incumbent attend and
satisfactorily, complete the Immigration Officers Basic Training
Center (IOBTC) . A review of past attendees indicated that
minorities and women experience some difficulty in completing the
IOBTC. The ADD suggested that a pre-acamedy workshop (similar to
the post-acamedy training) be offered to employees in an effort to
increase the satisfactory completion percentages of individual who
attend IOBTC.
Informal training opportunities (e.g., special projects, details,
etc.) are normally done on a rotational basis with seniority being
the major factor.
The breakdown for supervisory/managerial positions by grade level
is as follows:
GS-8
ibelow
GS-9
GS-11
GS-12
GM-13
GM-14
&above
Blacks
Hispanics
Whites
4
3
5
1
2
1
1
3
Asian-
Pacific
American
Indians
60
6
c
CO
5
1
CD
^D
o
CO .52
CO
©
CD
CD
CD
D <
^6 °
03
C
Q_
03
Q
CD
T3
(D
>
Q
l_l_
b
B
■
ra
■*
CM
O)
co
CD
OJ
CO
CO
^r
CD
CO
CT>
O)
*-
^
O)
T —
CT>
CM
CO
LO
"*"
CD
CD
CO
CO
r^-
O
^r
co
1—
CM
CD
CM
<3-
O)
T —
LO
"rri
C
LL
i_
03
r\
CD
' —
DC
uu
LU
o
CD
en
CD
LU
o
O
DC
DL
O
DC
Q
LU
Q-
Z
<
CD
C/)
1X1
Q
D
61
VI. EXAMINATIONS BRANCH
The review of this program found that the representation of all
minority categories exceeded those of the Federal population and
the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) (see Figure 4) . The ADD and DADD
for this program contributes their success in maintain equal
representation to an effective Personnel Liaison Team, their
constructive working relationship with District Personnel, and on-
going cooperation and participation in joint outreach/recruitment
efforts with Special Emphasis Program Managers.
Their vacancy announcements receive extensive distribution
throughout the program, in addition to personal encouragement from
managers to employees who have demonstrated the necessary skills
and abilities. The program has pursue the issue of removing the
limitation of having to only utilize the AWCA examination in
filling their entry-level position with limited success.
Headquarters will allow them to consider selections under MP&RP on
a case by case basis.
The program will like to see further improvement to its recruitment
efforts for Asian/Pacific candidates through augmentation of the
current Bilingual/Bicultural provision of the ACWA. This
provision currently allows for the direct appointment of candidates
of Hispanic ancestry who have successfully pass the ACWA
examination. This would require approval through OPM.
Employees are chosen for details and other developmental
assignments by rotational assignments, volunteers, and a program
design exclusively for Examinations employees (i.e., NATZ at Noon).
The breakdown for supervisory /managerial positions by grade level
is as follows:
GM-14
GS-6 GS-7 GS-9 GS-12 GM-13 &above
Blacks 1 3 i 4
Hispanics 2 12 2
Whites 110 8 12
Asian-
Pacific 12 10
American
Indian l o
62
cd
CO
c:
o
"CO
<z
E
X
II
o
CO
b
CO
_CD
CD
CD
C
<
CO
o
;>
2
03
X
CD
LU
T3
CU
">
Q
Li.
m
O
_,
m
<
_i
CNJ
<
c)
>
CNJ
z
3
CO
CNJ
CD
-<fr
00
CNJ
ID
CO
«fr
CO
CO
00
^
T—
^
T—
T -
CM
T_
03
N.
CO
in
CO
CD
CD
CO
C )
•
CNJ
o
<^
1—
C\J
CO
CM
•3-
no
CNJ
^
in
2
75
—
c
X
CD
LU
T3
•>
i~ \
UJ
/• "V
63
V. INSPECTIONS BRANCH
The review of this program found that the representation of all
minority categories exceeded those of the Federal population and
the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) (see Figure 5) . In speaking with
the Port Director, she contributes this to an effective
relationship with District Personnel, Special Emphasis Program
Managers, and Union representatives, when appropriate.
Details and other training opportunities are assigned on a
rotational basis for journeyman level II(s). SRI's and SOI's are
also considered for details which have been identified as requiring
a GS-11 or other position specific criteria. The criteria used in
this program should be a prototype of how all details could be
implemented throughout the District.
In summary, the Immigration Inspections occupation (see Table A)
reflects the ideal balanced representation of minorities in
supervisory and managerial positions. The PD believes that their
accomplishment in creating a fair system for the recruitment of
minorities should be contributed to regular communication with
staff and active involvement with SEPM in all recruitment
activities.
The breakdown for supervisory/managerial positions by grade level
is as follows:
GS-11 GS-12 GM-13 GM-14
Blacks 6 10
Hispanics 7 11
Whites 4 3
Asian-
Pacific 4
American
Indians
64
o
CG -n
i -+— »
C/)
CD
b
C/)
0)
c
(D
o
CD
r
^^^^J
<
o
en
<2>
o
i
Q.
CD
C
en
C
i—
co
CL
CD
CO
T3
>
z
CD
LL
b
H
■
1
i
i
CO
CO
CM
CX>
CO
CD
CM
LO
CO
CD
CM
CO
CD
0>
LO
CD
CO
CO
d
CO
CM
CD
CM
CM
■si-*
LO
n_
"co
1—
CD
C
CO
CO
-z.
O
o
LU
Q_
CO
Q
LU
az
DC
LU
LL
LU
Q
CO
LU
Q
=)
65
IMMIGRATION INSPECTORS (GS-1816)
OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE'
Supervisory
FEMALE
MALE
BLACKS
7 (17.1%)
4 (9.8%)
HISPAN1CS
4 (9.8%)
5 (12.2%)
WHITES
6 (14.6%)
12 (29.3%)
ASIAN PACIFIC
1 (2.4%)
2 (4.9%)
AMERICAN INDIANS
Mananerial
-
HISPANICS
1 (33.3%)
WHITES
2 (66.7%)
Total positions: 43
"Based on information provided by the Western Region, Office of Equal Employment
(TABLE A)
66
VI. INVESTIGATIONS BRANCH
A review of the Investigations Branch reflects an imbalance in terms of representation of
minorities. Of the twenty-eight (28) supervisory personnel, minorities make up only 28% . The
program indicated that they rely on the Merit Staffing Plan II (MSP II) to fill supervisory
positions. The MSP II focuses exclusively on the best qualified candidates irrespective of other
factors. The Deputy Assistant District Director (DADD) indicated that she was not happy with
the representation of minorities, however, she was satisfied with selections which are made from
among the best qualified list complied by Regional personnel of candidates who applied for the
position. All certified applicants for the position are interviewed by a panel of three senior
Supervisory Special Agents. The overall qualifications of each candidate is assessed by the panel
and a recommendation is made to the selecting official. To her knowledge, there has been no
method devised by INS to specifically attract minority candidates to apply for Supervisory
Special Agent positions.
Involvement with Special Emphasis Program Managers in relations to outreach and recruitment
is limited. The program utilizes minority representatives at Career Days at various colleges and
universities throughout the area in an effort to attract members of their ethnic group to apply for
positions within INS.
The DADD indicated that minority employees are somewhat reluctant in accepting assignments
(e.g., Acting Supervisor, details, etc.) which could possibly give them the opportunity to
demonstrate their supervisory/managerial abilities and provide necessary experience to qualify
for these positions. Individuals who are selected for informal training opportunities are routinely
judged, although not necessarily in the order listed, on: current assignment, seniority,
availability, individual talents, expertise, and ability to perform the job professionally,
accurately, completely and timely.
In summary, the Criminal Investigators occupation (see Table B) reflects a serious
underrepresentation of minorities in supervisory and managerial positions. The DADD believes
that if the present system is not fair for minorities and if the goal is to have more minority
managers, another system, either adjunct to or in concert with MSP II must be developed by the
Service that treats minorities differently but is fair to all applicants.
67
The breakdown for supervisory/managerial positions by grade level is as follows:
GM-13 GM-14 GM-15
Blacks I
Hispanics 5
Whites 13 5 1
Asian-
Pacific 1
American
Indians 1
10
68
1
o
z
<
QC
DQ
■4— •
o
CD
-+— •
Z
Q
CD
J
CD
CD
t-
CD
r
<
<
CD
CD
o
■VMM
-J
!-
co
LU
>
CO c
>- CO
CD ~
a u_ o
UJ
1
m
CD
C\J
<
CO
CM
<
>
<
2
00
CVJ
G)
aS
c\i
CO
'si-
CD
CO
CD
CO
T
■*•
IT)
T _
G)
T—
CO
ID
r^.
CD
CD
00
,-
CO
o
^t
T ~
C\]
CD
C\J
<tf
CO
in"
CO
C
>
CD
CO
69
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS (GS-1811)
OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE*
Supervisory
FEMALE
MALE
Blacks •
Hispanics
Whites
Asian Pacific
American Indian
1 (3.6%)
1 (3.6%)
3 (10.7%)
1 (3.6%)
5 (14.3%)
17 (60.7)
1 (3.6%)
Managerial
Whites
Asian Pacific
1 (50.0%)
1 (50.0%)
Total positions: 31
•Based on information provided by the Western Region, Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity.
(TABLE B)
11
70
Vn. MANAGEMENT BRANCH
In reviewing this program, representation of three minority categories (e.g., Blacks,
Asian/Pacific, and Indian) exceeded those in relations to the Federal and Civilian Labor Force
(CLF) figures (see Figure 7). Representation of Hispanics would be the only category which
has a slight difference. In speaking with the ADD, he realizes that this category needs more
attention and has begun an effort to address this area through involvement with Project
Partnership West (PPW). PPW is a OPM designed program, in cooperation with the State
Employment Development Department (EDD), to attract candidates of Hispanic ancestry.
Vacancy announcements receive the widest distribution possible, including SEPM sponsored
outveach and recruitment efforts. Candidates are selected for details and other developmental
assignments through supervisory assessment of: (1) existing knowledges and skills required in
the employee's current position, (2) employees willingness to accept additional duties and
responsibilities, (3) employee's potential for making increasingly important contributions to meet
Service program goals and objectives, and (4) work-related areas in the employee's background
which may require further development. Training opportunities are provided based on individual
employee developmental needs, or on a first-come, first-serve basis, depending on the type of
training provided.
Within the Management Branch, how recruitment is conducted to attract minority groups into
supervisory/managerial positions is acceptable. However the ADD believes that within the
District overall, we need greater targeting of qualified minorities and women for positions at the
Deputy ADD level and above.
The breakdown for supervisory/managerial positions by grade level is as follows:
GS-8
GM-14
&below
GS-9
GS-11
GS-12
GM-13
&above
Blacks
4
5
2
Hispanics
1
1
Whites
3
1
3
Asian-
Pacific
3
1
1
1
American
Indians
1
12
71
I
o
LU
O
cc _
dq -a
Q
co
CD
CD
c
<
LJJ §
p
03
C
(D
CD
CO
^
">
Q
LL
O
B
■
El
o
O)
CNJ
CO
CM
IB
>
a
c
LO
CM
CD
in
O)
CM
CD
CO
"3-
v-
CO
Oi
co
CNJ
-
-*t
,_
T _
en
CO
CO
in
CM
CD
CD
h-
T-
CO
h-
o
**-
CM
CO
CM
^J-
c\i
in
^
75
c
CD
m
cc
O
h-
O
LU
Q
1- ;
CC
CO
Or
LJJ :
X i
U.
O
LU
O
LL
U_
O
CO
LU
Q
D
72
The information in this report is intended to provide an
overview of the Los Angeles District's employment of
minorities and women in supervisory /managerial positions. The
district consist of seven counties within Southern California:
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara,
San Luis Obispo, and Ventura. The figures given are the best
possible estimates of Federal employment in the District,
keeping in mind that some figures are subject to seasonal
fluctuations.
The figures for Federal employment in this report are based on
the most recent information, provided by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) , contained in San Francisco
Regional Letter No. 298:93-015, dated March 10, 1993. The
Civilian Labor Force (CLF) data originates from a U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics publication:
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment. 1991 .
Bulletin 2410, August 1992. This publication consists of
annual data of labor force, employment and unemployment in
State and sub-State areas available from two major sources-the
Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Local Area
Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. The CPS is a sample
survey of about 60,000 households conducted by the Bureau of
the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) . The LAUS
program is a Federal-State cooperative endeavor, in which
estimates are prepared by State employment security agencies
using concepts, definitions, and estimation procedures
prescribed by BLS.
As additional background information, each Assistant District
Director (ADD) was interviewed on the ethnic makeup of
employees in their program, the hiring activity for
supervisory/managerial positions, and their understanding of
the District's EEO and Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment
Plan (FEORP) .
Also each new supervisor and manager was requested to
completed a Race and National Origin Identification, Standard
Form 181, to assist in identifying employees. The response
rate to this request varied by program. Those who failed to
provide the information were identified by the ADD through
visual perception.
73
DOCUMENT 40
INS MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE
INS TASK FORCE STUDY — EEO
Summary
August 1993
Comments on the Study P- 1
Recommendations — General Personnel Issues:
Recruitment p. 5
Interviewing p. 7
Selection P- 7
Merit Promotion p. 8
Upward Mobility P- 9
Career Development P- 9
Managerial Accountability p. 10
Immediate Appointment of African-Americans
to SES and Senior Management Positions (GM-15) . . p. 10
Communication P- 10
Location Issues P« H
Recommendations — EEO Issues:
EEO Policy p. 12
EEO Organization p. 12.
EEO Advisory Council p. 13
EEO Data p. 13
EEO Training p. 14
EEO Complaint Process P- 15
EEO Counselors p. 15
Affirmative Action Plan P- 15
Benchmarking p. 16
74
INS TASK FORCE STUDY -- EEO
COMMENTS ON THE STUDY
(NOTE: The following are Quotes from INS management officials'
responses to the study. The guotes provide an overview—
not specifics . Special attention needs to be given to the
comments from the Los Angeles District and Baltimore
District. The Los Angeles District Director and his
Deputy, who feel their District was especially wronged by
the study, explain the flaws of the study in detail and
provide statistical data to dispute the study. The
Baltimore District Director, in an effort to provide a more
balanced view, offers specifics on his District's efforts
to achieve a more diversified workforce.)
A broader sample using a PME-type survey instrument might be
useful to confirm key findings before too many decisions are made.
In numerous instances, the Task Force study was inaccurate or
incomplete, especially with respect to Los Angeles and the Regional
EEO Programs .. .Overall, the study addressed the Los Angeles
problems in terms of people, as opposed to process. In other
words, more focus was placed upon *who* did or did not make
mistakes, instead of placing focus upon what happened.
By identifying people rather than system weaknesses, there are
managers, especially in Los Angeles, who feel that their careers
have been seriously, negatively affected. To ameliorate these
perceptions, the Task Force should make an effort to obtain the
perspectives of these officials to explain and/or rebut the
concerns raised by employees.
...the systematic problems caused by our current hiring
process have not been addressed.
In order to accurately assess the situation in the Border
Patrol, African-Americans who are in Officer Corps positions in INS
should be surveyed to determine how many are former Border Patrol
Agents and why they left the Border Patrol for the officer corps
position which they now occupy.
...the Study was not conducted in a manner that encouraged an
open, honest, substantive, and non-emotional exchange of
information between management and under-represented groups,
specifically African-Americans.
75
. . .we believe the Study could have been more constructive, to
include the identification and discussion of some of the good
things that have been done in an attempt to balance our workforce.
. . .we caution, however, taking action until a more thorough
and comprehensive study can be conducted.
SRO's recommendation would be that a confidential
supervisor/manager survey be developed and randomly sent to
managers and supervisors for response.
The Task Force fails to discriminate between geographical
entities of the Immigration Service. . .Statistics become virtually
meaningless when no distinction such as geography is applied.
Little or no discussion about the effect of special emphasis
programs was found in the report .
The finding that 75 per cent of EEO counsellors believe there
is pattern or practice of INS managers identifying EEO complainants
as trouble makers is empirically not supportable.
The representations of the statistical tables are not
definitive.
The government, in fact all employers, are committed to hiring
the best candidates available, regardless of any race related
issues. What this document will in reality do is just the
opposite: Minority personnel will be given an unfair advantage,
even if they are not qualified to perform the duties of a job, but
are selected simply to fill a "quota" .
. . .the Task Force did not afford management and other randomly
selected employees an opportunity to participate in the assessment
group, so that more balance could be achieved.
The study leaves the reader with the impression that the
Regional Offices of EEO operate without accepting guidance and
direction from Headquarters, which is simply not true.
. . .you must know that the report is flawed and does an
injustice to the Service and particularly the Los Angeles District.
The failure of the Task Force team to verify facts, properly
interpret data, disavow influence by local Union officials, as well
as draw conclusions well beyond the scope of their charter, is a
total discredit to this District and could be career-threatening to
some particular managers. This must be corrected as certainly this
report will be used by the parties involved in the EEO class
complaint of Norris Potter III to further their claim. The Service
will not be best served by this report until factual corrections
are made.
76
Their report is seriously flawed by a plethora of inaccurate
statements. Chapter V is nothing more than a collection of
unsubstantiated rumors, conjectures and innuendos that were printed
as fact and then distributed servicewide without being verified.
By his actions, he (Mr. Creppy) has caused serious damage to
the careers and reputations of several high level management
officials of the Los Angeles District Office.
We are requesting that Chapter V of the INS Task Force Study
regarding the under-representation of African-Americans within the
Immigration and Naturalization Service be Withdrawn immediately and
that a public statement be made to that effect.
We are also requesting that a neutral, unbiased body, such as
the General Accounting Office (GAO) be requested to perform the
study.
Most, if not all, of the statements about Los Angeles are
absolutely wrong or misleading.
...the problem of under-representation of African-Americans
within the supervisory ranks of the Service was systematic and not
just isolated to any one office. Yet, the Task Force report only
recommends personnel changes for high level management of the
Investigations Division of the Los Angeles Office.
Headquarters is looking for someone to affix blame for the
failure of the Service to properly implement its own
EEO/Af f irmative Action Program.
In Los Angeles, Task Force interviews of Investigations
personnel were limited to only those individuals with anti-
management sentiments. The silent majority of people who are
concerned about doing a good job were not heard from.
We strongly disagree with the report's findings that African-
Americans appear to have been treated unfairly.
The report also claims that the Los Angeles District Office
was fully aware of the concerns of the African-American agents, and
failed to address their concerns. This is false.
The report alleges Management's appointment of Supervisory
Special Agents is based upon a double standard- -favoritism and the
•buddy* system. This is false and the report provides no evidence
of inappropriate selections.
The Los Angeles District has done a significant amount of work
with regard to hiring minorities and the physically disabled, none
of which is mentioned in this report.
77
For the record, there has never been targeted surveillance of
any African-American Special Agents or harassment directed against
them and their families by Investigations Management. This claim
is unsubstantiated rhetoric. It doesn't belong in this report.
...the Fraud Program enjoys no "favored" treatment or status
other than recognition reserved for a program that, since 1988, has
led the nation in eery major category of major fraud and
counterfeit document suppression.
This report does a great deal of harm to innocent people
because it is patently unfair. Unfortunately people's careers hang
in the balance.
I believe that the EEO Task Force Report as published did a
great disservice to the Immigration and Naturalization Service as
a whole and a complete injustice to the managers of the Los Angeles
District. A report, to be given any credibility, must be factual
and rely on accurate data. This report does not rise to that level
of credibility because it used flawed data and failed to verify or
substantiate purported facts. Therefore, any future dealing with
this report in any context by any member of the Service should
understand that, given any evidentiary test, it could not stand on
its own.
78
INS TASK FORCE STUDY - EEO
RECOMMENDATIONS
PART 1 — GENERAL PERSONNEL ISSUES
Recruitment :
Encourage qualified minorities and women to compete for
vacancies .
Establish a Collateral Duty Recruitment Team to target the
recruitment of desired minorities.
Target Black youth for careers within INS: CO-OPs, Stay-in-
Schoolers, sponsor work experience programs, afford additional
training for the above.
Establish a strong Table of Organization and Staffing Plan.
Target recruitment at Black, Hispanic and women's colleges,
especially those with criminal justice programs.
Utilize alternative staffing methods, i.e.
bilingual/bicultural, outstanding scholar and co-op programs.
(Recommend) we provide them (field managers) with a more
effective system for generating applications from high quality
minority applicants.
Some system of nationwide or regionwide recruitment should be
undertaken that will allow field managers in areas where minority
applicants are hard to find an opportunity to review applications
from areas with higher rates of minority representation.
Recruiting teams composed of personnel representatives and
operations personnel need to go to historically black colleges and
DOD installations with minority applicants and try to identify
minority applicants who could be noncompetitively selected for
assignment at locations around the Service.
The Service can make substantial progress in AAP results
without making excessive use of a recruiting base that draws from
a pool having lower basic qualification requirements. CO-OP
Programs, Outstanding Scholar Programs, targeted recruitment at
historically black colleges , VRA hires at down-sizing military
installations, etc. all offer the promise of identifying candidates
that fully meet the qualification requirements of officer corps
positions .
79
We do not agree that education should be de-emphasized in the
selection process because education is seen as a barrier to
recruiting minorities ... .Our focus should not be on negating the
importance of a college degree, but on insisting that recruitment
efforts are focused toward universities and colleges with
culturally diverse student populations and toward historically
Black colleges.
We need state-of-the-art recruitment displays and recruitment
materials. We need to project a professional image to applicants
if we are going to attract outstanding candidates.
Successful recruitment strategies will require additional
resources, ideally with one person in each region specifically
dedicate to recruitment or, at the very least, two additional
recruiters to plan recruitment for the Service.
A systematic approach is needed to ensure that co-op programs
attract culturally diverse participants.
Suggest regional recruiting teams comprised of trained special
emphasis program managers and a representative of each of the
officer corps occupations be formed.
Develop a Recruitment Program that targets college graduates
of all races, with particular focus of the under-
represented Then, develop and maintain applicant supply files
for retrieval by field offices as well as the regional and
headquarters.
Consider opening up District Director and Deputy District
Director Positions to all government career employees, rather than
restricting it to INS only.
Prioritize hiring Immigration Inspectors from Outstanding
Scholar programs at predominantly African-American universities.
Border Patrol testing and recruitment should target
universities with a predominantly African-American enrollment.
Believe that if INS would pursue inclusion of the asylum
officer position under this direct hire authority (Outstanding
Scholar Program) we would be able to recruit and fill many of our
positions through targeted recruitment at colleges and universities
with a large percentage of minority student with the background and
experiences that would enhance the asylum officer corps.
Recommend that a process action team be set up and properly
trained and given the assignment of designing a recruitment system
for the Service that will involve the EEO office, the Personnel
office and operation units in locations experiencing under-
representat ion .
80
Interviewing :
Establish policy to ensure consistency in the interview
process, i.e. who gets interviewed versus who does not.
Establish clear, consistent and standardized interview
procedures .
Ensure only merit-based questions are asked during interview
process .
Interviewing practices should be improved and standardized in
INS. (The NRO developed a standardized interviewing package...)
Interview all candidates on selection lists for District
Director, Deputy District Director, Chief Patrol Agent, and Deputy
Chief Patrol Agent.
When it is impractical for selecting official to interview
applicant, interview can be accomplished by managers /supervisors at
the employees current work station on behalf of the selecting
official .
Selection :
Hold managers solely responsible for selections.
Reassess and emphasize the appraisal process.
Train supervisors in the selection process, including EEO
concerns .
Under-representation must be considered, but only well-
qualified applicants must be selected.
Discourage the employment of relatives.
Recommend that the Commissioner initiate changes in the. hiring
process for Border Patrol Agents, Special Agents and Immigration
Inspectors which will support our EEO objective.
Re-evaluate officer corps qualification criteria. More
specifically, require a bachelor's degree for all entry level
positions .
The usurpation of selecting officials' prerogatives should not
be permitted as long as it is demonstrable that the selecting
official has made selections within the scope and spirit of law and
regulation or that commitment to EEO exists.
81
Service could check all recent selection lists and note if
there were any African-Americans on the lists and if so, question
the managers as to why they were not selected.
Merit Promotion :
The selecting official must always decide who is "best
qualified* for the position from a properly ranked and certified
group. No scoring system can or should take away that discretion.
Recommend development of a standardized training package for
(rating) panel members along with a certification requirement.
The practice of referral of candidates under MSP-II without
showing the scores should not be changed. The scoring methodology
is not precise and cannot be made so. It would be a serious
mistake to send out scores with the implicit understanding that
higher scores equal better candidates. That is not true now and it
will never be no matter how hard one tires to make the system more
scientific.
Recommend a review and standardization of crediting plans used
for many supervisory and managerial positions, eliminating factors
that might unintentionally screen out minority candidates.
We do not believe that much is to be gained from involving the
EEO office in the selections themselves. The EEO office should be
very active in reporting and reviewing the results of the systems
that it helps put in place and the decisions made by selecting
officials, but the EEO office should not be seen as holding a veto
power on selections.
We strongly suggest that a systematic approach to revamping
merit promotion procedures and recruitment be taken. The entire
hiring and promotion processes need to be fully analyzed and
evaluated by a team to find the root causes of adverse impact and
to develop alternative approaches which may be validated.
The INS Merit Promotion and Reassignment Plan (MP&RP) in and
of itself fails to promote equal employment opportunity in as much
as it is majority and seniority based.
Reorganize or abolish the present Officer Corps Rating System
as it does not promote equal employment opportunity. A new system
should apply more weight to such factors as education and
performance as well as mechanism in which to identify gender and
race.
82
Do not engage in hiring binges... The steady, long-term hiring
of manageable amounts of people allows the Service the time to
prioritize African-Americans and other minorities in the hiring
process .
Renegotiate the merit staffing plan for bargaining units
(MP&RP) .
Upward Mobility :
Improve and standardize the Upward Mobility Program.
Thorough research is needed to properly structure effective
upward mobility programs.
Upward mobility should not be substituted for a high quality
target recruitment effort.
Upward Mobility Program. . .should not be the primary vehicle in
which to identify and hire or promote officer corps job candidates.
To maintain the quality of our workforce, we must continue to focus
most of our efforts on the recruitment of the college educated.
The criteria for individuals qualifying for upward mobility
must be carefully considered. ... It must be recognized and accepted
that not all employees are suitable for upper level positions.
Fill vacant officer corps positions through upward mobility
announcements .
Career Development :
Implement mentor program.
Initiate developmental program similar to PROPEL for employees
at the GS-11/12 level.
Train employees on how to complete SF-171 and what to expect
during the interview process.
We should seriously consider adopting a Career Board to deal
with numerous issues that impact employees; i.e. compassionate
transfers, overseas rotations, manager and SES development, PROPEL,
etc. The Board should consist of Operations and Management
personnel from all organizational levels.
More emphasis must be placed upon and more funding must be
made available for tuition assistance program (TAP) . TAP must
offer enough funding to employees to enable them to pay for college
courses.
83
Temporary details, promotions, training, designations as
acting supervisor, and other assignments which are career enhancing
should be allocated in a fair and equitable manner based on written
policy and in accordance with personnel regulations.
An assessment should be made of our current work force to
determine interest in crossing over to career law enforcement
positions and, then, analysis needs to be conducted to determine
eligibility to determine eligibility.
The Service should establish a career development plan and
selection criteria for all supervisors/managers which develops
experience through a series of progressively difficult positions at
various locations.
Establish a system to ensure equal opportunity for all
training implemented (especially for officer corps positions.
Managerial Accountability :
The program should be results oriented with emphasis placed on
goal-setting instead of quotas.
EEO training for top managers is a first step, followed by EEO
management accountability, and the requirement that EEO be a
critical performance element in managerial and supervisory work
plans .
Inclusion of EEO in supervisory work plans as a critical
element .
The labeling of the EEO element as "critical" should by only
temporary, and, second, widespread input as to the language to be
included in the element should be requested.
Immediate Appointment of African-Americans to SES and Senior
Management Positions (GM-15) :
INS is not under a quota system and rash appointments will
only further polarize the workforce, including African-Americans
who are not in the right place at the right time.
Communicat ion
Communicate to all employees what it takes to get ahead in the
Service.
Disseminate information to all employees concerning the PROPEL
program.
10
84
Publicize procedures /requirements concerning MSPII and MP&RP
to all employees.
Develop validated job competencies for each occupation
(skills, knowledge, and abilities needed to perform the job) . Make
information available to all employees.
Develop clear policy regarding selection of candidates for
training, details, temporary assignments, etc.
Location Issues :
The issue of limiting the availability of relocation expenses
must be revisited to determine if this has created an adverse
impact upon minorities and women.
Modernize current placement practices within INS to nurture,
rather than discourage African-Americans who enter on duty in
remote areas .
Provide equitable opportunities for transfers to employees.
11
85
Part 2 -- EEO Issues
EEO Policy :
Use innovative communications tools to convey the agency's
message and commitment .
HQEEO should be providing policy and guidance.
Assessment of the EEO impact and implications of proposed
policy changes needs to become a routine part of the policy
development phase in the Service.
Development of written materials for employees to more easily
understand the EEO Program.
The AM on EEO is over 20 years old and the National AAP has
not been updated or revised since 1988.
Reorganize and improve the Special Emphasis Program by
developing a plan of action and program objectives, and hold the
managers accountable for accomplishing these responsibilities.
EEO Organization :
HQEEO should be providing policy and guidance. The regions
should handle the technical aspects of the program under the
supervision of the Regional Administrator.
All regional EEO programs should be put on track and allowed
to function as a program within an established framework.
The supervision of any field EEO personnel should be conducted
by the Regional EEO personnel .
A full-time EEO counselor should be placed in the regional
office.
We concur that returning Headquarters EEO under the direct
supervision of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as it was
in 1982, will provide higher visibility and support from other
program managers for the EEO program. However the Regional Office
of EEO works well, as is, and should not be moved to a direct line
of authority under the Headquarters Director of EEO.
The clear delineations of authority contained in the June 24,
1993, draft AM on EEO should remain intact with the exception of
organizationally placing the Director of EEO under the Commissioner
or Deputy Commissioner, so the Director of EEO will have similar
access to the Commissioner.
12
86
If the EEO program receives additional resources as a result
of this study, this will indicate a renewed commitment to EEO.
The Regional Offices of EEO have received minimal leadership,
guidance, and funding from Headquarters EEO, especially in the last
several years.
Organizational placement of the Regional Office of EEO should
remain under the direct supervision of the Regional Administrator
and Deputy Regional Administrator.
Designation of an EEO program official in Los Angeles will add
to the effectiveness of its field EEO program.
Consideration should be given to details for EEO officials
between Headquarters and Regional Offices.
Placing EEO directly under the Commissioner may be
appropriate, but granting them autonomy by giving them direct line
authority would be a mistake. This is a management problem, not an
organizational problem. Field managers should be help responsible
for this initiative, not EEO.
Change the focus of EEO Special Emphasis Programs to a more
proactive role.
EEO Advisory Council :
The EEO Advisory Council should include one Regional EEO
Program Specialist, one Regional ROHRD Specialist and one field
Special Emphasis Program Manager, one field administrative officer
and one Gs-7 or below employee to participate on the council with
various HQ personnel .
Advisory Council should represent a full range of viewpoints,
including those supportive of affirmative action and those who are
not necessarily pro-affirmative action It must be understood
that, conceptually, there is a distinction between equal employment
opportunity and affirmative action.
EEO Data :
Emphasize the EEO Program Manager's communication role with
INS Managers .
There is definitely a need for regular hard data feedback from
HQEEO on how the Service is doing in AAP.
13
87
Data should also be developed by location and reported on
annually so that everyone is constantly reminded of where successes
and deficiencies are occurring.
Data on each field office's work force should be reported on
each year by major occupational grouping and the workforce profile
should be compared to the national and local CLF as well as to the
INS as a whole.
It is possible to get results in AAP hiring simply by
reporting annually on the EEO profile of field offices. Simply
knowing that someone is paying attention to hiring practices in
each field office will have salutary effects even without the
imposition of quotas or goals.
Develop a standardized data collection and reporting system
aimed at identifying and maintaining EEO profile-related
statistics .
EEO Training :
Yearly training would be impossible for locations with target
geographical areas such as the Northern Region. A more reasonable
approach would be training provided every other year with
informational reading materials sent out periodically for
DD/CPA/Service Center Director.
It may be advisable to offer some video taped training or
self -study material to cover more remote locations.
(Recommend) supervisory training in EEO and personnel.
(Recommend) training in EEO, problem solving and
organizational communication.
Develop and implement a training plan aimed at sensitizing and
educating all employees, management and non -management alike, about
equal employment opportunity and the programs and processes
associated therewith.
A rigorous training program should be implemented and
completed within one year of the AAP's f inalization.
The Service could also utilize Regional EEO and LMR staff to
conduct training in the field.
An EEO Education VideoTape should also be made and shown to
all new employees as part of their job orientation. A refresher
training tape could also be made for annual viewing by all
employees .
14
88
Detail a core group from Headquarters to Regional offices for
training of INS managers.
EEO Complaint Process :
Set up a committee to analyze the system—include on the
committee HQEEO, one Regional EEO Manager, one EEO counselor, one
EEO investigator, one Field Manager and one former complainant.
Eliminate reprisal against employees who file complaints.
Provision of guidance to managers on advantages of informally
resolving EEO concerns.
Regular meetings between management and counselors to discuss
common EEO issues (without identifying specific complainants) .
Additional staff resources should be allocated to the Regional
EEO Offices to process the voluminous document requests required to
ensure timeliness in discrimination complaints processing.
The EEO complaint process must be streamlined.
Reorganize and improve the Service's EEO Complaint Process.
EEO Counselors :
The system breaks down at the counseling stage, where
counsellors do not receive adequate training and instruction.
Train EEO counselors to be as reassuring as possible.
Recommend a 100% survey of EEO counselors before decisions are
made with regard to counselor issues.
Suggest that employees be given an option of selecting a full-
time EEO counselor from the regional office to guard against actual
or perceived local problems .
Should consider having EEO counselors work directly under EEO
and not as a collateral duty as occurs now.
Affirmative Action Plan :
With development of new AEP's (Affirmative Employment Plans?) ,
one high level manager in each filed location needs to be
designated as the AEP Coordinator to effectively monitor the
implementation of action items.
15
89
Formulate a Process Action Team (PAT) to develop the new INS
Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) . Formulate "Splinter PATS" to study
and improve various plans, programs, and processes identified by
the primary PAT (AAP) >
The AAP should not contain quotas, but rather program
objectives aimed at promoting and maintaining a workforce that is
consistent with the civilian labor workforce.
Benchmarking :
Suggest we take a look at some of our sister agencies who have
excelled in this area or who have faced similar problems and
emulate them as appropriate.
16
90
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
CHARTER
PURPOSE :
The purpose of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Advisory
Council is to advise the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) on the effectiveness of the employment
and training processes of the Service in supporting diversity
throughout the workforce. Specifically, the Council will:
Initially review and advise on the EEO Implementation
Plan;
Review and advise on INS progress on the EEO
Implementation Plan objectives; and
Periodically review and advise on significant INS
employment and training policies and procedures from an
EEO perspective.
MEMBERSHIP :
The EEO Advisory Council has 15 members appointed by the
Commissioner. The Council membership is diverse, consisting of
managers and rank-and-file employees representative of the races,
ethnic backgrounds, genders, occupations, geographic locations, and
grade levels of Service employees.
Initial appointments to the Council were for an equal mixture
of two and three year terms. Appointments thereafter will be for
two years. In the event a member is unable to serve, the
Commissioner will appoint a replacement to fill out the unexpired
term.
The Commissioner appoints the Chairperson of the Council. The
term for the Chairperson is two years.
The Director of EEO and the Assistant Commissioner, Human
Resources, serve as ex officio, nonvoting members of the Council.
CONDUCT OF BUSINESS :
Initially, the Council will meet at least on a quarterly
basis; thereafter, it will meet at least semi-annually. The
location of each meeting will be determined by the Chairperson in
consultation with the Executive Associate Commissioner for
Management. The Chairperson will preside at all meetings.
91
- 2 -
In order to conduct business, a quorum of 12 members,
including the Chairperson, must be present. Each member will have
one vote and must be present to cast that vote. In order to take
action, e.g. place items on the agenda or make recommendations to
the Commissioner, a majority of those present and voting must vote
for the proposed action.
The Office of Management, Office of EEO, will provide an
Executive Secretary to record the minutes of each meeting and
provide administrative support to the Council, such as funding and
approval of travel orders and vouchers.
92
Mr. Conyers. I would like now to call David Ross and Peter
Szabadi.
Counselors, I have asked you to join me here in this particular
order before we have our witnesses whose testimony will clearly
speak for itself, so that we get a larger picture of what we are up
against. One of the things that have struck me as we have pre-
pared for these hearings back and forth is that EEOC itself is a
fragile part of our civil rights law. I mean there is so much burden
on the discriminated that come forward. And it is hard to create
in law a system that is going to make everything fine.
But I have now widened this inquiry to include the whole Fed-
eral Government, because I am not going to leave INS out here
alone as if everybody else shares the company of angels, because
that just isn't the case. We have got big problems over in Customs,
in the Veterans' Administration, and elsewhere. And so we are
going to begin, and counsel has agreed to bring this to Congress-
man Bill dinger of Pennsylvania's attention, that we begin to look
at this whole thing for patterns of practice across the Federal Gov-
ernment. And I want to thank the Commissioner for staying as
long as she can. I appreciate that very much.
Gentlemen, why don't you begin our discussion?
STATEMENT OF DAVID ROSS, ESQ., ACCOMPANIED BY PETER
SZABADI, ESQ.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would like
to say a number of comments.
First of all, in addition to thanking you for highlighting this
issue, I would like the chairman to understand it is not our inten-
tion in any way to paint the Commissioner in a bad light. We be-
lieve that she is personally committed to making a substantial ef-
fort to make changes within the Immigration Service.
However, we also believe that forces subordinate to her powers
at the Immigration Service have been able, up until now, to sub-
vert and stonewall any efforts for a meaningful resolution of this
very great problem. We have to take a look at just what exactly
is trie Immigration Service.
We are dealing with an agencv that decides not only who can
come into this country, but who becomes a U.S. citizen. They test
people on their knowledge of U.S. Government issues and whether
or not they are loyal to the Constitution of this country.
These are people who decide if individuals from outside this
great land are worthy enough to become members of our commu-
nity, and whether or not they are loyal enough to the beliefs of our
institutions and our constitution, which include 5th and 14th
amendments and title VII legislation.
I think it is a great irony that these very people who make those
determinations are the people who have a total disregard for the
constitution and the laws of this Nation when it comes to matters
involving fairness and employment.
We must also understand that the Immigration Service now after
proposition 187 in California and what will be very shortly a tre-
mendous movement in Congress to increase and enlarge that prop-
osition across the United States, this agency will become a major
force in the lives of most Americans. It will have tremendous intru-
93
sive powers. It will be able to go into person's houses and ask ques-
tions to their businesses beyond the employer sanctions. And we
have to understand, just what is this agency:
This is an agency that is going to be a very powerful agency in
the future and have power over all Americans, not just aliens. We
have to make sure we have great oversight and prevent any more
serious abuses.
I would also like to say that the Commissioner did cite a number
of statistics. We have found that when it comes to the citation of
statistics by the Immigration Service, reality and truth do not
exist.
And I will give one example. Operation gatekeeper. The Immi-
gration Service and the Department of Justice insisted initially it
was a very successful program. As it turned out, they nidged the
statistics. They lied. They are now revising these statistics, and
this is a great controversy between the Department of Justice. How
we could rely on their findings of statistical information that they
claim now supports a better attitude and program within the Im-
migration Service?
We also find a problem in how they lump all minorities together.
I notice that every comment I have ever read or heard is always
African-Americans, women, Hispanics, Asian- Americans. When you
lump minorities together, it is very possible that one individual will
qualify for three separate positions and count as three. You can
have a woman who is black with a Hispanic surname and you have
just finished promoting three people at the same time. So I think
that we have to be very careful in how those statistics are looked
at.
With regard to the Creppy Report itself and INS's born-again
awakening as to the problem, I would like to remind the chairman
that it was he who caused this to take place. The only reason that
this Creppy Report was ever done, the only reason these efforts
were ever made by the Immigration Service is because of the filing
of our lawsuit and the intervention of this committee into these
matters which precipitated on the part of the Immigration Service
the need to have an investigation internally. And even after the
Creppy Report was made, the Immigration Service initially refused
to issue it until further political pressure was brought upon the
service.
As far as the points taken by the Commissioner, I would like to
mention just a few things and I would like to quote from a deposi-
tion that was taken of the former EEO head of the Immigration
Service, Carolyn Hodge when she was asked about problems re-
farding EEO and exactly just where things were going. I asked
er, "Is it fair to say that you were dissuaded from EEO practices?"
And the answer was "I was dissuaded, yes."
And I asked her "By Mrs. Chris Sale?" And she said, "I felt so."
The very person who, prior to the Commissioner becoming Commis-
sioner of Immigration, was in charge of these matters.
We have evidence that memos were submitted detailing how
problematic the situation was and these memos being rejected as
being irrelevant or not part of the policy of the service at this time.
This was after the change in the administration occurred, after the
election of Mr. Clinton. And I find that very disconcerting.
94
I believe that at this moment, as we speak, there are forces with-
in the Immigration Service who believe that if they wait long
enough, there may be very well a change in the administration, or
a change in the attitude of people.
I think it is a very foolish position to take for two reasons. Be-
cause the people we seek to protect are by and large middle class,
mainstream Americans, people who put their lives on the line
every day, people who support not only the Constitution of the
United States, but support their agency and give their best efforts.
I do not believe that either Congress or the American people will
let them down, not now and not in 1996 or at any other time. And
I would certainly welcome a more serious effort on the part of the
Immigration Service to try and effectuate a settlement in this case.
We have always been open. We continue to be open to any sug-
gestion. But I would like to remind the chairman that as far back
as June of this year we were promised that we would receive a sub-
stantial indication by the Immigration Service as to what its pro-
posal would be. We even stopped all discovery until September of
this year to enable the service to review its statistics that it al-
ready had for over IV2 years simply because they asked us to.
But yet, in September no proposal was forthcoming. We were
then promised one would be coming in October. Same thing. I was
told personally by an official of the Department of Justice that this
matter would come to the table on November 14, at the close of
business; I would have something in my hands. Unfortunately, it
didn't happen.
And because of these reasons, we have become very disillusioned
as to the intention of the service as a result. We have begun to ex-
amine and put into motion a program where we will be seeking in-
junctive relief if necessary to stop all hiring at the Immigration
Service and specifically target the Border Patrol, which we believe
is the most egregious arm of the Immigration Service. The good-
old-boy network was born in the Border Patrol and the Border Pa-
trol has injected this virus into the entire agency. And we believe
it is incumbent upon us to try and stop this if the Immigration
Service cannot, will not, or simply is not capable of putting this to
rest once and for all.
As far as the EEO matters are concerned, the EEO advisory com-
mittee, in our opinion, without outside civilians sitting on such a
committee, has no value. I would like to remind the chairman that
other agencies of the U.S Government have outside civilians. The
Department of State is an example, where they had a similar prob-
lem several years ago and created a citizens advisory committee
which works hand in hand with its own internal committee, and
it has been very successful.
And I would also like to remind the chairman that at the initi-
ation of some advisory committee, not a single African-American
was a member. It only happened afterwards. There was great re-
sistance to have any African-Americans on this advisory committee.
As far as the EEO budget is concerned, the chairman has
touched upon something which is probably one of the most critical
issues to this whole case, and that is the whole EEO system needs
an overhaul. As you well know, unfortunately in this last Congress,
legislation to change the EEO system was defeated. But it would
95
have taken the power of investigating EEO matters out of the
hands of the agency, which is critical for confidentiality and protec-
tion of those complaining.
One of the biggest problems which has occurred with this agency,
as you touched upon, Mr. Chairman, is retaliation. The moment a
person makes an EEO complaint, they are branded as an outlaw,
disloyal. And everybody knows that that complaint has been made
because that is the way the system works. There is no confidential-
ity.
Therefore, the investigative process should be taken cut of the
hands of the agency. And in fact Congress sought to do that.
I hope that at some point in time in the next Congress, a bill can
be passed which will accomplish this and I believe that will be a
great step forward to changing the whole Federal system with re-
gard to these problems.
As far as promotion policies are concerned, we believe there must
be gross structural changes. It is fine that a merit plan will be
changed and it is very nice that people will be given sensitivity
training. But until there is accountability for decisionmaking, it
has no teeth. Until a person who is in charge of promotions and
hiring is held accountable and must explain why that person chose
any certain individual if called upon to do so, there will be no
power behind these suggestions by the Commissioner. And until
there is proper training for these decisionmakers and the criteria
for jobs are carefully denned, all of these efforts will go to waste.
Now, as far as overnight changes taking place, in fact, we can
have overnight changes. The promotion system can be changed im-
mediately. It doesn't require an act of Congress. It doesn't require
regulations to be promulgated. It doesn't even require a notice in
the Federal Register. And it should be changed and it should be
changed structurally, as I have mentioned.
With regard to recruitment, I was told no more than a month ago
by the Commissioner's chief of staff when asked, why is it that Af-
rican-Americans are not hired by the Border Patrol, and the an-
swer was, African-Americans just don't want to go into Border Pa-
trol. And of course my comment was, there must be some kind of
movement among African-American mothers who tell their chil-
dren, whatever you do, don't go into Border Patrol, because that is
the only thing that can explain why they don't go to Border Patrol
since they are being welcomed with opened arms, and that is just
total nonsense.
African-Americans are treated shabbily. They are treated so
poorly in the Border Patrol. I have traveled across this country. I
have spoken to more than 50 people, both African-American, His-
panic and Caucasian, who told me repeatedly that the sign is clear:
We do not welcome you. And we must change that immediately.
If necessary, the people who run Border Patrol should be forced
to resign. If necessary, Ken Rath, who has been involved with EEO
program, if he can't handle it he should be forced to resign, and if
necessary the Deputy Secretary should resign if she cannot put in
place a program that saves these people from this humiliation.
It is unbelievable, as you have mentioned, that in 1994, we are
back in Mississippi in 1950. It is incredible. It is like having a sign
out, "No dogs and no African-Americans allowed."
96
We have evidence that even as we speak this resistance is grow-
ing. It is not diminishing. And as you have stated, Mr. Chairman,
it starts at top and it must trickle downward, and this resistance
must be stopped immediately and that overnight change can occur
right now.
With regard to the suit itself, as I have mentioned before, not-
withstanding my comments, we want to solve this problem. It
breaks our heart when grown individuals who have dedicated
themselves to service in government are rejected and made to feel
humiliated and dejected. And we would like to stop that as soon
as possible, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]
97
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, CHAIRMAN
Hearing Date: November 17, 1994
statement by: DAVID L. ROSS
€404 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(213) 653-7734
Thank you Mr. Chairmen for the opportunity to coma before
this illustrious Committee and present to you testimony in
support of the valiant African-American class members who have
challenged the racially discriminatory policies and actions of
the United states Immigration and Naturalization Service. As
lead counsel for the historic "Potter" lawsuit, the largest class
action ever certified against an agency of the United states
government, I am proud to be before you today both as American
and as an officer of the court sworn to uphold the Constitution
of the United States. Together with my co-counsel, Peter
Szabadi, we hope this hearing will be the impetus for finally
coning to terms with the problem of discrimination.
Before I provide you with a synopsis of the class action and
the inaction to date by the Immigration Service to remedy the
situation, I feel compelled to remind this Committee and the
98
American public of the severity of this discrimination and the
consequences of its continuation. The Immigration Service, among
many of its responsibilities, interviews and tests non-citizens
for citizsnship and approves their applications if they are found
worthy to be American citizens. A3 part of this procedure,
applicants must learn in detail about the United States
government and be thoroughly cognizant of the Constitution and
its Amendments and they must swear an oath supporting the
Constitution.
It is, therefore, a great irony, that the Immigration
Service, is not only an agency of the Department of Justice which
is charged with the responsibility of carrying out civil rights
laws, it is also the agency delegated the sole authority by
Congress, through the Attorney General, to insure faithfulness
and loyalty to the Constitution by prospective citieens.
I need not remind this Committee that the Sth and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution guarantee due process and equal
protection or that Title vii insures equal civil rights to all,
not just to the few in the "good old boy group". I also need not
review the baeio theory of American demooratie capitalism which,
above all, stresses one's personal right to success through hard
work and achievements. It is the American way to reward merit.
One would think that the agency responsible for guarding our
borders and insuring citizenship values among new citizens would
scrupulously follow this theme. Unfortunately, this is not so.
Rather than rewarding merit and achievement, the Immigration
99
service belittles these pillars of American values and instead
rewards those fortunate enough to be inducted into the "good old
boy" network. African-Americans, vho are not deemed worthy of
induction into this network, are denied recognition through merit
and passed over for promotion. Thus, they are passed over for
promotion irrespective of their scores or standing for
competitive job openings and are relegated to the lowest rung.
The American way is being attacked from within by the very
guardians sworn to protect it.
In spite of this, the Immigration Service continues its
passed practices which should no longer be tolerated in our
democratic society. This is all the more frightening in light of
recent laws such as California's Proposition 187. Whether one ie
a supporter or opponent of the ideas contained in this new law,
ideas which are quickly expanding across the Nation, one must be
aware that it is the Immigration Sarvioe which will carry out the
mandate for its enforcement. Are we, as a people steeped in
democratic family values, ready to allow an agency whioh openly
and notoriously discriminates against its own by promoting
nepotism, sexism, racism, corruption, and a gross disregard for
the Constitution, to enter our homes and businesses and intrude
into our personal and private lives in pursuit of illegal aliens?
Clearly, we need more change in the immigration Service and
a commitment by it to adhere to the laws of our country before
such enormous power is delegated to it. Congress needs more
oversight of this agenoy and should condition its appropriation
100
of funds on the Immigration service's actions not words.
Inventing new government should mean striping power from those
who abuse it and desire only personal gain. The Administration
must reign in those at the Immigration Servioe who have
benefitted by their discriminatory acts and hold them accountable
for their deeds. The Commissioner of Immigration must exercise
greater control over her subordinates and dictate and implement
the policies shs says she subscribes to. Issuing position papers
and lengthy EEO treatises purporting to "solve" the matter/ are
Ineffectual and serve no purpose unless the Commissioner has the
will and ability to control those below her who seek only to
weaken these programe in the hope that a new Administration sight
react differently. A foolish notion indeed/ since support comes
from all political speotrums and everyone shares a common goal of
changing the Immigration Service.
In connection with underrepresentation of African-Americans
at the Immigration Service and discrimination against them, it
should be noted that this problem was recognized since the early
1980 's and several affirmative action plans were created to
address the issue. However/ none were ever implemented and there
wee no accountability as to their non- implementation. From the
1980' s to the present, underrepresentation has been consistently
reported and highlighted through statistical analysis of
employment patterns. Barriers were identified which prevent
Afrioan-Amer loans from entering and advancing in the Immigration
Service. However, these barriers were never eliminated.
101
Quarterly and yearly reports by the Immigration Service
which underscore the same situation and have numerous
recommendations as to resolving the problem, have never been
followed. Only after the "Potter" lawsuit was filed was there
any real movement to study this problem such as through the
Creppy Task Force. We have found in numerous documents and
discovered in multiple depositions that some of the conclusions
of the "Creppy Report" surprised some of its members because of
the degree of underrepresentation existing and the callousness in
perpetuating it.
Unfortunately, this should not have been a surprise to
anyone at the Immigration Service management level since they
were acutely aware for several years that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Office of the Immigration Service was critically
underfunded, minimally functional and incapable of meeting any of
its goals. The Immigration Service did not need the "Creppy
Report" to identify the problem. Even Mr. Creppy himself opined
that the task force's conclusions and recommendations should not
have been a surprise to anyone. Through the discovery process,
we encountered the previous head of the Equal Employment
opportunity Office of the Immigration Service, Carolyn Hodge, who
despite pleading for sufficient funds every year to carry out the
mandates of her office, was summarily refused. The persons who
refused to fund her budget, continue to occupy the Deputy and
Executive Associate Commissioner positions at the Immigration
service, and as reborn adherents to the laws of the land, now
102
lament underrepresentation in word but not deed.
It is to our great dismay that we have not seen any real
structural changea at the immigration service. While it is true
that two African-Americans have been promoted to District
Director positions/ this is nothing more than a oynical and
manipulative move and is in response to the current lawsuit and
political pressure. These promotions do not address or alleviate
the problem of structural discrimination against African-
Americans. It is merely a cosmetic band-aid to serve the needs
of the moment without confronting the problems identified in our
lawsuit. Over the long term the same discrimination will again
overtake the procees and continue to preclude eradication of the
causes of underrepresentation. One need only look at the Los
Angeles Plre Department to see that even with a program of
affirmative action for over 20 years, strongly supported by
government and the public, there hae been no substantive change
because the same promotion system is still being used.
In order to solve the problem we must eliminate cronyism and
change the way persons are promoted. This includes emphasizing
merit over personal connections, training those who oversee
promotion*, and holding decision makers totally accountable for
their promotion decisions. Adoption of some of the "Crappy
Report" recommendations, such as, centralization of the Equal
Employment Opportunity network within the Immigration Service, is
critical to the success of this endeavor. Testimony of Regional
Equal Employment Opportunity officers, as well as documentation
103
and testimony from Carolyn Hodge, show that disorder and anarchy
are the norm within the Equal Employment Opportunity Office at
the Immigration Sarviea with regional managers setting policy and
arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding which policies to adopt and
implement.
The most disconcerting element of this entire effort on our
part, however, is in the way the Immigration Service has
approached the problem since our lawsuit. Although initial
certification was requested through the judicial process in
January of 1993, after a previous complaint was filed with the
agency, there has been no movement on settlement by the
Immigration Service, in spite of their often stated position to
counsel and this committee, that they recognise the problem and
desire a speedy and effective settlement.
To date, there has been no settlement offer, even though on
March l, 1994, the Chairmen of three congressional committees
strongly recommended that the Immigration Service seek an
expeditious settlement. In this vein, we have continuously
accommodated the Immigration Service, such as, by delaying the
discovery process for over three months so as to allow it to
purportedly review data, which it has had for over one and a half
years. Even though we held discovery in abeyance for this period
of time, the Immigration Service, contrary to its written and
verbal commitments, failed to present a single settlement
proposal.
We were promised that a settlement proposal would be given
104
no later than September 15 of this year. Subsequently, we were
told that the proposal would be delivered at the beginning of
October and later this was changed to the end of October or
beginning of November. I was personally promised by Department
of Justice personnel that a full and complete settlement proposal
would be given to me on November 14, by the olose of business.
As of this moment, there is no settlement proposal and none in
sight. There has been no rational or logical explanation for the
failure to present a proposal. The obstructionist tactics of the
Immigration Service in seeking continuances and delays, while
refusing to release publio documents suggest a underlying ourrent
of resistance to a real and conclusive change in the fundamental
policies of this agency, notwithstanding public statements by its
leaders to the contrary.
Meanwhile, the Immigration Service continues to hire and
promote persons in contravention to its stated goal of insuring
fairness and preventing discrimination. Near to one thousand
border patrol agents are being hired under recently appropriated
funds by Congress, yet no more than forty-five to fifty African-
Americans work as agents for the border patrol among a workforce
of close to five -thousand, if we can not obtain a clear
statement by the Immigration Service of its plan to solve the
problam of discrimination and settle this matter, it may be
necessary to seek injunctive relief through the courts, freezing
all hiring of border patrol personnel and others by the
Immigration Service to insure that there will be sufficient jobs
105
for African-Americans.
Wa do not seek a quota nor do va wiah for those already in
place to lose their jobs as victims to reverse discrimination.
He do however , believe strongly in the prinoiple of rewarding
merit, and as such, we desire the hiring and promotion of the
best qualified persons, who in many instances are African-
Americans.
Than* you.
106
Mr. Conyers. I appreciate your comments.
Peter Szabadi, do have you any observation you would like to
make at this time?
Mr. Szabadi. No additional comments at this time.
Mr. Conyers. These are not easy matters that you are handling.
As a matter of fact, class action is one of the more difficult pieces
of litigation to be brought because there are so many people in-
volved. How many people are included at the present time?
Mr. Ross. We nave identified approximately 850 individuals and
we believe there are more because some of the information and sta-
tistics and data that we have received indicate that several persons
were initially identified as other than African-American. So at the
very minimum, we have 850, which makes this the largest class ac-
tion ever certified against a government agency.
And, as you pointed out, the irony here is that it is an arm of
the Department of Justice which is charged with carrying out,
among other things, the civil rights laws of this Nation.
Mr. Conyers. Let's look to trie immediate moment where there
is a fair and full resolution of this class action matter. Unless we
are looking at this attitudinal supervision problem, we might run
the danger of merely compensating victims, but not doing too much
for changing the present pattern.
And so it could be misleading for people to think that the class
action suit took care of the problems at INS. And I am hoping that
we can work out with the Commissioner not just a solution to the
past indignities which some of them — I could not believe if they
had not been brought to us. I just couldn't believe people talked
and treated and abused and disrespected individuals inside our
Federal Government at this level. I mean, I thought we were past
that in our social consciousness in America.
But we have got to deal with this attitude thing. There are peo-
ple — and I found this in other agencies. I don't mean to compare
one agency in totality with another agency, because they are dif-
ferent people, different circumstances, different positions. But in
some parts of the government, the resistance is so deep, so deeply
rooted, and that there is an across the board commitment to it
above and beyond anything that we put on paper.
It is a funny thing about racial discrimination; people that are
committed to preserving it care less about fine statements about
what America is about, what the constitution means, what the civil
rights movement was all about. Let's celebrate Martin Luther
King's birthday as a legal holiday. Let's show that we are really all
in this together. Let's not embarrass the administration. All tnose
things are thrown by the board.
There is something about this particular kind of attitude that
transcends any other rational goals or conduct that could take
place. And that, to me, is something that only fierce and bold lead-
ership at the top can deal with, because if that message doesn't go
out, this is the end of the line, ladies and gentlemen, then we are
just creating papers, another news release, another pledge, another
everybody is aisturbed sort of thing.
And I say that because I have seen it happen time and time
again. That until something is dramatically done, heads roll, people
are transferred, policies of discrimination are attacked point blank
107
at the place that they are emanating from. And there is no mystery
about any of this.
The nice thing about this kind of discrimination, it is right out
front. You don't have to go around searching to figure out who did
it or what they meant or is this an ambiguous message. It is totally
unambiguous. It is bold. It is unashamed. And it is in the face of
everything that is coming from the President of the United States,
from the Vice President of the United States, from the Attorney
General of the United States, from the Civil Rights Division in Jus-
tice, from EEOC itself.
It doesn't matter. We don't care. That is them. But here in this
shop, in this town, in this State, in this region, we are running the
show and we don't think things ought to change. And we are going
to do everything we can to make sure the people around us don't
change things either.
And so it seems to me that this is an age-old problem we have
been confronted with and that there should be something we could
do about it that will dramatically begin to reverse things. And you
have made excellent suggestions in this regard.
Mr. Ross. If I may comment, Mr. Chairman, probably the biggest
problem is that we have found there is a loyalty to — and I am
going to put it in quotes — the "clan" as opposed to the service, as
opposed to the agency. This loyalty emanates from the knowledge
that I will protect you and you will protect me and we will only
bring in people who will protect us. And I will give you an example.
In Seattle in 1990, the district director, Richard Smith, caused
a settlement to occur in a sexual abuse case where he was accused
of sexually abusing and harassing an employee. The agency paid
out a very substantial sum of money in settlement. Mr. Smith was
not only spared being fired, he was promoted and continues to be
the district director today because he is protected.
And this type of protection is prevalent in the agency and that
is how things happen. Everybody gets pulled up by their boot-
straps. There has to be a major structural change so that what
happened in the Los Angeles Fire Department, for example, is not
going to happen in the agency.
Mr. Conyers. What happened there?
Mr. Ross. In Los Angeles 20 years ago, a very sincere affirmative
action program was made. The public supported it. Even the fire
department supported it. But they did not do one thing: They did
not change how promotion practices were effectuated, how deci-
sions were made, and a lot of very good rhetoric was put into the
record.
Twenty years later, last week, the Los Angeles Times did a study
and found out that percentage wise, less African-Americans worked
for the fire department than 20 years ago. And this is it our fear
with the agency. There is a misconception that we are seeking
quotas. I want to dispel that notion immediately. We are not ask-
ing for quotas. I don't even like to call this an affirmative action
program because it smacks of somebody getting something who
doesn't deserve it. This is just exactly the opposite. These are peo-
ple who work hard.
I have many instances where members of the class scored higher
on lists than anybody else. They were No. 1. Mr. Potter Guise, who
108
was the class agent and the lawsuit is named after him, he scored
twice in the No. 1 position and he was passed over.
These are people of excellence. These are people who are not ask-
ing for handouts. They are not even asking for hands. They are
asking for fundamental fairness and if they are treated fairly, they
will be promoted. They will be hired because they deserved to be.
And I want the American public to understand that, that these
are people who are deserving because they have done their work
and they have scored better, and not because they are asking for
anything that they do not deserve. And that is something that
must be made clear to the public. And I am glad that we are able
to use this forum to do that.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I appreciate that the Commissioner of INS
is certainly aware that this is not a quota situation or that anybody
is asking for something for nothing.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much. This will be contin-
ued and I must say that as a lawyer, the work that you performed,
and to have selected this field of specialization, reflects great honor
upon you and the profession because it is a very, very difficult kind
of specialization within the law.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]
109
PCT J £-l994 13:28
iViCIIlUl'dliUUlU
-rt&
y^
Kt
^-X
Subjec: Organization o£ Haaagen^i^' ^
Regional Offices
\
-$
202 514 9866 P. 02/04
1 SEP 1931
J tA f>
To
Chris Sale
Executive Associate Coamissio
for Management
From
Office of Equal
Employment
Opportunity
This memorandum provides my recommendations concerning organization
of Management (Regional Offices/ in the area of EEO. It should be
noted that the regions have attempted to realign the EEO Program
and organize it in the same manner in which it has been reorganized
in headquarters. However, due to previous autonomous operations
of the\regions, the proposed/ organization vill continue to result
in nonAuniform execution of EEO policy. strong headquarters
controls\aiusfc be in place/ to assure a viable Service-wide EEO
Program usader the proposed regional organization structure. ^
prjjifrry r ^ f" n* Tranv M of the EEO programmatic p roblems stems from -
rograir Managers, wno report -co regional managers, who
$ ? r»r>». Si3 W ,-\tt | i L ' aa&j;~ ■Ljey ulaU.ry jjxt;^hidm-<=!b T Ji w ho havw uoL ruf ly
1 1 ij^'x-" *' ^ l - |r ^" r ^ii
Prcgrs
Prior to my appointment in April 1990 the regional EEO Program
Managers have beelk operating autonomous programs, for the most
part, independent ly\pf /the Headquarters EEO Program. Each r egion ^rnf
has attempted to hanqle its own — aeU uf problems^ wa-ia "littlt -
attention "given to ?e9 Proerrag interrelatadhess or Serv i^-ftp flfi --
pro£>j.# Ttl a->-oag , na s fffirrgn ■.,i., T m.jaii ii — V S3 ■ <-a"l"^i^a1 flm" d aT, ffft _
■ ni riiiii il qiit.ivii j r l n i l 1 in, 1 'TatdgW +■«»-« EEO Office hfl fr T Ti rr vifr ~
XS MJ J &xuom •"? ii 1 "■■"* J 6 cm — riaar Btnef«w i» ^»T°nimt. pt;^ .
Program guidance and darectrfcm from headquarters has not been given
proper priority and ofcten has\not been fully supported- This has
resulted'»*fragmented implementation of EEO Programs in the regions
and inconsistent program direction, as well as a failure to- adhere
to established policy and procedures. With limitations placed
upon headquarters EEO Program direction by regional senior level
management, the program has been une
correct systemic /problems ,
necessary "to achieve INS affi;
:le
barriei
cirmativ^
to effectively address and
and affect the change
employment obj ectives to
result in a needed/ cultural diversif ica\ion of the work force.
Regional EEO programs are inconsistent in ofeanizational structure
and program operations. To illustrate this^X contrast differences
in support of EEO (policy exist between Western Region and the other
thre«f regions- The Western Region has provided excellent,
consistent on-going emphasis and support of the EEO program.
110
T*is support is reflected in the on-going training of managers,
supervisors, employees, and collateral duty EEO staff.
Emphasis and supoort of the EEO program are reflected in the amount
of resources that have been committed, as well. Yet, this same
emphasis and support are not reflected in the remaining three
regions. For example, western Region has six full-time Staff
members assigned to the program; while the other regions have each
committed two or fewer full-time staff members. Further, training
of regional personnel is limited due to lack, of emphasis and lack
of adequate regional fiscal resources. Many of the regional E£o
staff members, who have been appointed to full-time 'regional SEO
Program positions, do not appear to have the depth of EEO
affirmative employment program and complaint processing systems
knowledge and skills necessary to effectively oarry out the
mandates of the EEO Programs. This has resulted in inadequate and
often improper EEO guidance to collateral duty SEO officials in the
field. Western Region's approach has resulted in a significantly
improved representation of minorities and women in their work
force. The others will require substantive changes to bring them
in line with Service-wide initiatives.
To assure uniform #*eeution of EEO policy throughout all of our
regions and address the Commissioner's requirement for headquarters
control, we must take steps to assure that, a viable EEO Program is
in place. Consistent with the reorganization, EEO program
activities in the region must be conducted in accordance with the
policies and procedures established by the Headquarters Office of
Equal Employment opportunity. To accomplish this the following
actions are proposed:
a. Reassign all regional EEO program staff to the control of
the Regional Administrators. Supervision and rating should be
accomplished by the Regional Administrator with the Executive
Associate Commissioner for Management as the reviewing official.
■^Tb ensure that EEO policies and procedures are appropriately
addressed, an annual assessment of Regional EEO performance will
be provided by the Director of SEO for use in the performance
rating process for Regional and field EEO officials. This
information will be considered by rating and reviewing officials
when determining rating levels in appropriate job elements.
. . f'MijhiSC' b. standardize EEO job descriptions and performance work
'A'isij^'^ Plana to ensure that all EEO managers and staff are working in a
J~£j?^ concerted effort to support the Commissioner's goals.
fo+%*)^ c * Redefine/clarify roles and responsibilities, streamline
P yt i\3-^ reporting requirements and update procedures to prevent and/or
resolve problems.
Once the above proposal is implemented, it will result in
consistent, structured EEO program management and operations. It
win assure implementation of headquarters-directed policy.
Ill
procedures and program operations- Further, it will exist
compliance with, the Department's mandates and EEOC requirement* .
This revised structure will enhance and strengthen the EEO program
by improving program evaluation systems and building results-
oriented eeo programs through teamworlc and cooperation throughout
the Service.
Your approval is sought to implement thia proposed plan of action.
If you concur, I will proceed to revise the EEO mission and
function statements to address the problem areas surfaced in the
GAO report.
(kc^e r ^Jif^r'
CAROLYN V. HODGE
Director of EEO
Approve:
Executive Associate Commissioner
for Management
Disapprove:.
Executive Associate Commissioner
for Management
Comment :
112
Mr. Conyers. The chair would like to call Mr. John J. Washing-
ton, Mr. John D. Wills, Jr., Mr. Carey James, Mr. Clarence Smith,
Mr. Charles James.
Mr. John Washington, Jr., INS special agent in Los Angeles,
spokesman for the class action, veteran INS agent.
INS Special Agent John Wills, from Los Angeles, personally tar-
geted for intimidation by his supervisors, threatened in one in-
stance with a gun.
INS Assistant Chief Patrol Agent Carey James, El Paso, TX, the
highest ranking African-American in Border Patrol, rejected for
over 150 promotions and reassignments, and has been forced to ac-
cept repeated demotions in order to advance at all inside of INS.
INS Deportation Officer Clarence Smith, Atlanta, GA, subjected
to reprisals when he spoke spoke in defense of a co-worker before
an EEO counselor.
INS detention enforcement officer, Charles James, serves at the
San Pedro processing center, harassed and threatened with bodily
harm because of his race.
Gentlemen, this is not a happy moment in American history, but
what you have gone through and the way that you persevered has
to be made a part of the record of the struggle in achieving a non-
discriminatory system in our government.
I congratulate you and I want to tell you there are a lot of people
that you know of that would not have borne the crosses that you
have had to bear. Some gave up. Some quit. Some were depressed.
Some were hounded out. Some were ostracized to such a degree
that as human beings, no matter how hard they wanted to fight for
the right thing, they were not able to.
So, I need you to be succinct. I have all of your prepared state-
ments and they are going to be put in the record in their entirety.
What I want you to do is get to the essence of this matter in your
particular case. I want you to tell it like it is.
And I need you to understand that you have the assurances from
the Congress and from the Commissioner of INS that your experi-
ences and your views before this congressional committee will not
be held against you. I say that with some kind of proviso because
they have already been held against you or you would not be here.
They have been held against you a lot. But we are trying to chart
a new day and a new way. And so thanks for coming.
Mr. John Washington, would you begin, please.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN J. WASHINGTON, SENIOR SPECIAL
AGENT, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Washington. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Washington
and I am a senior special agent with U.S. Immigration in Los An-
geles. I have been employed by the INS since June 1978, I6V2
years.
My colleagues and I have come here today from all over America
and the Continental United States to testify before this congres-
sional subcommittee regarding racial discrimination on a grand
scale within the INS against its black American employees. We
represent various divisions that encompass the total INS experi-
ence.
113
In September 1991, Los Angeles-based black Americans special
agents filed a major class action complaint against the INS. This
lawsuit was filed on behalf of blacks officer corps employees nation-
wide. The complaint involves approximately 900 INS employees
and is growing every day.
We are not disputing Mr. Ross's figure. He gets his figures from
us.
The complaint charges that INS has knowingly and historically
refused to promote black Americans to supervisory and SES posi-
tions based solely on their race and of cultivating and condoning
a hostile work environment. The evidence is overwhelming.
For instance, there are approximately 1,600 INS special agents
nationwide. Of that number, blacks occupy only 70 of those posi-
tions. Out of those 70 positions you can count black supervisory of-
ficer corps employees on one hand.
Nationwide, there are a total of 33 district directors, and 33 dep-
uty district directors employed by the INS. This is a total of 66
SES employees at district levels. Blacks occupy only two of those
positions, as stated by Ms. Meissner. Out of approximately 4,000
government employees which make up the U.S. Border Patrol, only
approximately 44 of those employees are black Americans. We be-
lieve there are more.
There are 42 chief Border Patrol agents, and none are black.
There are 42 deputy chief Border Patrol agents, again, none of
those are black. Nationwide, within the INS, Mack Americans hold
absolutely no significant positions. This is especially visible at INS
headquarters. We feel that this is by historic design.
In the spring of 1993, the INS commissioned a task force to in-
vestigate the underrepresentation of black Americans in the agen-
cy. This occurred in response to the nationwide lawsuit filed at Los
Angeles in September 1991.
After 8 weeks of intensive review of the INS's recruitment, hir-
ing, and promotional practices nationwide, the task force found
that black Americans had not been promoted at the same pace as
other minorities and women in the agency. At pages 36 through 40
of their report of findings, the task force made specific rec-
ommendations to the Commissioner concerning the
underrepresentation of black Americans in supervisory and SES
positions in the INS. These recommendations which would have
made significant improvements have been ignored by both the
Commissioner and the Attorney General.
Mr. Chairman, if you have a copy of the task force report, if you
go to page 36, and you mentioned something about Los Angeles, I
am assigned to the southern California-Nevada corridor and have
been there since June 1978.
I don't know what is going on in the investigation branch at this
time because I was kicked out in the spring of 1992 when some-
body in headquarters advised the assistant district director for in-
vestigation to call my boss in organized crime to tell me not to ever
set foot in that investigation branch again. And the only thing that
I was doing since the Commissioner is here, is that I was trying
to protect the lives of those white men in that office. That is all.
OK? All right.
114
But if you check, Mr. Chairman, on pages 36 through 40, there
were specific recommendations made by the task force.
It appears that the U.S. Government doesn't want to recognize
this report because it was compiled by a black man. A negro. That
appears to be the problem. They don't want to recognize this report
because it was chaired by Mr. Creppy.
Mrs. Sale was honorable enough to appoint Mr. Creppy and had
enough faith in him to do this investigation. So what seems to be
the problem. Everything was moving pretty well while Mrs. Sale
was, the Acting INS Commissioner, and I am not cutting Ms.
Meissner because I don't know her* but everything stopped abrupt-
ly, after Ms. Meissner became the Commissioner.
So there is no effort by the INS to implement any of the task
force's recommendations contained in this report. Although I have
been thrown out of the district office investigation branch, the dis-
trict office in Los Angeles since September 1992; I have stayed
close enough on the west coast to everything on the job that I am
in a position to know that nothing is going on so far as these rec-
ommendations. These recommendations have not been imple-
mented. None of them.
As a matter of fact, I recall I was on either the eighth floor in
the file room; or the seventh floor in deportation; at one time they
were having one of those cultural awareness that Ms. Meissner
was speaking of. And I am not cutting her down. I am just trying
to be honest about it. As I passed by the door other staff members
were stating that Mr. Brechtel, the assistant district director for in-
vestigation, and Mrs. Emily Gleason, were asked to leave the con-
ference, because they were heckling the instructor, and using
words most likely that they didn't like in there concerning the cul-
tural awareness seminar, as had been directed by headquarters.
The leadership in the INS starts in headquarters. Your districts,
and your people are as good as your headquarters.
Mr. Conyers. You mean the hostility is so great that even when
people come from the national headquarters, tney are given a hard
time when they start trying to turn this situation around?
Mr. Washington. Yes, sir, the person that was there giving that
course should have made a report directly to the Commissioner. If
necessary, they should have gone to the Commissioner's home and
advised her what happened. And I think at the time it was Mrs.
Sale who was there and that Ms. Meissner had just came into of-
fice.
We don't know what seemed to be the problem, why Ms.
Meissner doesn't have any teeth within the agency's; because just
before she came into office Mr. Chairman; Mrs. Sale had this re-
port moving and it was moving in the right direction, and I am not
cutting Ms. Meissner down but something happened at head-
quarters related to the task report's implementation.
I don't want to get off the beaten path here Mr. Chairman, but
we are concerned as to this task force reports being misrepresented
here. And I am telling you now, and these gentlemen are going to
tell you also that this is hogwash, there is nothing going on there.
Mr. Conyers. What is the problem in Los Angelesf
Mr. Washington. What is the problem in Los Angeles? The
problem in Los Angeles, if you really want to know it is that you
115
have got supervisors in Los Angeles in investigations who haven't
been to the national academy in 22 years.
Organized crime has taken over the area. We are trying to cur-
tail it within the INS. And we have a group of supervisory inves-
tigators who were appointed to those positions in violation of the
Federal merit promotion guidelines, who weren't qualified, that has
never done a prosecution and never investigated a prosecution, the
Federals Building is next door to INS is Los Angeles. Not one su-
pervisor knows tne name of an assistant U.S. attorney, because
they don't know what is going on.
Mr. Wills, or one of the agents, files a case. Hell, they don't know
what they are looking at. They get angry when he or anyone else
want to do that kind of work. They want to stay with tunnel vision
where they do the funny little reports and go out to the jails; and
the problem is that you have got the old versus the new, and no
one in supervision is going to the academy to stay abreast with the
changing techniques of investigation.
That is one of the areas I hope the Commissioner will not ignore,
to send those supervisors to the academy. You can't give diversity
training — that is one of my expertise. I worked in the National Job
Corps for a number of years — you can't give expertise in cultural
awareness on the job. And you can't give it in the Ramada Inn in
Washington, DC. You have to send these supervisors and managers
back to the national academy and lock them up for 2 weeks and
let them become a part of -the diversified world.
These supervisors and managers do not understand anything
about the outside world. When you go to Los Angeles, you go back
100 years. It is really sad there because the employees have no op-
portunity. They promoted these supervisors and they hadn't proven
themselves as journeymen investigators and they promoted them,
and we have got some that have 10 years in the service that are
supervisors for 10 years. That is impossible. And that violated the
Federal promotion guidelines.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Wills, why don't you pick it up from there?
Mr. Washington. May I finish? I nave a couple more things to
say and then I will let him have it. Do you mind?
Mr. Conyers. OK
Mr. Washington. In 1969, Mr. Chairman, the Civil Service Com-
mission established the Federal merit promotion policies. These are
the official guideposts approved and used for hiring and promotions
throughout the Federal service. This entire system has become re-
duced to favoritism, nepotism, and cronyism from top to bottom in
the INS. When black Americans apply for employment or pro-
motion in the INS, these policies are ignored.
This is the root cause for their serious underrepresentation of
black supervisors in the SES positions in the agency, and that is
what I wanted to say, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Washington follows:]
116
Memorandum
Subject
Correctness of Congressional testimony
of November 17, 1994
Date
December 1, 1994
To
Ms. Cheryl Matcho, Clerk
Subcommittee on Legislation And
National Security
U.S. House of Representative
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Correctness of Testimony
Dated: November 17, 1994
From
John J. Washington, Sr.
Senior Special Agent
USINS/OCDETF
145 S. Everett St., #4
Glendale, CA 91205
(213) 894-7705
This is an official correctness of my testimony as intended for the
cogressional record.
TESTIMONY
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, my name is John J. Washington, and I am a
Senior Special Agent, employed with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), in Los Angeles, California. I have been employed by the
(INS) since June of 1978; for 16 and a half-years.
My colleagues and I have come here today from all over America, and
the continental United States to testify before this congressional
subcommittee, regarding racial discrimination on a grand scale within
the INS, against its Black American employees. We represent various
divisions that encompasses the total INS experience.
In September of 1991, Los Angeles-based Black American Special Agents
of the INS filed a major Class Action Complaint against the agency. This
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Black Officer Corp employees nationwide.
The complaint involves approximately 900 INS employees, and is growing
every day.
We are not disputing Mr. Ross's figure. He gets his figures, and the
names of new class participants from us.
The complaint charges that INS has knowingly and historically refused to
promote Black Americans to supervisory and SES positions based solely on
their race; and of cultivating and condoning a hostile work enviroment.
The evidence is overwhelming.
117
For instance, there are approximately 1,600 INS Special Agents
nationwide. Of that number, blacks occupy only 70 of those positions.
Out of those 70 positions; you can count black supervisory officer corp
employees on one hand.
Nationwide, there are a total of 33 district directors, and 33
deputy district directors employed at the districts level. Blacks occupy
only two of those positions, as previously stated by Ms. Meissner. Out
of approximately 4,000 government employees which make up the United
States Border Patrol, only approximately 44 of those employees are Black
Americans. We believe there are more.
There are 42 Chief Border Patrol Agents, and none are black. There
are 42 Deputy Chief Border Patrol Agents, again, none of those are
black. Nationwide, within the INS, Black Americans hold absolutely no
significant positions. This is especially visible at INS headquarters.
We feel that this is by historic design.
In the spring of 1993, the INS commissioned a task force to
investigate the underrepresentation of Black Americans in the agency.
This occurred in response to the nationwide lawsuit filed at Los Angeles
in Sptember of 1991.
After eight-weeks of intensive review of the INS's recruitment,
hiring and promotional practices nationwide, the task force found that
Black Americans had not been promoted at the same pace as other
minorities and women in the agency. At pages 36-through-40 of the task
force's report of finding; the task force made specific recommendations
to the INS Commissioner concerning the underrepresentation of Black
Americans in supervisory and SES positions in the agency. These
recommendations which would have made significant improvements have been
ignored by both the Commissioner, and the Attorney General.
Mr. Chairman, if you have a copy of the task force report. If you
do, if you would go to page 36, and you mentioned something about Los
Angeles; I am assinged to the Southern California/Nevada corridor, and
have been there since June of 1978.
I don't know what is going on in the Los Angeles Investigation
Branch at this time; because I was kicked out in the spring of 1992,
when someone in headquarters authorized the Acting Assistant District
Director For Investigations, William Griffen, to summons my immediate
supervisor in the Organized Crime Division, to his office, for Mr. John
Brechtel, Assistant District Director For Investigations, to direct me
not to ever set foot in the Los Angeles Investigation Branch again. They
118
advised my immediate supervisor that I was disturbing the work
enviroment, through discussion of union activities with employees. And
the only thing that I was doing since the Commissioner is here, is that
I was trying to protect the lives of those white men, supervisors, in
that office. That is all. I am not a union shop officer; or a leader of
the local union in Los Angeles. This was no more than a reprisal by
managers in the Los Angeles office against me, because I am the national
spokesman for the class complaint. This was an effort to obstruct me
from meeting with class paticipants at lunch and official employee
breaks.
Now, if you would check Mr. Chairman, on pages 36-thrcugh-40 cf the
task force report; there were specific recommendations made by the task
force.
It appears Mr. Chairman, that the United States Government, doesn't
want to recognize this task force report, because it was compiled by a
black man. A Negro. That appears to be the problem. They don't want to
recognize this report, because it was chaired by Mr. Creppy.
Ms. Sale, former Acting INS Commissioner, was honorable enough to
appoint Mr. Creppy, and had enough faith in him to conduct this
investigation. So, what seems to be the problem? Everything was moving
along pretty well while Ms. Sale was the Acting INS Commissioner; and I
am not cutting down Ms. Meissner, because I don't know her; and I don't
know what efforts she have undertaken to implement the recommendations
of the task force report; but everything stopped abruptly, after Ms.
Meissner came into office as the INS Commissioner.
Sir, there is no efforts by the INS to implement any of the task
force's recommendations contained on pages-36-through-40 of this task
force report. Although, I have been thrown out of the district office's
Investigation Branch since the spring of 1992; I have stayed close
enough on the West Coast to everything on the job that I am in a
position to know that nothing is going on, as to the implementation of
these task force recommendations. These recommendations have not been
implemented. None of them.
As a matter of fact, I recall that I was on either the seventh, or
the eight floor of the INS building in Los Angeles; departing the file
room, or the deportation branch; and an INS Headquarters EEO employee
was presenting one of those cultural awareness classes that Ms. Meissner
was speaking of. And again, I am not cutting her down. I am just trying
to be honest about it. As I passed the entrance door of the conference
119
room, a group of staff members were stating that Mr. Brechtel, Assistant
District Director For Investigation, and Emily Gleason, Deputy Assistant
District Director For Investigation, were asked to leave the class,
because they were considered disruptive to the lecturer of the cultural
awareness seminar, in which had been directed by INS headquarters. The
leadership in the INS starts in headquarters. Your districts, and your
people are as good as your headquarters.
Mr. CONYERS. You mean the hostility is so great that even when
people come from the national headquarters, they get a hard time when
they start trying to turn this situation around?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir, the person that was there giving the
that course should have made a report directly to the Commissioner. If
necessary, they should have gone to the Commissioner's home and advised
her what happened. And Sir, I believe at the time this incident
occurred, Ms. Sale was the Acting INS Commissioner; or Ms. Meissner had
just came into office.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. We don't know what seems to be the problem, why Ms.
Meissner doesn't have any teeth within the agency; because just before
she came into office, Sir; Ms. Sale had the recommendations contained in
the task force's report moving in the right directions; and again, I am
not cutting Ms. Meissner down, but something happened at INS
headquarters related to the implementation of this task force report.
I don't want to get off the beaten path here Mr. Chairman; but we
are concerned as to any misrepresentations that this task force report
is currently being implemented by the INS. And I am telling you now Sir,
and these gentlemen are going to tell you also that this is all hogwash.
There's nothing going-on as to the implementation of the task focre's
recommendations .
Mr. CONYERS. What is the problem in Los Angeles?
Mr. WASHINGTON. What is the problem in Los Angeles? The problem in
Los Angeles, if you really wants to know, is that you have got
supervisors in Los Angeles in the Investigation Branch, who haven't
attended the National Academy in the last twenty-two years. How can
anyone direct, guide and lead, if they haven't been to training in over
twenty years. This is a new world. We are working on the cutting edge of
scientific investigations. And one of the problems, is that organized
crime has taken over the area. We are trying to curtail its affect
within the INS in Los Angeles. We have a group of Supervisory
120
Investigators who were appointed to those positions in violation of the
Federal Merit Promotion guideline; and who wasn't qualified; and have
never conducted or prosecuted an investigations before their
appointments. The United States Courthouse is located next door to the
INS in Los Angeles; and not one supervisor has a professional working
relationship with an Assistant United States Attorney. They don't know
what's going-on in the area of prosecutions. Which causes a major
conflict between agents attempting to perform their investigative
duties. For instance.
Mr. Wills, or one of the other agents, files a prosecution case.
Hell, the supervisors don't know what they are looking at. The
supervisors becomes angry, whenever anyone attempts to venture into the
areas of advance investigations, or prosecutions. They have tunnel
vision; and rather stay within an area where they do the little funny,
simple reports; and go to the jails. It all narrows to one focus; the
old verses the new. This is a source of great friction throughout the
INS. Supervisors are not attending the National Academy to stay abreast
with changing investigative techniques; and to better relate to their
newly appointed subordinates. The supervisors have tunnel vision; and
are attempting to administer the INS, as it was administered in 1950.
This is the problem. That is one of the areas I hope that the
Commissioner will not ignore; is to send those supervisors for advance
academy training. You can't give diversity training in the Ramada Inn in
Washington, D.C. This is one of my expertise's. I introduced diversity
to youths for several years with the national Job Corp Program. You
can't teach culture awareness on the job. You have to send these
supervisors to the National Academy; and lock them up for two weeks and
allow them to become a part of the diversified world around us.
These supervisors and Managers do not understand anything about the
outside world. When you go the Los Angeles INS office; you go back 100
years into America. It is really sad there, because black employees have
no opportunities there, for advancement in the federal service. The INS
promoted supervisors and managers in Los Angeles; that hadn't proven
themselves as journeyman investigators. We have supervisors that have
ten years on the job, that have never conducted an investigation; or
been involved in a prosecution case. When black agents attempts to
initiate any type of advance techniques, they are suppressed. Although,
white agents are allowed to perform these same activities. This leads to
friction, and a hostile work enviroment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Wills, why don't you pick it up from there?
121
Mr. WASHINGTON. May I finish. I have a couple more things to say and
then I will let him have it. Do you mind ?
Mr. CONYERS. Okay.
Mr. WASHINGTON. In 1969, Mr. Chairman, the Civil Service Commission
established the Federal Merit Promotion policies. These policies are the
official guideposts approved and used for hiring and promotions
throughout the federal service. This entire system within the INS has
been reduced to favoritism, nepotism and cronyism from top to bottom.
When Black Americans apply for employment or promotion in the agency,
these policies are ignored.
This is the root causes of the serious underrepresentation of black
supervisors in SES positions in the agency; and that is what I wanted to
say, Sir.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the corrections made herein by me reflect the
changes I wish to make in my oral testimony.
John J. /Washihgton
December 1, 1994
122
Mr. Conyers. Thanks so much.
Mr. John Wills.
STATEMENT OF JOHN T. WILLS, JR., SPECIAL AGENT, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Wills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a glorious day for me but also a sad day that I have to
be here for these type of circumstances. But I am very proud that
I am here to discuss these matters with you as have been brought
out before.
I am an Army veteran and an American through and through.
I love this country. I will die for this country. I believe in the INS
mission. That is why I joined, and I will do anything I possibly can
to protect this country from any foreign invaders or anything. But
unfortunately, in the year of 1994, we still have the vestiges of rac-
ism that is so deep inside, especially the Los Angeles district, is
shameful.
I will get into the heart of the matter. I will touch a little bit on
what Mr. Washington was saying about the leadership potential
and so forth in the Los Angeles district.
The majority of supervisors who do supervise me have an ex-
treme problem with me. One is because of my education. Second is
because they haven't had the training to lead the new agents who
have come forward. And that has created a problem.
I have a double problem because I am African-American and also
because I have developed the skills to prosecute foreign invaders
who are tearing up our populace, creating mindboggling deaths
that we right now can't even solve, especially in California.
So I made it my mission. I am going to ferret out these individ-
uals. I assured them that I am going to prosecute and subsequently
deport these individuals from the United States. But they have not
shared my mission because they realize that they don't want an Af-
rican-American to succeed in INS.
They have allowed criminal aliens to commit crimes to our citi-
zens so that way they can block an African-American from actually
achieving some success and notoriety and they would rather sac-
rifice the death of the public to keep an African-American down in-
side. And I have got cases upon cases.
Mr. Conyers. You realize that is a very serious accusation.
Mr. Wills. Yes, I do.
Mr. Conyers. And I know that you are prepared to back it up
with any documentation that we might require.
Mr. Wills. Yes, I have documents here. I will tell you one case
in particular. A very dangerous individual came from Washington,
DC. As a matter of fact, belonged to a vicious gang, the Jamaican
Posse. This individual came to Los Angeles, shooting, robbing, sell-
ing drugs, green cards, you name it. I targeted this individual. I
went undercover myself to target this vicious individual. Illegal
alien on top of that.
I got this individual to the point where he was going to give me
large sums of cocaine for immigration documents which are sold in
Jamaica for $4,000, $5,000. At the witching hour right before this
transaction was to occur, the assistant district director of investiga-
tions who we have been talking about, pulled me off, left my in-
123
formant standing there with this vicious criminal, and no expla-
nations whatsoever. I had to get on the phone and call DEA and
State Department and Rialto PD who were assisting me on this op-
eration. I called him 911 and I — excuse my French, I said, "Hey,
man you have to get the hell out of there. The mission has been
aborted. And he literally started crying on the phone because he
said, Hey, man, this guy is going to kill me. And I said, I am sorry,
I don't know what to do. That point right there in itself shows the
magnitude of how the discrimination works.
We turned right around and a European-American agent, we set
the assistant district director up. He turned around and had a
similar case. That case was approved. We all went out on the in-
vestigation and we all got together and said, John, we know what
is going with you. Let me reword this paperwork and send it
through.
In 2 days that thing was approved and we went out on investiga-
tion to target another individual. The management from the dis-
trict director on down told me I cannot arrest, I cannot indict. I
cannot seek Federal warrants. I cannot do any sorts of even immi-
gration work against dangerous criminals.
My attorney, Mr. Ross, has a tape showing Jamaican Posse gang
leaders in broad daylight I filmed cutting marijuana and carrying
concealed weapons. It is incumbent under 18 U.S.C. 4, I am watch-
ing felonies in my presence, and I am told by the assistant district
director and my first and second-line supervisors, let it go; you can-
not arrest these individuals. And subsequent to that, I was re-
moved from the violent gang task force.
When I went to the fraud section, I had a similar situation again
where I targeted the most violent criminal aliens who were tearing
up south-central Los Angeles, shooting robbing, even infiltrated the
department of motor vehicles. They were giving authentic Califor-
nia driver's licenses to gangs, Bloods, Crips, Hispanic gang mem-
bers, Colombian cartel, but they told me, no, you can't work this
case, let it go.
Because of what was going on with me, I fought back. They
would not fund any of my cases so I would go undercover at night-
time, knowing I should be home, because I wanted to make sure
that the public was protected from these individuals. That caused
problems that led to an incident on June 25, 1994.
June of 21, to give you highlights, Senator Feinstein was coming
to Los Angeles, and she wanted to go to the same very area that
I am talking about now. It is known for immigrants committing
virtually all types of crimes. I had reservations because I was un-
dercover. Everybody in that district office knows what I was doing.
Everybody in that area knows me as a drug dealer because that
is my cover out there in the streets.
They told me, Well, look, John, we are not going to blow your
cover. That was on June 21. We are going to put let everything go.
But in the meantime they were waiting in the wings to do me in.
The night
Mr. Conyers. They, who?
Mr. Wills. I am talking about the supervisors. The first line,
second lines and the assistant district director plotted to harm me
124
by trying to place me in a precarious situation in front of this indi-
vidual who was known to carry a weapon.
That is why I was targeting him and he is known to pull out a
weapon a lot of times and shoot individuals right on the same cor-
ner that they wanted me to walk, some representative of Senator
Feinstein. I said no. It is dangerous. I cannot do it for my life and
the life of my informants and this individual will harm me. If he
sees me, he may start shooting. And so they started arguing with
me.
Essentially they said to me, look, I am the supervisor. I have, in
my hands, life or death. They ordered me to escort this cameraman
to the area without no covor at all. Naked. Naked. With this cam-
eraman, just me. It could have been someone else that was not un-
dercover, but me. I protested.
I said, hey, I have strong reservations at this time. My first-line
supervisor used expletives and got in my face, used four-letter
words that we all know, and challenged me to fight. That individ-
ual was followed by the second-line supervisor who came to my
right and also started using expletives and challenged me to fight.
At that time, I stood my ground. I was very nervous. I didn't
know what was going on. Some of the witnesses tried to get in be-
tween. But to no avail.
Profanity was coming from their mouths. They challenged me
and challenged me again and suddenly the second-line supervisor
decides to go inside his office. He went inside and came back and
fot into the fray again and said, come on. You want to take me on?
rying to lead me to an area that I didn't understand what he was
trying to do. I said, no, I can't do that. I am not here to fight. I
want to work but I don't want to fight you.
This went on for 5 to 7 minutes. The following Monday after the
incident I was brought to the district director's office. I was told
that I was in for disciplinary actions because I didn't follow instruc-
tions.
I said, sir, wait a minute, they were sending me to the same indi-
vidual who was known to shoot and carry weapons. And he said,
so what? And I said, If that is the way it is going to be I would
rather challenge this demagoguery in court. If you are going to
order me to do something like that, we have a problem here. And
he said, look, I want to see your reports. I talked to Mr. Ross, the
attorney. I would not give those reports up and I gave him a state-
ment on what occurred and that was it.
Now, the assistant director ordered me in the office and he want-
ed my notes that I had on this incident and told me this was noth-
ing. And he said, you could get in trouble. You disobeyed orders.
Mr. Conyers. Any of them have a gun?
Mr. Wills. Yes, sadly to say, both first and second-line super-
visors had a weapon. The first-line supervisor in my opinion did
not show evidence that he wanted to use it. But the second did.
And it was not brought to my attention until Mr. Washington
called me up, and unfortunately Sunday night, I was getting calls
after this incident from everyone.
My wife knew something was wrong. She picked up the phone
and listened. Mr. Washington said, John, this is something that is
frightful but did you know that the second-line supervisor went
125
back there and strapped on a weapon. And I said, What? Yes, he
was going to do you in. My wife heard this.
My wile immediately jumped in and said, John, I want to talk
to you right now. We went outside. She left with my children. She
said, you know what I am not going to stand here and let those
racists shoot you. I need a husband and a father for my children.
I called my mom and dad. I was so upset.
Here they were going to try to prosecute me. I didn't do anything
to them. I tried to do my job. They turned around and were going
to prosecute me. Then when this report came out. They tried to in-
timidate the witnesses.
ADDI, the first and second-line supervisors demanded the notes
and talked to the witnesses prior to the investigator coming and
talking to them, demanded the notes and then took the notes and
copied those notes. Copied those notes and then used it so that
they way they could get their stories straight. I protested. The at-
torney, Mr. Ross protested. We said, No, this is not fair.
When this report was done, the troubleshooter is supposed to be
an unbiased individual. Not a good old boy, so to speak. But unfor-
tunately he was. He wrote in his synopsis on the incident that it
was his consideration that the two supervisors indicated that there
it a high-profile mission and that they were under pressure. One
excuse, one alibi, one immunity he was trying to give them.
Second, they claimed that one of the agents said, Oh, I never
seen the second-line supervisor ever act like that before. That is
the second immunity showing that it must have been Agent Wills
who was at fault here.
Third, they claim that I fueled the situation because I said that
management was out to get me. I never said that. I couldn't hardly
say anything. They were cursing at me and threatening me. I
didn't say anything to them. They give them three lines of immu-
nity.
So he covers them essentially by saying, yes, they did it but you
know Senator Feinstein was coming and, gosh, they were under a
lot of pressure so this individual should be given immunity.
What kind of report is that? The disciplinary action then, was
that they were placed on the third floor to eat donuts and drink
coffee. The second-line supervisor was so indignant toward what
happened he was going to single me out. He would walk behind me
like they used to do in the South demanding that I move out of the
way like in the Jim Crow era.
I protested and called my attorney Mr. Ross, and he protested.
And essentially, that is the crux of the investigation.
Yes, I did feel threatened, after I had learned what occurred that
this individual might have strapped on a weapon.
I will say this also, sir, that two of the witnesses noticed at the
time the first confrontation I had with the second-line supervisor
during this incident. He was not armed. But the question was
asked by the EEO investigator, Why did you go back there? His re-
sponse was, I don't recall. He asked him, do you recall using pro-
fanity toward Agent Wills? No, I don't recall. Did you go back there
and get a weapon? Now all the sudden he remembers, oh, well, I
had tne weapon all the time. But the two witnesses, sir.
Mr. Conyers. That was not accurate?
126
Mr. Wills. Right. Two witnesses stated at the initial confronta-
tion with me, he had no weapon but he retrieved the weapon but
they didn't see it. By the time one of the agents went around to
see the weapon was being adjusted on his belt and he comes back
to me and tries to lure me back to his office with, come on, take
me on, he was going to use deadly force.
That is why of the one agents said I watched him, that if anyone
was going to use deadly force on Agent Wills, that I was going to
take appropriate action.
And like I said, this is a sad day for me. I hate to be here for
this, but there is a long day coming. I could have lost my life. And,
you know, it is funny. I go out in the field undercover and I don't
fear the criminals the way I do the supervisors.
How can they recommend, the central office — in all due respect
for the Commissioner — 1-day suspension for what they have done?
The profanity. The threats to take my life. One-day suspension and
a letter of reprimand. One day.
Switch this around; I would not be sitting here if it was Agent
Wills who had perpetrated those crimes on those two individuals.
I would have been out of here. I would have been arrested and
probably right now indicted, but these individuals were given a 1-
day suspension. That is what was recommended. That is not fair,
sir. That is not fair.
My colleagues wanted me to bring up something, a very sensitive
matter. I have talked to counsel about it. A case that brought tears
to my family and to my eyes. The Koresh case. Everyone is familiar
with it. Anyone across the world was familiar with this case. A file
that has been so sanitized, I wonder if there is anything in it now.
Yes, sir, I was the one who originally had this case. When those
four agents died, as Mr. Washington can tell you, I shed tears be-
cause I said I wish I had violated directives.
I should have arrested this individual when I had the chance,
but I was ordered — I was taken off the case. I cried. My wife cried
along with me, Mr. Washington testified to that. Monday, after
those four agents died, I was very upset. I called the supervisor
who took me off, said hey, do you know what you did here? Oh,
yeah, we will talk about it, we will talk about it. Oh, yeah. Every-
body consult me because the individuals who were going to assist
me on the arrest of this individual are now deceased. David
Koresh, who was known then as Dave Howell, said, hey, we were
going to take this guy out, why didn't they let us. We could have
had this gentleman.
I don't know what would have happened in court. But those indi-
viduals who were pulling the triggers, those aliens from England,
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada who were pulling triggers on
our agents might have been arrested and deported, and never had
the chance to ever pull a trigger on any ATF agents. But you know
what the excuse was given, oh, it is out of our jurisdiction. Mr.
Koresh decided to go to Waco, TX, and so it is out of our — we are
Federal agents. We are not bounded by county lines or State lines.
We get a warrant, we can ferret this individual out in Washington,
DC or Texas, anyplace this individual decides to run, we can get
this individual.
127
That is why we are Federal agents, we are not local cops. But
no, they wanted to put the burden on someone else, and we know
the history. Yes, sir, I wanted to arrest him, I wanted to take this
individual. I know him by the back of my hand. I even conferred
with ATF and FBI because I knew Mr. Koresh, because I was
surveilling him. I knew his sexual habits and I conveyed that, I
said, look, if you do this, this will occur, we may be able to get a
peaceful resolution.
I knew this man's habits very well, but I was not allowed to take
this man out. Now I know our people say, well, the individual left.
He was not gone at the time I was investigating him. When I want-
ed to go to U.S. attorney's office to get search warrants and arrest
warrants for his arrest for visa fraud, for bringing in aliens under
false pretenses, and it is a felony under our statute as you know,
sir, but they would not allow me to. And I rest my case.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wills follows:]
128
U.S. Department of Juatiee
Immigration and Naturalization Service
300 Sank Lot Aafl— Strati
Lot Angela*, CA 00013
The Honorable Congressman John Conyera, Jr.
chairman, Legislation and
National Security Subcommittee
Mr. Chairman:
My name is John Thomas wills, I am currently employed by the
Immigration & Naturalization Service as a Special Agent (SA) . I
have been so employed since February 1988.
TISTIMOMT
It is a shame that in the year of 1994, we still have the vestiges
of racism and the caldron of hate permeating inside the federal law
enforcement agencies. The agency that I respectfully represent,
Immigration 6 Naturalization Service (INS) , is one of the guilty
federal agencies who have refused to quell racism. Instead, the
INS, in recent years, have led a campaign of terror against African
American agents that is unparalleled in any other federal law
enforcement agency. This is my story:
I began experiencing racism first hand in INS in the year of 1989,
when I was placed in the gang unit. I had recently qualified as a
gang expert from training received from California Gang
Investigators Association. I developed a liaison with Ontario
Police Department (OPD) Detection Bob Hickman, Detective Hickman
told me that their city was experiencing a great deal of aggravated
crimes being committed by illegal aliens, mainly gang members. A
joint operation between INS and OPD vaa approved and Supervisory
Special Agent (SSA) Mike Loyd was in charge. SSA Loyd, during the
gang abatement operation committed two gross security violations
that could have resulted in the death or injury of an SA and two
OPD Detectives. The next day, I reported the violations to the
Deputy Assistant District Director (DADDI) Emily Gleason. The
DADDI told me that I had courage and she also thanked me for my
honesty, well, three days later I was removed out of the unit by
the DADDI. She never gave me any reasons, but SSA Loyd quipped,
"HA1HA!, you are being kicked out of the gang unit". The SA who
could have been hurt (a European-American) during the operation
also voiced his concern but was not removed from the unit.
129
While being assigned to the Violent Gang Task Poroe (VGTF) ,
mandated by ths Attorney General, on or about July 27, 1992, I was
givan a case involving a fugitive from England named ANTHONY
MARSHALL. The subject was operating in the log Angeles area
committing burglaries, strong-arm robberies , and check writing
scams. I developed an informant with British ties and he was well
acquainted with the subject. After following some leads, the
subject's location was found. But SSA Karl Ullrich told me to
oloee out the case. I was appalled! I asked him, "How could you
let this criminal continue committing crimes and not done any thing
about it". SSA Ullrich told me, " Well I must do what I have been
order to do. Assistant District Director of Investigations (ADDI)
John Brechtel told me to close it out". I officially closed out
the case on August 27, 1992. The case was reopened about two
months later and given to a European-American SA. SSA Angel
Martinez asked me if I oould supply anymore information, I told him
I could not. To my knowledge, ANTHONY MARSHALL is still at large.
While still being assigned to the vgtf, I open a task foroe funding
case on the Jamaican Posse. I developed a number of reliable
Jamaican informants who assisted me on my cases. On or about
August 6, 1992, while working in an undercover capacity, I gained
the confidence of a vicious Jamaican Posse gang member, an illegal
alien, known as "SIR RALEIGH". This subject was known in the Los
Angeles area as a major dealer in narcotics and murder.
Negotiations went on for weeks, and the subject then agreed to
purchased from me, 100 blank green cards and six U.S. Passports,
In exchange for 1/2 pound of rock cocaine. A meet site was set,
SSA Ullrich contacted the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the
State Department, and I contacted Rialto Police Department (RPD) .
DEA assigned two SA's, State Department assigned one SA, and RPD
assigned six detectives. one hour prior to the trade, ADDI
Brechtel phoned SSA Ullrich and told him to call it off. No
explanation was given. I had to contact my informant who was
waiting with the subject at the prescribed location. Because it
was well known that the subject at a history of carrying firearms,
and had a propensity for shooting competitors and double oroBsers,
ADDI Brechtel actions put my life and the life of the informant in
danger. Two days later, the ADDI and SSA Ullrich told me to let
the subject alone. ADDI advised SSA Ullrich and I that the case
was fraud case and not a gang case and the VGTF was prohibited from
conducting undercover operations. Even thought the Attorney
Generals guidelines includes undercover operations. But
approximately one year later I was moved to the fraud section. I
asked my new supervisor SSA Frank Johnston if I could work the "SIR
RALEIGH" case. ADDI Brechtel informed me that it was a gang case,
not a fraud oaee.
On October l, 1992, I requested a meeting with my two front line
supervisor's SSA Gil Reeves and SSA Ullrich. I advised them that
I was concerned with the continued discriminatory practices of
obstructing my investigations while fully supporting white agents
investigations. SSA*s Reeves and Ullrich told me that I could not
get any federal search or arrest warrants, nor arrest with or
130
without probable cause any Jamaican Posse gang members. After the
meeting, SSA Ullrich walked over to another 8A, David S to It 2 and
told him that he wanted him to try to obtain federal search
warrants for the Asian gang he was investigating. I confronted SSA
Ullrich about what he told SA Stoltz and SSA Ullrich quipped, "You
have a good civil rights case huh I
On or about October 9, 1992 , I asked SSA Ullrich where was the
funding for my case. SSA Ul Irion stated that ADD I Brechtel had
used the funds for other things. I called SSA Bruce Nichols, VGTF
Coordinator, INS Central Office. I requested an investigation into
illegal use task force funding. It took Central office nearly six
months to send a team to the Los Angeles office. The investigative
team arrive in late July of 1993. Their finding where never
published but SSA Nichols told me that ADDI Breohtel was advised
not to do it again. But the problems relating to the violations
of the Attorney General's VGTF guildlines was never addressed and
ADDI Brechtel continued not following the guildlines. I was soon
removed from the VGTF Section.
On or about August 12, 1993, I was assigned to fraud section.
After two months being in the fraud section the discriminatory
practices began; Large scale search and arrest warrant operations
that I cultivated, SSA May land refuse to provide me with enough
agents to serve the mandated warrants. I had to personally secure
manpower from outside law enforcement agencies, while White and
Hispanic agents where accorded with enough INS agents to carry out
their warrant operations.
On about April 4, 1994, while discussing the disparaging treatment
I had been receiving in the Fraud section with SSA Quintanar, SSA
weyland walked up behind me and yelled, "Did you call ma a 7UCXXM
SUPERVISOR"? I was totally shocked at his verbiage. I told him no
I was not referring to him at all. This was the my first
confrontation that occurred with SSA's Nick Weyland and Jesus
Quintanar. Also, on or about April 15, 1994, I received a call
from SSA Quintanar and he told me that I could not secure anymore
searah warrants unless I could predict how many suspects would be
a given location. No other agent in the section was given that
directive. I demanded a meeting with ADDI Brechtel. ADDI Brechtel
stop short of backing the order, but I was still being obstructed.
After that meeting, I began experiencing case funding problems.
While White agents were being fully funded for their oases. SSA's
Weyland and Quintanar then ordered me to write memos justifying
what I have been doing with case money. While White agents were
not asked to write such memos. Suddenly, my undercover funding was
being confiscated by SSA's Weyland and Quintanar, while White
agents funding were not.
On or about June 21, 1994, Senator Feinstein requested the INS to
show her the Rampart area of Los Angeles, this area is mainly an
Hispanic immigrant community. The area is known for counterfeit
U.S. Currency and document vending, drug dealing and murder. SSA's
Weyland and Quintanar told the fraud section that we would be
131
responsible for providing sncurlty in tha arts . Sina* I hov« b**n
working undercover in the area sine* January of 1994, SSA Quintanar
wanted ne to go out with other fraud section agents to nap out a
route for Senator Feinstein. I told SSA Quintanar that I had a
very sensitive investigation going in the Rampart area and that ny
cover could be blown. SSA Quintanar assigned SA's Mendez and
Garcia to do the task instead. On or about June 24, 1994, one day
prior to Senator Feinstein press conference in the Rampart area, I
was advised by SSA Quintanar that I would be in a soout vehicle so
aa to preserve my undercover position in the area. But, at 10:30
p.m., on or about June 24, 1994, I received a call fron SSA
Quintanar and he advised ne that he was ordering ne to escort a
camera nan to the William Perm Hotel, where Senator Feinstein was
going to hold her press conference. I was upset that he would
jeopardise ny life and the life of ny informants, and I told SSA
Quintanar that. The subject X was investigating was a gang member
with a long and violent history. Undercover Negotiations ware
being conducted with this subject for the purchase of counterfeit
immigration documents, in front of the William Penn Hotel. SSA
Quintanar ordered ma in to the office anyway. When I arrived on
June 25, 1994, at approximately 7:45 a.m., I was confronted by
SSA's quintanar and Way land and challenged to fight (read enclosed
report) . This confrontation was by all accounts the nost
potentially violent of all confrontations involving nanagenent and
subordinates. I was verbally abused and assaulted by SSA's
Quintanar and Weyland.
On or about July 10, 1994, I file an EEO complaint against the IKS
for the continued harassment and discrimination oonduoted against
because of my race.
It nust be noted since Norris Potter file his najor SEO class
action complaint on behalf of African-American INS Agents,
relations have been extremely poor between the African-American
Agents and European-American Supervisors, in the Los Angeles
office. Many European-American INS managers have voiced that they
have taken the class action suit very personal.
itjLn Thomas Wills
132
Mr. Conyers. I can't tell you how much we appreciate your deci-
sion to come here and testify today. Thank you.
I am going to skip over to Mr. Carey James right now from El
Paso, Border Patrol Special Coordination Center.
STATEMENT OF CAREY JAMES, ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL
AGENT, BORDER PATROL SPECIAL COORDINATION CENTER
Mr. Carey James. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
it is a great honor to appear before you here today and be provided
with the opportunity to provide testimony that will possibly bring
about change within the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
My name is Carey James. I am 46 years old and I am currently
employed by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service as a
Border Patrol agent holding the position of assistant chief patrol
agent with the Border Patrol Special Coordination Center stationed
in El Paso, TX, reporting directly to Headquarters Border Patrol
here in Washington, DC.
I have been employed by the Immigration Service since March
30, 1975, or 19 years and 8 months. I have been married for 26
years and I have three children, one that I am very proud to say
just graduated from college this year, and one that will graduate
next year as well as a son that will be graduating from high school.
I would like to say before I get into the text of my speech, Mr.
Chairman, that as being one of this Nation's gatekeepers, I have
admitted people to the United States as an immigration officer that
have come into this country and gone on to receive greater equality
under the laws of this country than some of us as agents in this
organization have not received and that have been here for years,
and our parents and other members of our race.
As a young man growing up, Mr. Chairman, I watched programs
on television about the U.S. Border Patrol. I dreamed of one day
being one of those officers. It took many career starts and endeav-
ors, but I finally realized my boyhood dreams.
In the days of my dreams, blacks were seldom seen on television,
and I must say that my dreams were not fostered from seeing a
black portrayed as a Border Patrol agent. Many years ago in my
youth, I had to learn that using Brylcreem on my hair, a hair care
product commonly advertised on television at the time, would not
make my hair wavy and curly like the people portrayed on tele-
vision. I would soon learn that my career with the Border Patrol
would not be an easy one and without incidents as portrayed on
television either.
One of the things I immediately noticed, though, was that there
were no black role models in the Border Patrol for me to follow.
And this very closely mirrored the television program. My career
with the U.S. Border Patrol began March 30, 1975. I was assigned
to the Tucson Border Patrol sector and stationed in Douglas, AZ.
I quickly realized that even though I had completed the Border Pa-
trol Academy and the course of study for becoming a Border Patrol
agent, I found out that I knew very little about the laws, rules, and
regulations that I was supposed to be enforcing.
I submitted applications to other branches of the INS where I
could get the experience I felt I needed to do a better job and en-
hance my career. After many applications, I was finally selected for
133
a position as an immigration examiner in October 1978 at the Fres-
no, CA immigration suboffice. My plans were to complete about 1
year of doing the duties of an examiner and return to the Border
Patrol where my true love and boyhood dreams were.
I started submitting applications for lateral transfers at the same
grade level for positions in the Border Patrol and promotions. That
is after I completed the 1-year time period. Many of the applica-
tions that I submitted were returned to me and I didn't even make
the selection lists, competing with officers with less experience and
time and grade than myself. I was patient and continued to submit
applications for about a 2-year period. I regretfully did not keep all
of the applications for that time period.
After about a 2-year time period, I began to ask myself why I
was not making the list, and the lists that I did make I was not
being considered or selected for the positions. Having faith and
hope and believing in the system, I submitted two grievances, try-
ing to find answers. I received one of those grievances back, but I
still had no answers.
I was sent away on a detail to work at another office. When I
returned, my office was open. I soon learned that some of the clerks
and secretaries had used my office to take their breaks and lunch
periods. There was the response to my other grievance, lying on top
of my desk and for anyone to read and I am sure the other person-
nel had.
This was a clear violation of the INS policy in the handling of
grievances. Needless to say, the response did little to resolve ques-
tions in my mind as to why I was not qualified or selected for the
positions that I had applied for.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a copy of those grievances
for your records that I submitted.
Mr. Conyers. We will accept them into the record.
[The information follows:]
134
Memorandum
EXHIBIT A
CO 781-C
Subjeci
Your grievance dated June 18, 1981
Date
6 JUL 1981
To
Carey James
Immigration Examiner
Fresno, California
From
Kaye E. Clements, Acting
Assistant Commissioner,
Personnel
Your grievance has been referred to me for referral to the appropriate
grievance official.
A copy of your grievance is being sent to the Assistant Regional Com-
missioner for Personnel in the Western Region since the Supervisory Deten-
tion and Deportation Officer position about which you are grieving is a
delegated Officer Corps position and is covered under Merit Staffing Plan II.
A second copy of your grievance is being provided to the Assistant Regional
Commissioner for Personnel in the Eastern Region since the other position
about which you are grieving is also covered under Merit Staffing Plan II.
You will receive responses directly from both officials.
^^^Cj^ -
135
Memorandum
Subject
Grievance on terit Promotion
Reassignment Plan
■;nd
Date
ft
p^Bma 81
ToCarey James, Immigration Examiner
Fresno, California
Frofipger V.'. Woods, Assistant
Regional Commissioner,
Personnel, 5b stern
This memorandum is in response to the final paragraph of the June 1 8, 1 9S1
grievance which you submitted to Central Office.
The application which you submitted under vacancy announcement ER FSP II 81-32
for the position of Detention and Deportation Officer indicated that you had
served as an Immigration Examiner, GS-1 1 , from November 11, 197° to the
present in Fresno, California. You also indicated prior government experience
as a Border Patrol Agent, GS-9 from March 31, 1975 to November 11, 1 97? in
Douglas, Arizona. The date given in experience blocks 1 and 2 of the second
page of your application is November 11, 1 Q 79 (copy attached). The
announcement closed on October 17, 19S0 and it was therefore determined that
you did not meet the requirement of one year of service at the GS-11 level.
Ibr your further information, a selection list for vacancy announcement ER MSP
II 80-32 was not issued at the GS-1 2 level as the position was filled at the GS
13 level.
FOR THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
Roger W. Woods
Assistant Regional Commissioner,
Personnel
Attachment
mi G 2
'.•2-801
136
PLEASE RE SUKE TO READ An ACHED MSTtUCTIONS BEFORE COMPtETtMa REM 30
l.XI'l II I I.N<X ()'■<" «»* y" HttltN'1' ftutn* -•■! u-'» *-■■» Aivum ftr ftrnji tf *mmf h)n ,*l « MfjrMl »/«*l >• I
Miy irrpitry I* nu-lr iif ynul prrsrnl fflnplnyrl rcf[ir4it.g yuM itiuMCCf, qinliftcalnmv M<l retold irf ein|>1»ymrnl ?
frfl Nt " rji// 1*1 *lJHt yit cmmUrsU** /•' tmptwywinl 6/ifmrlt.rnliti t\upt fm HtAUSC EXAMINER fwttml f
j^Ye. □ No
1 U\<\ of rni!'l..nnrn! (mmtb. ftf)
Troni AjoQ K h?f To PRESENT TIMfc
Salai y of eainingi
Sunm* $ /? ( ?CJ per ^««/.
Present I /<} JCJ P« A^-C/
Avg hn
per week
Emt tide ol poutron
Pta<< of employrncn
State: £.<* .
Number and kind of emptorew
■wpcrvtted
If Pedarel icfvic«, civilian or mtltury
Kind of bwtaoett oc organisation
( m^mmfmetmnmg, *«rM«ff«g. tatttmmm,
*" M/r't S'tviCt
Name of immtdnit lurxrvisoi
Aie.t <.oJr an( phone No if known 5 ft .a _ #2 ^ - -*5 ^ A ^
Name of employer (firm. »rgs*tt*t*m. tit ) and addreia frme/mMimg ZIP C*mJ. if kmtumj
t°°~ not, its* '•£,'•<;*. , /7<s-,», Cu> 1S9/V
Kcaw.n fill wan
L^.~i f,~h-rr.e~---\i
IVmH-it.w nl.iin.ei. wipentihiliiici. ind laomptilhmtnn AjZ~J .'/•,. f,>f> •->■ C> ■(' Jl>~ #m .' <■ r4 /■ /» »T
£ii_~_j£xi
Foe rjfixi M f j*. /Y cMkr. *r ;
Dale, of empluymem fmomb, yt*r)
i-n. /Vc/v J( iWS t°aJ.j. /( t fi*)°,
Exact tul* of pom ion
nJkm.1
i«±.
If Federal aervkc, civilian or military
SaUry or uinin^t
Avg hn
per week
l*la. e of employment
<-.t» 0tW/*5
Stite fil
Numki and urvlo/cmploycn
wpervivrd
A^L
Kind of butiMU of o(ninuftKK)
( mmmnfmtimnwi, stftBmtimg, itwtmmi.
Nimr ill ..nim-diaie iupfrvijor
Ik v ol I M,
Arfj ' .kJc and phone No i
■"■"»»" (obl'ltf- J??/
Nam« of *mnk>y« f>^"«. Hfrf«iMf«M a «f y an«l ■MrvM (mtlunlmg Zlt OJr. ifkmn
go. ■&>* H9S D.« 5 L*, Az. 2Zt>o>?
*'■""" '" '"""« /(J^^Ot .VyC^ f
l>», , pi,,,o ol Juno, ictponi.b.li.14;., mo Kcompt.ll.mcnl. y7 c ^ijc,^;,,, g» ft ^"*y ^-«^ OVf^C.^Tt g /<y»\
"g
? o/>c^.t fvi -K< H.S. .%//«.<-„ /-(^ , /^tri a -t£k~ &~J ylc^r rtR/»' ~<Tt. Frthl^*
tJ
f<fc.:<^ < rii.S | ft y.^ g^ fc^Ck m,tlLk t S^/ [*■+■* A I , a. - -t 4~ , »'-V-.J | t
Uil)_: — y— *^M w ■ t pKr tt. h-im -i » T*^»r> . i n w . -* — . 1 - r j m i l M '/ fc* i «fc
A
Jf"
For Rfen<y *M .''ai/// <**». rt.' >
Daiei of employment (m**ib, yt*< }
nf fifnin*! ' A >
Fihl lille of ptianion
^»>o 7>^ <r/- A-.iA;
If r«4«fll twnriu, Q'-lun or nWl.ury
Sjlm or rarmngi
Sninnii I J, ,i per J,o^ '
f">«l Ij.tj P«/l»M»
A»j hn
p« *eck
Place of employ mrni
2u
Number tnd knvl o/cmployen
•upcreittd
Kind of Waiinwfli Of orftttiMUoa
( wmmf*t*mfim % , mtnm a rimf, tmmrmmm.
Nimr ut immrduir tupcrvifor
Area Code and phone No. if known jf £ - X OO . ?9 £ if
Name of emptoyet (firm. *i*4n.*£mm, en ) and addresa (imeiaJmf ZtPC+tk, if
fT A ^ iff ,'//<? T>y ,
"""" '"• *— "' AJ^~Cf ^1^
_S«<Lo.tJxi <4»tf <t^^'/gf'''.f S.^..'f-» ' .
"%
fo» if«ncy oh (Mil i»r*>. •« ;
IF YOU "'•'•- < iOH«H. *,.. .. ■ -:- Uttf^Kajm^STAyiiAWD fO*.H I7I-A OR BLANK SHBHTS
137
Memorandum
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Subject
Your memorandum of June 18, 1981
concerning non-certificaticn for SD&DO,
GS-12/13 El Centro, CA and other vacancies
To
Date
WR 7131S/9.6-C
August 3, 1981
From
Carey James
Immigration Examiner
Fresno, CA
William G. Glotzbach
Assistant Regional
Commissioner, Personnel
Western Region
THROUGH: OFFICIAL CHANNELS
Your memo relating to the manner and method used in the selection process was
referred to us by Central Office for reply since majority of the positions in
question were announced and filled in the Western Region.
Announcement 81-16A outlined all eligibility requirements for Supervisory
Detention & Deportation Officer, GS-301-12/13, El Centro Service Processing
Center. In addition, a selective placement factor was included as follows:
"Candidates must be proficient in the Spanish language (i.e., able to
communicate effectively in Spanish.) Language proficiency must be verified
and signed by an appropriate supervisor who is able to speak and understand
the Spanish language."
Since documentation was not received relating to this selective placement
factor-a mandatory requirement for the position-you did not meet all quali-
cation requirements. Solicitations are not made of applicants or supervisors
for any missing information required by vacancy announcements.
We agree that a uniform method for certifying language proficiency by all INS
offices would be desirable. However, the Western Region (and we believe all
other Regions) will accept verification either on Part IV of the candidate's
application Form G-676 or a separate memorandum. If this verification is
mailed separately, it must be postmarked no later than 7 calendar days after
the closing date of the announcement and must be clearly identified as to
announcement number.
You state that in some cases your name is not appearing on the selection list
whereas your peers are being certified. When rating panels award points f in the
areas of experience, education, training, awards and performance appraisals, It
can be expected that there will be a variance in the scores depending upon the
position being filled and the judgment of the individual panel. We wish
to point out that all information submitted by the candidate is considered,
including any experience gained outside Immigration and Naturalization Service.
After the selection certificate is mailed, the selecting official is at liberty
to select any of the candidates on the selection list.
orm G-2
*•». i-2-ao
138
In reviewing applications submitted in response to vacancies in this Region,
it has been noted that you have not been addressing the job elements as stated
in the vacancy announcement. All MSPII positions do not require the same job
elements and each vacancy announcement lists the elements which are to be
addressed. You, however, are submitting photostatic copies of the job elements
that were required for a Border Patrol Agent GS-12/13 in San Pedro but which do
not necessarily apply to other positions. Therefore, you are not emphasizing
the knowledges, skills and abilities considered important for the particular
vacancy (for example, supervisory abilities). It is further recommended that
you review the rating schedule in MSPII which is identified in the vacancy
announcement which outlines the manner in which points are awarded for train-
ing, education, etc., to ensure that you have covered these items thoroughly.
While I am sure that this finding is disappointing to you, you are assured that
your applications were given every proper consideration along with those of all
other qualified candidates. You are encouraged to continue filing for vacancies
in which you are interested and to provide complete and accurate information so
that all your experience and training may receive proper consideration.
Inquiries regarding other positions should be directed to the Regional Office
with responsibility for the vacancy. Therefore, your inquiry regarding the
Detention & Deportation Officer, Burlington, Vermont, under vacancy announce-
ment ER MSPII 80-32 will have to be directed to the Eastern Region for their
reply.
-Z).fl.
~ c - / V-
139
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Policy
Office of Information and Privacy
Washington. DC. 20530
\
<b^
■-yy
Re: Appeal No. 84-0352
RLH : PAK : DAH
Mr. Carey James
P.O. Box 1064
Fresno, CA 93714
Dear Mr. James:
You appealed from the action of the Southern Regional Office
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, on your request
for access to records pertaining to Vacancy Announcement MSP II
SR OC 83-179.
After careful consideration of your appeal, I have decided
to affirm the initial action in this case. Certain information
was properly withheld from you pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (2) and
(6) . These provisions pertain to purely internal agency prac-
tices and materials the release of which would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third
parties. None of the information being withheld is appropriate
for discretionary release.
With regard to Item No. 4 of your request, it appears that
some confusion exists concerning exactly what you are seeking
access to. I suggest, therefore, that you contact the Southern
Regional Office and clarify this portion of your request.
Judicial review of my action on this appeal is available to
you in the United States District Court for the judicial district
in which you reside or have your principal place of business, or
in the District of Columbia, or in the Northern District of
Texas, which is where the records you seek are located.
Sincerely,
tL&. W\h
Richard L. Huff,~TW*Di rector
Office of Information and Privacy
140
, J*C-S
EXHIBIT B.
United Slates Departn. it of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Equal Enployment Opportunity
10TICE OF FINAL INTERVIEW AND COUNSELIHC REPORT
Basis of Al legat Ion (s) : (Be specific)
Charging Party's Name
Kerry James
!>uty Station/Location
Fresno, California
Work
U67-56U6
Black
0Rac
O Co lor
P Re 1 1 g i on
D Sex ~.
□National 0rlgln_
rjAge
QHand I cap
rjReprlsal
Date of Most Recent Alleged
Discrimination
Oct. 27, 1982
Date of Initial Contact
October 27, 1982
Date of Final Interview
Nov. 8, 1982
Charging Party gives permission to use name (If MO, emoloyee's name must be deleted and in-
formation summarized to insure concealment of identity before distribution^^! Yes I ") No
-xplain in detail how charging party believes he/she has been discriminated against:
See Attached
<Jas matter informally resolved7 J3 Yes Q No
Cxplaln answers and results In detai I :
See Attached
If a discrimination complaint is to be filed, charaina party was advised it must be susnitted
in writing to one of the officials authorized to receive complaints (listed on reverse side) i
to later th?n fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice (Gate) j
•rinted 'Jar.e/Locat ion or" EEO Counselor
Terry Rice
INS, 630 Sansome St. San Francisco, CA 9U1II
Telepnone IrTSj
556-65U5
Signature of EEO Counselor
Date
/i-ll-k^
instruct ions u^ Complete this form for each charoina p^rty counseled and distribute az fellows:,
■rlginal to charging party, 1 copy to EEO Officer (CO); I copy to Regional EEO Specialist, and:
" >y for your records. I
(See reverse side for imoortant notice to Charging Party)
\oiltlonal sheets and attachments may be included.
ORM G-69& (Revised 3/25/81 to replace FORM G-695)
141
On October 27, 1982 I was contacted by Kerry James, a Border Patrol Agent in
Fresno, CA. , regarding a supervisory position for which he had applied but did
not make the list. He felt that his experience and ratings were adequate for him
to me qualified to make the list and wondered since he did not if there could
have been any discrimination against him because he is black.
The announcement number for the position was MSP-2-8219. I checked with the
Staffing branch personnel in Western Regional Office and theygave me over the
telephone the information about the list and how Mr. James compared with the
other candidates.
Of the seven people who made the list, the highest score was 98.95 and the lowest
was 86.93. Mr. James score was 85.68. Abreakdown of his score shows he made
17.25 points (possible 20) on Appraisals of Performance, 25.13 points (30) on
Appraisals of Supervisory Performance or Potential and General Appraisals of
INS Operational Competence, 1.5 points (10) on Training and Self-development,
3.5 points (5) for Formal Education, 1 point (5) for Awards and Outside Activities,
37.30 points (45) for Quality of Overall Experience and Background. (His total of
85.68 points of 115)
The Staffing Specialist said Mr. James feftl short compared to the other candidates
in the areas of "Appraisals of Supervisory Performance or Potential and General
Appraisals of INS Operational Competence" and "Training and Self-development."
When his points were discussed with Mr. James, he accepted the explanation for
his not making the list, but also pointed out the inequity of the rating system
where he received a fair, honest appraisal xi from his supervisor and other
candidates fxxxoften receive across the board superlative ratings whether merited
or not. The result of this inequity is that those people would make the list and
he did not, although probably equally qualified.
Based on this explanation, Mr. Janes decided there wcs nothing discriminatory in
an EEO sense in his not maUng the list and he did not wish to pursue the matter
as an EEO case anymore.
142
This is notice of the final counseling interview. If you believe you hove boon di scnmmc red
cgoinil on the basis of roce, color, religion, sex, age, or national o-ngin, you now hove the right
lo file a complaint or discrimination within <5 calender days after receipt of this notice.
The complaint must be in writing and may bo filed in person or by mail with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Officer, immigration ond Noturali ration Service, -1 1 5 eye Street,
N. W, ( Room 7102 Washington, 0. C, Z05Z6, or any of the following officials authorized
to receive discrimination complaints:
Attorney General '
Main Justice Building
10th & Constitution, N.'rY.
Room 5111
Washington, 0. C. 20530
Assistant Attorney General for Administration (Director of EEO)
Mom Juslice Building, Room 1111
10th & Constitution Avenue, N. W.
Washington 0. C. 10530
Commissioner
Immigration i. Naturalization Service
425 Eye Street, N. W.
Room 7000
Washington, D. C. 20536
Federal Women's Program Coordinator
Main Justice Building
10th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, 0. C. 20530
Federal Women's Program Coordinator
Immigration & Naturoltzcticn Service
425 Eye Street, N. W.
Washington, 0. C. 20536
Regional Commissioner
Immigration &» Naturalization Service
143
EXHIBIT C
Date
' ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP
NOV - 2 1989
TO: (Nemo, office symbol, room number,
building, Agency/Posl)
Initials
7^wi -o
Date
2.
3.
4.
5.
Action
File
Note and Return
Approval
For Clearance
Per Conversation
As Requested
For Correction
Prepare Reply
Circulate
For Your Information
O*B0 MO
Comment
Investigate
Signature
Coordination
Justify
* T>*t*S
REMARKS
C*rr
^>0 NOT use tWs form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
Ctf9+* C #^PH ftfy 5MnL^ and s,milar actions
FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency Post)
Room No. — Bldg.
Phone No.
5041-102
* US GPO 1 988 - 1 96-509
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Prucriki* by OS* „
FPMR<41 CFR) 101 11.208
144
• P loo so rood Instructions on the reverse side of the last copy before completing this form.
• Please type form and do not remove carbons and copies 1-4 from set.
• Typewriter tab atop* Indicated by V below.
REQUEST, AUTHORIZATION, AGREEMENT
AND CERTIFICATION OF TRAINING
A. Afleix^.codeaoencvsubeiement 01
and submitting o'hce number '
(Example— xx xx xxxx)
8 OFflCEUSt ONLY
C. Request status tMark(K) one}
Section A— TRAINEE INFORMATION
1. Applicant's name (Last F irst Middle Initial)
James, Carey
, Enter first
. 5 letters ot
• last name
•JAMES
03
2. Social Security Number
336 38 5196
3. Dateol birth ( Yea' and month}
48/07
{Example— bom
January 14, 1943
shown as 43J0 1)
4. Home address (Number street city. State. Zip code)
P.O. Box 5001
A guadllla. P.R. 00605-5001
5. Home telephone
6. Position level {Mark IX) one only)
Area code* Number
809 :890-3058
A, Non-supervisory
9. Contir
c Manager
7. Organization mailing address (Branch Division/Oftice/Bureau/Agency)
U.S. Border Patrol
P.O. Box 467 „„,„,
Ramey. Puerto Rico 00604
8. Ottice leiephone
Area code , Number
809 : 882
B service
Yea/S \ Months
10. Number of prior
non -government
training days
3562
14
1 1l. Position title/function
Patrol Agent in Charge
11b. Applicant handi
capped o' disabled
N iSee instructions)
12. Pay pian/senes/grade/step
GS/1896/12/3
13. Type ol appotntmenl
c
14. Education Level
Section B— TRAINING COURSE DATA
15l. Name and mailing address of training vendor (No street, city. Stale ZIP coda) • 156. Location ol training site tit same mj'l rjoi I -
Office of Personnel Management ;
P.O. Box 25167, Denver, Co. 80225 ". Correspondence
^tJ
16. Course title and training objectives (Benefits to be derived by the Govemmment)
Controlling a Unit Budget Learn to perform the steps in the budget process,
track legal and administrative limitations, report budget process.
19. No ot course hours (4 digits) 1 07
17. Caiaiog/Course No
48EZ
18. Training period tSdigils) |06
N/A
a. Start
b. Complete
Year vtontr Day
b. Non duty
C. TOTAL
4 month
4 month; i' t »p«
20. Training codes (See insltuctionsl
08 C. Source
09 d. Special interest
AGENCY USE ONLY
- Section C-ESTIMATED COSTS AND BILLING INFORMATION -
Section D— APPROVALS
21. Direct costs and approprialion'fund chargeable
b. Boohs or materials
C. Other (Specify)
d (Enter 4 digits in 12
dollar column) •——
Dollars ^ents
95.
00
Appropriation/fund
26a. Immediate supervisor — Name and title
Emll M. Orsack, DCPA
Area code/Tel No /Extension
809-882-3560
b. Signature
22. indirect costs and appropnation/tund chargeable
b. Per diem
t. Other (Specify)
6. (Enter 4 digits In \
dollar column) I
TOTAL **-
27a. Second line supervisor — Name ana utie Areacode/Tei No 'Extension
•882-3560
Date
Appropnation/lund
ode/Tel No 'Extension
Arne 0. Lepis to , SBPA J 809-882-3562
b. Signature
Section E— APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE
29J. Authorising otlit_ial -Name anj title Area codeHei No 'Extension
23. Document/Purchase Order/Requisition No
b. Signature
24. 8-Oigit station symbol
(Example— 12 34 5673} -
oved I I
proved]
Approved | Date
Duapprc
- Section F— CERTIFICATION OF TRAINING COMPLETION-
25. BILLING INSTRUCTIONS ^urn/sn/nvcceroi
30a. Certifying olliclal — Name and title Area code'Tel No'Extension
b. Signature
r^A.NiNc. umu V m | r|1 ..- - ,-., I , ajjrMiiflii(|r<ji|
rrsnv 9-r.nFNrv TIATA pporFssiwr, OR cpdf cnpv,
Standard Form lB?(Rr-v t?'7Qii«. P,m,
145
Mr. Carey James. OK. Again, in trying to follow the system and
work within the system and getting answers, I continued to apply.
One of the things that happened alter the grievance is I started to
make lists, but needless to say, I was still not selected.
Again, I noticed that many of the people that I was competing
against had less time in the INS than myself and less experience.
I soon began to have doubt in myself and. more strongly than ever
ask the question, what is wrong? Is it the system or is it me? I
wanted answers.
Having found out that the grievance system did not work, the
only other resource that could possibly get answers was an EEO
complaint. I got involved with the INS EEO system early in my ca-
reer. I was one of the first counselors for the Tucson Border Patrol
sector. I continued those duties in Fresno.
I knew from my training that the system was there to provide
answers and was supposed to be confidential. I filed a complaint.
I was soon contacted by a counselor from San Francisco, the dis-
trict office having jurisdiction over the Fresno suboffice. We talked
extensively on the phone. He basically told me all the things that
had been provided in the response to my grievance.
I decided that the answers were not going to come from the Of-
fice of EEO, so I dropped the complaint.
I also would like to give you a copy of that very early EEO com-
plaint that I submitted, Mr. Chairman. I have it marked as exhibit
B.
I continued to apply with hope. I still made the list, but was not
selected. I was desperate to the point that I started calling some
of the selecting officials in trying to sell myself at locations where
I was applying. One of the Border Patrol chiefs at a location where
I had applied told me, "well, I don't know about selecting you, you
know, with the complaint you filed," referring to the EEO com-
plaint. He then went on to say, "how did he know that if I were
selected that I would not later file a complaint against him?"
I was shocked and at a loss for words. I knew that the EEO proc-
ess was supposed to be confidential, but yet he had all the details
and knew I had filed a complaint. I continued to file and apply for
positions.
At this time I wanted so bad to see the system work I was not
only applying for just Border Patrol positions, but for positions in
other branches of the INS. Again, I was not selected. And in some
cases, still could not make lists while competing against less quali-
fied applicants. Many of the positions I applied for were at undesir-
able locations.
It took me approximately 4V2 years from the time that I accepted
the position as an immigration examiner before I obtained another
Border Patrol position. The only way I got that position was to bust
down two grades from a GS-11 Immigration Examiner to a GS-9
journeyman Border Patrol agent. I was put into a position working
for people with less knowledge of the job and experience than my-
self. I was selected for that position in 1983.
Faithfully, I carried out the duties of a journeyman Border Patrol
agent at the Fresno, CA Border Patrol station where I had been as-
signed from 1983 until about 1986. All during this time period, I
146
was still applying for positions. I was making most of the lists for
the positions that I was applying for, but again, not being selected.
Again, I had time and service and experience, but I was still, in
most cases, being passed over by lesser qualified applicants. It was
not until October 1986 that I was selected for my first supervisory
position in the INS or the Border Patrol at the GS-11 level, a GS
level that I had already served 4V2 years at.
I was selected for the position of patrol agent in charge of the
Livermore, CA Border Patrol Station. I served as the PAIC at
Livermore until September 1987. I continued to apply for higher
grade position, but it was not until September 1987 that I was se-
lected for another patrol agent-in-charge position. This time at the
GS-12 level, but at Ramey, Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico station
was a trailblazing experience for me. I opened the first border pa-
trol station outside the continental United States. I built this sta-
tion from the ground up literally, with no foundation to start from
other than my experience.
Despite all the problems, I successfully completed the mission as-
signed to my station area. While assigned to Puerto Rico, the Puer-
to Rico station, I tried to obtain and complete as much training as
I possibly could. I was told that I could not participate in training
programs that I thought would prepare me for future promotions.
Mr. Chairman, I again have another exhibit I would like to sub-
mit to you, a training application that I submitted, and I will read
to you. My supervisor wrote back to me, he said outstanding in-
structions state that any approved training must be directly related
to the employee's current position. And he refers to internal memo-
randum or a policy memorandum. The budget is not part of your —
it is difficult to read here. This training cannot be approved.
I was directing a station, Mr. Chairman, where I paid bills, was
responsible for a small operating budget, and was told that I could
not attend that training, that it was not beneficial to me.
When it came time for reassignment back to the continental
United States after completing my tour of duty in Puerto Rico, I
was told that I had to find somewhere that would take me. The
service broke its promise in finding me a position to be reassigned
to after completion of my tour of duty. I had to get on the telephone
looking for a Border Patrol chief that would take me into his sector.
I finally found a position in the El Centro Border Patrol sector
as a field operations supervisor, a position lower in title and re-
sponsibility than I was currently holding at that time. When I fi-
nally talked with the chief of that sector, he stated that he would
only take me in the position of a first line supervisor, a position
even lower than the field operations supervisor.
I had now held two positions as a patrol agent in charge and was
not considered worthy of the supervisory positions that I was ap-
plying for. I accepted that position I was later called from the loca-
tion of my present position and offered a position of a field oper-
ations supervisor. This incidentally was a location where I had
been told there was no positions available. I had also inquired
about the position of a patrol agent in charge in other sectors, but
was repeatedly told by chiefs that they could not trust me with the
position because I had never worked for them.
147
I came to the Border Patrol Special Coordination Center at oper-
ation alliance in July 1990. Even though this position is located in
El Paso, TX, it is under the headquarters oftice of Border Patrol
located in Washington DC. I have been serving at my present duty
location since that time. I was also promoted to my present position
of assistant chief patrol agent in 1988.
I have to point out the inadequacies of my present position. I am
considered a headquarters assistant chief patrol agent. I do much
of the same duties, if not more, as my counterparts located here in
Washington, DC, but I am a GS-13 and they are GS-14.
Mr. Chairman, I am at peace with myself now, with my life and
my surroundings. I came to the conclusion some years ago that it
was not me, but the system. Some of the questions asked by me:
why are some of my classmates, agents that graduated from the
academy the same time I did getting selected, promoted, and ahead
of me? Why are agents with less time in the service than myself
also passing me by, going ahead when I know they are less quali-
fied than myself? Why were opportunities and trainings and details
being offered to personnel that are less qualified than myself?
I hope that these questions can be answered. I have approxi-
mately 4 years left before I can retire. I hope that answering these
questions will make it easier for black agents that will follow me
in seeking a career with the Border Patrol.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, some of the things I
have had to endure in my career with the Border Patrol: Of the po-
sitions I have applied for, I have over 100 — not 150, but 180 appli-
cations here which I will present to you, Mr. Chairman, where I
have applied for positions, 180, over 180.
Mr. Conyers. Are those copies?
Mr. Carey James. Those are copies, sir.
Of the positions I have applied for, I have over 180 applications
and rejections for promotions and reassignments that I have ap-
plied for, and that is what you have bemre you there, sir. I was
exposed to a culture foreign to what I grew up around and with lit-
tle sympathy or preparation, not that I was looking for any sym-
pathy.
From my first duty station in Douglas, AZ, I had to drive 150 to
300 miles to get a haircut because no one there in close proximity
knew how to cut the hair of a black man. The training events that
I participated in or were sent to, to look around and see that you
were the only black face in the room. No one to look upon as a
mentor that could talk to me and relate how they had overcome the
obstacles that I was confronted with. A good old boy network that
when I would go somewhere, be referred to by name by total
strangers and told my life history. To participate in an affirmative
action conference on EEO in Dallas, TX in 1987 where top manage-
ment of the Immigration Service were told and made aware of the
serious problems facing black agents in the Border Patrol, to later
see nothing done and that report lost.
Mr. Chairman, I kept copies of the members of the Immigration
Service at that time. Some of those people that attended that con-
ference are top managers in this agency today. I submit to you the
information that was provided to those top managers and to our
service at that time and nothing happened. That report was lost.
148
When I would inquire to the office of EEO, they couldn't find it,
no record of it existed, and nc one knows what happened to that.
The management was made aware. They knew.
In conclusion, I would like to see the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service come up with a career ladder that is fair to all.
There should be a clear separation of career ladders for personnel
that want to become supervisors and managers and those that do
not. There should also be a course of study or program that every-
one should have to complete to achieve those goals.
There should be an objective promotional system that is fair to
all and not objective like the one now in place that can be altered
and changed to give a person that is not liked a bad appraisal.
Bring the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity directly under
the Commissioner, since she is directly responsible for the EEO for
the agency and from below the Executive Associate Commissioner
for management. A recruitment and hiring program that uses per-
sonnel a year at a time and to allow for proper training and not
the rush, ad hoc assembly of untrained personnel that is now being
used. And lastly, we are not asking for special treatment or favor-
itism, but just a chance to be considered and allowed to compete
fairly in the system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
Mr. Conyers. That is a very powerful statement and it describes
your career and life that you have given inside the Federal Govern-
ment. I think it is testimony in itself of such a compelling nature
that all of us would be remiss if we didn't digest it and use it as
a basis. I don't know how you stood it. It just is an amazing odessy
of one man trying to adjust his aspirations to a system that was
many times determined to oppress him. And so I have an unlimited
kind of admiration for this revelation that you have made here
today.
I thank you very much for it.
Mr. Carey James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
give my side of the story.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carey James follows:]
149
Testimony of c*r«y j*m«»
Before
Committee On Government Operations
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, it is a great honor
to appear before you here today and be provided with the
opportunity to provide testimony that will possibly bring about
change within the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
My name is Carey James, I'm 46 years old and I am currently
employed by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service as a
Border Patrol Agent holding the position of Assistant Chief
Patrol Agent with the Border Patrol Special Coordination Center
stationed in El Paso, Texas reporting directly to Headquarters
Border Patrol Washington, DC. I have been employed by the
Immigration Service since March 30, 1975 or 19 years 8 months. I
have been married for 26 years and I have 3 children, one that
graduated from college this year, and one that will graduate next
year as well as a son that will be graduating from high school.
As a young man growing up, I watched programs on television about
the United States Border Patrol. I dreamed of one day being one
of those officers, it took many career starts and endeavors but I
finally realized my boyhood dreams. In the days of my dreams
Blades were seldom seen on television and I must say that my
dreams were not fostered from seeing a blade portrayed as a
Border Patrol Agent.
Many years ago in my youth I had learned that using Brylcream on
150
2
my hair, a hair card product commonly advertised on television at
the time, would not make my hair wavy and curly like the people
portrayed on television, I would soon learn that my career with
-the Border Patrol would not be an easy one and without incidents
as portrayed on television either. One of the things X
immediately noticed though, was there was no Black role model in
the Border Patrol for me to follow and this very closely mirrored
the television program.
My career with the United States Border patrol began March 30,
1975. I was assigned to the Tucson Border Patrol Sector and
stationed at the Douglas, Arizona Border Patrol station. I
quickly realized that even though I had completed the Border
Patrol Academy and the course of study for becoming a Border
Patrol Agent, that I knew very little about the Laws, rules, and
regulations I was supposed to be enforcing. I submitted
applications to other branches of the I&NS where I could get the
experience I felt I needed to do a better job and enhance my
career. After many applications I was finally selected for a
position as an Immigration Examiner in October of 1978 at the
Fresno, California Immigration sub office.
My plans were to complete about a year of doing the duties of an
Examiner and return to the Border Patrol where my true love and
boyhood dreams were. I started submitting applications for
lateral transfers at the same grade level for positions in the
151
3
Border Patrol, and promotions after the one year time period.
Many of the applications that I submitted were returned to me
without me even making the selection lists, competing with
Officers with less experience and time and grade. I was patient
and continued to submit applications for about a two year period.
I regretfully did not keep the applications for this time period.
After about a two year time period I began to ask myself why I
was not making the lists? And the lists that I did make, why I
was not being considered or selected for the positions. Having
faith, hope and believing in the By stem, I submitted two
grievances trying to find answers. I received one of those
grievances back, but I still had no answers. I was sent away on a
detail to work at another office. When I returned, my office was
open. I soon learned that some of the clerks and secretaries had
used my office to take their breaks and lunch periods. There,
atop my desk was the response to my other grievance, laying on
top of my desk and for anyone to read, and I'm sure the other
personnel had. This was a clear violation of the INS policy in
the handling of a grievance. Needless to say, the response did
little to resolve questions in my mind as to why I was not
qualified or selected for the positions that I had applied for.
I continued to apply. One of the things that happened after the
grievances, I started to make lists, but needless to say I was
still not selected. Again I noticed that many of the people that
152
4
I was competing against had less time in the INS than myself and
less experience. I soon began to have doubt in myself and more
strongly than ever, ask the question, what is wrong? Is it the
system or is it me? I wanted answers. Having found out that the
grievance system did not work, my only other recourse that could
possibly get answers was an BEO complaint.
I got involved with the INS EEO system early in my career. I was
one of the first Counselors for the Tucson Border Patrol sector.
I continued those duties in Fresno. I knew from my training that
the system was there to provide answers and was supposed to be
confidential. I filed a complaint. I was soon contacted by a
Counselor from San Francisco, the District Office having
jurisdiction over the Fresno Sub Office. We talked extensively on
the phone. He basically told me all the things that had been
provided in response to my grievances. I decided that the answers
were not going to come though the office of ££0, so I dropped the
complaint.
I continued to apply with hope. I still made the list, but was
not selected. I was desperate to the point that I started calling
some of the selecting officials and trying to sell myself at the
locations that I was applying. One of the Border Patrol Chiefs at
a location where I had applied told me, "well I don't know about
selecting you, you know with the complaint that you filed",
referring to the EEO complaint. He then went on to say that how
153
s
did he know if I were selected that I would not later file a
complaint against him. I was shocked and at a loss for words. I
knew that the EBO process was supposed to be confidential, but
yet he had all the details and knew I had filed a complaint.
I continued to apply for positions. At this time I wanted so bad
to see the system work, I was not only applying for just Border
Patrol positions, but for positions in other branches of the IKS*
Again, I was not selected, and in some cases still could not males
lists while competing against less qualified applicants. Many of
the positions I applied for were at undesirable locations.
It took me approximately four and a half years from the time I
accepted the position as an Immigration Examiner before I
obtained another position in the Border Patrol. The only way I
got the position was to bust down two grades from a GS-11
Immigration Examiner to OS-9 Journeyman Border Patrol Agent. I
was put into a position working for people with less knowledge
and experience than myself. I was selected for this position in
1983.
I faithfully carried out the duties of a Journey Border Patrol
Agent at the Fresno, California Border Patrol station where I had
been assigned from 1983 until about 1986. All during this time
period I was again applying for other positions. I was making
most of the lists that I was applying for, but again not being
154
selected. Again I had time in Service and experience, but I was
still in most caaas being passed over by laaser qualified
applicants .
It was not until October of 1986 that I was selected for my first
supervisorial position in the INS or Border Patrol at the GS-ll
level, a GS level that I had already served four and a half years
at. I was selected for the position of Patrol Agent in Charge of
the Livermore, California Border Patrol Station. I served as the
PAIC at livermore until September of 1987. I still applied for
higher grade positions, but it was not until September of 1987
that I was selected for another Patrol Agent in Charge position,
this time at the GS-12 level, but at Ramey, Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rico station was a trailblasing experience for me. I
opened the first Border Patrol station outside the continental
United States. I built this station from the ground up,
literally, with no foundation to start from other than my
experience. Despite all the problems, I successfully completed
ths mission assigned to my station area. While assigned to the
Puerto Rico station, I tried to obtain and complete as much
training as I possibly could. I was tcld that I could not
participate in training programs that I thought would prepare me
for future promotions and reassignments.
When it came time for reassignment back to the continental United
155
7
States after completing my tour of duty in Puerto Rico, I was
told that I had to find somewhere that would take me. I again had
to set out on the telephone looking for a Border Patrol Chief
that would take me into his sector. I finally found a position in
the El Centro Border Patrol Sector as a Field Operations
Supervisor, a position lower in title and responsibilities than I
was currently holding. When I finally talked with the Chief of
that sector he stated that he would only take me in the position
of a first line supervisor, a position even lower than the Field
Operations Supervisor. I had now held two positions as Patrol
Agent in Charge, but was not considered worthy of a supervisory
position. I accepted the position, but was later called from the
location of my present position and offered a position of Field
Operations Supervisor. This was a location where I had been told
that there was no positions available. I had also inquired about
positions of Patrol Agent in Charge in other sectors, but was
told by chief 8 that they could not trust me with the position
because X had never worked for them.
I came to the Border Patrol Special coordination Center /Operation
Alliance in July of 1990. Even though this position is located in
El Paso, Texas, it is under the Headquarters Office of Border
Patrol located in Washington, DC. I have been serving at my
present location since that time. I was also promoted to my
present position of Assistant chief Patrol Agent in 1988. Z have
156
8
to point out the inadequacies of my present position. I am
considered a Headquarters Assistant Chief Patrol Agent. I do much
of the same duties if not more of my counterparts located in
Washington, DC, but I am a GS-13 and they are <3S~i4's,
Mr. Chairman, I am at peace with myself now. With my life and my
surroundings. I came to the conclusion some years ago that it was
not me but the system. Some of the questions asked by me: Why are
were some of my classmates, Agents that graduated from the
Academy at the same time I did, getting selected, promoted, and
ahead of me. Why were Agents with less time in the Service than
me also passing me going ahead when 1 knew that they were less
qualified than myself. Why were opportunities in training and
details being offered to personnel that were less than qualified
than myself. I hope that these questions can be answered. I have
approximately four years left before I can retire, I hope that
answering these questions will make it easier for the Black
Agents that will follow me in seeking a career with the Border
Patrol.
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, some of the things I have had
to endure in my career with the Border Patrol:
Of the positions I have applied for, I have over one hundred
fifty applications and rejections for promotions and
reassignments that 1 have applied for. 1 was exposed to a culture
totally foreign to what I grew up around with little sympathy or
157
9
preparation, not that I was looking for sympathy. From my first
duty station in Douglas, Arizona I had to drive 150 to 300 miles
to get a haircut, because no one there or in close proximity knew
how to cut the hair of a Black Man. The training events that I
participated in or were sent to, to look around and see that you
were the only Black face in the room. No one to look upon as a
mentor that could talk to me and relate how they had overcome the
obstacle that I was confronted with. A good old boy network, that
often times when I would go somewhere, to be referred to by name
by total strangers, and told your life history. To participate in
conference on EEO in Dallas, Texas, 1987 where top management of
the immigration Service was told and made aware of the serious
problems facing Black Agents in the Border Patrol to later see
nothing done and that report lost.
In conclusion, I would like to see the Immigration and
Naturalization Service come up with a career ladder that is fair
to all. There should be a clear separation and career ladder for
personnel that want to become supervisors and managers and those
that do not. There should also be a course of study or program
that everyone should have to complete to achieve these goals.
There should also be put into place an objective promotional
system that is fair to all and not objective like the one now in
place that can be altered and written to give a person that is
not liked a bad appraisal. Bring the office of Equal Employment
Opportunity directly under the Commissioner, since she directly
158
10
responsible for BEO and from below the Executive Associate
Commissioner for Management. A recruitment and hiring program
that uses personnel a year at a tine, that will allow for proper
training and not the rush ad hoc assembly of untrained personnel
that is now being done now. And lastly, we are mot making for
special treatment or favoritism/ but just the chance to he
considered/ and allowed to conpete fairly in the system! Thank
you Mr. Chairman and Committee Members.
159
Mr. Conyers. From Talladega, AL, Mr. Clarence Smith.
STATEMENT OF CLARENCE L. SMITH, DEPORTATION OFFICER,
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am — I will confess
that I am happy to be here. Unfortunately, I am here for the wrong
reasons.
My name is Clarence L. Smith. I thank you most profoundly for
affording me the opportunity to address this distinguished legisla-
tive subcommittee on the subject of discriminatory practices in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. At this time it is appro-
priate for me to give you a brief history of my background. I was
born in the Republic of Panama. I immigrated to the United States
in August 1969. Two years thereafter, I joined the U.S. Army to
serve, protect, and defend this country, without any reservations.
In 1975, I began working for INS as a temporary detention offi-
cer. After being routinely passed over for permanent hiring on sev-
eral occasions, in 1976 I became a permanent worker with the as-
sistance of my congressional Representative, who at that time was
Ms. Elizabeth Holtzman.
Later in 1982, 1 transferred to the U.S. Post Office due to my dis-
satisfaction with the lack of promotional opportunities that I en-
countered at INS, based on my race. The Service through the ac-
tions of its agents, officers, and directors implements discrimina-
tory practices in the evaluation and promotion of African -American
officers. For instance, black veterans as myself were often denied
promotions on several occasions, even if we were the most qualified
of the listed position. Meanwhile, my newly arrived Caucasian col-
leagues, who were not veterans, nor more qualified, received the
sought-after promotions. Evidently, the stated injustice violates the
INS Administrative Manual whicn provides that candidates are to
be evaluated on the basis of information in the record. Yet, after
working with the post office for several months, I transferred back
to INS because of my commitment and dedication to law enforce-
ment. While working at INS, I enrolled and later successfully
earned in 1983, a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice ad-
ministration and planning. In that same year I was promoted from
a detention officer to a deportation officer.
Mr. Conyers. What is the difference?
Mr. Smith. The detention officer, that was a ground level em-
ployment that was created for Vietnam era veterans to enter into
the Federal Government service, and what we did, we were like a
correctional officers. We took care of illegal aliens that were de-
tained.
In 1988, I was selected for a lateral transfer, GS-11, to which I
relocated to the district office in New Orleans. The district office
there is comprised of the following suboffices: Louisville, KY;
Oakdale, LA; Memphis, TN. In light of the mentioned offices, there
are no African-American officers above a GS-12 grade. One year
later, in 1989, one of my coworkers filed an unfair labor practice
against our supervisor. During the preliminary inquiry, I was
asked by the equal employment opportunity counselor of my obser-
vations. Shortly thereafter, my officer corps appraisal dropped from
highly recommended to recommend, my scores declined from 120
160
points to 108 points, as a consequence of the stroke of the pens
from my first and second line supervisors. In accordance to INS Ad-
ministrative Manual supervisory appraisal scores are evaluated
based on three stipulated ratings as follows: highly recommended,
100 points; recommended, 85 points; not recommended at this time,
70 points.
Inexplicably, my English grammar was found to be deficient.
Also, I received a minimum satisfactory appraisal on my perform-
ance record. It must be stated that in the year prior, my rating
from the same supervisors was fully successful. Upon the instruc-
tions of my superiors at the New Orleans district office, I com-
pleted an English correspondence course in December 1990; yet, I
then received an unsubstantiated minimum satisfactory rating.
Consequently, I filed my first EEO complaint against management.
Furthermore, no progress review was ever conducted and I never
received a performance appraisal for the following 27 months, from
April 1990 until June 1992. It is necessary to bring to your atten-
tion that during my tenure at the New York district office from
1975 to 1988, my English writing skills were never found to be de-
ficient. Moreover, while working out of the district office in Atlanta,
my English skills have not been cited to be inadequate.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Smith, could you summarize so that I could
hear from Mr. Charles James before we go to the next panel,
please?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. In August 1992, I was selected for a GS-9 position
in Talladega, AL and the reason for that was I was unable to com-
pete with my peers because of my performance appraisal.
Since I relocated to the Atlanta district, my performance apprais-
als have risen to the level where they should be.
Recently I experienced a very unpleasant incident in the Atlanta
district office. Improper filling of a bargaining unit position in the
Charlotte suboffice, Atlanta district. An official memorandum was
sent by management. The memorandum indicated that the officer
position and the junior deportation officer have been transferred to
the Charlotte suboffice as a management need.
It must be noted that this position had been vacant for the last
2 years. This position was given to a fellow Caucasian coworker
without any job announcement. This action violates the provision
governing INS Administrative Manual which require nationwide
posting of competition for all positions above the GS-8 grade level.
Section 2265.2 provides in pertinent part, "any position above the
GS-8 level shall be open and announced nationwide for competitive
bidding."
In the last 4 years, I have applied for 20 positions in the field
of management nationwide. On 19 occasions I have made the best
qualified list, but I was never selected for not one of those 20 jobs.
Further, for the last five announcements, I applied at the level of
GS-12, 13, and 14 at headquarters; once again I was passed over
in January of this year. Headquarters selected six officers in which
only one applicant was an African-American. Incidentally, I was
among the list of the best qualified applicants.
161
Historically, it does appear that headquarters have always lim-
ited the number of African -Americans which they have allowed to
perform at the same time in headquarters. Indeed, I know I am
doing the proper thing by coming forward with this information.
Nevertheless, based on prior retaliatory actions, I must state for
the record that I am concerned how this testimony will affect my
career at INS. I exhort each and every one of you as public serv-
ants to adhere to the responsibility owed to this committee to de-
nounce and examine the Service bigoted actions against African-
American officers. INS has no authority, legal or moral, to perpet-
uate covert discriminatory practices on the basis of race, and thus
choose to disregard its own governing Administrative Manual.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
162
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
U1ITKD STATES CO*GRES8IOKAL SUB COMMITTEE
HOVEMBER 16, 1994
R
CLARBMCE L. SMITH, DEPORTATION OFFICER
IMMIGRATION AMD NATURAL I ZAT I OH 8ERVICE
163
Testimony of Clarence L. Smith, Deportation officer IMS
November 16, 1994
Oood morning, my name is clarence L. Smith, I thank you most
profoundly for affording ma tha opportunity to address this
distinguish legislative sub committee, on the subject of the
discriminatory practices of the Immigration and Naturalitation
Service (Service). At this time it is appropriate for me to give
you a brief history of my background. I was born in the Republic
of Panama. I immigrated to the U.S. in August of 1969. Two years
thereafter, I joined the U.S. Army to serve, protect, and defend
this Country, without any reservations.
In 1975, I began working for INS as a temporary detention
officer. After being routinely passed over for permanent hiring on
several occasions, in 1976 I became a permanent worker with the
assistance of my Congressional Representative, who at that time was
Ms. Elisabeth Holtaman.
Later in 1982, I transferred to the United States Post Office
due to my dissatisfaction with the laok of promotional
opportunities that I encountered at INS, based on my race. The
Service through the actions of its agents, officers, and directors
implements discriminatory practices in the evaluation of African
American Officers. For instance, black veterans as myself were
often denied promotions on several occasions, even if we Mere the
most qualified for the listed position. Meanwhile, my newly
arrived Caucasian colleagues, who were not veterans, nor more
qualified received the sought after promotions. Evidently, the
stated injustice violates the INS Administrative Manual which
164
Testimony of Clarence L. Smith, Deportation Officer INS
November 16, 1994
provides that, candidates are to be evaluated on the basis of the
information in the record. Yet, after working with the Post Office
for several months, I transferred back to INS because of my
commitment and dedication to law enforcement. While working at INS
I enrolled then later successfully earned, in 1983, a Bachelor of
Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration & Planning, in
that same year I was promoted from a detention officer to a
deportation officer.
In 1988 I was selected for a lateral transfer, 08-11, to which
I relocated to the District Office in New Orleans. The District
Office there is comprised of the following sub offices: Louisville,
Kentucky; Oakdale, Louisiana; and Memphis, Tennessee. In light of
the mentioned offices, there are no African American Officers above
a 08-12 grade. One year later, in 1989, one of my co-workers filed
an unfair labor practice against our supervisor. During the
preliminary inquiry, I was asked by the Equal Employment
Opportunity (BEO) Counselor of my observations. Shortly
thereafter, my officer corps appraisal dropped from highly
recommended to recommend, my scores declined from 120 points to 108
points, as a consequence of the stroke of the pens from my first
and second line supervisors, in accordance to INS Administrative
Manual supervisory appraisal scores are evaluated based on three
stipulated ratings as follows:
165
Testimony of Clarence L. Smith, Deportation Officer IMS
November 16, 1994
Highly Recommended 100
Recommended 85
Hot Recommended at this time 70
Inexplicably, My English grammar was found to be deficient,
also I received a minimum satisfactory appraisal on my performance
record. It must be stated that in the prior year, my rating from
the same supervisors was fully successful. Upon the instructions
of my superiors at the New Orleans District Office, I completed an
English Correspondence Course in December 1990; yet, I then
received an unsubstantiated minimum satisfactory rating.
Consequently, I filed my first EEO Complaint against management.
Furthermore, no progress review was conducted, and I never received
a performance appraisal for 27 months, from April 1990 until June
1992. It is necessary to bring to your attention that during my
tenure at the Hew York District Office from 1975 to 1988, my
English writing skills were never found to be deficient. Moreover,
while working out of the District Office in Atlanta, my English
skills have not been cited to be inadequate.
Later, in August 1992, I was selected for a GS-0 9 position in
Talladega, Alabama, which is part of the Atlanta District Office.
The transfer was a voluntary demotion, because I was unable to
compete at the OS-12 level, due to the effect of the prior
aforementioned reprisals discussed in this testimony. As a direct
result of the bias appraisal evaluation by my first and second line
supervisors at the District Office in Hew Orleans, my record was
166
Testimony of Clarence L. Smith, Deportation Officer IIS
November 16, 1994
composed of low scores and poor officer core ratings. Consequently,
after being without a performance appraisal for 27 months, I
proceeded to file my second EEO complaint against management. The
premise of my complaint was founded under the theories of
discrimination and reprisal.
My performance appraisal has risen to where it should have
been after transferring to the Atlanta Office. Initially things
were working fairly well with me at my present location until a few
weeks ago. To my surprise an improper filling of a bargaining unit
position in the Charlotte Sub Office, Atlanta District. An
official memorandum was sent by management. The memo indicated
that the officer position and the junior deportation officer have
been transferred to the Charlotte Sub Office as a management need.
The position was given to a fellow Caucasian co-worker without any
announcement, this action violates the provision of governing INS
Administrative Manual which requires nationwide posting and
competition for all positions above 03-08 grade level. section
2265.2 provides in pertinent part, "any position above the GS-08
level shall be open and announced nationwide for competitive
bidding."
In the last four years I have applied for approximately 20
positions in the field of management nationwide. On 19 occasions
I have made the best qualified list, but I was never selected for
not one of the 20 jobs. Purther for the last five announcements,
I applied at the level of 08-12, 13, and 14 at headquarters, once
4
167
Testimony of Clarence L. Smith, Deportation Officer IHS
November 16, 1994
again I was passed ovar in January of this year. Headquarters
selected six officers, in which only one applicant Mas an African
American. Incidently, I was among the list of best qualified
applicants.
Historically, it does appear that headquarters have always
limited the number of African Americans which they have allowed to
work in the central office at the same time. Indeed, I know I am
doing the proper thing by coming forward with this information,
nevertheless based on prior retaliatory actions I must state for
the records that I am concerned how this testimony will affect my
career at IHS. I exhort each and every one of you as public
servants to adhere to the responsibility owed by this committee to
denounce and examine the Service bigoted actions against African
American Officers. INS has no authority legal or moral to
perpetuate covert discriminatory practices on the basis of race,
and thus choose to disregard its' own governing administrative
manual .
For the foregoing reasons, the policies and regulations should
be rewritten, this will allow individual to file a Freedom of
Information request, this will in turn enable applicants to see his
or her scores and the scores of individuals selected. In addition
Human Resources should post the list by ranks, as opposed to the
current alphabetized list. The recommended proposal should be
considered along with any other proposals this committee deems just
and proper.
5
168
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith. I appreciate that.
Mr. Charles James, San Pedro, CA.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES JAMES, DETENTION ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Charles James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will speak
very briefly, because after listening to my colleagues I think it is
clear that there is a problem at INS.
From the Los Aneeles district, it is apparent that management
is not held accountable, it is as simple as that. I have written also
to every agency, to the honorable chairperson, and to no avail. I
have been physically threatened. I have been threatened with bod-
ily harm. I have written to the Office of Inspector General office
and to no avail. I have vet been interviewed over a year. I have
been falsely accused, which is apparently one of the greatest tools
utilized not only throughout INS, or just the good old boys, of civil
rights violations for a year after being cleared by every agency from
the FBI to internal audit.
I questioned the people that filed these false allegations, will
they be held accountable? In the Los Angeles district, the western
region, the EEO Director, Mr. Donluney, the Deputy District Direc-
tor, Mr. Chris Fowler, the Assistant Deputy Director of Manage-
ment, seems to be running an organization within an organization
or a society outside of INS policy, because they are not carried out.
There is nothing to keep reading and reading and reading of my
experience, my time, my pain that I have suffered, for this is a very
sad day. On November 14, management of San Pedro, an officer in
charge, Mr. John Bagley, chief of detention enforcement officer, 24
years of service; Mr. Alugo, who has worked extremely hard, whose
record is impeccable, who have no EEO complaints, who have more
minorities being trained in their own facility than the entire serv-
ice, have been relieved of their duties for assisting me and demand-
ing why is my office being threatened and why no one at the dis-
trict level, why is his letters not being forwarded.
On January 26, as I stated, I wrote a letter through the chain
of command. It sat at Mr. Loonev's office for over 1 month. I had
to consequently send another letter directly to Commissioner
Meissner's office.
So sir, today, I really don't wish to dwell on the past or dwell on
my personal problems. It saddens me that two managers who work
extremely hard for INS with over 20 years of service to be relieved
of their duties for abiding by the right thing.
Mr. Conyers. They were retaliated against because you had to
contact them through the chain of command?
Mr. Charles James. I was retaliated against, sir, because I
worked directly for the chief and the OIG of the facility who falls
under the Los Angeles district. A lot of my writings that goes to
the district, to the Commissioner and to the OIG and internal
audit, an agency designed to investigate misconduct.
Why does he keep writing these letters? Why don't you stop him?
This is absurd, that orders would come from the district level to
tell these officers that they have no right to find out why they are
falsely accused. The officers that falsely accused me have been pro-
moted, transferred, and at the same time there has been no dis-
169
moted, transferred, and at the same time there has been no dis-
cipline action for falsifying documents, abuse of authority under
the law, and when it was questioned by the OIG in writing he was
told not to write no more.
When Chief Lugo wrote several letters requesting what is the
disposition of my officer's complaint, there was a fictitious, a cover-
up, and it was blamed that they are the problem of our facility,
which is 80 percent minorities, which have no problem with man-
agement, but has a great deal of problem with western region, the
district office, Ms. Rashad, the EEO director. When my EEO com-
plaint was filed, Ms. Martinez was told by the Deputy Director, Mr.
Donluney, by the Assistant Deputy Director, Mr. Bratell of Inves-
tigation, that they have no control over Mr. James Sanchez who
fabricated some of these complaints of assault and battery. Mr. Bob
Lica, who said he videotaped it and then was asked where is the
videotape, he said, well, they destroyed it. She had no cooperation
from the EEO director of the region when she was called, can you
have these people present so I might question them to find out why
they made these allegations and with no substantiation of it at all.
As I return when I leave here, I will be going back to a facility
that now all of the employees are not only sad, but we realize if
we complain, if we file what is our right through administration
process and management that supports you, they will retaliate by
removing them. So now the message is we have two plain choices,
to leave INS and seek employment in the private sector, or to allow
this practice to continue in the LA district, which is well aware I
am sure to everyone.
And everything that the Commissioner stated before, I commend
her on the fact that she is moving forward. But I don't think that
she realizes that deputy directors are very powerful people and if
they care not to push your agenda and they have their own per-
sonal agenda and they have association with other people saying,
if we stick together, we can run the LA district. We don't have to
listen to anyone.
And concluding, I really don't feel that anything that I have done
in 2 years will still give me something in writing stating, as the
FBI did, Mr. James was not present when the alleged beating took
place. Mr. James also wasn't on the clock, was not at the facility.
The individuals who was the alleged beating, detainees stated
under oath in a deposition they never would have solved it. They
don't know what they are talking about. As we speak this moment,
I am still being charged and still being scrutinized as a civil rights
violator, an assault and battery charge.
I want to conclude by saying that I hope that the committee and
the Commissioner's office could look into how the Deputy Director,
Mr. Donluney, the Assistant Deputy Director to Deportation and
Detention, Mr. Kennel wood, could remove two outstanding officers
from their positions
Mr. Conyers. That is incredible.
Mr. Charles James [continuing]. For assisting their employees.
Mr. Washington. May I wrap it up?
Mr. Conyers, you know what happened is that in Los Angeles
and around the country, you focused on Los Angeles. What nap-
pened is when we put this team together, we focused on Los Ange-
170
les because that is where we had the hardest problem. When Mr.
McLeary came into the office of the Commissioner here, they cut
out nationwide the full field investigations and task forces oper-
ations by going to inspect at a moment's notice. They don't do it
anymore nationwide, and now these Los Angeles, it is a 5V2 hour
flight out there, nobody wants to go out there.
And so now these districts are left way out there to sit in power
here in Washington, DC, Ms. Sale and Ms. Meissner are here, they
are just eating these guys up, eating everybody up. As I told you,
I was thrown out of that office in September 1992 and I would love
to know if Mrs. Reno give that order or Ms. Meissner when she
first came in or Ms. Chris Sale ordered that, because I haven't been
in that office since 1992, and I am a U.S. immigration agent. But
the problem is inspection. They are not doing it any more.
Sir, I would just like to conclude by saying anyone who is sincere
must know in order to change the methods of the way business is
normally done, you must change the direction and the head of the
people who have been in charge the way business have been run
so far.
And I reiterate, I hope that the chairman and the committee and
the office of headquarters could deeply look at and expedite a rea-
son to justify removing an officer charged, a chief with 24 years
who have violated no crime or anything other than support their
employees, and who have an outstanding record as far as com-
plaints toward them.
I thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Charles James follows:]
171
TESTIMONY
OP
CHARLES JAMES
DETENTION ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
SAN PEDRO PROCESSING CENTER
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
ON
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROTECTION AT THE
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1994
9:30 A.M.
172
The issue I would like to address is false allegations and
conspiracy under the color of authority by Federal Employees of Los
Angeles District Immigration Naturalization Service towards
minorities. Allegations were brought against me, and after proving
the allegations were false 1 tried to seek administrative remedies
which included filing a complaint against all parties involved in
the conspiracy. As reprisals from filing a complaint I received
threats of bodily harm, threats of being terminated if complaints
did not cease, and it was also stated that I should be happy to
have a job.
1 am not a disgruntle employee, but 1 have fears that as a Blaok
Officer in the INS there are two sets of rules. The Los Angeles
vision statement is mutual respect for all employees, but that does
not appear to apply to black employees of the Los Angeles District.
t fHWt
ST
emusnuM.
1SEOI
inr
•mec
wr
•fret mm*
wr
1
TJT
=a?£OT
mBHT
"Sir
Tsssr
173
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of JUSTICE
OFFICIAL FILE COPT
November 11, 1994
Charles James
Detention Enforcement
INS/ San Pedro
Processing Center
PERSONAL SAFETY
Richard K. Rogers
District Director
Immigration Naturalization 6 Service
Los Angeles District
THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS
I am writing this acknowledgement of possible physical harm to
myself in retaliation from all parties Involved in false
allegations of assault and battery that I was charged, investigated
and cleared.
After meeting with Chief Union Steward of Local 505, Janet Shanks-
Jones and Assistant to Deputy Director Christopher Powler, in
reference to Detention Enforcement Officer, Robert Lakin returning
to duty at San Pedro Processing Center. His returning back to work
has caused great alarm and undue stress to be concerned due to the
fact that March 14, 1994, I received a letter from Internal Audit
Immigration 6 Naturalization Service stating that I have been
cleared. However, on September 28, 1994, while at the Federal
Labor Relations Authority hearing in reference to case no. SF-CO-
40336, parties and Mr. Bob Lakin stated that Mr. Lakin has just
taken a polygraph stating that he strongly feels that a beating and
coverup really took place and really happened. I find this most
shocking and frightening due to the fact that I have documentation
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Inspector General's
Office and U.S. Attorneys Office and the Attorney for alleged
Chinese detainee stating the incident never' took place and
fabricated by party and Mr. Bob Lakin with the intention malice,
and retaliation for voicing my concern as an employee of the Los
Angeles District.
Due to the fact that I am pursuing through outside sources to have
my name cleared from any alleged misconduct or wrong doing this
causes me concern for reprisals have been constant by parties
involved. Therefore, I am bringing this to your attention for
guidance and assistance in this matter.
Please respond to my urgent request ASAP.
mi
B-95*
174
Memorandum
Subject
PERSONAL SAFETY
To From
Richard K. Roger 8 Charles Janes
District Director Detention Enforcement
immigration Naturalization fc Service INS/ San Pedro
Los Angeles District Processing Center
THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS
I am writing this acknowledgement of possible physical harm to
myself in retaliation from all parties involved in false
allegations of assault and battery that I was charged/ investigated
and cleared.
After meeting with Chief Union Steward of Local 505, Janet Shanks-
Jones and Assistant to Deputy Director Christopher Fowler, in
reference to Detention Enforcement Officer, Robert Lakin returning
to duty at San Pedro Processing Center. His returning back to work
has caused great alarm and undue stress to be concerned due to the
fact that March 14, 1994, I received a letter from Internal Audit
Immigration s Naturalization Service stating that I have been
cleared. However, on September 28, 1994, while at the Federal
Labor Relations Authority hearing in reference to case no. SP-co-
40336, parties and Mr. Bob Lakin stated that Mr. Lakin has just
taken a polygraph stating that he strongly feels that a beating and
coverup really took place and really happened. I find this most
shocking and frightening due to the fact that I have documentation
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Inspector General's
Office and U.S. Attorneys Office and the Attorney for alleged
Chinese detainee stating the incident never took place and
fabricated by party and Mr. Bob Lakin with the intention malice,
and retaliation for voicing my concern as an employee of the Los
Angeles District.
Due to the fact that I am pursuing through outside sources to have
my name cleared from any alleged misconduct or wrong doing this
causes me concern for reprisals have been constant by parties
involved. Therefore, I am bringing this to your attention for
guidance and assistance in this matter.
Please respond to my urgent request ASAP.
ro.ni o ?
(K*». I 780)
R-95X
175
Mr. Conyers. That is very sad to hear. This victimization
spreads even to anybody that dares to let the grievance process go
forward.
Gentlemen, the numerous, numerous criticisms that you have
put into the record leave me recognizing that the problem is deeper
than I estimated it to be. I know that these presentations are not
total, and that there are probably other people and other incidents
that could be put into the recora, ad nauseam, and I again thank
you very much.
You nave the deepest appreciation of probably thousands and
thousands of other people who are obviously not going to be able
to ever testify before a congressional committee. You are their rep-
resentative, and to that extent you have acquitted yourselves in a
very highly commendable way. I am very, very proud of all of you.
I would like to excuse you at this point. I thank you very much.
Ms. Marie Padilla, accompanied by Reina Killfoil; Mary Quinn-
Valladolid, Portland, OR; Carole George, Washington, DC; Deborah
Rochee, McLean, VA. Your statements will be made a part of the
record. They will be replicated in their entirety.
I would like you to summarize your statements. Please don't try
to read them in their entirety. We want to get right down to the
heart of the matter, and we will start with Ms. Padilla from Mex-
ico, US Department of State.
STATEMENT OF MARIA PADILLA, COUNSULAR OFFICER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CIUDAD JUAREZ, MEXICO, ACCOM-
PANIED BY REINA KILLFOIL; AND EDWARD TUDDENHAM,
ATTORNEY
Ms. Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. My name is Maria
Padilla. If you have information that I am from Mexico, it is be-
cause I work in Mexico. I was born in El Paso, TX, and I work for
the Department of State at the U.S. Consulate in Mexico across
from EI Paso.
I was born in El Paso in 1945. I have been married for 25 years.
I have two teenagers. Those are two of the reasons that I am here
today. I want to leave a better world for them. I am also here be-
cause my parents didn't have a lot of opportunities. My mother was
taught when she was in school — she went to the eighth grade — she
was taught that blacks should never be addressed as Mr. or Mrs.
or Miss, that you always addressed them by their first name.
My father, who also went to the eighth grade, was not allowed
to go to a greasy joint in the front door with a basketball team that
he played with, they had to go to the back door and eat their ham-
burgers in the back. This was in Van Horn, TX. Those things
stayed with me, those stories from my childhood, and they drive
me, and I have stayed involved as much as I can with fighting for
fairness so that all people can have dignity and respect.
I believe in the EEO program. I believe this is the best country
in the world. There is a lot of work to be done here, but I think
that if we stand and see the crimes that are being committed, it
is bad enough to see them, but the biggest crime is to stand and
do nothing, and that is why I am here today.
I graduated from the INS academy in 1988. I have been a volun-
teer EEO counselor with the Department of the Army, back in the
176
1970's, and I have been an EEO counselor also as a volunteer with
the INS, more recently in the early 1990's. I have close to 20 years
of government service. Everywhere that I have worked I have been
rated outstanding, including for my EEO work.
I think that the problems that we have seen described here prob-
ably in part can be traced to the training facility in Glenco. At that
training facility, it is very common for instructors and presenters
to use sexist humor, innuendo, and negative remarks about other
races, other cultures.
Women are called girls. There is a hostile environment in that
academy and I was there and I know what it is like. I always eval-
uated that in our critiques as students. I don't know what happens
to those critiques. I think that part of the reason that that happens
in the INS is because of the nature of the work of the INS. Because
the INS has to scrutinize so closely those of other races and cul-
tures and nationalities when they want to come into this country,
I believe that somehow the INS employees feel like they are supe-
rior to people who are coming from other countries.
There is no mention of having respect and dignity for other peo-
ple. While we are working with the law on our side and enforcing
the laws of the Immigration Service, that should be sufficient to
support the officer. But officers take it on a personal level to de-
grade people from other countries, and I believe that because that
particular point is not covered in the training, I think it extends
into the way in which people deal with one another inside of the
agency so that eventually there are U.S. citizens committing dis-
criminatory acts against U.S. citizens because it is so common to
do it to outsiders.
One of the cases that I worked on as an EEO counselor in Los
Angeles concerned a black male who was not selected for a pro-
motion. In that case, I came to Washington to talk with some of
the high officials in the investigations branch. When I got to that
office, I asked if there was an affirmative action plan in place. One
of the officials told me that there is no affirmative action plan.
Thev just try to be sensitive and to keep some degree of balance
so tnat there is not a white male force of resistance.
That is what their affirmative action plan consists of. If you look
at the statistics, and many have been mentioned here today, it is
not working. There is no real vision for EEO in the INS. When I
use that word with the Assistant Commissioner for Investigations,
he laughed at the word. It was like he didn't understand what I
was saying.
When I said what — if you look at the statistics and you see that
you don't have minorities and women at the top, what is your plan?
What is the vision that you have for changing that? Ana I felt like
I was being ridiculed with the way that he responded to my ques-
tion, because he didn't think that that was part of his job, to have
a vision about anything like that. This is an Assistant Commis-
sioner, very high-ranking official in the INS.
During that same case as I inquired into the facts that were
brought to me by this black man, there was so much evidence on
that particular case that I had gathered and there was so much
other evidence on another case that I was working that I felt that
it was very possible to obtain a decision quickly on the basis of the
177
information I had gathered, if I were able to go in and see the
Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, the second in com-
mand. I was told by my EEO office that I would not try to get into
any of those offices, that that was not the way for me to deal with
my case.
As I worked as a volunteer EEO counselor in the INS, I found
out that my experience with the Department of the Army had been
as positive as it had been in the EEO work because the Depart-
ment of Defense has the most outstanding EEO programs in gov-
ernment service. I feel very fortunate to have started working with
the EEO program with the Department of Defense because it laid
the groundwork for me.
Now I was trained in the identical way when I trained for EEO
counseling in INS, the training is the same training. The basis for
all of the preparation is so that you will be able to go in there and
do your job as quickly as possible and as well as possible to save
spending money on a long and drawn out case where the investiga-
tor will nave to come in and do an investigation and possibly end
up in court with a case. It makes it long and drawn out and expen-
sive for the government.
It also doesn't give relief to the employee right away. So as EEO
counselors, we are volunteers, we are supposed to dedicate 100 per-
cent of our time to our duties and we are supposed to work very
fast and very efficiently. We are supposed to have a response in 21
days. And the investigation, if a case goes formal, it is supposed to
be done in 180 days. So it is supposed to work very efficiently. And
we are not paid for those duties; those are volunteer duties.
But what we get at the training and what happens when we go
into the reality of carrying out our duties in Los Angeles under the
INS are two totally different things. When I got to Los Angeles as
an EEO counselor, there was no office space that was designated
for us to do our work, there was no privacy, no computer or type-
writer, nothing, no logistics for you to do your job with. You do
whatever you can. There is no central office where you have an
EEO staff, such as a women's program coordinator, Hispanic offi-
cer, whatever. All of these programs under EEO you don t have an
EEO staff that is visible.
You don't have photographs of the counselors; you don't have-
there is no high visibility for the program. And there is no leader-
ship in the managers or the officials either. They have very little —
you don't get much of a response from them. On one case that I
worked, I made several calls to the chief of examinations; they
were never returned. I specifically said, I am calling as a counselor,
I need to meet with her on a case; never got a response.
On the case that I worked for the black male, I talked with the
people who had been on the panel, who had interviewed the appli-
cants for the position. I gave them a series of questions to respond
to by mail. One of them told me that he had mailed them to me
and he never did. Finally, when I pressed 2 months later for the
answer, he finally sent them to me and obviously, you know, had
never sent them initially.
Whenever they paneled individuals for positions, they don't take
into consideration any of the statistics or any upward mobility plan
of action or affirmative plan of action. EEO goals, none of that is
178
taken into account when they interviewed — in this case they were
interviewing for a high level position, I believe it was a 14.
During the time that I worked on these two cases, which were
the two bigger cases that I worked with, I had just submitted all
of the information, all of the evidence that I had gathered. It is not
our job as EEO counselors to determine whether there was dis-
crimination; it is only our job to gather facts and to bring those
facts to the official who can grant the remedial action or deny it.
I had produced quite a bit of information in each case and had
provided that information to the officials who could make a deci-
sion. I spoke with a person who has been with the INS for a long
time. She is an INS investigator, but has been doing collateral in-
vestigations as an EEO investigator for the INS all along. She told
me, you never give them the evidence that you gather, you never
give it to them.
You never give it to them. They will use it for their own pur-
poses. They will manipulate the information any way they can. You
don't give them what you found. I could not believe what she was
telling me. I would not accept it. I knew that in my case, given my
past experience with the Army, given the kind of work that I had
done and the way that I had done my job as an EEO counselor,
I was sure that my cases were going to be handled properly. I am
very sad to tell you today that she was right.
What happened is tnat my information was taken and used
against me. The official at the training facility with whom I sat and
who studied all of the evidence that I had gathered and who was
very struck by the information that I was giving him and the docu-
ments, evidence obviously that there had been tremendous persecu-
tion against the woman who had come to me with a complaint, this
same individual took all of the information I gave him, gave it to
another man, an officer of the INS, someone he chose to look all
those documents over and come up with his own decision. And that
officer said that I had slandered one of the targeted officials in the
case. This was a case concerning a woman who was treated very
negatively at that academy.
In that same case, an official who was identified by one of the
staff there as the instigator of some of the hostility retracted the
statement after it was made. The person who directed the hostility
is the director of the officer academy, the immigration officer acad-
emy. And one of his subordinates clarified for me during my in-
quiry, clarified that this particular director had been the one who
initiated the action against the woman.
When I confronted the director with that, I did not tell him who
told me. I just said I understand that you were the one who gave
that order. He was very upset. By the time I got back to Los Ange-
les, I had a call from the person who had clarified it for me retract-
ing his statement. The good old boy network went right to work
and retracted the statement and made it look like, you know, like
it never happened.
And to echo previous testimony that you have heard here today,
this particular director who initiated the hostility I understand has
been promoted and is still there at the academy.
Again, there are no logistics in place for the counselor to carry
out the work the way it should be done. I was told to counsel my —
179
the complainants to come to me at the cafeteria. It is a big cafe-
teria, probably seats 200 people, 200 or 300 people.
There is no way that people can remain anonymous when they
come to talk to me because it was obvious I am an EEO counselor.
By word of mouth people know that I am a counselor, and so it was
impossible to really do the work and do it in the middle of all that
noise and in that environment. But there is nothing in place for us
to do our job.
I ended up taking my work home and doing it as best as I could
and working from my computer and doing the reports as best as
I could. I was very fortunate in having supervisors who would give
me the time and who knew what my job was and said take the
time. But I have no space. Find the place where you can do it.
I ended up driving to Westminster, CA, a few times, using space
in another INS office, the antismuggling unit, just doing the best
I could on my own. That is the way that the work is done.
In the case of the Hispanic woman that I was talking about, the
things that were perpetrated against her, the actions that were
carried out against her at the academy created a tremendous men-
tal stress. This was verified by the doctor that she saw in 1991. He
connected her problems to what she suffered at the academy.
My inquiry also verified that the incidents at the academy had
happened. The Office of Workers' Compensation Program also de-
cided in her favor in June of this year. It is my understanding that
the investigator who finally investigated the case this year, in
June, also apparently verified the situations that this person
brought to us. And as of today, Mr. Conyers, that case has not been
decided by the INS. There has been no decision.
Mr. Conyers. How long has that been?
Ms. Padilla. The case was filed in early 1991. The formal com-
plaint was filed in January 1991.
Mr. Conyers. Do you want to make any comments about Ms.
Killfoil before we let ner make a statement, if she chooses?
Ms. Padilla. Well, Ms. Killfoil is that person — I have tried not
to reveal the identities of these persons because we are bound to
privacy on the cases. She has given me permission to identify her.
The most difficult thing about being an EEO counselor in the
INS is not the fact that my work, which I stand by, is twisted and
turned and made a joke out of it. It is not that. That is very bad.
Mr. Conyers. Is it?
Ms. Padilla. It is very bad. I have always held a very high
standard to live by. That is the way I was raised. I have been
raised to work hard and to be honest and to stand for the right
things. But the hardest thing for me has been to see how long it
takes for these individuals to nave redress.
To see a grown man, a black man who has given his very best
to the Government of the United States, who has a shining record
with the INS as a special agent, and to see him come into my office
desperate and just not knowing what to do because he knows that
the system is stacked against him. To see those people go month
by month by month without a decision from the agency.
To see this woman who is no longer a productive person, who
had wonderful, wonderful work history with the INS. I talked with
the district director who knew her before she went to the academy
180
and then he told me how she came back. I didn't know this person
before she went to the academy so I can't say, but I think that this
district director was telling me the truth. And he said she was de-
stroyed. She was destroyed. And, as of today, life as she knew it
before the academy is gone. I don't know that she will be able to
say anything today. She's having a very difficult time being here.
But her case has not been decided.
In conclusion, I believe that the INS is run by white males. It
is the good old boys club. It has been there for a long time. The
EEO program in the INS is not structured or managed in a way
which will bring about any change in that. The program lacks visi-
bility within the agency. It lacks leadership. High officials, man-
agers, do not take it seriously.
The program is not used in evaluating officers. No one is really
accountable for the way that the program is mismanaged or the
way that supervisors don't adhere to EEO principles. It is not done
at the training facility. It is not done anywhere in the INS.
And if it is done, maybe it is lip service because things don't
change in the agent. They lack a plan of action. They lack commit-
ment across the board to provide opportunities for all employees.
The way that the program is run right now sabotages the goals of
the program which are to provide fast relief to employees and to
keep the program from costing a lot of money. And it also burns
out the counselors.
I believe that the EEO process as far as handling complaints
should be completely extricated from the INS. I don't believe that
the INS — I don't believe there should be even counselors who touch
upon that process. I think it should be given to full-time staffs who
can take care of EEO matters on a separate basis. I don't think
that any of this should be in the INS.
What they do need inside the agency is an upward mobility plan,
a training plan, an affirmative action plan, and they need to really
put accountability into every single position in the agency. And I
think that people should be graded and evaluated by the way that
they deal with the public also. I believe that the training facility
should have as a very high priority some kind of sensitivity train-
ing where they would learn how to at least tolerate differences in
cultures and races. And, hopefully, that would extend to the way
that the agency itself is run. But I believe that that is a very big
area that should be covered across the board in the agency.
I believe that there should be very specific leadership training for
all of the instructors at the academy and for managers and high-
level supervisors for anyone who is going to manage the employees
of the INS so that they would also work from the idea that people
should be treated with dignity and respect.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much for your recommendations and
your volunteerism. It makes us feel very good that there are people
like you throughout INS trying to make it better in every way.
Ms. Padilla. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Padilla follows:]
181
OUTLINE OF STATEMENT BY
MARIA ESTELA PADILLA
I have close to twenty years of government service. I worked
with the BEO program as a volunteer counselor in the Department of
the Army 3 years and with the Immigration Service, 2 years. I
recently learned that the EEO program in the Department of Defense
is the best example in government service of how an ££0 program
should work; this may explain why I have so many questions about
the manner in which the EEO program is managed in the INS.
The work of an EEO counselor is to be the front line person
dealing with someone who feels they have been discriminated
against. It is the counselor's job to get the story from the
complainant, determine whether it is based on EEO grounds and then
gather facts about the complaint, and make a recommendation to
management. It is the counselor's job to do this as quickly and as
well as possible to resolve the problem promptly for the benefit of
the employee as well as management. We are required to do this in
21 days. During training and in the materials provided to us we
are repeatedly reminded to do as thorough a job as possible and to
do so promptly. If this is to be achieved, there must be support
starting from the top, all the way to the first line there must be
high visibility showing that the agency is dedicated to achieving
equal opportunity for its employees. There must be an air of
openness which encourages employees to speak freely with EEO
personnel.
None of these things existed at INS. The EEO position is a
part time position, the duties are collateral. If you are not
lucky enough to have a supportive supervisor you would not be given
time to do the job. I was not given any space to work, no privacy,
no telephone, typewriter or computer. I ended up commuting from
the downtown district office to the office in Westminster — a
distance of about 40 mile — to find office space. But perhaps the
worst aspect of EEO work in INS is that after you've overcome all
the logistical hurdles and manage to investigate a case, the agency
ignores your findings, or worse yet uses them against you.
There were two complaints in particular that I handled that
well illustrate the kinds of problems faced by EEO counselors in
INS and employees. One was the complaint of the black employees
that is now a class action. The other was with Peina Killfoil.
Reina Killfoil was sent to the INS Academy at Olynco, Georgia
in October 1989 for a four month training course as an INS
examiner. During this training course Ms. Killfoil alleged that
she was harassed and discriminated against in a variety of ways by
her fellow students because of her sex and national origin. This
harassment and discrimination were not only known to the
182
instructors at the Academy but those instructors actually
instigated some of the harassment.
The investigation of her case illustrates a number of the
problems faced by EEO complainants and counselors
a. Anonymity - I had to counsel Reina in the cafeteria -how
can anything be kept confidential in such a circumstance.
b. On Reina's case I called the Chief of Examinations on
multiple occasions to schedule to speak with her about the rumors
being spread in the District Office about Reina. I wanted to speak
with her about how to remedy this problem but she never returned my
calls. This is an example of the lack of support for the EEO
Program at INS.
c. When I finally got all of the evidence together in her
case I went to the Academy, and had what seemed like a productive
meeting with the head of the training facility, Mr. Ulrich. The
next thing I knew they carried out their own investigation in which
I am accused of slandering INS.
d. After presenting the results of my investigation to Mr.
Ulrich, I spoke with and INS investigator who is familiar with EEO
investigations. She told me it was a mistake to give my
supervisors the facts because they will use the information, not to
solve the problem, but to cover it up. I was surprised to hear
this. I could not believe that someone working with the program
inside the agency, and in a higher capacity than mine, would say
that. But some time later I got a letter from Ulrich telling me
that he was not granting any remedial action because he had had one
of his officers look into the matter and it didn't support my
findings.
In the end the problem with the EEO program in INS is that it
is run as a "good old boys" club. They have made a mockery of
civil rights — starting at the academy where the tone is set
through the jokes and innuendos of the instructors and continuing
throughout the agency. As Reina's case so clearly illustrates, at
the Academy, where recruits should be taught sensitivity and
tolerance for the different cultures they will be dealing with as
officers, racism and discrimination is not only tolerated among INS
trainees but encouraged by the supervisors who should be making
clear that such attitudes are improper.
i-z.
183
Mr. Conyers. I would say to attorney Edward Tuddenham that
if Ms. Killfoil is unable to talk today, we quite understand.
Mr. Tuddenham. I think she has a very brief statement.
Mr. Conyers. All right. If she would like to, we would welcome
her comments.
Ms. Killfoil. Yes, I just want to say that I was not like this be-
fore. I was just a happy lady, human. And now I know what has
been done to me is completely intentional.
And the Commissioner in the INS is just like a picture on the
wall. They just completely — I know, because this is— what hap-
pened to me is 4 years from now, 5, and I have been going around,
around and asking for help. And nobody helped me. And I just
want this to be over because I don't want to live the rest of my life
like this. And that is all what I have to say. I filed about three
EEO complaints and up to this date I have not received an answer
to them.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Anything you want to add, counsel?
Mr. Tuddenham. The discrimination she's complaining of oc-
curred between October 1989, and January 1990. She first filed
with INS with an EEO counselor in February 1990. She has gone
through the process every step of the way.
Ms. Padilla helped her as an EEO counselor. When that didn't
work out she pursued the complaint again.
The Office of Worker Compensation Protection Board, when she
filed an appeal there based on the injuries she suffered from the
discrimination, was able to reach a decision completely in her
favor, finding that the discrimination occurred, but somehow the
INS has been unable to reach any conclusion in her discrimination
complaints. She writes and she writes and she writes seeking an-
swers and never gets any.
I hope and I thank the chairman for holding these hearings as
I do hope that, if nothing else out of these hearings, we will at least
get an answer to what has happened to her complaints.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. And a fair response as well. These are tragedies
inside our system that we cannot allow to continue. We just cannot
allow it.
From Portland, OR, Ms. Mary Quinn-Valladolid.
STATEMENT OF MARY QUINN, DISTRICT ADJUDICATION OFFI-
CER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, PORT-
LAND, OR
Ms. Quinn. I am Mary Quinn, GS-12 district adjudication offi-
cer, assigned to the Portland, OR, district office.
I originally entered on duty as a student aide in 1971 earning
$1.65 an hour. In 1976 I transferred from Seattle, WA, as a clerk
to the San Ysidro port of entry as a clerk; and then in September
1978 I went to the immigration officer basic training course in
Glenco, GA, where I was an immigration inspector trainee at San
Ysidro.
Since becoming an immigration inspector at San Ysidro I trans-
ferred to New Orleans in tnat capacity, Dulles Airport, worked at
Andrews Air Force Base as an inspector, went back to San Ysidro
184
and to Otay Mesa, CA port of entry in November 1984. From there
I went to Los Angeles as an immigration examiner in March 1985.
I was promoted to a GS-11.
And I believed at that point I was on the proper career path until
I transferred to Portland, OR, in November 1987. And I believe
wholeheartedly, based on 20 years experience at different offices
throughout the country, that the district director, David Beebe in
Portland, OR, deliberately discriminates against women, minori-
ties, and especially African-Americans. And Mr. Beebe gets away
with it because EEO adherence by INS is in word only and is to-
tally ineffective in INS. He knows
Mr. Conyers. What happened? What happened to your career
path? It was going up and then
Ms. QuiNN. I became an immigration inspector in 1978 at San
Yisdro and went to the immigration officer's basic training in Glen-
coe, GA, and went back. And then I transferred to New Orleans as
an immigration inspector, Dulles Airport, worked at Andrews Air
Force Base and then went back to San Yisdro as an inspector and
Otay Mesa, CA, and then from there I was promoted to immigra-
tion examiner in Los Angeles, and then I went to Portland, OR, in
1987, lateral as an immigration examiner where I continue to work
today.
Mr. Conyers. Things are pretty rough in Portland, then?
Ms. QuiNN. Yes, they are. I applied for a supervisory immigra-
tion examiner position in August 1991, and I was not selected for
that position, so in October 7, 1991, I filed a discrimination suit
based on gender against Mr. Beebe.
I applied for the position of supervisory examiner, GS-12, at
Portland, OR, and Mr. Beebe later stated that the working title
was really assistant district director for examinations and not SIE,
and that I was not qualified to be an ADDE.
And at the time I applied, there were three examiners assigned
to Portland, including the male that was selected over myself. After
the person was selected, the ADDE at Portland supervised two ex-
aminers. We now at this time have four examiners in Portland and
the ADDE. The male has the same title and authority as the
ADDE in New York and Chicago and is now in line to be a district
director.
I was qualified but Mr. Beebe chose to promote a male that I
have trained. This is reflected on a previous appraisal. He entered
on duty as an immigration trainee, GS-7. I did train him. It is the
classic glass ceiling. In the 18 months that this trainee immigra-
tion examiner had prior to being promoted to the SIE of Portland,
OR, it included 2V2 months of training at the Federal law enforce-
ment training course. Mr. Beebe eventually stated that he selected
the male based on his 2 year's experience in the legalization pro-
gram. This program has nothing to do with the officer corps of the
INS. It was separate and apart.
The male selected didn't have a security clearance but Mr. Beebe
said it didn't matter. I myself have had a security clearance for
years and continue to do so.
Mr. Conyers. So you keep training the males that always win
out over you?
185
Ms. QuiNN. Yes, I applied for supervisory immigration examiner
in Portland, OR, where I had worked since 1987 as an immigration
examiner. But prior to applying for that position that was vacated
in 1991, I had been the acting supervisory immigration examiner
all the time. And I was found qualified for that position on the GS-
12 list, as was the male whom I had trained.
Mr. Beebe promoted the male I had trained who had 18 months
in the INS. He was a career conditional employee and had no secu-
rity clearance at all. He had come in through the legalization pro-
gram, the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986, off the street.
So he worked in that program, which was temporary. That pro-
gram was just a temporary program. And out of that, he became
an immigration examiner trainee in the Portland, OR, district of-
fice and I was his training officer. I trained him and it is reflected
on one of my appraisals.
Part of the job encompasses the airport, the Portland Oregon
International Airport. The ADDE has the airport under their su-
pervision. There was a selective placement factor in this position
that I applied for. I have vast background. He has never been an
inspector, and never worked in an airport, seaport, or land border
port, whereas I had, yet he is supervisor, second line supervisor to
the airport in Portland.
Mr. Conyers. OK I think we have got the picture here pretty
well. Would you want to make a concluding statement?
Ms. QuiNN. I would like to also say that October 31, 1994, an Af-
rican-American entered on duty as an investigative aide, a clerical
position. This is the first African-American hired at Portland in
years. There are no other African-Americans employed in any ca-
pacity at all at Portland.
Mr. Beebe, the director, has had several opportunities to hire Af-
rican-Americans in not only officer corps and supervisory positions,
but also clerical positions, and he has chosen not to. He has had
several opportunities to hire women in supervisory positions and he
again has chosen not to.
There is one female supervisor at Portland. She is now a GS-10
in charge of records, the file room. However, Mr. Beebe didn't select
her either. She was on duty when he arrived.
The facts speak for themselves. Portland discriminates. Nothing
has been done to provide a remedy to ensure INS adheres to the
law.
In closing, I wish to state that I know I will possibly be called
a disgruntled employee, and the Service has miles of rhetoric and
words, but not affirmative action. I believe reprisals will be used
against me. I hope to see a fair and equal work environment for
all in the INS, especially Portland, and I hope that my coming here
makes a difference.
Mr. Conyers. And we commend you for making that trip, and
for having the courage to make this public. And I think that the
concern of the Commissioner who has been in attendance through-
out this hearing will make it very definite that there will be no re-
prisals. And that, you won't have to worry about that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Quinn follows:]
186
TO; Cheryl Matcho, Clerk Nov. 7, 1994
Subcommittee at B-373
Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
cc: Ms Randy Katsoyannis
FROM; Mary K. Qulnn
Immigration Examiner
U.S. INS/Portland, Or.
503-326-7153 office
My name is Mary K. Quinn and I am a GS-12 Immigration Bxaminer
(I.E.) currently assigned to the Portland Oregon District Office
of the IMS I entered on duty with the INS on June 30, 1971 as a
student aid earning $1.65C per hour. Since entering on duty I
have been assigned and worked as an Immigration Inspector (II) at
San Yisdro CA., Otay Mesa CA. , Andrews Air Force base, Dulles
International Airport, Mew Orleans LA., and Los Angeles CA. I was
trained, worked, and am knowledgeable in all facets of Seaport,
Airport, and Land Border Port inspections.
While at Los Angeles, I was promoted to Immigration Examiner. I
believed that I was on the right career path until I transferred
to Portland, Or. I have been an IE since 1985 and have performed
all facets of IE duties. I have always received Excellent or
Outstanding ratings during my career.
My last rating at Portland, (1993-1994) was "Excellent". My
supervisor eventually told me that my rating was based on
District Director David V. Beebe's instructions to the management
team that ■Outstanding" ratings had to be held to 34% of the work
force because Beebe had previously been chastised by the regional
office for "too many Outstandings at Portland," and Beebe's
rating had suffered.
I challenged the rating because I believed that I merited a
higher rating not based on Beebe's self emposed standards which
had nothing to do with actual job performance. I filed a Union
grievance which resulted in my rating being elevated to
"Outstanding" when the regional office reviewed my Job
performance and overturned Beebe's bogus responses to me, and to
the Union. Beebe could have done the right thing, but of course
decided not to. I believe that the entire office suffered lower
ratings because of Beebe's illegal instructions.
I believe whole heartedly, based on twenty (20) years experience
at different offices throughout the country, that David V. Beebe
deliberately, knowingly, and maliciously discriminates against
women and minorities, especially African Americans. Beebe gets
away with it because EEO adherence by INS is in word only, BEO is
totally ineffective in INS. What does Beebe care about EEO, he
knows District Directors are never held accountable for their
violations. The directors of both the Office of Inspector General
and IM8 Internal Audit have both stated so on the record.
/. lof3
187
On October 7, 1991 I filed a discrimination suit based on
Gender, against David Beebe. In summary, I applied for the
announced position of Supervisory Immigration Examiner, GS-12, (a
first line supervisory position) at Portland, Or. Beebe later
stated that the "working title was really Assistant District
Director for Examinations" and not SIE, and that I w as not
qualified to be an ADDE. At the time, there were THREE examiners
assigned to Portland, Including the male selected. After the
person was selected, the ADDE AT PORTLAND SUPERVISED TWO
EXAMINERS. We now have FOUR examiners at Portland, and an ADDS,
this male has the same title and authority as the ADDE in New
York, Chicago, etc. and is now in line to be a District Director.
I was of course qualified on the selection list but Beebe chose
to promote a male that I had trained. This is reflected on
previous appraisals. Beebe selected a male, already at Portland,
that entered on duty eighteen (18) months previously as an I.E.
trainee, GS-7. Again I must state that I trained him. The classic
Glass ceiling. The eighteen months in the Officer Corps also
Include two and a half months at basic training at FLETC. Beebe
eventually said that he selected the male based on his two years
experience in the Legalization program, (which of course had
nothing to do with the Officer Corps or INS, it was separate and
apart). Why did the ADDE at Portland Oregon have to go to
Immigration Officer basic training?
The male selected did not have a Security Clearance, but Dave
Beebe said "it did not matter." I have had a Security Clearance
for years, and continue to do so.
Included in the vacancy announcement was a selective placement
factor requiring Airport, Seaport, and Land Border Port inspector
experience. The male selected for ADDE, of course did not have
any inspections experience, yet he was still certified as
qualified for the position and Beebe was allowed to select the
unqualified male applicant. The Airport and Seaport are under the
unqualified ADDE, but everyone knows that DDD Seth Libby runs the
airport and seaport, and that the OIC at the Airport reports
directly to Libby, and not Beebe' 8 selection, the ADDE.
On Oct. 31, 1994 an African American entered on duty as an
Investigative Aid, a clerical position. This is the first African
American hired at Portland in years. There are no other African
Americans employed in any capacity at all, at Portland. Beebe has
had several opportunities to hire African Americans in not only
Officer Corps, and Supervisory positions, but also in clerical
positions, he has chosen not to. Beebe has also had several
opportunities to hire women in Supervisory positions, he again
has chosen not to. Beebe said of one female ADDE applicant, "She
is too large for the office." Her record is exemplary, but
qualifications do not count at Portland.
Quinn/Portland, Or
2. X 4 3
188
There is One female supervisor at Portland. She is now, after
twenty years, a GS-10 in charge of Records, (the file room).
Beebe did not select her either, she was already on duty when
Beeb arrived.
The facts speak for themselves, it is evident. Portland
discriminates. The EEO task force found and verified rampant
discrimination in INS, yet nothing has been done to provide a
remedy and to insure INS (especially Portland) adhere to the law.
I suggest the FBI investigate the matter in relation to Civil
Rights violations and individuals be held accountable for
discrimination.
The mood in the Portland office is grim. Employees are afraid of
Dave Beebe, he is known as cold, vindictive, and uncaring. The
Addl has stated that Beebe is the "most vindictive man I have
ever met." Beebe is also considered "capable of anything." Beebe
listens in on phone calls, opens safes when employees are not at
work, goes through desks, and on one occasion he took photographs
of desk tops, threatening disciplinary action if desk tops were
not kept cleared off. Beebe Instituted a dress code which
forbids, in part, "boots of any kind for men, and open toed shoes
for women . "
Everyone I am in contact with is unhappy at Portland, because of
Dave Beebe. It is embarrassing when people ask why there are no
African American employed at Portland INS.
The person everyone goes to for fairness and help is Deputy
District Director Seth B. Libby. He keeps the lid on. Yet Beebe
is openly resentful of Libby and does not treat him well at all.
Libby will soon be leaving for a new position and Portland will
mi 88 him.
The departure of Libby opened the Deputy District Directors
position at Portland. The Service should use this vacancy as an
opportunity to show good faith and place an African American into
the position. Management need transfer the person if necessary,
even on a temporary basis if required. Show a good faith effort 1
In closing I wish to state that I know I will be called a
disgruntled employee, the Service has miles of rhetoric and
words, but not affirmative action. I believe reprisal will be
used against me. I hope I get to see a fair and equal work
environment for all in the INS, especially at Portland, I hope my
coming here makes a difference.
Mary Qiitnn/Portland, Or 3. 3 of 3
189
Mr. Conyers. Carol George, you successfully brought an EEO
complaint but then INS didn't do anything about it. How did that
happen?
STATEMENT OF CAROL S. GEORGE, U.S. IMMIGRATION OUT-
REACH SPECIALIST, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE
Ms. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did — my name is Carol
Savoy George. I am a native Washingtonian who has served the
Federal Government for the past 27 years. I would like to begin
just at that point that I had filed an EEO complaint back in 1987
against the Office of the Commissioner based upon race. The com-
plaint was settled in my favor. I was promoted and reassigned to
another program within the headquarter's service.
Little did I know that from that point all possibilities for ad-
vancement would stop for me. That having filed the complaint in
the Office of the Commissioner, that my story would be passed
from one manager to the next of my having had the nerve to file
the complaint of discrimination.
I have watched since that time, and it has been 7 years ago, I
have watched the less qualified white female secretary in the Office
of the Commissioner advance to the GS-13 level. I have watched
a white female who was the secretary who was promoted to — into
the same program in which I had been promoted to, be promoted,
and she had no desire to even complete the responsibilities of the
job, that is, to travel or to complete the duties.
Lastly, I have watched a Hispanic female start her government
career in 1987 through the legalization program, in the same pro-
gram as myself, for her to receive three promotions, three details
out of the INS to work, all because she was politically correctly con-
nected to the deputy director, the deputy commissioner of the INS.
The point of my bringing to your attention these stories is based
on experience, education, and overall government training that I
was the more qualified candidate for any of these promotions. In-
stead, for 7 years I have remained at the GS-11 level.
To me, this is not about minorities, as the EEOC defines it. This
is about the struggle of an African-American in the INS being
fiven an equal share in the promotions and the advancement possi-
ilities.
Here is my story. After having worked in the immigration out-
reach specialist position for 2 years from 1987 to 1989, a vacancy
was announced with promotion potential. I applied and made the
certificate. Nothing happened with the first certificate. The position
was announced a second time about 1 month later. Again, I applied
and made the list of eligibles for promotion. A Hispanic male was
selected in the spring of 1990. He was not able to fill the position
because of a felony conviction charge selling INS green cards. I met
with my supervisor, a Hispanic male, and his supervisor, a white
male, appealing to them to be able to fill the position since a selec-
tion could be made off" of the same certificate in which the Hispanic
male was selected.
There were other compelling facts that surrounded the selection.
When I was told that the Hispanic male was selected, had been
chosen to fill the position, I found out that I had been placed in
190
what was a temporary legalization position and moneys were due
to rim out for that position in the spring of 1991. The settlement
agreement that I had received from tne Office of the Commissioner
was not to be promoted and be assigned to a temporary position.
That was not my understanding.
There was an overture, I understand, in the legalization positions
in the outreach program. I checked with personnel and was told
that often after a program, such as legalization, ended, if a perma-
nent vacancy was there, the individuals who were assigned a per-
manent slot could be placed in the position, but it would be a man-
agement call.
I went back again, met with my supervisor, and I was told that
I may want to look elsewhere for a position. But logically, why
would I look elsewhere when the vacancy was available there and
it had promotion potential?
I filed a complaint of discrimination based on race and acts of re-
prisal in the nonselection of the vacant immigration outreach spe-
cialist/officer position. The investigation took place and I waited for
a decision. In 1992, I was informed by the EEO Office of Com-
plaints that they had found discrimination in my favor, again, and
that management was being briefed on the proposed disposition
and that a proposed settlement had been drawn up.
On June 1, 1992, a meeting had been scheduled to sign the pro-
posed settlement. The alleged discriminating official was allowed to
attend the meeting. But I was not represented and subsequently,
no agreement was signed. And the ADO, the alleged discriminating
official, was allowed from this meeting to amend his sworn state-
ment previously given in the investigation.
The ADO was given the points that he needed to correct and he
was allowed to correct them. The EEO process was certainly taint-
ed to allow the ADO to attend the settlement meeting. The EEO
director informed me that she was not comfortable with the ADO
attending the meeting but she felt she had to go on with the meet-
ing and I could appeal to her boss, the associate commissioner for
management.
I did appeal to the associate commissioner for management at a
meeting and in writing, to no avail. The case was sent out — my
case was sent out to a paid contractor by the INS to make the
agency decision. Established Department of Justice regulations 28
CFR governing the administrative delegation of authority and proc-
esses for DOJ are void of delegations to outside consultants to
make line decisions to correct and mitigate findings of discrimina-
tion after a case has been investigated. It is my belief that the EEO
officials at the INS have become afraid of management and, there-
fore, unwilling to enforce the equal employment law.
I have found the need to continue to file complaints based on acts
of reprisal in the following areas: due to a performance appraisal
in certain critical elements of my performance, I began to receive
lower performance marks without any discussion as to why the
change; reassignment to the district office. My supervisor told me
and told us — and this was in a staff meeting — that he was told to
look for another position for myself in the INS Washington office
out in Arlington, VA; surveillance, casual surveillance began and
continues today to keep tabs on myself and my time.
191
Mr. Conyers. What about the surveillance part?
Ms. George. The practice of surveillance of just stopping by the
office to see if I am there. Checking if I am on the phone. What
is happening with me; where I am at all times. It continues today.
Under the reorganization, it seems to be the case that it is al-
ways at the disadvantage for African- Americans. My supervisor
took care of moving himself and his secretary, a white female and
her husband, a white male, to the newly named program under the
reorganization. The supervisor wanted to stay to continue to per-
form the responsibilities of the outreach program under the old
branch and not be reassigned under the new program as the reor-
ganization dictated.
The African-American employees of the section, which included a
clerk, a technical support person, and myself, an outreach special-
ist, were not reassigned nor were we addressed in the reassign-
ment without us doing the memorandum and pushing and pushing
to get some resolution to where we stood.
Well, after the reorganization, the vacant position had a name
change with the duties remaining the same. It was advertised for
a third time. I applied for the position, was certified as eligible for
promotion to the next grade. To my recollection, there was one
other person on the list of eligibles.
Without explanation, the certificate of eligibles was canceled. No
selection was made. It is my belief that the canceled certificate —
it was canceled because I was on it. The outreach program had re-
gional positions allotted after the reorganization. They were ap-
proved to advertise and fill these positions were advertised and se-
lections were made. One Hispanic — two Hispanic and one white fe-
male.
After this point, after the vacant position had been advertised
three times, I felt three strikes, and I guess you are out. I then and
only then requested a transfer out of the program. But again to no
avail.
Management decided that they would need to be compensated, a
position for position. If I could find someone who would give them
a position for me, then I could go to the new program. Even though
there was an African-American male manager who wanted to take
me into his program, initially, he initiated the request, but the
management decided not to go that route.
I will just summarize because I know this is all a part of the
record. The EEO basically continues to attempt to do the job it is
charged to do. The EEO at the INS. My filed complaints of acts of
reprisal continued to slowly be investigated. But I don't see that
the investigators are fearless to question the managers and to
make them accountable for their decisions.
Mr. Conyers. Is there any way we can improve that situation?
Ms. George. My only thought is that we probably need to take
it as has been stated, from under the office of management, which
has jurisdiction over personnel, and move it to be under the Com-
missioner directly and have full-time investigators and pecple
available to work through the process.
There are many stories, many other stories like mine and some
even more compelling of African-Americans in the INS which have
never been heard. In the headquarters, INS, we have attempted to
192
file a class complaint on behalf of all of the headquarters African-
American employees.
The EEOC has rejected our complaint based upon commonality
and other items, but even though we are not all immigration and
outreach specialists, we are African -American employees of the INS
who have been denied the basic opportunities of advancement.
Many of us have giving our life to serving the INS and the Fed-
eral Government. It saddening to me greatly in this regard that the
Department of Justice has refused to carry out its civil rights man-
date that the EEOC and the EEO office have been made ineffectual
primarily due to a lack of strong, committed leadership. But I, like
many of my fellow employees, I am at peace because I am standing
up for justice and what is true and what is right.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. George follows:]
193
STATEMENT OF
CAROLE GEORGE
before the
Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security
Committee on Government Operations
November 17, 1994
194
I would like to begin my testimony exactly from that point. That
in 1987 I was promoted and reassigned from the Office of the
Commissioner to the Outreach Program. It was a settle agreement
for a discrimination complaint I had filed based upon race in the
Office of the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Little did I know that all possibility for advancement from that
point to today would be chilled. That my story would be passed
from one manager to the next of my having had the nerve to file the
aforementioned complaint of discrimination. I have watched the
less qualified White Female who did become the Personal Secretary
to the Commissioner advance to the GS-13 level. I have watched
another white female formerly a Secretary receive a promotion into
the same program I was reassigned and then be promoted again when
the person never wanted to perform the task of the position (i.e.
travel, etc.) . And lastly, I have watched a hispanic female start
her government career in 1987 in the same program as myself, be
converted to career, receive three promotions, go on 6 months to 1
year details, all because she was politically correct in her
connections with a former Deputy Commissioner of the INS. The
point of my bringing to your attention these stories is based on
experience, education and overall government training I was a more
qualified candidate for any of these promotions. Instead, I have
not received any promotion since 1987 when I was reassigned from
the Commissioner's office.
This is not about minorities as the EEOC defines it. This is about
the struggle of African Americans in the INS being given an equal
share in the promotions and advancement opportunities.
Here's my story. After having worked in the Immigration Outreach
Specialist position for two years (this was the summer of 1989) a
vacancy was announced for an Immigration Outreach
Specialist/Officer position with promotion potential to GM-13. I
applied for the position, no certificate of eligibles was
generated. The position was announced a second time (about a month
later) , again I applied and made the certificate of eligibles for
a promotion. A hispanic male was selected (in the spring of 1990) ,
he was not able to fill the position because of a felony conviction
(selling INS green cards) . I met with my supervisor and his
supervisor appealing to them to be able to fill the position since
my supervisor said he was not the selecting official. Besides the
fact that I was working in the position, I was on the same
certificate of eligibles as the hispanic male, and another
selection could have been made per personnel. There were other
compelling facts that surrounded this selection. When I was told
that the hispanic male had been chosen I also found out at that
time that I had been placed in a temporary legalization position
and monies for this position were due to run out in the spring of
1991. The settlement agreement I received from the Office of the
Commissioner suit was not for me to be promoted and reassigned to
a temporary position. There was an overhire in the legalization
positions for the Outreach Program. I had checked with personnel
and was told that often after a program such as legalization ends
and if a permanent vacant slot existed then an individual with a
195
permanent assigned could be placed in the position, but it would be
a Management call. I went back and met with my supervisor I was
told I may want to look elsewhere for position. But, logically why
would I when there was a vacancy available right where I was
working .
I filed a complaint of discrimination based on race and acts of
reprisal in the non- selection of the vacant Immigration Outreach
Specialist/Officer position. The investigation took place and I
waited for a decision. In 1992 I was informed by the EEO office
that they had found discrimination and that management was being
briefed on a proposed settlement. On June 1, 1992, a meeting had
been scheduled to sign the proposed settlement. The alleged
discriminating official (ADO) was allowed to attend this meeting,
but I was not invited and subsequently no aggreement was signed and
the ADO was allowed from this meeting to amend his sworn statement
previously given in the investigation. Basically, the ADO was
given the points that he needed to correct and he corrected them.
The EEO process was certainly tainted, to allow the ADO to attend
a settlement meeting. The EEO Director informed me that she was
not comfortable with the ADO attending the meeting but, felt she
had to go on with the meeting and I could appeal to her boss
(Associate Commissioner Management) . I did appeal to the Associate
Commissioner Management, but to no avail. After the ADO amended
his statement, the case was sent out to a contractor, paid by the
INS, to make the agency decision. Established Department of
Justice regulations (28 CFR) governing the administrative
delegation of authority and processes for DOJ are void of
delegations to outside consultants to make line decisions to
correct and mitigate findings of discrimination after a case has
been investigated. It is my belief that EEO officials at the INS
have become afraid of management and therefore unwilling to enforce
the equal employment law.
on
I have found the need to continue to file complaints based
reprisal acts in the following areas:
Performance Appraisal - In certain critical elements of my
performance appraisal I began receiving lower performance marks
without any discussion as to why the change.
Reassignment to the Washington District Office - My supervisor said
he was told to speak with supervisors in the INS Washington
District Office (Arlington Virginia) about a reassignment for
myself .
Surveillance - casual surveillance began and continues today to
keep tabs on myself, etc.
Then came the reorganization. It seems to be the case, always to
the disadvantage of African -Americans. My supervisor took care of
moving himself and his Secretary (white female) and her husband
196
(white male) to a newly named program because the supervisor wanted
to continue to perform the responsibilities of the old program
under the old branch and not be reassigned under the new program as
the reorganization dictated. The African- American employees that
consisted of three African-American women (a clerk, a technical
support person and myself an Outreach Specialist) were not
reassigned to the new program and if you looked at our personnel
journal action today it would read Outreach Program.
After the reorganization, the vacant position had a name change
with the duties remaining basically the same. It was posted for
the third time the fall of 1992. I applied for the position and
was certified as eligible for promotion to the next grade, to my
recollection, there was one other person on the list of eligibles.
Without explanation, the certificate of eligibles was cancelled and
no selection was made. It is my belief that the cancelled
certificate was cancelled because I was on it. The Outreach
program had regional positions approved to advertise and fill.
These positions were advertised and selections were made (two
hispanic and one white female) .
At this point, after the vacant position had been advertised three
times, "three strikes and you're out" I then and only then
requested a transfer out of the program (to no avail) . Management
decided that they would need to be compensated (a position for a
position) for my being transfered to another program within the
headquarters INS. There was even a Manager who requested that I be
transfered to his program. This Program Manager was an African-
American and his offer to have me moved into his program was
rejected. Although Management had demonstrated an interest in my
being transfered to his program for three weeks, but in the end
said no. Todate I remain working in the program. Oh, just
recently say approximately 3 months ago my supervisor indicated
that they (he and his supervisor) were interested in my filling the
position or at least in promoting me. That I should find out how
this could be done without going through advertising the position.
I did research the matter and reported back to my supervisor, but
to no avail .
What I was told was that if I would go to the 16 week (thats 4
months) training course and was successful then they would see when
I return about me being promoted. This has never been the
requirement for the other officers, who had come into our program.
The first thing was that they got the job. Then if they decided on
training they were able to select the training to update themselves
on the immigration law. There was nothing in the vacancy
announcement which said this 4 month training was a requirement
either before or after a person received the position. Nor had it
been necessary for any of the individuals who had filled the
position previously. Why the strenuous necessity for this
particular training? I see this as a double standard, one for me
and a different one for the other specialist/officers.
197
Finally, it was decided to go the route of two vacancies being
posted. The immediate need would be to bring one of the officers
back to headquarters to work because they disliked the reporting
requirements where she was located in the field. The long range
desire would be to fill the other vacant officer position. This
would be the position I could apply for.
With the above senario, I have little faith that this could be in
my best career interest.
The EEO office continues to attempt to do the job it is mandated to
do. My filed complaints of reprisal acts continue to slowly be
investigated, but I don't see that the investigators as being
equipped to fearlessly question the managers and make them
accountable for their decisions.
There are many other stories like mine and some even more
compelling of African-Americans in the INS which have never been
heard. In the headquarters INS we have attempted to file a class
complaint on behalf of all of the headquarters African-American
employees. The EEOC has rejected our complaint based upon
commonality and other areas. But, even though we are not all
Immigration Outreach Specialist, we are African- American employees
of the INS who have been denied the basic opportunities for
advancement .
It saddens me greatly, in this regard, that the Department of
Justice has refused to carry out its Civil Rights mandate; that the
EEOC and the EEO office have been made ineffectual primarily due to
their lack of strong committed leadership.
198
Mr. Conyers. Well, we hope that there will be a change coming
as a result of your steadfastness. We deeply appreciate your being
here today witn us.
Debra Rochee, you are an employee of INS with its forensic doc-
ument laboratory, you have had some discrimination experiences.
Could you summarize them for us, please.
STATEMENT OF DEBRA ROCHEE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION FO-
RENSIC DOCUMENT LABORATORY, McLEAN, VA
Ms. Rochee. Right now, presently I am employed as a special as-
sistant to the director of Immigration and Naturalization Forensic
Document Laboratory in McLean, VA. I was temporarily detailed
to that position in June 1994, and became permanently assigned to
the position in October 1994. I am a GS-12, step 1.
Previously, I was an intelligence research specialist in the Office
of Intelligence, and there I experienced my experience was with my
supervisor, presently, the chief of the Intelligence Analysis Branch,
who has engaged in a practice of racial discrimination and allowed
sexual harassment discrimination by her spouse at the U.S. Immi-
gration and Naturalization Service.
I was the only and highest-ranking African-American intelligence
research specialist on the staff of the Intelligence Analysis Branch.
I have been subjected. to a constant ridicule of my work products.
Sexual harassment of me by her spouse's verbal usage and unwar-
ranted physical attention, disparate treatment of me in the work-
place.
I began my career at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service on January 19, 1988, in the Office of Intelligence in a tem-
porary position as an intelligence aide, GS-5. Approximately 2
weeks later, I became a permanent employee in the same position.
In March 1988, I applied, was selected and became an intel-
ligence research specialist, GS-5. In June 1988, I received a special
achievement award for superior performance relating to a special
task force of which I was a member. As a GS-5 intelligence re-
search specialist, I received an outstanding performance appraisal.
In February 1989, I was promoted to a GS-7 intelligence research
specialist.
Each year thereafter I was promoted until May 1992 when a new
supervisor was selected as the chief of the Intelligence Analysis
Branch.
Her spouse is a senior special agent in the Office of Intelligence.
Both he and his wife are supervised by the same first-line super-
visor, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Intelligence, and the sec-
ond-line supervisor, Assistant Commissioner of Intelligence.
As an intelligence research specialist, I was the target of con-
stant ridicule, insensitivity and unwarranted sex-oriented state-
ments and physical advances by touching by my supervisor's
spouse. Her husband and I were responsible for the same geo-
graphic locations. Therefore, we shared the same daily cable traffic
and worked together on a daily basis.
My former supervisor would distribute cable traffic to both her
husband and I on a daily basis. The two of them would discuss and
199
decide how we should handle my geographic areas and what I
should write.
In November 1992, I was due to receive an interim performance
appraisal. I never received one. On March 11, 1993, I received a
proposal for reduction in grade, reassignment or subsequent re-
moval from the Federal Government. I was also provided with a
new performance appraisal, effective for 120 days.
Subsequently, this action was presented two months prior to my
forthcoming promotion to a GS-13, senior intelligence research spe-
cialist. My former supervisor had generated a removal action on
the basis of classic racial and sexual discrimination.
My problems began my former supervisor who was determined to
remove me in an effort to replace me with one of her former co-
workers at DIA. She advised me that I was bright but I needed to
seek other positions because she felt that this position was not for
me. She provided me with a form, SF-171, and stated that she and
her spouse would assist me in completing it. She had stressed her
intentions for my displacement from the onset. She and her
spouse's harassment caused my anxiety, undue stress and low self-
esteem in the workplace.
Many times I have not been a part of the team and have been
treated as an outsider and not a as participant. I was temporarily
detailed to the INS FDL after I had requested to be reassigned out
of the headquarters intelligence office approximately 2 years ago.
My request had been ignored.
Several new developments have occurred since I have been reas-
signed to the INS FDL, and they are the following. I was only reas-
signed to the INS FDL because my former job as an intelligence
research specialist, GS-13, had been given to a friend of my former
supervisor, a white male, who had been detailed to the Office of In-
telligence prior to my detail to the lab. The white male was un-
happy in his position in the Office of International Affairs and
wanted to be permanently assigned to the Office of Intelligence
under my former supervisor and his friend.
My second line supervisor, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of
Intelligence, has been accused of sexual harassment by the assist-
ant Commissioner of intelligence's Secretary.
The secretary, a white female, was immediately moved to an-
other office while her allegations are being investigated.
My former first-line supervisor's spouse is in the process of being
detailed to another office unknown at this time because of this
hearing.
In conclusion, although I am very happy in my present position
at the INS FDL, I have not received a within-grade increase in
over 2 years, a promotion, a performance appraisal, or do I foresee
receiving a promotion in the near future. I feel as though my future
with INS and probably any other government agency is just over.
I feel that I am a victim of character assassination, and poor per-
formance history, and was removed from a job that I truly loved
of which I will never recover.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell
my story. Nepotism should not be tolerated. Let justice prevail.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rochee follows:]
200
TESTIMONY
OF
DEBRA F. ROCHEE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
FORENSIC DOCUMENT LABORATORY
before the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROTECTION AT INS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1994
9:30 A.M.
201
I, Debra Rochee, Intelligence Research Specialist , allege
Carol Richardson Rascon, Chief of the Intelligence Analysis
Branch, has engaged in a practice of racial discrimination and
allowed sexual harassment discrimination by her spouse, Alfred
Rascon, at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service*
I am the only and highest ranking African-American Intelligence
Research Specialist on the staff of the intelligence Analysis
Branch. I have been subjected to her constant ridicule of my
work products, sexual harassment of me by her spouse's verbal
a.
usage, and unwarranted physical attention, disparite treatment
of me in the workplace. I have haen subjected to theso actions
for approximately ten months, during Mrs. Rascon 's tenure at the
U.S. Immigration and ^Naturalization Service. During this time,
I have been denied the opportunity to t ravel ,a*d,}have received
negative criticism, without any positive assistance.
I began my career at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service on January 19, 1988, in the Office of Intelligence in a
temporary position as an intelligence Aide, GS-5. Approximately
two weeks later, I became a permanent employee in the samo ;■•
position. In March 1988, I applied, was selected and became an
Intelligence Research Specialist, GS-5. In June 1988, I received
a Special Achievement Award for Superior Performance relating
to a Special Task Force of which I wao a member. As a GS-5
Intelligence Research Specialist, I received an Outstanding
Performance Appraisal. In February 1989, I was promoted to a
GS-7 Intelligence Research Specialist. In March 1989, I received
a Fully Successful Performance Appraisal.
202
-z-
In September 1990, X attended and sucessfully completed the
Immigration and Naturalization's Officer Training Course at the
Officer Development and Training Facility in Artesia, New Mexico.
In February 1990/ I vda promoted to a GS-9 intelligence Research
Specialist. And again, that same year, I received a Fully
Successful Performance Appraisal. In June 1991, I was promoted
to a 68-11 Intelligence Research Specialist. In December 1991, I
attended and successfully completed the Defense Intelligence
Agency's Joint Intelligence Command Course at the Defense Intelli-
gence College in Washington, D.C. In February 1992, I attended
and successfully completed the Defense Intelligence Agency's
Intelligence Analysis Course at the Defense intelligence College
in Washington, D.C. In March 1992, I received a Fully Successful
Performance Appraisal, in May 1992, I was promoted to a GS-12
( Intelligence Research Specialist. During May 1992, a new
supervisor, Carol Richardson Rascon was selected as Chief of the
Intelligence Analysis Branch. Alfred Rascon, her spouse, is an
Senior Special Agent, and Director of Senior Special Agents, Office
of Intelligence. Both he and Mrs. Rascon are supervised by the
aame First Line Supervisor, Clifford Landsman, Deputy Assistant
Commissioner, intelligence and George Regan, Assistant Commissioner
Intelligence, their Second Line Supervisor. In November 1992, I
attended and successfully completed Effective Writing for the
Workplace Course at the Department of justice Management Training
Center. Under Carol Richardson Rascon 's tenure, I have been the
target of constant ridicule, insensitivity, and unwarranted sex-
oriented statements and physical advances by touching by Alfred
Rascon, wy supervisor's spouse. Alfred Kascon and I are
responsible for the same geographic locations, therefore we share
the same daily cable traffic and work together on a daily basis.
R . 98X 7032852208 11-16-94 1 2 : 50P*
203
-j-
Carol Richardson Rascon distributes cable traffic to both
her husband and I on a daily basis. The two of them discuss and
decide together how X should handle my geographic uqib and what
I should write. In November 1992, 1 was due to receive an Inter
Performance Appraisal. I never received one. On March 11 , 1993,
I received a proposal (See Attachment A) for reduction in grade,
reassignment ox- subsequent removal from the federal government.
I was also provided with a new Performance Appraisal, effective
for 120 days. Subsequently, this action was presented two
months prior to my forthcoming promotion to a GM-13 Senior Intelli-
gence Research Specialist. Carol Richardson Rascon has generated
a removal action on the basis of classic racial and sexual dis-
crimination. I believe this is a violation of established
Federal Personnel Management Chapter Regulations governing the
assignment of employee husband and wife teams.
In conclusion, my problems began with Carol Richardson Rascon
who is determined to remove me in preference to replace me with
one of her former co-workers from DIA. She advised me that I was
bright but I needed to seek another position because she felt
that this position was not for me. She provided me with a Form
SF-171 and stated she and her spouse, Alfred Rascon would assist
me in completing it. She had expressed her intentions for my
displacement from the onset. Her harassment caused me great
anxiety, undue ntroes, and low self-esteem in the workplace.
Many times I have not been a part of the team and have been
treated as an outsider and not as a participant.
Attachments
204
I was temporarily detailed to the INS/FDL after I had
requested to be re-assigned out of the Headquarters Intelligence
Office approximately two years ago. My request had been ignored.
Several new developments have occurred since I have been re-
assigned to the INS/FDL and are the following:
O I was only re-assigned to the INS/FDL because my former Job,
Intelligence Research Specialist and office, had been given to a
friend of Carol Richardon-Raacon, (White Male) who had been
detailed to the Office of Intelligence prior to my detail to the
Lab. The (White Hila) was unhappy In his position in th« Office
of International Affairs and wanted to be permanently assigned to
the Office of Intelligence under my former supervisor and his
friend.
O My second line supervisor, Clifford Landsman, the Deputy
Assistant Commissioner of Intelligence has been accused of sexual
harassment by the Assistant Commissioner of Intelligence
Secretary
O The Secretary, (white female) was immediately moved to
another office while her allegations are being Investigated
My former first line supervisor's spouse, Alfred Rascon, la
in the process of being detailed to another office (unknown at
this time) .
Although I am very happy in my present position at the
INS/FDL, I have not received a within grade increase in over two
years, a promotion, a Performance Appraisal or do I foresee
receiving a Promotion in the near future. I feel that I am a
victim of character lasisainat.lnn and poor performance, of which
1 will n»-vw recover.
205
Mr. Conyers. These are difficult matters to bring public. And we
are very well aware of that. I mean, they are personal, they are
painful. In some respects you don't like to reveal how you have
been demeaned. No one does. So it is our recognition of the tremen-
dous amount of courage that has to be summoned up to go public
like this.
This is not a pleasant matter thing nor is it easy to do. And I
am very sensitive to that, because of the way all of you as wit-
nesses have made your presentations, and I also sense the deep
commitment to INS that you have, that you really support this
branch of government. All you are looking for is the fairness that
anyone would have reason to expect.
And for that reason, you have our continued admiration. And I
think you will find that these hearings and what you have done
will not only help you, but will help change a system that has been
slow arriving at tne realities of fairness in the workplace. And I
thank you all for coming very, very much.
You are all excused.
District Director Carol Jenifer, Detroit; Kellogg Whittick, former
district director, Washington, DC. And then we will be finished.
Good afternoon, and thank you for your patience.
I don't know whether we should allow age to go before beauty or
what. But we will ask Ms. Jenifer to please proceed.
Ms. Jenifer. . Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer to Mr.
Whittick. I owe so much to this man, it is because he courageously
took on that position I can sit here and talk about being a district
director for Detroit. He should have the honor of speaking first.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. All right. That is a good idea.
STATEMENT OF KELLOGG WHITTICK, FORMER DISTRICT DI-
RECTOR, WASHINGTON DISTRICT OFFICE, U.S. IMMIGRA-
TION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Whittick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other Mem-
bers of the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the
House of Representatives, for this opportunity to provide this testi-
mony of my experience as an employee of the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Of this experience, I refer to as an odyssey. I feel that this testi-
mony gives me the opportunity to express my conviction that the
Immigration and Naturalization Service is a wonderful institution;
however, it is the people that destroy this institution.
Immigration should be sensitive to the diversity of cultures and
mores of employees and foreign nationals that they serve. At least,
there should be a modicum of respect and appreciation for the
splendor of differences. See, many of us in America do not recog-
nize the splendor of differences. We think that differences are
things to be considered only on the basis of us against them, which
is not the American way.
I began my career in New York City as a GS-3. I began as a GS-
3 after I left the U.S. military service. I left as a sergeant. I served
for 3 years. I went to New York and I looked around and I saw the
Immigration Service and I said, "This is the kind of work I would
like to do." Because let me tell you I tried to become a doctor, a
206
medical doctor, and I did not have the money to afford this kind
of training. So, I decided that what I will do is to stay and try to
do something worthwhile. I saw Immigration as my outlet.
I then attempted to become an immigration investigator, but I
saw that in the New York district office to be a GS-5 was what
you considered to be tantamount to being the district director. I
was a GS-3, and I saw no path to that, because at that time I no-
ticed that in getting to any kind of officer corps position, you had
to be either sponsored by a Congressperson or the Border Patrol.
I took the Border Patrol written examination. I passed with fly-
ing colors. I was called for the oral examination. I passed that, too.
But then came the snag. I was asked for a driver's license. At the
time, let's face it, I was too poor to have an automobile, so why
bother with a car? So I didn't have a driver's license. I was put on
hold. I was placed on hold for quite a few years.
I held this not against anyone because not having the qualifica-
tions of a driver's license placed me at the brunt of the burden that
I did not comply with. So I went another route. I did not have the
opportunity of having a Congressperson to solicit any kind of action
for me because I would say that there was a strong correlation with
the number of African -American Congresspersons and the number
of blacks in any position of significance at the INS.
So that route went by the wayside. I decided — then came a lucky
break. And that lucky Weak was that instituted the Federal Serv-
ice Entrance Examination, which I took and passed with flying col-
ors.
I then was almost instantaneously promoted to an investigator.
I began my investigative career, and one of the big problems was
I had no one to assist me in making arrests. But after I made an
arrest and I came back to the office, they would make fun of the
fact that I worked alone, and this was rather what I say — stupid,
I have to resort to that kind of language, made by people who de-
nied me the necessary protection, and yet at the same time, ridi-
culed me for performing my tasks.
So, I had to devise certain kinds of techniques by waving to
empty automobiles. I would wave to an empty automobile at a dis-
tance on the street to make the suspect think that I was waving,
and give the belief that I had backup, but there was no such thing.
My supervisor made all kinds of attempts to deride me or to
make it appear as though I was an individual who was only placed
there as a permanently young investigator.
Mr. Conyers. Why weren't you provided with a partner?
Mr. Whittick. Well, the reason is that he came in — I will give
you one instance. He came in one day, and while we were all sit-
ting — we sat out in aisles and all the investigators were sitting at
their desks. The supervisor came over and he threw my report on
my desk: What do you mean by "if she were"? I had written a re-
port and I was referring to a foreign national that was on a plane,
and I said if she were on this flight. And he said, "What do you
mean by that?" I said, "Sir, it is the simple subjunctive mode." He
walked away and he was somewhat embarrassed because I told
him like it was.
These are the kinds of things that happened. In New York City.
I must say this to commend men like Espordi, Puleo Esperdi and
207
Sol Mars. They were the district director and deputy district direc-
tor. And what happened is that these men were looking for quali-
fied, hard workers. Color was not of any significance to these kinds
of men.
They then almost immediately placed me on the promotion panel
and shortly thereafter, made me the chairman of the promotion
panel. I suppose the reason for that was to ensure that there was
some sort of leverage that could be inserted into the promotion sys-
tem. They made certain that I did what was right and I came to
be considered a very highly respected individual at the district of-
fice in New York.
They knew me, that I stood for fairness, and I did not com-
promise fairness. I didn't care whether it was any other so-called
race. I decided that the Immigration Service's mission was what
was most important.
I then was promoted to fraud and prosecutions which is fraud
and prosecution section. There I received commendations and
awards for my performance, because as I should say, that many of
you in this room may be married twice or three times and not
know it, because of the fact of schemes that were being perpetrated
in New York City, indicating that an individual was an American
citizen, in fact they received documents from Fulton, GA and Dade
County, FL, and what they did as they took those birth certificates,
delayed birth certificates, and married someone from a foreign
country. This was being done on a wide scale, and at that time it
cost $500.
I indicated this to many other departments, to let them know
that this is something that a brake should be put on, and what
happened is, everybodyjust looked — in fact, one supervisor, while
I was at the central office told me, oh, that happened a long time
ago. But let us look at what is occurring now throughout the Unit-
ed States, the fraudulent documents that are prevalent and easily
attainable, if they had all taken a little credence, or I would say
belief in what I was telling them, they would have been able to cur-
tail this situation somewhat.
I then moved on to a supervisory position for crewmen control.
There, it was a rather atrocious situation, for if a Scandinavian
woman walked in, she was treated with all of the social amenities
that could be extended. But when one of the little poor ladies from
the West Indies walked in, she was immediately apprehended and
incarcerated.
So I decided that I will try to do something about that, and I at-
tempted to modify the behavior that existed. I must say that this
behavior in the Immigration Service is something that was nur-
tured. It wasn't something that just spontaneously came to the sur-
face. It is something that actually was carefully nurtured, and
what happened is most of the people did not even recognize that
they were perpetrating racist attitudes. So I tried. And to my cha-
grin I am sorry to see that conditions still exist that coula have
been easily rectified.
Later on I was promoted to the regional office at San Pedro, CA.
There at San Pedro, CA, the first thing that they did was to place
me in a storage room for my office. I said, well, sometimes good
things come in bad packages.
208
So I redecorated that storage room, had my wife come, and even
put up curtains and bought some plants and made it livable. Before
I could count the end of 2 or 3 months, I was taken out of the room
and told that I should go back to the general investigator's popu-
lation, because I could get more information. I just gracefully ac-
cepted that and went back and worked with the other investiga-
tors.
But these are some of the things. And one thing I must say in
going back to New York, there was a situation in which I had on
many occasions to go out and make arrests of alien female or alien
women. What happened? I could get no one to go with me, and at
that time they had no woman investigators. So I had to drive my
own automobile and take my wife with me so that I could be as-
sured that there was no subsequent repercussion from arresting a
woman alone.
Now, it does not appear to me that people recognize the crippling
effect that discrimination has on our country. It is stupid, and I
feel that generally what happens in positions of responsibility is
that people actually overlook these things that are beneficial to us
as a Nation.
Now, some of the worst things or types of discrimination occurred
when I was made the district director of the Washington district
office. I came from the central office as the chief of investigations,
of the general investigations. And what happened there was as
chief of general investigations, the air was thick with racism. It
could be cut with a knife, and a very sharp knife.
So I decided that the general types of discrimination I would
overlook and I would try to do the best for the agency that I felt
was my employer and had no reason to behave this way. I then
was made the district director and one of the very first acts that
occurred was when I parked my car at the office, I came down and
there was excrement on my windshield, not only thrown on the
windshield, but splattered on the windshield.
In order as not to make a big situation over this, what I did I
tried to speak to all of my employees and let them recognize that
this was not a very kind act, and I tried to drop — 1 dropped the
matter. It is only when I was being told of all the various — what
I would refer to as atrocities occurring with African-Americans at
the Immigration Service that I actually reflected on these things,
and I said why, why? And I am still asking why.
Now, what really bothered me and still bothers me is the fact
that there seems to be a streak of resistance to any kind of change
for the better. I am not blaming the commissioner for this. I am
blaming the career employees who persist in their ways of discrimi-
nating against others.
One of the things that really was to my chagrin was the fact that
I would order supplies for my office, the Washington district office.
No. They cut those supplies and they sent the minimum number
of supplies that they could probably afford. They cut my staff. Now,
how can I perform my duties if the staff is cut? They sent my staff
members on details. They even sent my deputy director to Puerto
Rico on detail for several months.
Now, I am supposed to be superman. I am supposed to do the
job that I am required to do. I felt that that was sabotage of a Fed-
209
eral agency, and those people responsible I feel they should be
ashamed of themselves. And this is one— these are some of the
things that I encountered.
I will reiterate, I am totally ashamed. I am ashamed of what is
occurring to fellow employees at the Immigration Service today.
You see, I worked on the promotion panel in every district or re-
gion that I went to. I also worked as the equal employment oppor-
tunity counselor at the headquarters.
And there I tried to treat all people as my fellow neighbor, all
of my fellow employees I treated with respect, dignity and the prop-
er attitude. I feel that this committee, subcommittee is doing some-
thing that will go down in the annals of the history of a struggle,
and I commend you, Chairman Conyers and your staff, for this job.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whittick follows:]
210
TESTIMONY
SUBMITTED IN FULL
FOR THE RECORDS
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
BY
KELLOGG H. WHITTICK
TO
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS, JR
CHAIRMAN
HOUSE LEGISLATION
AND
NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCOMMITTEE
211
November 14, 1994
Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
Legislation and National Security
Subcommittee
B-373 House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Att: Ms. Cheryl Matcho
Dear Chairman Conyers:
Thank you and the other members of the Legislation and National
Security Subcommittee of the House of Representative, for this opportunity
to provide this testimony of my experience as an employee of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This testimony Is presented to
register my concern with a persistent and seemingly Incognizant racism
that engulfs the INS. It is my conviction that the INS - more so than any
other agency of the United States of America - should be sensitive to the
diversity of cultures and mores of employees and foreign nationals
serviced. At least, there should be a modicum of respect and appreciation
for the splendor of differences. It should not ever be perceived that
decisions are made by the INS based on ethnic biases and racial
stereotypes.
I began my career with the Immigration and Naturzation Service on
March 27, 1957, as a Verification Clerk-Typist (GS-3) at the New York
District Office. My primary task was to ascertain the arrivals or departures
of Immigrants and visitors on vessels and aircrafts in the United States. At
this time, over ninety percent (90%) of the African-American staff at this
office were assigned to Records Administration, commonly known as the
files section. The Jobs were the lowest paid, with the least opportunity for
upward mobility. With my background and recent discharge from the U.S.
Army as a Sergeant, I was very fortunate to have escape the files section
and mail room.
After one year, I was promoted to a GS-4, Verification Clerk In the
micro-film room. There were a total of five (5) African-Americans in this
room, statistically representing sixty-three percent (63%) of this population.
Recognizing that African-Americans were sparsely represented above the
GS-4 level, I set out to learn the Immigration and Naturalization Laws of the
212
United States, the Operations Instructions, and Title 8, Code of Federal
Regulations. I did this by taking and completing all available Immigration
and nationality correspondence courses, and spent my evenings, after
work, taking college courses to increase my skills in investigative
techniques. As a Verification Clerk. I was sent on a temporary detail to
participate In fingerprinting and photographing foreign national crew
members for the Issuance of Identification cards.
Prior to 1960 induction into the officer corps of the INS was based on
(1 ) entering and successfully completing training at the Border Patrol
Academy, and (2) obtaining the assistance of an elected member of the U.S.
Congress. The latter option was not readily available to me as there was a
strikingly significant correlation between the number of elected African-
American U.S. Congress persons and the number of officer corps African-
American personnel employed at the INS. I was promoted to the position of
Record Searcher(GS-S) after two years as a Verification Clerk. Below the
GS-5 level there were no problems of racism, I was simply treated and
related to as an "Insignificant one" with minimal social amenities breached
In almost every interpersonal transaction.
The position of Record Searcher was by the late 1950s a
classification with high upward mobility. Incumbents were almost assured
of promotion to Investigators after two years and passing the newly
Installed Federal Service Entrance Examination. There were four (4) Record
Searchers assigned to this position before I was promoted. All four were
promoted to be Investigators. There were two vacant positions as Record
Searchers, which were filled almost simultaneously. I was one of the two
employees promoted. After these positions were filled, another position
was created and filled, Increasing the Record Searchers to three. In my
first year as a Record Searcher. I took and passed the Border Patrol written
and oral examination. After being notified of passing the oral examination,
It was requested that I produce a valid driver's license. I was not a licensed
automobile operator, and was given time to obtain and present it before
attending the academy. I decided to follow the route of the Record
Searcher to become an Investigator. However, at this Juncture It was clear
that unfair demands would be placed on me as a Record Searcher. The
searchers area of operation was confined to the five boroughs of New York
City. One searcher was assigned to locate deserted crew members,
another to cover the courts In Manhattan, and I to cover the courts and
agencies maintaining records in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Bronx,
and maintain liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and
Headquarters, New York Police Department, both In Manhattan. I was
aware of the grossly uneven distribution of work, but I felt that this
213
seemingly unfair workload gave me the opportunity to enhance my
knowledge of where records are kept, and establishing contacts. I was one
of a very small number of persons outside of the court system, who was
given unrestricted authorization to go into criminal docket rooms search for
records and photograph them without supervision.
This workload gave me the necessary exposure making it possible
for the U.S. Customs, Investigations to request my assistance, with INS
permission, to work on cases with them, and to accompany their agents in
conducting arrests. Letters of commendation were submitted to the District
Director of the New York Office citing my professional attitude and conduct.
However, my first -line supervisor decided to recommend the other two
searchers for performance proficiency awards. When I asked her for a
reason why I was not considered for an award, she stated that the other
two searchers needed to be enhanced so that they may qualify to become
Investigators. Shortly thereafter, an Investigator from another district was
demoted for an infraction, and sent to the New York District Office. He was
introduced to me by my first-line supervisor, who instructed me to teach
him everything that I do. I did, and after three weeks I was Instructed to
clear my personal belongings and report to the Naturalization Section, next
Monday! I tried to find out if this were a temporary detail, and if not. why
was I selected for this reassignment. She refused to respond to my Inquiry.
I then requested her permission to see the second-line supervisor about
this matter.
With her permission, I Immediately advised my second-line supervisor
of the new situation. My second-line supervisor was the Deputy Assistant
District Director. Investigations. He advised me to remain at my desk as a
searcher, and do nothing until I heard from him. I worked as a searcher for
two years when I took and passed the Federal Service Entrance
Examination, and was promoted to Investigator (GS-7) In General
Investigations. I worked In General Investigations for about two years.
During this period, I could get no one to accompany me to make arrests,
but I was constantly requested to accompany other Investigators In Harlem,
Bedf ord-Stuyvesant and other areas with a high African-American
population. I never refused to give my assistance when asked. Realizing
that If I were to complete my assigned cases without the necessary
precautinary measures. I devised certain measures to give suspects the
impression that I had backups by waving to cars distantly parked on the
streets. I even used my personal automobile so that I could have my wife
accompany me when I was assured that I would arrest a woman. This was
to ensure, even back then, that there would be a witness to verify the
appropriateness of my behavior. I even stretched the concept of the
214
Miranda Warning by asking a person not suspected of any violation
permission to take his or her photograph to assist In conducting an
investigation.
In 1963 I attended the Journeyman Investigator Training Course at El
Paso. Texas, where I met my second-line supervisor to whom I had
explained the intent to remove me from my position as a Record Searcher.
He expressed his knowledge of the diabolical Intent by the first -line
supervisor to derail my progress to become an investigator. He explained
that my performance had eclipsed that of the other two searchers, and this
was an opportunity to remove me and let their light be seen. He stated
further, that it was very likely that I would not have been promoted to the
officer corps from the Naturalization Section. I was promoted to GS-9
investigator. The District Director. Publio Esperdi and his deputy Sol Marks
assigned me to participate as a member of the promotion panel for the
district. I was designated very shortly thereafter, as the chairman of the
panel. It was my intent to interject fairness to all applicants for promotion,
and used criteria for selecting the best candidate that were attainable and
relevant to the performance of the duties.
I was then promoted to GS-11 and assigned to the Immigration and
Nationality Fraud Unit. I was the recipient of an Outstanding Performance
Rating for the period 1967-1968. The investigators at the New York District
Office petitioned for an up-grade to GS-12, and change of title to Criminal
Investigator. As soon as it was learnt that I was among those chosen for
consideration for an up-grade and title change, the president of the
employee union contacted the Civil Service Commission protesting my
consideration on grounds that there were other investigators more senior
than I. The Civil Service Commission responded that they had reviewed my
cases, those completed and those in progress, and if I were not up-graded,
no other petitioner would meet the standards of complexity and hazard of
assignments to qualify for an up-grade and title change. Needless to say, I
was up-graded to GS-12. and given a title change to Criminal Investigator.
In 1967. I was assigned as the Supervisory Criminal Investigator.
Coastal Control at the New York District Office. By this time. I had been
rirmly reputed to be a person of unwavering fairness and impartiality.
Recognizing the the persistive. destructive force of racism I began to tutor
those African-American employee on weekends at my home to sharpen their
skills in taking tests. I was orally reproached by my first -line supervisor in
General investions for this venture. I respectfully advised him that many
clerical staff members were paying for courses with private establishments
215
to help them pass the Federal Service Entrance Examination, and I was and
will continue to assist those persons who cannot afford to pay for this
necessary help. I tried to convince him that this was In the best Interest of
the INS. for if these employees were successful, they would bring to the
higher levels expertise acquired In the lower levels, which would not be as
expensive as filling the higher levels and having to train those selected with
the basics, and also the requirements of the new duties. I attempted to
convince him that this was a simplistic, cost effective, and morale booster
for our district. Furthermore, those employees who were not successful,
the scope of their performance In their present Jobs would be broadened. I
am not sure if i had slightly convinced him. It was obvious that this
supervisor was not open to the concept of "liberty and justice for all."
I was promoted in 1969 to the Southwest Regional Office. San Pedro.
California as a Supervisory Criminal Investigator. On the day that I reported
for duty, I was placed at a desk with the other staff Investigators; but by the
end of the week, I was shown a storage room; and asked if I wanted I could
have this room as my office, as It would provide privacy. This room had a
window, and I saw the possibility to transform It Into a pleasant
atmosphere. I requested that the floor be cleaned and the walls painted.
The clean up was expeditiously completed, and a phone installed. My wife
and I decorated this room with plants and framed pictures making it
ecstatically pleasant for conducting business. I was very much at ease in
this office when I was asked within six weeks to give up this office and
return to the main office with the other three investigators. The rationale
given was that I would be able to keep abrest of the flow of Information
readily availabe to the others.
At the Regional Office. I was again designated to the Promotion
Panels. There was but one major dilemma, and that was the severe paucity
of African-American candidates for selection. There could be no significant
promotion If there were no concerted recruitment efforts. As I travelled
throught the region I observed that African-Americans were not being
employed at the District Offices and Sub-Offices. The Los Angeles District
was the only District Office with any significant employment of African-
Americans, and these employees were clustered in the files section.
I received an award for outstanding performance ratings for the
period April 1, 1972 to March 31. 1972. Subsequently, I was promoted to
the Central Office, Washington, DC. as a staff Investigator. I entered on
duty in January, 1974. I had a better impression of the Central Office, for
216
although there was no other African-American in the officer corps, there
were more representation at the GS-9 level than at the District Offices. I
was elated at this progress by the INS, my place of employment.
I was soon placed on the Promotion Panel, and shortly thereafter,
requested to be the Equal Employment Opportunity counselor. I accepted
these additional duties, as I felt It my duty to help make the INS a better, in
fact, the best place to work. However, to my dismay while counselling an
officer of Hispanic origin, who was stationed at the Baltimore District Office,
the Assistant Commissioner, Investigations, my first-line supervisor,
abruptly interrupted the session and without any courtesy to the client,
Insisted that I terminate the session immediately. I did not. for I had to
ameliorate this situation as the client was angry and set to go to the
Department of Justice to lodge his original and the new complaints. I was
able to persuade this Naturalization Attorney that it would be to his
advantage to expeditiously pursue the original complaint, and I would
pursue the intemperate behavior of my supervisor. The complaints were
soon satisfactorily resolved to the advantage of the attorney.
Sad to say. there were employees at the Central Office who persisted
In the unsavory behavior triggered by racist persuasions. At meetings
about Equal Employment Opportunity projects. There would be remarks
made like. "We do not need any more of them in the INS," and "what do
they want?
I was promoted to the position of Deputy Assistant Commlsloner,
Investigations, commonly known as Chief of General Investigations. I
continued my involvement with EEO and the Promotion Panel, and received
The Commissioner's Award for Promoting Equal Employment Opportunity
in 1980. However. I was made the District Director of the Washington
District Office in July 1979. This was where the most inelegant forms of
racism was manifested. The windshield of my automobile was splattered
and smeared with excrement. I attempted to be exemplary in my reaction
by making It known that this was a vile, unkind, and contemtlble act to do to
anyone. I made It clear that this was an act that represents the worst In us.
I dropped the matter: never again made any reference to it.
What really disturbed me was the concerted efforts to scuttle my
office by those in the Eastern Regional Office. Burlington. Vermont. I still
believe that these persons were not loyal to their agency In their attempts
to destroy my efforts. They deliberately reduced my staff by sending my
officers on details In proportion to my total number of personnel. They
even sent my deputy on detail to Puerto Rico. Requested supplies were
6
217
drastically reduced. There was an unconclonable demand for increased
production without filling vacant positions for months, and then the
position was lost. This vindlctiveness was the result of my handling of a
case as the Equal Employment Opportunity councelor. while I was at the
Central Offlvr.
I retired on December 31. 1982. and still maintain the view that racism
obstructs the mission of any government and Is tantamount to gross
disloyalty. It is my hope and prayer that racism is eliminated from all our
instutions. and permit us as a nation Indivisible under God to operate as
one people united in our quest for democracy.
218
Conyers. Thank you very much. These are important hearings,
even though they are episodic, each person has their different expe-
riences to relate. But I think that we see a common theme that
cuts across place and time and makes it very important that these
be given the consideration and attention that is required. And I
thank you so much.
You were the first African-American district director in the Im-
migration Service?
Mr. Whittick. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And Ms. Jennifer, you were probably — or you may
be the latest director in the Immigration Service.
Ms. Jenifer. There are two. I am the first African -American fe-
male, but you are correct, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Would you like to close these hearings? We would
appreciate very much hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF CAROL JENIFER, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DE-
TROIT DISTRICT OFFICE, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATU-
RALIZATION SERVICE
Ms. Jenifer. Yes. I will be brief, sir. I won't make it long.
I came to the service in 1981. Prior to coming to the Immigration
Service, I had been a police officer, a law enforcement planner, and
then I joined the Federal Government. Now, what is significant
about my prior careers is that if you are familiar with the history
of the Washington, DC police department, it was not in the 1970's
a friendly environment for minorities and women. With that kind
of experience in my background, you can understand how I have
been able to deal with the Immigration Service and how it has
been helpful to have had those types of experiences before coming
to the Immigration Service.
I am currently the district director in your home State of Michi-
gan. I have an office of 240 employees, give or take a few. I re-
ceived a mandate from them. As soon as I was aware of coming
here I met with my managers. I said I need to make a trip to
Washington. Who is going to pay for this? I can tell you over-
whelmingly each manager contributed equally for me to make this
trip today. I did not ask the committee for any money.
They had two requests of me. One, that I be allowed to tell my
story. Well, there were three requests. One, that I tell my story.
Two, to ask you for more money, and three to tell you that we need
a new building. So, there was a selfish motivation to get me here
today, Mr. Chairman.
There are a couple of things I need to tell you about my office.
There is some uniqueness to each district office, and in the case of
Detroit, we are no different. I have a management team that is
predominantly women. I have one male, one white male that sits
on my management team. The rest are female. I inherited all of
those positions with the exception of the deputy district director.
She was selected recently, has reported on duty, is very com-
petent. I had never heard a comment about the makeup of the dis-
trict's management team, but once she was selected and reported
on board, I heard some really disparaging remarks. I can only tell
you, I didn't dignify them with a response. It wasn't necessary. A
decision was made; I got the best person.
219
There are some things that I have done for the district and I feel
real comfortable with those. But I think the most important thing
is that to get me to this point required some other things happen.
In 1982, a year after I came to the Immigration Service, I made
a move from an analyst position into the internal audit section, and
I believe one of the speakers here spoke about internal audit and
the spontaneity of visits to your office and crosschecks and things
of that nature. Well, that was the office that I worked in.
I had the opportunity to work for an incredible woman who had
made her way up from the ranks of clerk, who worked very hard
to become or to have an office that was diverse in terms of cultures,
in terms of selections, and she did everything to get people to see
that offices can become as diverse as the rest of the service should
be. That was 10 years ago. We are still getting to that point.
In 19 — around 1984, I put in for what is called an officer corps
position. The definition is real simple. Officer corps would be inves-
tigator — special agent — adjudications officer, an inspector, or a de-
tention or deportation officer. These are considered premium posi-
tions from which people advance and go higher in the ranks. The
only other exception would be Border Patrol, separate and apart.
But the goal is to get into officer corps. My first time out, I didn't
get selected. I had two masters degrees. I had what I considered
more than sufficient experience. And I questioned the process and
the procedure and a review process in terms of why I didn't rate
highly qualified, which is what you need to be rated to get to the
selecting official. I was told, well, you don't have field experience.
It is an artificial way of screening out people, and that was my
opinion then and I still hold that now. I challenged that.
Now, the importance of a challenge to this process is that it does
two things. It says to those who are doing the actual selection that
this person must have some interest in why this is occurring, and
maybe there should be a review of the process. That didn't happen.
What ended up happening is something that to this day I still
have a lot of trepidation about. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The first thing that happened once my challenge was entered was
that the officials that knew about the challenge then circulated the
rumor that I had lied on my application, that I had lied either
about my experience or something else. That really was a tactic,
one to discourage people from applying, and then to discredit your
credibility so that in future job applications, people would have the
word that this person doesn't tell the truth, you are not honest. I
wasn't going to let this stand. I did not let it stand. I hired an out-
side attorney and I fought it.
I didn't win on the issue of whether or not I should be rated, as
a highly qualified candidate, but I did win on having them back
down on the position that I had lied. I didn't get the job either, but
that is all right. I took another stab at it, and I was told the same
thing again, you didn't make the highly qualified list.
I have this thing about being told I can't do something when I
know it is really within my grasp, so I went to the selecting official
for the last job and said take a look at my 171, tell me where my
deficiencies are. She looked at it, she said you have the skill level
but you have no field experience? In the course of the conversation
220
I said, tell me what I need in lieu of field experience? She said you
need special details.
That is when they send you on special assignments or training
opportunities or things like that. The next time a special detail
came up, this official recommended that I become a part of the de-
tail team. I served there for 60 days. The next time I submitted my
application I moved to the highly qualified ranks. That is simplis-
tically putting it. This builds in another way in which people can
move up in the system and the things you have to do to get there.
I didn't give up; I went to selecting officials, I went to people
throughout the service saying, I want to advance, tell me how to
do it, and I have never stopped doing that to this day.
I was able to get a position as a detention and deportation officer
where I stayed for 4 years. In 1992, I was selected to participate
in an executive development program along with eight other can-
didates. That prepared me for a career as a district director. It in-
volved a 1-year training detail program that took me outside of the
office into other offices throughout the United States and outside
the country.
I also went to Africa for 90 days. Upon completion of that pro-
gram, I sidetracked a little. I decided to take a position as a deputy
district director to give me a little more training before I took on
a director's job. That was available again in Michigan.
As luck would have it, the district director was retiring and I ap-
plied and competed for his job. Eventually I was selected. I can't
tell you how important it is to have the timing that I had in order
to allow for the movement up that I was able to experience.
I can tell you, it wasn't easy getting there. I can tell that you
being district director isn't easy work. I had to work with managers
who have been with a previous district director for nearly 11 years.
His management style and my style were entirely different.
It is like saying how can you go from being under an autocratic
rule to one where your district director turns to you and says what
do you think and how would you like to resolve this? This is an
incredible difference. I didn't meet with resistance as much as I
met with surprise. "Somebody wants me to do my job."
I have held them accountable, and I have told them that if we
agree to do something and it doesn't work, I am accountable for the
failure, not you. Given that kind of bottom line, most people re-
sponded positively, and I can tell you they do better when they are
able to make their own decisions and the only thing I tell them is
that I will back you in the good decisions. So for me, that has
worked.
We have heard a lot of things here, particularly about equal em-
ployment and employment practices. I have some thoughts on that.
How do we get to the Immigration Service to be a fairer place for
people to work? I have a couple of ideas on that. Some things that
must occur.
Managers have to be committed to and support the direction that
any commissioner wants to take, particularly when it involves di-
versity, restructuring the agency's EEO program, and employment
matters. If managers don't outwardly support and do what is nec-
essary with that, we cannot expect employees to follow our lead.
221
I was put there to lead. If I did not have my employees, there
would be nobody to lead. If I didn't have my employees, there
would be nobody to follow, so they must see me doing what is nec-
essary to be a good leader. Diversity must become a way of life in
the workplace, particularly for Immigration. There should be little
tolerance for tnose who do not support and carry out that mandate.
I cannot tell you enough that diversity crosses a number of lines.
Not only do I have an EEO internal structure that I need to deal
with and make sure that my office is fair, but I have a client base
for which I have to address my staff makeup to fit or to mirror
what my client base is.
I have a Middle East population; I have two people of Middle
East dissent, that is not enough. So when I look at diversity, it is
not just African-Americans, white, Hispanic, I also have to look at
my client base. Most people in other districts may not have to say
that. That is a concern that I have and one that I will continue to
work on as long as I am the district director.
More emphasis should be placed on developmental programs
which build on upward mobility, upon completion of the program,
assignment of capable monitors, and advancement opportunities,
whether it is in the program you are in or in other programs. Then,
finally, the presence of assurances that employees have input in de-
termining what they need to advance, that they get consistent and
truthful dialog with their supervisors regarding their performance
and an agreement that the employees understand that they may
need to participate in details, consider transferring to other offices,
and working in other programs.
No employee should feel that their entire career has to be spent
in one program. I am clearly an example, if you move around, it
is much more advantageous to you. But if you should decide to
stay, you should be happy where you are, and with that philosophy
in mind, I tell my workers, if you want to stay here, that is all
right with me. Let's see what we can do to make this a better place
for you to stay where you are.
My children are the main reason I came today, Mr. Chairman.
There is no better reason for me to work as hard as I can to ensure
that they have a better world to live in. Their race and gender
should not work to exclude them from being able to fully partici-
pate in what this country has to offer. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank
you very much for having me here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenifer follows:]
222
Testimony
of
carol Jenifer
District Director
of the
Detroit Dietrict Immigration
and Naturalization Service office
before the
Committee on Government Operations
Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security
on
Equal Employment Opportunity Protection
and Other Employment Practices
at the
Immigration and Naturalisation Service
Thursday, November 17, 1994
9i30 a.m.
Rayburn House Office Building
Room 215*
223
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee i
I would lika to taka this opportunity to thank you for
inviting aa to taatify before this Subcommittee. Tha topia on
which Z will apeak ia one that ia oloae to ay hoart.
I have been employed by tha Immigration and Naturalisation
service for mora than 12 yeara and currently hold the poaition of
District Diractor. There ia much to be aaid about equal employment
opportunities (BBO) and the employment praotloes of tha Immigration
and Naturalization Service (Service). My testimony will cover ay
career with the Service and how I got to where I am today.
I am tha firat African American woman in the history of the
Immigration Service to hold the title of District Director. There
is no question it has been a long tine coming, particularly since
the last time a District Diractor of African descent had held that
office waa mora then 10 years ago. I have bean District Director
since April of thie year.
I oversee the activities of a Diatrict which employe 250
people who have responsibility for matters related to immigration
occurring in tha state of Michigan. Prior to my arrival, the
Detroit District had been under the eame management for more than
10 years. My transition from ataff officer in Headquarters to
Diatrict Director waa relatively smooth, in part due to the fact
that I originally came aa Deputy District Director, had received
training which prepared aa to aaeume the Director' a poaition, and
had amployeea, who for tha most part, ware receptive to a change in
laaderahip.
224
I have been working on strengthening the existing management
structure, opening lines of communication between the Director and
line employees, and providing opportunities for all employees to
participate more fully in District operations, mars have been no
wholesale changes in the beeio way the District operates without
input from managers, the Union, and employees.
Concerns have been raised ae to whether race will be a factor
in the decisions I make. I do not believe this would have surfaced
had I not been African American. I have attempted to address these
concerns as they have arose starting with managers and the Union.
Employees are encouraged to meet with me individually or bring
matters such as this to the Open Forum held monthly.
The reality is that I will always be African American and a
woman, there will never be 100 percent acceptance of me, I will be
District Dirsctor until I leave, and there are many more pressing
issues the District will need to address for which the support of
employees will be necessary if the District is to succeed. In
other words, differences aside, the ultimate goal is to move the
District forward.
My top management staff who provide advice and technical
assistance consist of a deputy district director, three assistant
district directors, a congressional liaison/press information
officer, and the administrative officer. The District Counsel also
sits as a member of the management team. I inherited all but the
deputy from the previous director.
225
My management team represents one of the few which is comprised
predominately of women. While I have no problem with thia make up
and consider it no different from any other management group, it is
interesting to note that upon ■•lection of the deputy who also
happens to be a woman and well qualified for the job, a few
disparaging remarks were mads none of which dignified a response.
I cannot recall any other time when the question of the composition
of a District's management team was raised. The previous Director
was never questioned about it. Most people are not aware of the
faot that a committee of at least four (4) officials of Which the
receiving District Director is a member are responsible for
selecting a deputy.
Getting to where Z am today was not through the normal route
most District Directors have taken to ascend to that position. My
earlier careers have included working as a polios officer and a law
enforcement planner in Washington, DC, and then coming to work for
the Federal Government. These career moves were relatively easy,
rewarding, and included continuous advancement.
When I joined the Service in 1981 it became obvious things
would be different. I had a sense of what was to come when I
interviewed for an analyst job. The interviewer seemed more
surprised that Z was articulate and a product of the D. C Public
226
School system than in other qualifying factor*. It was quite
obvious that I did not fit whatever image this manager had
regarding African Americans. He later remarked that one day I
would be his "boss." This remark was made after I told him I had
been awarded my second Master's degree.
There remains , particularly within the managerial ranks at the
field level, a perception that my advancement was due to
"connections " and was not based on merit. Despite the fact that I
had the credentials and experience to do the job, these are
considered as less important. It has been my experience, when
merit is downplayed acceptance is more difficult. For minorities
and women more time and care has to go into "proving" you oan do
ths job.
In 1981, few African Americans or woman held top level jobs in
the Service. Those that did often were not in policymaking
positions. Within a year of my arrival (1982) I moved into the
internal audit section (Office of Field Inspections and Audit).
What was unique about this office was that the head of the office
(Joan Rodsnbaugh) had made great efforts to diversify her staff.
She had rose from the position of clerk and was then the only
female member of the Commissioner's executive management group.
I became the first African Ameriaan riald inspector. I joined
a staff of 14 which inoluded one Hispanic and one Asian. This job
gave me an opportunity to visit a number of Service offices and
227
observe their operation as well as their staff composition. Moat
Diatrict offices Had few minorities In aupervisory positions, even
aore disheartening was the abaenoe of minorities in higher paying
jobs such as investigator, examiner, or inspector.
More often than not minorities would be occupying olerioal
positions, working in Records and Information, or as detention
officers, usually in jobs with no promotion potential, Visits to
Border Patrol offices proved no different except there were more
Hispanlcs.' During my tenure as a Field inspector, I saw less than
five (9) female end only one African American Border Patrol agent.
In an attempt to move into the Officer Corps which ia
comprised of special agents (previously investigators), inspectors,
adjudications officers (previously examiners), and detention and
deportation officers, I applied (1984) for a position as an
Investigator. I felt then, as I do now, that I was more than
qualified for this position which was a Beadquartara staff
position. The position called for an individual with good
communications skills, some background in enforcement, and the
ability to research and provide advice related to the formulation
of policy, nothing I had not done before.
A rating of Highly Qualified was needed to get my application
to the selecting offioial. I was not rated Highly Qualified. When
I inquired, I was told it was because I lacked field experience; to
228
i
gat that experience meant talcing a voluntary demotion of no less
than 7 grades from a GS 13 down to a OS 5. this made absolutely no
•ansa. I ohallanged the criteria used to rate applications and the
decision made by the individual who reviewed ay application.
The Director of EEO stated he could not asaiat me unless I
filed a discrimination complaint. Until two (3) year* ago, ay
opinion of the Service's EEO program was that it waa ineffective
and did not poeeeaa the clout to affect changes in hiring and
promotion practices.
It waa my belief that the review procedures employed in
rating applications contributed significantly to the non-selection
of qualified minorities and women. This issue was raised with the
Director of EEO and with an official in the Personnel office. There
were no attempts made to address this or any of the other related
employment concerns I had. I hired an attorney to present ay
ooncerns to agenoy personnel offioiala.
This action resulted in a turn of events that to this day
leaves a bad taste in ay mouth. During the course of my appeal,
several personnel officials accused as of lying on ay application,
despite the laok of evidence/ they persisted. The tactic of
discrediting those who complain or challenge decisions waa not
unusual and in ay opinion was intended to discourage appeala. Mora
often than not those who questioned existing practices or
procedures were labelled aa incompetent and not worthy of the job.
229
Refusing to back down, I produced documentation in support the
entries on my application. My case was eventually heard by an
outside party who sided with the Service on the question of my
rating. I refused to let this decision end my attempts to get into
the Officer Corps •
I continued to apply for other jobs. After one non-selection,
I took my application to the selecting official, asked her to
review it, and tell me where I was deficient. She agreed I
possessed the skills she needed but indicated experience in the
program area was lacking. She, however, did not recommend going to
work in the field instead, she suggested I participate in program
specific details (special assignments). Several months following
our meeting a detail did become available and I took the
opportunity to participate.
The inclusion on my Employment Application (S7-171) of this
60-day assignment resulted in my overall rating moving to Highly
Qualified. That led to my selection for the position of Detention
and Deportation officer at the Headquarters level. The
significance of my selection was that it represented one of the few
times a selection from outside of the officer corp ranks had been
made. Since that time selections of this type now occur in most
programs, except in the Border Patrol.
It should be noted here that my career moves required several
things! (l) Meeting with selecting officials and discussing what
I wanted to do and how I could do it; and (2) Refusing to give up.
When one door would not open, I jast made another way.
230
Tha oove into an officer corps position did not guarantee there
would be continued advancement* In September 1992 , I wee selected
to participate in a year- long executive development program which
was designed to prepare me and eight others to assume leadership
positions within the Service.
Upon completion of the leadership program I was guaranteed a
one-grade promotion and placement in a position of my choosing. My
career choice was Distrlot Director. Prior to completion of the
program/ I was selected for the position of Deputy District
Director. The Director retired and I competed for his job. Hy
timing could not have been better.
Since coming to work for the Service the question for me has
not been whether I would advance, but when? In 12 years I have
seen some changes. Most have been encouraging. The implementation
of the executive development program, the appointment of more women
and minorities to management positions, and the demonstration of a
genuine commitment to making changes.
The success of the Service making changes in equal employment
and its employment practices will depend on many things, in my
opinion, the following must occur t
• Managers must be committed to and support the direotion
in which the Commiesioner would like to go as it ralatea
to diversity, restructuring the agency f m no program, and
employment mattere. If managers do not outwardly support
these ef forte, smployeas will not believe they can be
achieved.
231
• Diversity must become a way of life in the workplaoe.
There should be little tolerance for those who do not
support and carry out this mandate.
• More emphasis should be placed on developmental programs
which build in upward mobility upon successful completion
of the program, assignaent of capable mentors, and
advancement opportunities in other programs and/or
offices.
• The presence of assurances that employees have input in
determining what they need in order to advanoe,
consistent and truthful dialogue with their supervisors
regarding their performance, and an agreement from
employees to do their part which may include
participating in details, considering transfers to other
offices/ and working in other programs.
My children are the main reason I case today. There is no
batter reason for me to work as hard as I can to ensure they have
a better world for them to live and work in. Their race and gender
should not work to sxclude them from fully participating in all
this oountry has to offer. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
SubooBBittee, I would again like to thank you for providing me with
this opportunity to speak.
10
232
Mr. Conyers. Well, Mr. Whittick, I think that was a very appro-
priate way to end these hearings, don't you?
Mr. Whittick. Very much so, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And I want to thank everyone that participated.
Jane Cobb and Miranda Katsoyannis and Jim Turner have worked
very diligently over the months to put this together. I would like
to commend Commissioner Doris Meissner who has stayed with us
throughout the course of the hearing as the lead witness, and this
has turned into an all-day event, and I am sure many of the people
here from ENS appreciate very deeply the kind of consideration
that you and Ms. Varnon, your Director of EEO, have put into the
hearings and to the testimony today.
I would like to ask you if you have any concluding thoughts, or
would you like to close this down, Madam Commissioner?
Ms. Meissner. It has been very educational for me, obviously, to
hear the witnesses. I have, as I told you earlier, been familiar with
most of these cases, but it is of course different to put a face on
a case than to simply have a written description of it. I would sim-
ply reiterate what I said earlier, and that is that this agency has
a commitment to change. It is my responsibility to guide that
change, and we are about that business.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much to all of you. Those who
have come from considerable distances, and whose testimony has
been personally for me very moving. I appreciate it very much.
Although the hearing ends, our work is just beginning. There
have been a number of good ideas brought out ana that marks a
great starting point. As we all know, the problem is pulling all
these ideas together and trying to execute them. This is where the
real challenge comes in.
Again, my thanks to everybody that has participated. The sub-
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:13 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene subject to the call of the Chair.]
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Subject: Request to reconsider Date: Nove mber 26,_ 19_93
Re: EEOC Decision dated November 4, 1993
Appeal No. 01933711
Agency No. 1-92-6060-0
To: Director . From: John J. Washington
Office of Federal Operations Senior Special Agent
Equal Employment Opportunity 145 S. Everett St., #4
Commission ' Glendale, CA. 91205
P.O. Box 19848 (213) 894-7705
Washington, D.C. 20036
This is an official brief filed for reconsideration of the EEOC
decision dated November 4, 1993. This decision was received on
November 8, 1993.
I appeal this decision for the following factual reasons
Part I
Background
On August 31, 1990, the Immigration And Naturalization Service
issued Vacancy Announcement No. MSPII 90-70 For a Supervisory
Criminal Investigator, GM-01881-14, for the Los Angeles area.
This announcement was initiated and distributed by the Personnel
Division, Immigration And Naturalization Service, Washington,
D.C. On September 7, 1990, the appellant submitted an SF-171 for
promotional consideration. On September 14, 1990, the Vacancy
Announcement closed.
On or about November 14, 1990, the Selecting Official of the
Immigration And Naturalization Service made a selection for the
above MSPII vacancy position.
On this same date (November 14, 1990), this appellant submitted a
Form G-639 (Freedom of Information /Privacy Act Request) to the
Director of Personnel, Immigration And Naturalization Service,
Washington, D.C, for release of specific information, documents,
(233)
234
or records related to Vacancy Announcement No. MSPII 90-70. This
request was delivered by Express Mail. A copy of the official
request is attached to this brief. A review of the Form G-639
reflects that the Immigration And Naturalization Service received
the request on November 16, 1990.
On May 18, 1993, Ms. Magda S. Ortiz, Chief, FOIA/PA Section,
Immigration And Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., advised
this appellant that the documents requested through the Freedom
of Information Act had been destroyed. Ms. Ortiz said that the
appellant's request had been staffed to the Personnel Division.
This is the same division responsible for activities of rating
panel members, and notes, records and documents generated by that
panel. Those records were the object of this request by the
appellant under the Freedom of Information Act. A copy of Ms.
Ortiz's memorandum is attached to this brief.
Facts
The record of events in this matter clearly shows that the agency
was timely served by this appellant with a request for vital
information required for use in this complaint. This same chain
of events shows that the agency destroyed the information in
violation of Title 5 of the United states Code, Section 552. This
is no contention. The destruction of this vital information has
obstructed the appellant's right to properly pursue this
complaint under Title 7 of the United States Code.
235
Freedom of Information Act
An analysis of pertinent sections of the Freedom of Information
Act in reference to this complaint reveals the following:
A review of Title 5 of the United States Code, Section 552(3)
states, "Except with respect to the records made available under
paragraph (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, upon any
request for records which (A) reasonably describes such records
and (B) is made in accordance with published rules stating the
time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall
make the records promptly available to any person."
Appellant Note: This did not occur.
Section 552(6) (C) states, "Any person making a request to any
agency for records under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative
remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to
comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this
paragraph. If the Government can show exceptional circumstances
exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in
responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and
allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the
records. Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a
request for records, the records shall be made promptly available
to such person making such request. Any notification of denial of
any request for records under this subsection shall set forth the
names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the
denial of such request."
Appellant Note: This did not occur.
236
Section 552(4) (B) states, "On complaint, the district court of
the United States in the district in which the complainant
resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the
agency records are situated, or in the district of Colombia, has
jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records
and to order the production of any agency records improperly
withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall
determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of
such agency records in camera to determine whether such records
or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions
set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on
the agency to sustain its action.
Appellant Note: This did not occur, due to the agency failure to
follow established procedures of Section 552.
Conclusion
It is reguested that the EEOC reverse the decision of the agency
in this matter. Due to the agency's failure to comply with a
lawful request for vital records required in a Civil Rights
action. It is noted that this request was received and maintained
by the subject division (Director of Personnel) of this
complaint. The EEOC and the Attorney General are encouraged to
consider this allegation and the impact caused upon the
appellant's right to pursue this matter free of obstructions by
the Government. I deserve the same relief in which a criminal
would receive, if he/she would have suffered this type of
unlawful obstruction. This act if allowed to go unchallenged,
will establish a precedent for abuse by agents, and other
237
employees of the agency. Again, it is requested that the Attorney
General reverse the agency decision in this matter.
Appellant Note:
See attached copies of Regulations and Procedures concerning the
Freedom of Information Act; and United States Supreme Court
decision, United States Department of Justice -V- Vincent James
Landano. Decided May 24, 1993.
This may not be a criminal matter, but the court is very clear in
its decision concerning the release of information lawfully
requested through the Freedom of Information Act.
Part II
Background
On July 3, 1993, the appellant received the United States
Department of Justice final decision in this matter. On July 13,
1993, this appellant appeal this decision to the EEOC. On
November 4, 1993, the EEOC reaffirmed the decision of the United
States Department of Justice adjudicator.
Analysis of Decision
The appellant has thoroughly reviewed the decision of the EEOC in
this matter. The appellant finds statements , and decisions
(credit allotted to selectee) referred to in the EEOC ruling by
Rating Panel Members and the Selecting Official questionable.
The appellant herewith present the following rebuttal of
questionable statements and decisions of the aforementioned
parties referred to by the EEOC for reconsideration.
Background
238
1. The Adjudicator states, the Selectee, at the time of the
selection at issue, was a Deputy Regional Chief (GM-13) in the
Western Regional Office of the Border Patrol.
Appellant: The appellant at the time of this issue was a Senior
Special Agent (GS-13) in the Los Angeles Office of the
Immigration And Naturalization Service.
2. The panel members stated that ordinarily, one would not
progress to a supervisory position from a Special Agent position
without first gaining some kind of middle management experience.
Appellant: Ordinarily, it is just the opposite in law
enforcement, that one would not progress to a Supervisory
Criminal Investigator's position, without first gaining some kind
of immigration investigative experience. The appellant had a
strong investigative background, and career development training
and preparation in applied supervisory and managerial principles.
The Selectee had a good administrative background, with no
immigration investigative experience. This is the heart of the
problem. Where is the middle ground ? The Selectee is allowed to
learn how to investigate on the job, but the appellant is not
allowed to learn how to supervise on the job. The appellant
refers the EEOC to Exhibit 24B of the Report of Investigation
(Volume III) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates,
Case No. 1-92-6060-0. In the appeal dated July 13, 1993, the
appellant stated in parahraph #3 that William Griffen, White
American, was promoted to a GM-1811-14 Supervisory Agent absent
First Line Supervisory experience. Mr. Griffen was a career Case
Agent with the agency, as this agent is today, before promotion
239
to his present position. This is a double standard. The EEOC
failed to address this important issue.
3. Panel Member 3, stated that appellant spent much of his
application space listing course work that all agents had to
take.
Appellant: This is a false statement by this Panel Member. Agents
are not required to complete the Extension Training Program, or
supervisory and managerial courses offered by the Office of
Personnel Management. This is an avenue for career development,
and is not a mandatory activity. Agents are required only to
complete the Basic Immigration Criminal Investigators Course, and
the Journey Criminal Investigators Course at Glynco, Georgia.
This sworn statement of the Panel Member is very significant,
because it is meant to downplay the expertise of the appellant in
the crucial areas of supervision, management and immigration law.
The appellant requested, and completed this training at home, in
preparation for a future career in management. The Panel Member
caused the EEOC to consider a misleading statement of fact in
this issue.
4. The 3 Panel Members claimed no knowledge of the appellant's
race before the complaint was filed, and the the Personnel
Staffing Specialist (Black) stated that she disagreed with
appellant that only Black people have the surname of Washington.
Appellant: The statements of Panel Members and the Staffing
Specialist are not supported by facts, and are stated only to
prevail in this issue. The appellant is fifty (50) years of age.
The appellant has travel throughout this country, and has never
240
met any living persons, or know of any living persons, other -than
African Americans with the surname of Washington. I have read
newspapers, magazines, history books, and viewed movies, and
television programs throughout my entire life and has never
observed, or discovered any living persons with the surname of
Washington, other than African Americans. I am aware, regarding
the statement of Earlene Shaw (Black) Staffing Specialist, that
President George Washington and Martha were White Americans. They
had no children. I am also aware that President George
Washington's great-grandfather's name wasthe same as the
appellant, John Washington . I am also aware that the Washington
family has been traced back to 1260 in England. Their name at the
time in England was de Wessington. It was later spelled
Washington. Sulgrave Manor in England is registered as the home
of George Washington's ancestors (Excerpts from The World Book
Encyclopedia, 1975 Copy Right.) This is the only White American
family that I have encountered through the study of American
History who was not African American, with the surname of
Washington .
The surname Washington was first adopted by African American
slaves owned by President George Washington at Ferry Farm, which
lay then on the Rappahannock River across from Fredericksburg,
Virginia, during the 1700. For instance, my grandfather's name
was George Washington , "see attached newspaper clipping
concerning my father's (Joseph Washington) obituary". I have the
given name of President George Washington's great-grandfather.
There maybe some White American females with this surname, as my
241
spouse, due to marriage.
Mr. Merrill, Panel Member, stated in his affidavit to have
encountered a Polish kid in school with the surname of
Washington. I want dispute this claim, because people seek to
change their names after entering this country for many reasons.
The surname Washington is not a Polish name. Again, this is an
English name. Special Agent Fred Sanchez, INS Headquarters,
Washington, D.C., is an Iranian national through birth. He change
his name to that of a Latino. He is no Latino. It is noted that
Mr. Merrill did not indicate that Polish kid's name. Which causes
his statement to be immaterial in this matter. An Investigator
never present evidentiary statements in an affidavit without
facts to corroborate his/her claims. This is the first rule in
the investigative sciences.
The overwhelming majority of persons in the United States with
the surname of Washington, are African Americans. The agency has
not offered, or presented any factual evidence tc sustain its
claim in this issue. The appellant offers as evident the names of
just a few highly visible persons across a broad spectrum of our
society with the surname of Washington, other than his own. In
many localities of the nation, these highly visible individuals
have, and remains to have a daily affect upon the lives of the
Panel Members. It is this commonality in our society, that causes
the surname Washington, to relate with great frequency to African
Americans. Denzel Washington, Actor, African American; Harold
Washington, former Mayor of Chicago, African American; Desere
Washington, Mike Tyson Accuser, African American; Booker T.
242
Washington, Educator, African American; George Washington-Carver,
Scientist, African American; Walter Washington, first Mayor of
Washington, D.C., appointed by President Johnson, African
American; Grover Washington, Nationally renown Songster, African
American; Craig A. Washington, former Houston, Texas State
Legislator commencing in the early 1970 's, currently serves as
U.S. Representative for Houston, Texas District, African
American; Joe Washington, Sportscaster, NBC News (T.V.), Atlanta;
Shirley Washington, Newscaster, ABC News (T.V.), Atlanta; Stan
Washington, Writer and Editor, Weekly Edition, Atlanta Voice
Newspaper, Atlanta; Bennetta Bullock Washington, Nationally
renown Policy, Labor, Educator and Nutrition Expert, African
American; and James Winston Washington, Jr., Artist and Sculptor.
The EEO Counselor's Report reflect that the following individuals
were assigned as Panel Members:
1. Gerald Jacobson - Subject Matter Expert - Houston, Texas
2. Steven C. Merril - Panel Member - Chicago, Illinois
3. Bart G. Szafnicki - Panel Member - Atlanta, Georgia
1. Mr. Jacobs without a doubt is aware that Congressman Craig A.
Washington is an African American. He (Mr. Washington), is his
U.S. Representative in Washington, D.C..
2. Mr. Merrill without a doubt is aware that former Mayor Harold
Washington (African American) , deceased, was his Representative
at City Hall, in Chicago.
3. Mr. Szafnicki without a doubt is aware of the above highly
visible network news professionals with the surname Washington in
the Atlanta area, who are African Americans. The EEOC is
243
requested to reconsider this new development without prejudice.
4. The EEOC states, while we note that the Selecting Official
downplayed the importance of narcotics investigation experience
while stating in another complaint on the same selection that
this
experience was crucial, after
careful
cons
ideration of
this
affi
davit, we conclude
that the Se
lecting
Official's statements
do not contradict each
other.
In this affi
davit
, he indicat
ed
that
appellant was not
chosen
in
spite of
his
extensive
narcotics experience, 1
because
most
of the
other
candidates
also
had such experience.
APPELLANT: It is to be noted that the Selecting Official (John
Shaw) met the appellant while visiting the Los Angeles Office in
the Spring of 1987. When he departed, the appellant drove him to
the Los Angeles International Airport. The appellant refers the
EEOC to Exhibit 24B of the Report of Investigation (Volume III)
compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. 1-92-
6060-0. This exhibit outlines the various categories of
experience allotted to each candidate by Panel Members. A review
of this exhibit shows only three candidates were allotted credit
for narcotics experience. This is not most of the candidates.
This exhibit contains the names of twenty (20) candidates. This
is a false statement by the Selecting Official. In the appeal
dated July 13, 1993 , the appellant stated in paragraph # 2 that
the selectee was credited for experience (five (5) years of
narcotics experience) in which he did not acquire. A review of
Exhibit 21D of the Report of Investigation (Volume I) compiled by
Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0, shows
244
that the selectee (Paul M. Smith) claim employment with the
Phoenix Police Department from January of 1972 to May of 1978. He
identifies his exact "Title and Position as Detective-Narcotics"
in Experience Block-E of his SF-171. The second page, or
continuation of Experience Block-E shows that the selectee (Paul
M. Smith) "claimed five years prior to this (after narcotics
assignment), which I served with the Phoenix Police Department,
were consumed by being assigned to the Patrol Division, Crime
Reduction Unit, and Special Operation Bureau." The appellant
calculates 1972 to 1978 to be six years. If the selectee (Paul M.
Smith) was assigned five (5) years to Patrol Division, Crime
Reduction Unit and the Special Operation Bureau. The selectee
(Paul M. Smith) would have only specialized for approximately one
(1) year in narcotics investigations. Although, the Panel Members
credited him (selectee) with six years of narcotics experience.
The Selecting Official and the Panel Members caused the EEOC to
consider false and misleading data (Exhibit 24B) and statements
in this issue.
5. The EEOC Adjudicator states that a Special Agent with the
agency's Office of the Inspector General (OIG Special Agent)
(Hispanic) stated in his affidavit that he had served as
appellant's training officer when appellant first came to work
for the agency. The OIG Special Agent also stated that he
believed there was a great deal of discrimination against
minorities in the INS, and that that was why he transferred out
of that service. The Adjudicator stated that he did not, however,
offer any specifics to support his assertion, but merely claimed
245
that less competent White officers were promoted over more
qualified minority candidates.
Applellant: The Adjudicator's statement which states, "he, OIG
Agent, did not, however, offer any specifics to support his
assertion in the aforementioned." The appellant contends that
statements made by Panel Members and the Staffing Specialist as
to the surname Washington did not offer any specifics, or facts,
to support their assertion, but those statements were acceptable
to the EEOC. This officers statements should be no less credible.
Agent Castaneda was a Journeyman training officer in the Los
Angeles District Office, from 1978 to 1984.
The appellant refers the EEOC to Exhibit #16 (Affidavit of Joe
Castaneda) of the Report of Investigation (Volume I) compiled by
Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0. Again,
the Adjudicators statement which states, "he, OIG Agent, did not,
however, offer any specifics to support his assertion in the
affidavit."
This is very significant. At Item #11, of page two-of-four
through page three-of-four of the affidavit, Agent Castaneda
states the following: "They would promote people who I had
trained who had less time and experience that I had. Frequently,
field agents have more experience than their supervisors. At one
time, they hired fourteen supervisors in investigations, and they
were all white. None of them were competent to the level of other
applicant minority candidates." This is very clearly a specific
statement. The scribner-Bantam English Dictionary defines the
word discrimination as, "unfavorable treatment of a person or
246
group because of prejudice." The specific unfavorable treatment
in this issue is, "They would promote people who I had trained,
who had less time and experience that I had." The word specific
is define as, "definite or particular." The definite or
particular in this matter is, "They would promote people who I
had trained, who had less time and experience that I had." The
EEOC is requested to reconsider this new development without
prejudice.
Conclusion
It is requested that the EEOC reverese the decision of the
agency. Due to misinterpretation of material facts in this
matter.
247
Subject: Request to reconsider Date: November 22, 1993 (Initial)
*Re: New Developments Date: December lj_ 1993
Appeal No. 01933711 • —
Agency No. 1-92-6060-0
Docket No. 05940204 (EEOC)
To: Director From: John J. Washington
Office of Federal Operations Senior Special Agent
Equal Employment Opportunity 145 South Everett St., #4
Commission Glendale, California 91205
P.O. Box 19848 (213) 894-7705
Washington, D.C. 20036
This is a continuation of an official brief filed on November 26,
1993 for reconsideration of the EEOC decision dated November 4,
1993. This continuation does not nullify the official brief filed
dated November 22, 1993 (EEOC Docket No. 05940204) and received
(Certified Mail) by the EEOC on November 26, 1993. This is a
continuation of that brief.
1. The appellant refers the EEOC to Exhibit 24B of the Report of
Investigation (Volume III) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and
Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0. This exhibit outlines the
various categories of experience credited to each candidate by
Panel Members. A review of this exhibit shows that Panel Members
credited the Selectee (Paul Smith) with two (2) years of
investigative experience . The lower half of this exhibit (24B)
contains a clarification statement as to the types of experience
that Panel Members were permitted to consider in their evaluation
of SF-171's (Resumes) submitted by candidates in this matter.
Those specific experiences permitted are Criminal Investigators,
or Special Agents. It is noted that Border Patrol Agent
-1-
248
experience is not acceptable .
Appellant Findings: A review of Exhibit 21D of the Report of
Investigation (Volume I) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and
Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0, shows that in Experience Block-
D of the Selectee's (Paul Smith) SF-171, he claims his exact
"Title and Position as Private Investigator (Self Employed),"
from June 20, 1978 to December 31, 1980. This experience is
neither Special Agent, nor Criminal Investigator. It does not
meet the requirements under the Service specific criteria of
acceptable experience. Furthermore, it is unsubstantiated
experience.
A review of this same exhibit (21D), shows that in Experience
Block-F of the Selectee's (Paul Smith) SF-171, he claims his
exact "Title and Position as Special Agent-State Dept . , " from
September of 1968 to September of 1971. At the upper left corner
of Experience Block-E the Selectee (Paul Smith) says that the
"Name and Address of Employer or Organization is, U.S. State
Department, Washington, D.C.." He identifies his Organization and
Kind of Business as, "U.S. Marine Corp., U.S. State Department."
The Selectee (Paul Smith) was not a Special Agent of the State
Department. He was a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corp.
Stated simply, he was a soldier . It is noted that in line four
(4) of the "Description of work performed," the Selectee (Paul
Smith) has a (Disclaimer) which states, "was detailed to the U.S.
-2-
249
State Department and worked in a plain clothes environment with
agents of the State Department , U.S. Secret Service, and C.I. A.."
Why would a State Department Special Agent, be detailed to the
U.S. State Department? "Panel Members without a doubt should
have been alerted to this statement by the Selectee, and the
desrciptive place of employment, and exact position title.
Especially, the Panel's Subject Matter Expert." The Job narrative
contains simple protocol duties performed by Marine Corp Guards
at Embassies around the World. There's no statements concerning
any criminal investigative duties performed by the Selectee,
because there were none. Blocks-D and E are attached to this
appeal. The above job experiences were neither Criminal
Investigator, nor Special Agent experiences acceptable under the
established Service criteria. The Selectee did not acquire two
(2) years of investigative experience. The Panel Members caused
the EEOC and the Attorney General to consider a misleading
statement of fact in their decision.
Appellant Note: The appellant refers the EEOC to the continuation
page of Experience Block-E of the Selectee's SF-171, marked as
Exhibit 21D of the Report of Investigation (Volume 1} compiled by
Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0. This
block of experience relates to the Selectee's claim of narcotics
experience. The Panel Members credited him (Selectee) with six
years of narcotics experience. This block of experience contains
a similar (Disclaimer) as reflected in the above State Department
-3-
250
issue. The Selectee claimed employment with the Phoenix Police
Department from 1972 to 1978. He (Selectee) claimed to have
worked five years before his assignment as a Narcotics
Investigator in the Patrol Division, Crime Reduction Unit, and
Special Operation Bureau. This meant that he (Selectee) only
served approximately one (1) year in the field of narcotics
investigation. "Panel Members without a doubt should have been
alerted to this writing by the Selectee. Especially, the Panel's
Subject Matter Expert."
The appellant calculates that the Panel Members credited the
Selectee with seven (7) years of crucial specialized experience
in which he did not acquire, related to Criminal Investigative
and Narcotics experience reflected in Exhibit 24B.
It is noted that the appellant's SF-171 showed that he was a
Narcotics Investigator with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation,
from March 18, 1975 to March 24, 1978. This is three (3) years of
experience. The appellant's SF-171 further showed that as of
September 11, 1988, he was officially assigned to the Service's
OCDETF Division in Los Angeles. From September 11, 1988 too on or
about October/November of 1990 when the selection was rendered
for the position in this matter, the appellant had acquired two
(2) years of field narcotic's experience in the Service OCDETF
Program. The complete total of narcotics experience for both the
Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Service's OCDETF Program
-4-
251
amounted to five (5) years. This did not include specialized
classroom training in the field of narcotics' enforcement, which
tantamounts to more training that is required for successful
completion of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Basic
Training Course for new agents. This was ignored by Panel
Members .
The Panel Members credited the Selectee with six (6) years of
narcotics experience, and the appellant with five (5) years of
narcotics experience. The inaccurate credit of five (5) years of
narcotics experience, in which the Selectee did not acquire,
caused the Selectee to be rated better experienced in the crucial
field of narcotics' expertise, than the appellant. This was not
true. The EEOC and the Attorney General are requested to
immediately reverse the decision of the agency in this matter.
2. The EEOC Adjudicator states in the decision dated November 4,
1993, which the Selectee, at the time of the selection at issue,
was a Deputy Regional Chief (GM-13) in the Western Regional
Office of the Border Patrol.
The Deputy Regional Chief of the Border Patrol in the Western
Regional Office is a Staff Officer position. At best, the
Selectee dealt with issues related to Border Patrol Operation
procedures, and policies, unrelated to the investigative
principles and sciences applied in the Service Investigative
-5-
252
Program. The Selectee was not required, as was the appellant
(Senior Special Agent), to deal with tactical investigative field
operations on a daily basis for fifteen (15) years . The Panel
Members further ignored the appellant's extensive specialized
training in the principles of supervision and management. This
training was specifically undertaken through the Office of
Personnel Management in preparation for a future career in
management. This was ignored by Panel Members.
Appellant Note: The appellant refers the EEOC to Exhibit 24B of
the Report of Investigation (Volume III) compiled by Delany,
Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0. The lower half
of this exhibit contains a clarification statement as to the
types of experience that Panel Members were permitted to consider
in their evaluation of SF-171's (Resumes) submitted by candidates
in this matter. Those specific experiences permitted are Criminal
Investigator and Special Agents. It is noted that Border Patrol
Agent experience is not acceptable . This experience is not
acceptable because, Border Patrol Operations are unrelated to the
investigative principles and sciences applied in the Service
Investigative Program. This would invariably apply to any Border
Patrol Administrative, or leadership positions. The Selectee's
position dealt with administering the principles and sciences of
Border Patrol Operations, and not investigative program
activities. The Panel Members caused the EEOC and the Attorney
General to consider a misleading statement of fact in their
decision.
-6-
253
3. The appellant has previously stated in this Appeal dated
November 22, 1993 (Initial), that the Agency's failure to release
vital records lawful requested according to Title 5 of the United
States Code, Section 552 (Freedom of Information Act), obstructed
his right to pursue this complaint according to Title '' of the
United States Code.
Appellant Findings: The appellant finds that through review of
the Report of Investigation compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and
Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0, that the agency willfully
destroyed notes, documents and records in this matter to cover up
a distortion of improprieties created by the Rating Panel
Members. Those distortions and improprieties caused the Selectee
to be rated better qualified than the appellant. of this
complaint. The EEOC and the Attorney General are requested to
reverse the decision of the agency due to the following
distortions and improprieties found to exist in this matter.
A. Failure to comply with Title 5 of the United states Code,
Section 552 (Freedom of Information Act) . The agency has filed no
rebuttal to this aspect of the appeal, and the appellant
concludes that the agency concurs, that the failure to timely
release vital records in this matter, obstructed the appellant's
right to pursue this issue according to Title 7 of the United
States Code.
-7-
254
B. False statements of Panel Members as to the validity of
"supervisory and managerial" courses completed by the appellant
through the Office of Personnel Management. Agents are non
supervisory personnel, and are not required to complete this
training. The appellant undertook this training at home, in
preparation for a future career in management. For this same
reason, the appellant undertook and completed the Service's
"Extension Training Program" for the purpose of gaining a
thorough understanding of the Immigration And Naturalization
Service's mission, and specialization in the policies, procedures
and laws governing the administration and enforcement of the
Immigration And Nationality Act. The Panel Members stated in a
sworn statement that the appellant spent much of his application
space listing course work that all agents had to take. This was a
distortion of the truth. This action affected the appellant's
general qualification rankings in the field of supervision,
management, and knowledge of immigration law.
C. The Panel Members claimed no knowledge of the appellant's race
before the complaint was filed, is an erroneous distortion. The
commonality of the Surname Washington in our society relates with
great frequency to Black Americans, rather than White Americans.
The agency has filed no reasonable rebuttal to this aspect of the
appeal, and the appellant concludes that the agency concurs. The
appellant concludes that the Panel Members knew his race before
the complaint was filed.
-8-
255
D. The statements of the Selecting Official (John Shaw) in a
sworn affidavit, which he states, the appellant was not chosen,
in spite of his extensive narcotics experience, because most of
the other candidates also had such experience. This is a
distortion of the truth. A review of Exhibit 24B of the Report of
Investigation (Volume III) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and
Associates, Case No. 1-92-6060-0, contains the names of twenty
(20) candidates. It further shows that only three (3) candidates,
two (2) other than the appellant, had received credit for
narcotics' experience by Panel Members. This is a false statement
in this matter by the Selecting Official.
E. A review of Exhibit 21D of the Report of Investigation (Volume
I) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. I-
92-6060-0, shows that the Selectee claimed employment with the
Phoenix Police Department from January of 1972 to May of 1978. He
identifies his exact "Title and Position as Detective-Narcotics"
in Experience Block-E of his SF-171. The second page, or
continuation of Experience Block-E shows that the Selectee
claimed, "five (5) years prior to this, (before narcotics
assignment), which I served with the Phoenix Police Department,
were consumed by being assigned to the Patrol Division, Crime
Reduction Unit, and Special Operation Bureau." The appellant
calculates 1972 to 1978 to be six years. If the Selectee was
assigned five (5) years to Patrol Division, Crime Reduction Unit
and Special Operation Bureau. The Selectee would have only
-9-
256
specialized for approximately one (1) year in narcotics
investigation. Exhibit 24B of the Report of Investigation
(Volume I) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case
No. 1-92-6060-0, shows that the Panel Members credited the
Selectee with six (6) years of narcotics experience. This is a
distortion of the truth by the Panel Members. This action
affected the appellant's general qualification ranking in the
field of narcotics experience. The appellant had accumulated five
(5) years of narcotics' experience. The action of the Panel
Members caused the appellant to be perceived as less
knowledgeable than the Selectee in these crucial aspects of the
position's qualification ranking.
F. A review of Exhibit 24B of the Report of Investigation (Volume
III) compiled by Delany, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Case No. I-
92-6060-0, shows that Panel Members credited the Selectee with
two (2) years of investigative experience, for which he did not
acquire. This is a distortion of the truth by Panel Members. The
EEOC and the Attorney General are referred to Item #1 of this
appeal .
G. The Selectee was a Border Patrol Staff Officer, assigned to
the Service's Western Regional Office. The Panel Members
credited the Selectee with six (6) years of supervisory
experience. This is a distortion of the truth. This experience
(Border Patrol) is not acceptable because, Border Patrol
-10-
257
Operations are unrelated to the investigative principles and
sciences applied in the Service's Investigative Program. This
would invariably apply to any Border Patrol Administrative, or
leadership position.
Conclusion: The appellant, ( A Veteran Government Agent),
requests that the Commissioner of The Immigration And
Naturalization Service, the EEOC, and the Attorney General,
immediately reverse the agency's decision in this matter, without
delay. The evidence clearly shows a concerted effort on the part
of Panel Members, and the Selecting Official to disregard the
qualification of the appellant, and to elevate the Selectee in
this issue by any means, in which was successfully accomplished.
John J. Washington
Senior Special Agent, Immigration And Naturalization Service
SSN: 433-66-1341
-11-
258
December 31, 1993
Ms. Janet Podolny
Special Assistant
Office of The Commissioner
Immigration And Naturalization Service
Washington, D.C.
Dear Ms. Podolny,
This correspondence is to advise the Commissioner that
various Sections of Administrative procedures (1614.407) referred
to in the EEOC Appeal were in error. Those procedural sections
applies to the Class Action matter in which I exhausted nearly
two years of research with Class Members and Attorneys for the
complaint. The EEOC has been advised to delete those procedural
sections from the appeal. I request that you also delete those
sections as well from copies of the appeal transmitted to your
office. I have reserved the right to maintain the sentence
structure of the appeal.
During our telephonic conversation on December 30, 1993, you
appeared to be concerned as to my supervisory background in the
matter before the EEOC, in which I have requested official
intervention by Ms. Meisner. I professionally welcome this
concern by you. I can assure you, and the Commissioner, that the
countless training undertaken through the Office of Personnel
Management; and a four-month management course completed at
night, at Glendale Community College, had prepared this agent in
every facet of supervisory and managerial principles necessary to
develop, guide and lead any division' within the Service
Investigative Program.
Do to your opening of the door concerning the merits of
Supervisory Criminal Investigator's experience in this matter. I
have but one straightforward response, and that is "the
credibility of the Service's Supervisory Investigators Program
has long been comprised nationwide by the old American philosophy
of who you know, and not what you know." I will give you one
case in point:
I direct you to the name of Applicant Candidate HICKS of the
SF-171 Comparison/Applicants for MP II 90-70 (Exhibit 24B)
compiled by Panel Members. Mr. Hicks was credited with eleven
(11) years of supervisory experience. Several of those years of
supervision were performed in the Los Angeles Investigation
Branch. Exhibit 24B shows that Mr. Hicks had no previous
investigative experience, before being appointed to the position
of Supervisory Criminal Investigator. The question that should
appear in the mind of any prudent person is; how can a
quarterback lead a team, when he himself has never played the
game? Anyone, including yourself Ms. Podolyn, can become a
259
Supervisory Criminal Investigator in the Service, with no
previous experience or proven ability in the investigative
sciences. The litmus test is, who do you know? Mr. Hicks should
have never received a ranking as the third (3rd) best qualified
for the position referred to in this matter. He had no
investigative experience, nor narcotics experience. If he had
been selected; what proven experiences, or expertise could he
have relied upon to develop, coordinate, and guide agents in the
investigation and prosecution of foreign nationals involved in
the trafficking of narcotics? He simply couldn't, and would have
had to rely upon subordinate agents to hopefully know, what he
did not know. This is a common occurrence in the Service
Investigative Program. The Service should have learned from the
ATF/WACO incident that a quarterback cannot recall the ball,
after it has been thrown. In essence, anyone can have a title
(supervisor) Ms.Podolyn. It doesn't mean that they should have
been appointed to the position. Mr. Hicks should have never been
appointed to a Supervisory Criminal Investigator's position.
I maintain that I had the best combination of training and
proven experiences for the position related to this matter.
Sincerely,
John J. Washington
145 South Everett St., #4
Glendale, California 91205
260
Subject: Denial of Request To Reconsider dated April 14, 1994
Re: Requests to reconsider dated November 22, 1993; and
December 7, 1993
Request No. 05940204
Appeal No. 01933711
Agency No. 1-92-6060-0
To: Director From: John J. Washington
Office of Federal Operations Senior Special Agent
Equal Employment Opportunity 145 South Everett St., #4
Commission " Glendale, CA. 91205
P.O. Box 19848 (213) 894-7705
Washington, D.C. 20036
This is an official brief filed in response to receipt of the
"Denial of Request To Reconsider" dated April 14, 1994. This
decision was received on April 19, 1994. The decision is
attached.
The appellant has carefully reviewed the above decision dated
April 14, 1994. The appellant rejects the findings by the EEOC
for to the following reasons.
1. On April 19, 1994, the appellant telephonically spoke with
Ms. Francis M. Hart, Executive Officer/Executive Secretariat of
the EEOC in Washington, D.C. The "Denial of Request To
Reconsider" shows that Ms. Hart responded for the Commission in
this matter. The "Denial of Request To Reconsider" reflects no
responses to issues put forth by the appellant in the "Requests
To Reconsider" dated November 22, 1993 and December 7, 1993. Ms.
Hart advised the appellant that the decision in this matter was
rendered by three EEOC Commissioners; and that she is required
only to sign her name to the document for the Commission. She
claimed to have no knowledge of how the decision in this matter
was reached. The decision further fails to reflect the names of
the unidentified EEOC Commissioners involved, or responses by the
Commissioners to issues put forth by appellant in the "Request To
Reconsider." This document is no more a legal tender than a
-1-
261
counterfeit twenty dollar bill. It is totally worthless, and
signed by an individual who holds absolutely no power and
authority to approve or disapprove the* matter in the first place.
This clearly shows that the person (s) who are charged to properly
address the issues regarding this matter, has clearly side
stepped their official responsibilities by appointing a low level
wonk with a fancy title to merely sign-off on the dotted line
stating my "Request for reconsideration" had been denied. When in
December of 1993, I was advised that my request for
reconsideration had been accepted. To me, this is no more than a
willful obstruction of justice by high level incompetent
government employees. The failure to exercise their official
duties in a professional manner and in accordance with United
States Government rules and regulations regarding discrimination
matters IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
2. The appellant finds the aforementioned activity of the EEOC in
this matter to be no less than racist. This is the first time in
the history of this nation that an Administration, has
established a secret, "unidentified entity" at the center of
government, to covert racism after the fact, in a willful
conspiracy to protect those who have clearly wronged me, and
their refusals to correct these wrongs.
3. The appellant maintains that the new evidence put forth in the
"Requests To Reconsider" overwhelmingly reveals a
"misinterpretation of material facts," by the EEOC and warrants a
reversal of the decision in this matter.
4. I hereby recommend that the issues raised by me concerning
this matter be given a lawful re-dress, and that all facts
previously disclosed be properly adjudicated, so that justice may
prevail .
5 . I am very concerned that other government employees have been
-2-
262
harmed in this same manner. In the event, that improprieties are
disclosed on the part of any government employees of the EEOC in
this matter, I further recommend that proper, corrective
disciplinary action be taken immediately. This kind of treatment
by government officials, upon government employees is absolutely
unamerican. It appears that equal justice is ringing in South
Africa, while that same bell is silent at the EEOC. Easily this
situation may be rectified in civil court. However, the EEOCC has
not fulfilled their responsibilities in accordance with the law
to properly and completely address this matter. The EEOC is
derelict in this matter, and is only recommending civil action as
a scapegoat.
6. We are shocked that this kind of situation exists within the
very entity charged to protect government employees against the
terrible sword of discrimination. Should those holding the power
to exercise a proper decision in this matter lack the courage to
do so, I call for you to step down.
7. Lastly, I request immediate proper guidance in accordance with
Title 7 of the United States Code for the purpose of filing a
discrimination complaint against the EEOC in this matter.
Sincerely,
John J. Washington
Senior Special Agent
April 19, 1994
cc: John Conyers, Congressman
and Senior Member of Black Caucus
Government Operations
cc: Jamie S. Gorelick
Deputy Attorney General
Attachment: Copy of "Denial of Request To Reconsider"
-3-
263
January 12, 1994
Ms. Doris Meisner
Commissioner
Immigration And Naturalization Service
Washington, D.C.
c/o: Mrs. Janet Podolyn
Special Assistant
Dear Ms. Meisner,
On January 11, 1994, I telephonically spoke with Ms. Podolyn
to ascertain if your office would be responding to correspondence
submitted for your review in an ongoing discrimination complaint,
pending before the EEOC. Ms. Podolyn was concerned as to your
authority to intervene in this matter, because it has been
adversely acted upon by the agency, and is presently pending
before the EEOC for reconsideration.
I initiated this complaint against the Service, and have the
right to seek any avenue necessary to resolved the complaint, at
any phase of the proceedings. If a resolution is agreed upon
between myself and the Agency Head. I am required to advise the
EEOC of such resolution. Ms. Podolyn may obtain further
information concerning this scope of the administrative process
through the EEOC's "Attorney of the Day," at telephone no. (202)
663-4599. There is no written policy under 29 CFR, Part 1614,
which states that the Agency Head and the Complainant can not
attempt to resolve the matter. The EEOC was established to
intervene in these type matters, where one, or both parties
failed to communicate to resolve the issue.
On August 8, 1991, Mrs. Maria Padilla, EEO Counselor, and
former Service employee, met with Mr. G.H. Kleinknecht, Associate
Commissioner of Enforcement, and Mr. John Shaw, after being
refused permission by Ms. Carolyn Hodges, Director of EEO, to
arrange a meeting at my request with Mr. McNary, former
Commissioner, concerning this matter. Ms. Padilla is presently
employed as a State Department Consular Officer, in EL Paso,
Texas. During the Spring of 1991, Ms. Winnona Varnon, EEO
Complaints Adjudicator, telephonically advised me that
Commissioner McNary should not be drawn into such agency matters,
because he was a politician. I spoke with Varnon while on detail
at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. It must be remembered
that John Shaw, was the Selecting Official in this matter. He had
a vested interest to be present at this meeting. The very same
issues were discussed at that meeting, in which is detailed in
the EEOC Appeal for reconsideration.
264
On December 5, 1991, Mr. Kleinknecht advised EEO Counselor
Padilla that the rating process falls within the jurisdictions of
the Office of Management, and that complaints or recommendations
regarding that process should be forwarded to the Executive
Associate Commissioner, Management. Mr. Kleinknecht past the buck
in this matter, because he reviewed the package. (We now know,
what that package contained.) At this phase of the complaint
process, the agency has failed to address the issue. This same
customary process continues through the Department of Justice
Adjudicator, and the initial EEOC Appeal. A copy of the
memorandum from Mr. Kleinknecht dated December 5, 1991 is
attached, containing A-l on each page.
I again, request your intervention in this matter.
Sincerely,
John J.Washington
145 South Everett Street, #4
Glend
265
Randy Katsaonms
House Committee on Government Operations
House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
OCT 2 8 1994
Dear Ms. Katsaonms:
Attached is the copy of the sworn affidavit and other
correspondence I proviued to the EEO Investigator in December 1992
in support of the sex discrimination complaint I filed against Mr.
David V. Beebe, District Director, Portland, Oregon.
I believe this correspondence continues to provide insight as to
why I believed then and continue to believe today, that I was
denied promotion to Assistant District Director Examinations in
Portland, Oregon and discriminated against because of my gender by
Mr. David V. Beebe District Director Portland, Oregon.
Sincerely,
Mary K. Q/ui nn-Valladol id
14811 S.E. McGillivray Blvd.
Vancouver, Washington 98684
(206) 254-8677
Attachments
266
Memorandum
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
TWC 93000009
NR MSP 93-03
Subject
Freedom of Information Request ,
TWC 93-09
To
Mary K. Quinn-Valladolid
Immigration Examiner
Portland, Oregon
Date
February 19, 1993
From
Office of Human
Resources & Career
Development
Northern Region
Your Freedom of Information request was received in the
Northern Regional Office on February 9, 1993, concerning
vacancy announcement number NR-HSP 93-03 for Supervisory
Criminal Investigator, GM-1811-13 at Portland, Oregon.
We have completed our search of records that would be
responsive to your request. In answer to your first three
questions concerning eligible females, there were not any
females on the list of eligibles, nor did any females apply
for the position. In response to your last question about
ethnic minorities, there were 1 Asian, 2 Black, 2 American
Indian or Alaskan Native and 5 Hispanic eligibles who applied
ifor the position.
We hope this information is responsive to your request.
Douglas C. Halvorson
Assistant Regional Administrator,
Human Resources and Career Development
267
0. S. Department of Justice
Report of EEO Counseling-
In the Hatter Complained of by Mary ouinn-valladolid
Clf Caarging Party gives Ris/ner permission)
Organizational Unit: U.S. Immigration & Naturaliza tion Svc, Portland, OR
(None and Location)
Submitted By:
Atami UENO
(Name and Signature of Counselor)
Organisational
„ ?7? /T U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Svc, Portland, OR
Unit/Location: • -
Telephone No.: ("S) 423-4197
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF FORM
If the individual does not allege discrimination because of race, color, sex, national
origin, religion, ace or mental or physical handicap in connection with the matter
complained of, complete only the above portion of this page; Items 1, 2, 9 of
Part A and Items 1, 2, and 3 of Part B before submitting the Report of Counseling.
Hots under Item 3 of Part B any corrective action the individual received.
If discrimination because of one of the above factors is alleged, complete alt items
before submitting the Report of Counseling and use Item 8 of Part B to report any ^
corrective action received. Attach supplemental sheets referencing item number if
additional space is required.
268
2
. PART A
KEY DATES
1) Initial Contact: 10/9/91
(Date the aggrieved person contacted counselor to schedule en inzervierj
2) Initial Interview: 10/16/91 -
(Date)
3) 21-Day Notice*: 10/30/91
(Date)
4) Counseling Extension(s)*: 11/14/91
(Date)
5) Final Interview Notice*: .11/12/91 ,
(Date)
6) Most Recent Action Identified as Discriminatory By Charging Party :
Nonseleccion of complainant Co Supervisory Immigration Examiner position because
(Act-ion and Date of Occurrence)
, of sex resulting in denial of promocion. Complainant informed by DD of her non-
selection on 10/4/91 and announcement of selectee by DD on 10/7/91.
7) Offer of Assistance in completing DOJ 201-A: a) Made by Counselor: 11/12/91
(Daze)
b) Accepted: 11/12/91 Qr c) Rejected .
(Date) (Date)
8) Counseling Report Prepared: 11/12/91
(Date)
9) Report Submitted: 11/14/91
(Date)
10) Date Formal Complaint of Discrimination must be Filed:
11/29/91
(IS days after report submitted)
'Copy of Hotice Attached
269
3
PART B
REASON(S) FOR SEEKING COUNSELING
1) Alleged Discrimination Based on:
a . Q] Race (Specify)
e. Q Color (Specify)
b. Sex (Specify) female
C . □ Age (Specify)
d. ^'Mental Handicap -
f. Q] Religion (Specify)^
g. □ National Origin (Specify )_
h. Q Physical Handicap
1 . □ Other (Specify)
2) Matter(s)/Action(s) Complained of:
[Ihe complainanc alleges thac selection for che Supervisory Immigration Examination
'position at Portland, OR which was recently filled by a male Immigration Examiner
"with less than two years' experience in Examinations work and totally lacking in
Inspectional experience because of gender. She contends that although she is much
more qualified in the field of examinations and Inspections , which was a selective
placement factor in the announcement, this was totally ignored by the selecting
officer, and that position was given to a less qualified male within the same unit,
because the complainant was a female.
She also contends that she has experienced discriminatory handling by management
in the past. Mainly, when she was designated by management to act in the capacity
of the Acting Assist. Dist. Dir. for Examinations in the absence of the Assist. Dist.
Director for Examinations, where in one instance when management officially went
chrough promoting her temporarily to a GS-12 as such, yet during those times, she
was not invited to attend telephonic conferences and other activities which included
all other mid-management personnel.
She feels that if she was good enough -for management to place her in the role of
Assist. Dist. Dir. with a promotion temporarily, she should be good enough to fill
that same role permanently. She feels this opportunity was denied her because of
her being a female, and not within the old boy's network.
270
3) Corrective Action Sought:
Complainant asks for reseleccion process and be given the opportunity and
promotion which she deserved, which was denied because of her gender.
4) Chronology of Events (Explain the events causing the aggrieved person to believe
he/she has been discriminated against) ;
Vacancy Announcement No. NR-MSP 91-30, Supervisory Immigration Examiner GS/CM-1816-
12/13, Portland, OR was issued by Northern Region under Merit Staffing Plan II, on
8/21/91. This was to replace Mr. Jerry Uhde ) former Assist. Dist. Dir. for Examinacic
who had transferred to Headquarters, Personnel, as of 8/1/91.
Mrs. Mary Quinn-Valladolid, presently an Immigration Examiner at the Portland District
Office, and also Mr. Jerry Garcia, an Immigration Examiner at the Portland District
Office, were among those who applied in response to the announcement. Mrs. Mary
Quinn-Vailadolid has been with the Immigration Service for 20 years and a great
portion of it with Inspections and Examinations. She also has been Mr. Jerry Garcia' s
trainer in the Examinations Section after Mr. Garcia was selected for the Examiner
/trainee posicion approximately two years ago. This was Mr. Garcia's first exposure
to the mainstream of Immigration Service. (Mr. Garcia was with the Legalization
Office for a few years.)
On 10/4/91, Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid was called Co the District Director's Office and
was informed by the District Director chat she had not been selected for the position
as she lacked experience in management, and the Assistant District Director for
Examination posicion did not allow him to select someone who had Co be crained inco
Chac posicion, and chac he had. CO selecC someone who could readily assume Chac role.
(ConCinued on ac cached sheeC.)
5) Counselor's Plan of Action (May include contacting Servicina Equal Ozvorz-jnitv
officer for technical guidance)':
Contacted the EEO Director, NRO, for guidance and assistance. ConcacCed NRO Perscnne".
for seleccion packec of said posicion announcemenC, and received encire seleccion
packec on loan. .
Complainanc gave me a lisc of employees who wished Co speak Co me in connection wich
chis event and ocher discriminacory accions wicnessed wichin che district, so I
have interviewed them prior to approaching management wich the complaint.
271
6) Inquiry
a. Review of Records (Indicate name of records reviewed and data of each
review) :
Review of Selection Packet - 10/25 - 10/26/91
HODGE, Daniel: Qualified for CM-13 Insp. 9 yrs. 8 mos.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 15 yrs.
MOHR, James: Qualified for CM-13 Insp. 7 yrs. 9 mos.'
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 17 yrs. 4 mos.
WEIRICH, Davis - Qualified for CM-13 Insp. 6 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 10 yrs.
. WILLIAMS, Charles: Qualified for CM-13 Insp. (2 yrs. 4 mos. Border Patro'.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 17 yrs.
ADAMS, Raymond: Qualified for CM-13 Insp. 8 yrs. 6 mos.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 14 yrs* 2 mos.
MILLER, Roger: Qualified for CM-13 Ins P- 5 X rs - 2 mos -
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 24 yrs. 8 mos.
OTTO, Jeanette: Qualified for GM-13 Insp. 8 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 14 yrs. 1 mo.
(Continued on attached sheet.)
i
b. Personal Interviews (Include date, none, title, orccr.izavicnal position,
matter (3) discussed):
10/17/91 - Tami Ammerman, Applications Clerk, Examinations - POO
States she supports Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid's complaint based on what
she has witnessed personally or has been directly involved. She
states not only does she feel that sexual discrimination took place
•in such selection, but feels that selection, in actuality, had
taken place prior to the job announcement.
She states that when Mr. Jerry Uhde, former ADDE, was selected
for his position in the Portland District Office, because of his
lack of knowledge in the Immigration and Examinations rules and
procedures, employees in Examinations were getting increasingly
frustrated and she took the matter up to the Districc Director.
However, instead of taking corrective action, Mr. Uhde was given
a promotion to a GM-13.
Tami also states that Mr. Uhde has made comments of sexual harrassraenc
such as, when she was discussing her maternity leave with her 2nd
child, Mr. Uhde made a comment that if she was an Indian wouan,
she could go squat in the fields and then go back to work. Tami
told him that she was not an Indian woman. She also called the NRO
EEO Office complaining about this matter, and because the gentleman
that she spoke to sounded so nervous and stated he just started on
the job, etc., and seemed upset to discuss the issue, that she
decided not to pursue the matter any further.
(Continued) ^»
272
7) Sunmary (Report of Findings):
Complainanc feels there was discriminatory practice exercised in the management's
part, and the employees interviewed senses discrimination in the part of management
in the promotion of female employees within the district.
Management feels there is no discrimination in the promotion process or any other
handling of matters here, and that the sense of discrimination is the employees'
perception, and since the employees perceive so, it is for the employees to prove
and not for the management to prove.
8) Results:
Since the complainant would not accept anything less than a whole reselection
process and promotion which she feels she was wrongfully denied because of
sexual discrimination in the management's part, and since management refuses
the complainant's request, this case cannot be resolved internally.
The complainant was informed of the meeting with management, and she chooses
to file a formal complaint. This counselor have offered to assist her in
the inicial part of filing a formal complaint, and the complainant has accepted
my offer.
273
CONTINUED
A) Continued:
To chis. Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid replied that the announcement was for a Supervisory
Immigration Examiner, and not an ADDE. The District Director (Mr. David V. Beebe)
advised Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid that the title ADDE was just a working title.
On 10/7/91, Districc Director Beebe personally announced the person he had selected
: for the ADDE position, mainly Mr. Jerry Garcia, at a meeting in the Examinations
Section.
Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid contends that this selection was discriminatory in that the
announcement was for a Supervisory Immigration Examiner which requires all the
technical experience, including experience in inspection duties which was lisced
as a SELECTIVE PLACEMENT FACTOR.
Aware of the limited technical skills of Mr. Garcia, and total inexperience in the
field of Inspections, which the ADDE is to supervise and control, Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid
states that Mr. Garcia is the least qualified person to assume the rold of ADDE.
Yet, Mrs. Quinn-Valladolid was denied the opportunity to such role, she feels, because
of her sex. She also states that actions in the past, as stated in Item 2 of this
report, makes her to believe that this selection was a discriminatory action on the
part of management because of her gender.
6) Continued:
a. Review of Selection Packet (Continued)
FRESELLI, Gino: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. 12 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 7 yrs. 9 mos.
GARCIA, Jerry: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 1 yr. 10 mos.
HICKS, Jeff: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. A yrs. 3 mos.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 8 yrs. 6 mos.
QUTN-VALLADOLID: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. 7 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 15 yrs. A mos.
TOTAL QUALIFIED LIST: 11-2 female, 9 male
EDUCATION LEVEL: 1 - MA + BS (female)
2 - BA Only
1 - BA + AA
1 - AA Only
5 - High School
274
CONTINUED
6) b. Personal Interviews (Continued)
As for his selection of Jerry Garcia, Mr. Beebe states he selected Mr. Garcia
because of his experience as a Supervisory Legalization Officer, which gave him
the management skills and experience required for middle management, and technical
experience is not an important factor in selection of raid-management position,
as he is to do management and not actually work on cases. If he was to select
a Senior Examiner or a Supervisory Examiner, Mary Quinn-Vallalodid would have
been a much more qualified candidate than Jerry Garcia. However, he was not
selecting a technician, he was selecting management. Therefore, management skills
were more important that technical skills. Mr. Garcia has the skills and he has
the potential. He also stated that before he made his final selection, he had
Mr. Libby, Deputy District Director, recommend a few named out of the qualified
list. Out of this recommendation, Mr. Beebe selected Mr. Garcia. Mr. Beebe also
showed me copies of selections he made in the past since his arrival at the Portland
District Office, which he obtained from NRO.
Mr. Beebe also stated about his efforts in getting Mary a temporary promotion to
a GS-12 for 30 days while Jerry Uhde, then the ADDE, was on an extended vacation,
and Mary was designated as the Acting ADDE. How the NRO had sat on it for months,
and then threatening to deny it, and how he had to fight to get her that temporary
promotion, and after about six months, finally was able to get her that promotion.
As for Mary's request for reselection, Mr. Beebe stated he could not undo what he
had done. Even if the announcement procedure done at the NRO was in error, he
would not consider reselection because the selection list that came from the NRO
showed both cadidates as being qualified, and he had selected Mr. Garcia. When
he informed Headquarters of his selection choice, Headquarters had no objection.
Besides, Mr. Garcia is Hispanic, also a minority.
As for the Catch 22 situation, Mr. Beebe stated that if Mary was to work with him,
she would have to swallow a bitter pill, and maybe take some correspondence course
and classroom training in supervisory and management, and attend a supervisory
management training course which NRO will be conducting in 1992. As to my question
whether Mary could be included in that course, he said he would try, but again
stated that there were no future promise.
275
Standard Form5C-B
Rev.SJM
US. OtSce of Personnel **ungem«t
FPM Chapter 298
NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION
1 . Nam* (Utt, First U<kt»
^JINK-VALLADOLUx KARY K.
msrnmmom
5- A. Code
703
S-B. Nature ol Acton C 1-1 3 _< 51
PROMOTION NTE
2. Social Security Number
535-53-6136
6-A. Coda 6-8. Nature ol Action
3. Date ol Brih
G1-25-53
4 Effective Del*
12-13-9C
5- C. Code
N£«
S-D. Legal Authority
REG 335.102 EXCEPT TO CORP
6-C. Code
6-D. Legal Authority
S-E.Coo*
S-F. Legal Authority
6-E.Code
OF. Legal Authority
7. FROM: PoaUlon TlUe and Number
EMIGRATION EXAMINER
P.D. NO. N43314U8
15. TO: Poaltlon Title end Number
[IMMIGRATION EXAMINER
ACS #54910070 P.O. NO. B4331301
aPayPtan
GS
aocccodt
01S16
taOnoeLe^l
11
ll.Stap/RMa
05
12. Salary
$35,264.00
IX Pay Bate
PA
Is. Pay Plan
GS
17. Oct Coda la GrsMMi
31316
12
ltstapmae
20- Salary /Award
02 .37,019.00
ZI.PvBss*
PA
14 Name and Location ot Position's Organization
NORTHERN REGION
'0RTLAND, OREGON DISTRICT
EXAMINATIONS BRANCH
22. Name and Location of Positions Organization
NORTHERN REGION
0RTLAND, OREGON DISTRICT
XAMINATI0NS BRANCH
'0RTLAND, OR
23. Veteran Preference
-•J 1 1-None
5041006000
'0RTLAND, OR
5041006000
3-lC-FoWDttabny
4.lfrPoe*Corrpana*Die
6-IOPoHAXher
e-ir>PoWA7o«rpar»abler30%
f^?
SEN
n
NO
27. FEGL I
~K B.ASIC LIFE + (2 X PAY) OPTION
28. Annuitant Indicator
"V — I
28. Pay R ate Determinant
30. Retirement Plan
i — osrs
31 . Berate Corp. COB (Leava)
06-30-71
32. Wortt Schedule
f — 1 F-FuMmt
J -BYT Seasonal
H-FTOr-Cal
R-PTOrvCal
33 Part-Time Houri Per
3J Position Occui
Ti 1 1-CoripattN.Ser*.
I 2 -Eicjoted Sendee
J-SESC
4. sac
85, FLSA Category
— T 1 EEiampt
I M-Nonesem
136. Appropriation Code
15540002211X01
37. Bargaining Unit Statu*
8883
3..^ SMtf od, 650 _ 051
MiimFimmMiTRfflr', o>
.ftSPflfcs 4 hx:
4S. Remark*
4 ^ITZ:.1 'MEV IND: N (b LV:07 YR: 00 ACAD DISCPL:
0NGRATULATI0NS ON YOUR PROMOTION.
*ttmpk»y1ngr^r>artmenlorAgane» j j
NHIGRATI0N AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
47. Agency Code
3 J "J 4
46 Personnel Office ID
1183
49 Approval Date
05-16-?1
TURN OVER FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION
S-PAHT 60-3.4
50. Slg, ij.n.(AL« t.TJca ion and TMc of Apprjvlrt; Official
1 • Employee Copy • Keep lor Future Reference
Editions Prior To 4/87 Are Unusable After V30M
NSN7S4P01 249-191'
276
Memorandum
Subject Memo - Erroneously Promoted Employee
Re: Jerry Garcia
Date
November 19, 1991
To Larry Valladolid
Criminal Investigator
This meomo is to Inform you that subject memo has been properly forwarded
to Mr. David V. Beebe, District Director for his reply.
277
MEMORANDUM
Subject Written grievance. Date December 4, 1991
To Mary Quinn-Valladolid From Office of the
Immigration Examiner District Director
Portland, OR Portland, OR
I am acknowledging receipt of your written grievance dated November
12, 1991, that was addressed to Ms. Nelly Basmeson, Administrative
Officer. Inasmuch as your complaint alleges that the Service
committed a procedural error in certifying Mr. Jerry Garcia to the
selection list, I have forwarded your complaint to Mr. Doug
Halvorson, Director of Personnel, Northern Regional Office for his
further consideration and direct reply to you.
Should you have any guest ions, you may reach Mr. Halvorson at FTS
725-3496.
David V. Beebe
District Director
278
DATE: November 12, 1991
TO: Nellie Basmeson
Administrative Officer
Portland, Oregon
CC: Douglas C. Halverson
Northern Region Personnel
Twin Cities, MN
FROM: Mary K. Qu inn-Valladol id
Immigration Examiner
Portland, Oregon
SUBJECT: Erroneously Promoted Employee.
Re: Jerry Garcia
The recent selection of Mr. Garcia to the position of ADDE at
Portland, Oregon clearly demonstrates the failure of this
district to strictly adhere to laws, Office of Personnel
Management Regulations, agency policies, and guidelines.
Mr. Garcia failed to meet OPM qualifications requirements.
Vacancy announcement NR-MSP-91-30 includes a Selective Placement
Factor which reads in part; "To be qualifying, the experience
must have involved inspectional work of a comprehensive nature."
Mr. Garcia is not knowledgeable in inspections. In fact, a
review of applicant SF-171, obtained through FOIA, reveals no
inspectional experience whatsoever, indicated by Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia was the only applicant
experience. Everyone else did.
that did not have inspectional
The position description for the ADDE position clearly states
that the Inspections Program, to include the International
Airport and the seaport facility at Astoria are under the
Examinations Branch. Mr. Garcia is clearly not qualified to
manage an inspections program, as he does not meet the
announcement selective placement factor.
In Chapter 3: Candidate Evaluation, under Merit Staffing Plan II;
Determining Basic Eligibility, Selective Placement Factors, it is i
stated that candidates who do not meet the established selective
placement factor will be ineligible for the position being filled"
even though they meet the minimum OPM standards. ™
In addition, as per NR MSP 91-30, under SUITABILITY: It is
stated that retention in this position is subject to satisfactory
completion of all Department of Justice security/suitability
requirements. Mr. Jerry Garcia does not possess, nor has been
279
authorized a secret clearance. If an
authorized to review certain files, it
person to even meet the PRIMARY
announcement .
individual is not even
is impossible for that
DUTIES listed on the
Mr. Garcia should not have even been placed on the candidates for
selection list. Yet, he was selected for ADDE with only 18
months experience as an Immigration Officer, 4 months of which
were at IOBTC.
I wish to file a complaint relating to the promotion action of
this District in promoting an obviously unqualified male to the
position of ADDE.
As per Part 300 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, the
procedures used by an agency to identify and rank qualified
candidates are proper subjects for formal complaints or
grievances.
In Chapter 335; Promotion and Internal Placement of the Federal
Personnel Manual it is indicated that management officials have a
special responsibility for seeing that violations do not occur
either by error or design. The person or persons responsible for
the gross violation of OPM guidelines and EEOC law should be held
accountable.
Mr. Jerry Garcia should be immediately removed from the position
of ADDE.
Attached ;
335-1
Vacancy Listing, position description and FPM Supp.
280
<u
o
• 1-H
s
<l>
on
a
o
.»•*
-l-»
0>
cd
ZJ
N
• ^H
4
3
*->
Cm
a
O
Z
-w
c
•o
4>
c
a
a
a
o
a
• ^H
</5
s
rf
t—H
o
Q
<
<
>
Z
z
o
<
St
en
or>
CM
C V
o <
to
.§-
o c
"9 O
•g « hp _g
£ W < Z
281
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERYICE
NORTHERN REGION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
MERIT STAFFING PLAN II
The Department of Justice it an Equal Opportunity Employer
ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: nr-ms? 91-30
DATE OF ISSUE: 8/21/91
POSltlOn: SUPERVISOR? IMMIGRATION EXAMINER
. GS/GM-1816-12/13
Location: Portland, oregon
•Number of Positlon(s)
to be filled: 1
♦Subject to Change
•• SELECTION FOR THIS POSITION WILL BE SUBJECT TO HEADQUARTERS
APPROVAL TO FILL * *
THIS POSITION WILL BE FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF HSRIT
STAFFING PLAN II.
AREA OF CONSIDERATION: Federal Service-wide.
NO?
Applicants may be required to submit to urinalysis to screen
for illegal drug use prior to appointment.
PRIMARY DUTIES : Incumbent works in the Examinations Branch of the
rcr-lani Ii-trict office, within the framework of the policies,
procedures, practices , and work standards formulated by the District
Director, develops and executes local policies, procedures, work
methods, and programs required to meet local conditions and
circumstances. Plans and directs the work of the branch, maintains
regular review and check of officers' and clerks' progress on
caseloads. Furnishes direct leadership and guidance in program
areas to improve effectiveness and attain Service objectives.
Resolves the more difficult and complex technical problems of
subordinates, and corrects errors of procedure or policy as they
arise. Analyzes new legislation, regulations, policies, and
procedures to determine the effect on present operations and makes
appropriate plans and changes. Makes recommendations to the
District Director for changes or revisions in Service policies or
procedures, realignment of manpower and such other measures that
may be required to produce the most effective and economical
operations at the District level. Assists in establishing
production standards, rates employees under the Service promotion
rating system, gives performance ratings, initiates informal
NR-CH2 (3-18-91)
Deadline for Application (Closing Date!: 8/30/91
HOW TO APPLY : Separate applications ai9 raquirad far aach position, indicating tha Qrada leveMsl for which you ara applying. Uaa form G-S7S (in
ouoi-catsi wnan supmitung appiicaoons. Tha importance of a eomplata and accurate SF-171 cannot be overemphaaared. Different blocks mould ba used
•ach change of duboa. position, grada. or locabon. Accuracy of data* is essenbai. 00 NOT attach posioon dascnpbons. Candidates may wisn to
,, «1 tha ongmel SF-171 for thair filoa and submit an originally signed and dated current copy each time they apply.
ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL OFFICE BY THE CLOSING OATE OF THE VACANCY
ANNOUNCEMENT. INDICATE ON THE WAILING ENVELOPE: "ATTN- MSP IIV
Use of postage oaid agency envelooes for filing applications is prohibited. FOR AN APPLICATION TO 3E CONSIDERED. A CANOIOA TF MUS r MEET ALL
:'.:gi3ilitv recuirements as cf ^h; closing date of the announcement.
all qualified ano eligible applicants will be considered regarcless of race. age, color. sex. national origin. religion,
ncnoisquaufying physical or mental handicap. or lawful political affiliation.
.'■"
282
classification action, etc. Conducts formal and informal on-the-
}ob training and recommends off-station training. Conducts
corrective interviews and recommends disciplinary action and
approves or disapproves annual and sick leave. Acts for the
District Director in contacts and conferences with representatives
of the congress and Senate, with other Government agencies as well
as educational institutions, social and welfare agencies, etc.
QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED : In addition to meeting the time- in-grade
requirements, the following experience requirements must be met.
At the GS-12 level: One year of specialised experience as described
below, at least equivalent to GS-11. At the GM-13 level: One year
of specialized experience at least equivalent to the GS-12.
Specialized Experience: Experience which is in or directly related
to the line of work of the position to be filled and which has
equipped the applicant with the particular knowledge, skills, and
abilities to successfully perform the duties of that position. To
be creditable, specialized experience must have been at least
equivalent to the next lower grade level in the normal line of
progression for the occupation in the organization.
SELECTIVE PLACEMENT FACTOR : Knowledge of laws, regulations, and
procedures concerning entry of persons to the United States and
eligibility for various benefits under the immigration laws. To be
qualifying, the experience must have involved inspectional work of
a comprehensive nature which employs a variety of knowledge and
abilities associated with the performance of either the inspecting,
examining or enforcing phases of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, or a body of related laws, regulations and procedures.
PROMOTION POTENTIAL : If filled at the GS-12 level, this position
has promotion potential to grade GM-13 as an exception to
competitive merit promotion procedures. Promotion will be subject
to incumbent meeting all Office of Personnel Management
requirements, demonstrating the ability to perform at the higher
grade level, and recommendation by the supervisor.
SUBSTITUTIONS ALLOWED : Office of Personnel Management
Qualifications Standards Handbook X-118 allows certain
substitutions to be made for qualification requirements above.
These standards are available in the Regional Personnel Office and
the Offices of the District Director, Officer in Charge, and Chief
Patrol Agent and may be reviewed and/or discussed upon request.
Post high school education may be substituted for experience and
will be evaluated on an individual basis. School transcript ( s ) or
a list of course titles, credit hours, and grades should be
attached to your application to insure that maximum credit is
allowed for appropriate education.
EVALUATION METHODS : Candidates will be evaluated on the basis of
predetermined job-related evaluation criteria. Such criteria are
283
expressed in terms of the specific knowledge, abilities, skills, or
other characteristics (KASO's) that are required for successful
performance in the position. Ratings will be based on a review of
all pertinent information relating to candidates' overall
background and an assessment of the degree to which this
information reflects possession of the KASO's. Experience,
training, awards, and appraisals will be considered only insofar as
they provide evidence, or a good indication, that candidates
possess a certain level of a given KASO.
EVALUATION CRITERIA/KASO ' S :
1. Knowledge of and demonstrated ability to interpret, apply and
make decisions based upon INS laws, policies and procedures as
they relate to examinations process.
2. Ability to communicate orally and in writing (both statistical
and narrative ) .
3. Knowledge of administrative procedures (procurement and
property management, finance, and personnel).
4. Ability to plan, manage and direct a major program and analyze
the results.
5. Ability to develop and maintain liaison with other government
and non-government organizations.
Although it is not required, applicants may submit a supplemental
statement descrioing how they s:-e: each of the KASO's or provide a
statement as to which positions in the SF-171 meet each KASO.
Plain sheets of paper may be used for this purpose. Candidates
will be rated solely on the basis of the material they submit.
TRAVEL EXPENSES : Reimbursement for travel and transportation
expenses and the use of a relocation assistance contractor will be
authorized in accordance with appropriate regulations if the
applicant selected is currently a Federal employee and does not
reside within the commuting area in which the position is located.
THIS IS A SUPERVISORY POSITION ; In accordance with tne Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978, the individual selected for this
position may be required to serve a probationary period. The
candidate selected to fill this position will be required to
participate in and complete the prescribed supervisory training
courses if s/he has not already done so.
RATE OF PAY IN DEHOTION ACTIONS WILL BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH AM
2260. 2e.
SPECIAL NOTE : It is the responsibility of the applicant to submit
information specified in the vacancy announcement in a prompt
manner so that positions may be filled without delay. Missing
284
appraisals, and/or Spanish language verification will not be
solicited from applicants or their supervisors. Applicants are
reminded that rating panels can consider only information provided
by the applicant. Failure to provide complete information may
result in a lower rating score. In addition, if the missing
documentation relates to a selective placement factor such as
Spanish language proficiency, applicant will not be eligible for
consideration.
SUITABILITY! Retention in this position is subject to satisfactory
completion of all Department of Justice security/suitability
requirements.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS i Candidates must have demonstrated in their
work experience or training that they possess, or have the
potential to develop, the qualities of. a successful supervisor, as
well as demonstrating the following personal qualities!
(1) Objectivity and fairness in Judging people on their ability
and situations on the facts and circumstances;
(2) Capacity to adjust to change, work pressures, or difficult
situations without undue stress;
(3) Willingness to consider new ideas or divergent points of view;
(4) Capacity to "see the job through."
HOW TO APPLY i APPLICATION MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE NORTHERS
REGIONAL OFFICE BY THE CLOSING DATE. PUT ON THE ENVELOPE i "ATTNi
HSPII" . INS status employees should submit two copies of Form G-
676 (MSP II Basic Application Form), a current Standard Form 171
(Application for Federal Employment), and one copy of the
employee's most recent annual performance rating (Form DOJ-522).
Persons who are not INS employees must have competitive civil
service status in order to be eligible for consideration and should
submit Standard Form 171, a SF-50 (Notification of Personnel
Action), and a copy of the applicant's most recent annual
performance rating from his/her current or most recent employer.
Applications will be accepted from VRA eligibles, 30* disabled
veterans, and physically handicapped candidates. All application
forms must contain an original (not photocopied) signature.
Applications should be mailed directly to the PERSONNEL OFFICER.
Immigration & Naturalization Service. Northern Regional Office,
Room 400, Federal Building. Ft. Snelling, Twin Cities. HN 55111.
Applicants are requested to complete Form NR-044, Recruitment
Questionnaire. This form may be obtained from the nearest Northern
Region INS District, Sector or Regional Office or by writing or
calling the above address or calling (612) 725-3496.
285
POSITION DESCRIPTION IPlett Raid Imtrucvom on the Btck)
1 Agr^c, Partition Mo
A43314C1
1 ««
"5
t IO> Su>Om**»iOn
FWOMC notion
pJHo-r. n—
4 Er*Wov"««0''«« Loc*l>o*t
Twin Cities, MN
V Dwry Siihi>>
Portland, Oregon
6 CSC Ci'iii<jnon No
1 l°-~
?. *m* Caoor Sianoaroa Act
8 EmotnnwnijfininciliSiml flaOw.naO
9 SwOiCCf IO IA AcHOn
Replaces Supv. Immigration
Examiner, GS-1816-12, PD#
ia
X™
'oatuon Statu*
Compatiim*
1 1
T
? oauiOn ■»
Sworwry
'-"Kigt'.*
13.
Stmitflnft
Cmtcai ->i^-i
Noncrit*al
13 Como.ni,,, Law* Cam
1071
N43316B1
>«. *»Wr LfM
»S. :-M».l*J'UHOWEH
0**e.«» Till* •< PnM*
P.V 'W- 0.O...XM-I C... | G'.«.
.miMH
0...
Comri'itiOrt
Agancy. 0»
EtuHiWMtwfti
C. Suraau
d F.^o on*.
Supervisory Immifcration Examiner
GM
1816
13
-
,/;,,,-■
a. ttacctrnrnancwti
&T S**0»rviiCH Or
ImtMnnq OH—
Supervisory Immigration Examiner
GS
1816
13
!•). Orjw>u»i'On«" Tula o' Pottiion i -' a-^**mi Irom oit<mt t-tMi
ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, EXAMINATIONS
" ~3tfl8£3EgMNe
it. a
j.
Wt"l. Aojancy,
S. DEPAR
TMENT OF JUSTICE
C TtSitO SwOO>*'H
PORTLAND
OREGON DISTRICT
■ P"it Suoaivn.o^
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
a Fou"* SuDOi«>not
EXAMINATIONS BRANCH
O. S*eonrj SwOdmuart
NORTHERN REGION
( 'im S«ooi«'i.on
'neooffO'""*! o' "i Dew-on
r'Cf>0" 0' '«• "»«vor duf'OT am?
I S gi'*iuc» o' Emoiov** ioct'0^s>i
20. Vmrvntni C*rttttca*ta»» j tof-'r »na» cm r| #« *cc.'i'» i '•*•*»**-( o< f"»
'"#/*' 3u''», jno" '*fOOnf>e'''''FI 0' '"il OQtitiQ* MQ .f| orQ»'""!» t>0"*' '#**■
»Qt •*•<* ' jm r«ieontio'« ^n.j IWMKMtiO* J "»•©"• «■(« '*• lifw'Mg,
». **»0 Nam* md T.|i« of immMim Juanwy
'*»!• t«.« .nf0r^**on 1 'C 0# v5#0 '0' »■'*'_';'» ;u-:«f! '•'#(.r-o <fj iODO'"'
/"Oft ina,cir — w"t of swO»c 'ufai j"tf '"*' >a<s* 0' "fisie*c""o i»**#rt*/"i
mil «j"i/iiuf» '«gM3"i o' Sufi ifjfu'ei or 'n#»r *«0i#rr««>rt'ino -vow*
SETH,3. LIBBY JR. , DDD
vDactNama md 7m» oi M.rjn*' La*a« Sudcvmoi or Manager iocnoA«i
DAVID V/ BEEBE,
I D.i.
I _
mittotnvi /< omrtilt i«f, i«i. ootii'Oi, »m i
Or T "ir3. JyS C«0r Ml un'm^inw ».c ir
lf-fo
21. Clwrlomn'Jie Crso^j C«riittatw«
cHSMihoOJgrwoie u /vg W i/-#cf o r T,/ir3. H/3 Coot ,n 60tTxm»noi »>»« v
•*"« Owe"V>W Or />»• Gwtt >*^vo» C»«"biMn or i/ no p«/0"Sr>«tf i
*MVV Otrwcily consfif«Mfv nwM ft* -oaf *x»ae<# 0w0f<l/t«0 ir«vtow^«
Tyo«d H+rr* am) Ti(i« o< OM<ct«l Taking Act***
Diane Utech
Supv Position Classification Specialist
yfjZl^'Y' /See.
il Sumsvdi uwo in Ci«i>N<n«C'Klin9 Poi-n
0PM PCS Immigration Inspection Series,
GS-1816, April, 1969 and Supervisory Grade
Evaluation Guide, January, 1976
lnl«rm«ll«M <v tmvej— "^. ,I."0.'C1 «nQ nio' -^.i'0" ™ "*>' .DD'iCanon
.'. «««t>.o<. in m« c«'vin".i ofiicc Tn. ciun'iciiion oi '". oosinon ina. o«
— i ' i
lion on ;nn>p«ynoft ■ ioo a - * ■ <- g jcmid ang :orr> c j.-hj on •teiriotion
PCSA i ava>i*0i« I'om mi gnwfi ot'ict 0' "*f Communon
S- •ant'O" >=>•"
lal£
Non-uargaining unit
25. Opw-o"*- o« Uwov Oui«« and ««o<y»ii>ii!» law »n»r*—m)
Ootion* Form 8 IRrnMd 6 "i
; S C>*<< .«■•-.« Conwimeri, F •*• Chas TVS
286
INTRODUCTION:
This position is located in the Examinations Branch of
Portland, Oregon District Office. This Brancn is responsible
the overall administration of the Examinations functions of
Portland District including the Inspections program located at
Portland International Airport and seaport facility at Astoria
the direct management of the adjudications, naturalization
citizenship activities of the District Office. Approximately ei
(3) subordinate employees are supervised on a first line bas
Second line supervision is provided to approximately three
employees. Third line supervision is provided to approximat
twelve (12i employees and a fluctuating number of Seasona
Incumbent also provides supervision and management to
Legalization Program of the District.
the
for
the
the
and
and
ght
is .
i 3 i
e 1 v
Is .
the
DUTIES AMD RESPONSIBILITIES
Supervisory Duties;
90%
1. Within the framework of policies, procedures, practices, and
work standards formulated by the District Director or the Deputy
District Director, develops and executes local polices, procedures,
work methods, and programs required to meet local conditions and
circumstances .
2. Plans and directs the work of the branch, based on Service
requirements, assigned staff, and workload. Maintains regular
reviev; ana check of officers' and clerks' progress on caseloads to
insure timely completion of individual cases and tnat current
priorities are being observed. Furnishes direct leadership and
guidance in program areas, where necessary, to improve
effectiveness and attain Service objectives. Resolves the more
difficult and complex technical problems of subordinates, and
corrects errors of procedure or policy as they arise.
3. Analyzes new legislation, regulation, policies, and procedures
to determine the effect of present operations and makes appropriate
plans and changes. On a continuing basis, makes recommendations
to the District Director for changes or revisions in Service
policies or procedures, realignment of manpower and such other
effective and
measures that may be required to produce the most effective and
economical operations at the District level. Keeps employees
informed of over-all policies, procedures and goals of management,
and insures that they are aware of any and all changes in
regulations, and instructions affecting assigned work.
law,
287
4. Acts for the District Director or as a consultant, at seminars,
workshops, conferences, and discussions on matters relating to
Examinations and represents the Service and District Director in
contacts and conferences with representatives of the Congress and
Senate, with other Government agencies (Federal, States and local)
as well as educational institutions, social and welfare agencies,
transportation lines, attorneys and special interest groups on
matters related to the activities of the Branch.
5. Promotes the interest of the Service through the establishment
and maintenance of effective liaison v/ith foreign government
officials and representatives of the Federal, States, and local
governments, -ivic and social service organizations and t n e general
public on matters related to the Examinations operations and
solving of mutual problems.
em .
:n a!
s under
ratm
evaluation reports
to promote, reassig
supervision.
and recommends as
Conducts corrective
standards, rates employe
gives performance
. _ 1 1 1 r. , etc. '.'/ h 1 1 e i n c u m d
lncunoent s recommendations
at higher lev
under mcumben
o. Establishes production
Service promotion rating sys'
initiates informal c lass i f icati
does not select his/her own star
3rm the basis for decisions
or dismiss personnel
n formal on-the-job tram
necessary off-station training outside
Conducts both formal and :
-station training o
interviews and recomme
the
gs,
ent
and
els
t ' s
mg
the
nds
ve .
the
on ,
7. As a (supervisor;, tne mrumoent must.
mesn tne following E.ZO responsibilities int.
management and supervisory work:
i n addition
all areas :
a. Carries out Equal Employment Opportunity i SEO ) policies program
activities, communicating support of these policies to
subordinates, and encouraging active participation in EEO Program
activities and training.
b. Ensures equality in determining qualifications, selections,
assignments, training, promotions, details, discipline and awards
to employees.
c. Cooperates in developing ana carrying out ami
efforts regarding staffing, motivation and training
. v e action
288
d . Cooperates with and assists the EEO Counselor in constructing
resolution to informal complaints of discrimination.
e. Cooperates and participates fully in the development of the EEO
Affirmative Action Plan in efforts in planning to provide equal
opportunity in staffing, motivation and training to develop all
employees .
B
Nonsupervisory Duties:
10%
l. Examines applications and petitions for privileges and benefits
covering a wide range of applications which require intensive
inquiry into facts, laws, and precedents and use of season judgment
to resolve sensitive issues. Interviews and nearings become very
critical in gathering facts and forming the basis for judgments in
these cases, requiring expert interviewing techniques and skills.
These duties also require great skill in dealing with people, and
in making explaining, and defending judgment and decisions en
compleV issues. These decisions are on more complex and sensitive
cases, requiring a more intensive knowledge of Immigration Laws and
precedent cases. Sound judgment is needed in applying precedents
and regulations to areas not clearly or directly covered. Many
cases present apparently conflicting principles and precedent.
Conclusions and decisions frequently have an important and far-
reaching impact, both for the individual applicants involved and
from the standpoint of setting precedents in the field of
Immigration policy and administration.
2. As assigned and requested by the District Director responds to
controversial congressional inquiries pertaining to the
Examinations Branch. Ensures that information provided in on a
timely basis and that it reflects the views of the Service on
policy matters.
3. Prepares quarterly budget requests identifying general
expenses, personal services and other needs of the Examinations
Branch at the Portland District Office. Ensures that quarterly
allocations of funds are maintained and that all expenditures are
posted .
289
III. SUPERVISION AND GUIDANCE RECEIVED:
Incumbent is guided by the
IV. OTHER RELATED FACTORS:
Incumoent must oe abis to deal affectively wx-th all classes of
people, giving and obtaining cooperation, securing acceptance of
and compliance with service procedures. policies. rules and
regulations .
290
sumeThe rold of ADDE .
was denied the opportunity to such role, she feels, because
of her sex. She also states that actions in the past, as stated in Item 2 of this
report, makes her to believe that this selection was a discriminatory action on the
part of management because of her gender.
6) Continued:
a. Review of Selection Packet (Continued)
FRESELLI, Gino: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. 12 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 7 yrs. 9 mos.
GARCIA, Jerry: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 1 yr. 10 mos.
HICKS, Jeff: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. 4 yis. 3 mos.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 8 yrs. 6 mos.
QUIN-VALLADOLID: Qualified as GS-12 Insp. 7 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 15 yrs. 4 mos.
TOTAL QUALIFIED LIST: 11-2 female, 9 male
EDUCATION LEVEL: 1 - MA + BS (female)
2 - BA Only
1 - BA + AA
1 - AA Only
5 - High School
291
6) Inquiry
a. Review of Records (Indicate name of records reviewed and date of each
review) :
Review of Selection Packet - 10/25 - 10/26/91
HODGE, Daniel: Qualified for GM-13 Insp. 9 yrs. 8 mos .
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 15 yrs.
MOHR, James: Qualified for GM-13 Insp. 7 yrs. 9 mos.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 17 yrs. 4 mos.
WEIRICH, Davis - Qualified for GM-13 Ins P- 6 y rs -
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 10 yrs.
WILLIAMS, Charles: Qualified for GM-13 Insp. (2 yrs. 4 mos. Border Patro
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 17 yrs.
ADAMS, Raymond: Qualified for GM-13 Insp. 8 yrs. 6 mos.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 14 yrs. 2 mos.
MILLER, Roger: Qualified for GM-13 Ins P- 5 vrs - 2 mos -
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 24 yrs. 8 mos.
OTTO, Jeanette: Qualified for GM-13 Insp. 8 yrs.
INS Experience (minus Legalization) - 14 yrs. 1 mo.
(Continued on attached sheet.)
b. Personal Interviews (Include date, none, title, organizational position,
292
IAN Service ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
T)T> f\*.
8. Performance Appraisals (FPM Chapter 430) . Grievances over performance
appraisals completed under FPM Chapter 430 will be processed In
accordance with the procedures outlined 1n Chapter 5 of the 00J
regulations (see Exhibit 1). Service Instructions governing the
evaluation of employee performance (AM 2230 and AM 2237) also contain
information on this subject.
a. Grievances over certain aspects of a performance appraisal should
be submitted to an employee's servicing personnel office not later
than fifteen (15) days after the employee receives a copy of the
final rating. Employee reguests should include four (4) copies of
the following Information:
(1) A comprehensive statement which explains the basis for
reguestlng an adjustment of the rating or removal of certain
remarks on the appraisal;
(2) Supporting documentation; and
(3) The name of the Individual designated to serve as the
employee member of a Performance Rating Grievance Committee
(PRGC).
b. Servicing personnel offices are responsible for processing
employee reguests to ensure that each reguest meets the criteria
for acceptance and referral to a PRGC.
c. Members of a PRGC must generally work 1n the same commuting area
as the Chairperson (personnel office member). Exceptions to this
rule must have the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner,
Management or Regional Commissioner.
9. Merit Promotion and Reassignment Plan (MP&RP)/Merit Staffing Plan II
(MSP II)
a. Before filing a formal grievance over a matter related to either
Service promotion plan, employees should first attempt to resolve
the problem Informally by obtaining complete information
concerning the action from the appropriate personnel office and,
If feasible, discussing the situation with the selecting official
or his/her supervisor. If the matter Is not resolved by this
type of't>r#TtlhTnary 1ngu1ry, It can be presented as a formal
grievance to the appropriate official listed below.
b. Complaints from bargaining unit members over MP8RP actions,
supported by specific reasons, of alleged failure to observe
promotion procedures or guidelines, where the union has been
designated to be the representative, will be investigated by a
joint meeting of a representative of the Agency's Central Office
and a representative of the Union's National Office. All
pertinent Agency records will be made available for purposes of
the investigation.
TM#
AUG 9 1985
84 3
2222.06
293
ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL I & N Service
Formal grievances based on promotion actions taken under either
promotion plan will be accepted only If the grievance or complaint
contains an allegation that there was some procedural defect 1n
the promotion action or that the qualifications of the employee
making the complaint were not properly considered 1n arriving at
his/her rating. Mere failure to be selected for promotion when
proper promotion procedures are used, that is, nonselectlon from a
group of properly ranked and certified candidates, is not a basis
for a grievance.
MP8RP grievances which meet the above criteria should be presented
1n writing as follows:
(1) Formal presentation
(a) The Director of Personnel, for all Central Office
positions, all non-delegated field positions and officer
corps positions.
(b) The Assistant Regional Commissioner, Personnel, for all
non-officer corps delegated positions and wage grade
positions.
Note: INS Council contract (Article 47) qrants the
union the right to invoke arbitration for its members In
these cases. For all other employees, unresolved grie-
vances are referred to a fact-finder (nee qrievance
examiner) as provided for in Chapter 3 of the 00J regu-
lations.
(2) Final decision, when applicable (see Chapter 3 of the 00J
regulations)
(a) The Assistant Commissioner for Personnel and Training,
for all Central Office positions, all non-deleqated
positions and officer corps positions.
(b) The Associate Regional Commissioner, Management for all
non-officer corps positions and wage qrade positions.
MSP II grievances which meet the criteria In subparagraph c should
be presented 1n writing as follows:
(1) Formal presentation
(a) Director, Personnel Division, for all Central Office
positions and all non-delegated field positions.
(b) Assistant Regional Commissioner for Personnel, for all
delegated positions.
AUG 9 1985
TM#
TTT
294
I&N Service ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL 2222.07
(2) Final decision, when applicable
(a) Assistant Commissioner for Personnel and Training; for
all Central Office positions and all non-delegated field
positions.
(b) Associate Regional Commissioner, Management, for all
delegated positions.
f. Formal grievances concerning promotion appraisals described In
AM 2265 should not be presented under paragraph 9a. Unless
otherwise specified In a negotiated agreement , such grievances
should be presented In accordance with paragraph 5, which provides-
for the designation or establishment of appropriate review levels
by the Assistant Commissioner, Personnel and Training/Regional
Commissioners, for grievances over matters other than the
promotion plan.
g. The time limits contained In paragraph 7 are also applicable to
grievances filed under this paragraph.
10. Reports
a. One copy of any Regional program directives shall be forwarded to
the Labor Management, Employee Relations and Pay Administration
Programs Branch, Central Office, at the time of Issuance.
b. Grievance Activity Report (CADM-683). Annual reports on grievance
activity shall be completed on Form G-659 by each servicing personnel
office and forwarded to the Labor Management, Employee Relations and
Pay Administration Programs Branch, Central Office.
c. Each servicing personnel office shall provide to the Director,
Personnel Division, one copy of each report of a fact-finder who
conducts an Inquiry, along with a copy of the final decision to
the grlevant. These copies will be forwarded to the Department of
Justice in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 7,
Department of Justice Order 1771. IB.
TM#
AUG 9 1985 ,M * 84 1
295
CHAPTER 3; Candidate Evaluation
3-1 Determining Basic Eligibility
A. Qualification standards.
The Office of Personnel Management's qualification standards constitute
the minimum requirements for positions filled under this plan. Every
candidate who meets or exceeds the applicable minimum standard will be
considered to be basically qualified for the position being filled. Any
candidate who does not meet the minimum requirements is ineligible for
further consideration. Authority for making final qualification determina-
tions lies in the Service's personnel offices. The OPM qualification
standards are contained in Handbook X-118. Copies of this handbook are
maintained and are available for review in all personnel offices, as well
as some districts and sectors.
B. Selective placement factors.
In some instances a particular job will require a qualification that exceeds
the minimum standard prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management.
When it is absolutely essential that a candidate possess the additional
qualification (as opposed to being simply desirable), a selective placement
factor may be identified as an extension of the minimum OPM standard.
In such situations, candidates who do not meet the established selective
placement factor will be ineligible for the position being filled even though
they may meet the minimum OPM standards. Decisions regarding the
use of selective placement factors will be based on an analysis of the
actual duties of the job being filled. Justifications will be documented
for the record.
C. Other eligibility requirements.
In addition to minimum qualification standards (and selective placement
factors, if applicable), candidates must satisfy any other legal or regulatory
requirements such as the time-in-gradc or time after competitive appoint-
ment provisions in order to be eligible for consideration.
3-2 Management flexibilities
As noted in Chapter 1, managers have considerable latitude in determining how
positions are to be filled and what sources will be utilized. That is, selecting
officials have the option of considering and selecting, at any point they deem
appropriate, any candidate who is eligible for noncompetitive placement in the
position being filled — regardless of vacancy announcement opening and closing
dates or whether or not competitive evaluation procedures have been completed.
When candidates are identified as being eligible for noncompetitive placement;
i.e., when their movement into the position would fall under an exception to
competitive requirements, no formal evaluation of their backgrounds beyond
determining minimum qualifications is required. In fact, under this Plan, such
formal evaluations are strongly discouraged because of the extra time these
would entail. Such individuals may instead be referred to and considered by
-8-
fkoM Muni- strff /„£ fa* m
296
OCTOBER 8, 199T
INS quiet
about
sex case
But former employees
are providing some
disquieting evidence
By Steve Miletich
P-l Reporter ____
The U.S. Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service declined to disci-
pline the director of its Seattle office
last year after he reached an out-of-
court settlement in a sexual harass-
ment complaint Tiled by a lower-level
female employee.
The administrative complaint
was confidentially settled last year
without an admission of culpability
on the part of INS district director
Richard C. Smith. INS officials said
the settlement agreement shouldn't
be viewed as proof that Smith en-
gaged in any misconduct.
But higher INS officials had
access to an internal investigative
report that supported the complain-
ant's case, the Post-Intelligencer has
learned. The agency had the author-
ity to discipline Smith regardless of
the settlement and did not
Instead, in 1987, during an ongo-
ing INS p-obe of Smith's conduct
that resulted in the critical report,
he was promoted from deputy direc-
tor to director, a post he still holds.
The complaint was filed with the
INS in August 1985 by Cynthia Mal-
donadobarreiro, a 38-year-old clerk
at INS's Seattle office who is mar-
ried and the mother of four.
"He (Smith) would come and
spend a good portion of his day
around her desk," said Samuel
Chandgie, a retired supervisor for
the INS. "He was quite infatuated
with her. He made statements that
he liked the slit in her dress, that she
wore very attractive clothes."
Chandgie, 61, of Kent, is one of
two former INS employees who wit-
nessed some of the conduct men-
tioned in the complaint and agreed
to discuss the case with the Post-
Intelligencer on the record. Three
other sources close to the case spoke
on condition of anonymity.
Chandgie, who retired in May
1990 after 35 years with the INS, said
he saw Smith harass Maldonadobar-
reiro and provided a sworn state-
ment on the conduct to an INS
special agent who investigated the
rase
Smith also "had a very bad habit
of scratching his privates in front of
her," said Chandgie, who was Mal-
donadobarreiro's supervisor. "She
would try to look away."
Smith, 44, declined to be inter-
viewed, saying through Irene Mor-
tensen, his spokeswoman, that he is
bound to confidentiality under the
terms of the settlement agreement
INS officials have refused to
discuss the case in detail and have
only recently responded to a six-
week-old Freedom of Information
Act request for records relating to it.
The agency said Sept 26 that it was
processing the Post-Intelligencer re-
quest and would provide a response
"as quickly as possible."
The Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission, which oversaw the
settlement, acknowledged that it re-
ceived Maldonadobarreiro's com-
plaint, but refused to identify its
target
INS officials in Washington, DC,
also cited the confidentiality of the
settlement agreement in refusing to
discuss the case. ■
The case was investigated and
reviewed for nearly five years before
the settlement agreement was sub-
mitted to an EEOC administrative
judge in October 1990.
Maldonadobarreiro, who worked
as temporary clerk-typist at the Seat-
tle INS office from March 1983 to
January 1986, told the Post-Intelli-
gencer- she is prohibited by the
confidentiality agreement from talk-
ing about the case.,
Mortehsen said the settlement
shouldn't be viewed as an admission
of guilt on Smith's part or proof that
improper conduct occurred.
Duke Austin, . an INS senior
spokesman in Washington, DC, said
there was no finding of sexual ha-
rassment in the settlement agree-
ment, nor any admission of any
culpability by Smith.
Austin said he didn't know if
Smith was disciplined. He said there
was no current review of Smith's
performance.
"You're talking about a man's
character," Austin said "It's very
touchy ground to get on."
Witnesses told the Post-Intelli-
gencer of a pattern of sexual harass-
ment in which Smith repeatedly
made inappropriate verbal remarks
and physical gestures toward Mal-
donadobarreiro
297
AlO
alt.!! t'
:<;i ..<.: Ahiy Ji i 1 n mi <' '
INS: Witnesses say Smith
Pro m Page 1
Chandgie said Smith luna-sed
Maldonadobarreiro lin months
before* she filed her complaint
Chandgie was anions m*vpkiI
witnesses who provided daniauinu
statements aboul Smith in an l\s
special agent who coiidin led Iho
investigation
Another witness w.is Kriau
Dow. who worked for the aneno
as an immigration examiner until
he retired in .Iul> 1991) after a 27
year career
In an interview. Dmi -.nd he
told an INS investigator aboul a
sexually suggestive enninienl he
once heard Smith make in" Mai
donadobarreiro
Dow. 57 of Issaqnali ^.ntl lie
went into a mail room with .1 door
that was open to an adjoining
office Smith was in that office. 5
10 (i feel away Dow said
Dow said Smith's back was
lacing him and that Smith didn't
see or hear him
Maldonadobarreiro was lacing
Smith in the adjoining office. Dow
said
I heard him say. I really like
the nice slit in your skirt. ' Dow
said
Dow said he cheeked his mail
and quickly left the room
At the time I heard that. I
thought it was somewhat irregular
for someone in his post to make a
remark like that." Dow said
Rita Anthony, who worked for
the INS office in Seattle in the
mid-1980s and served as an equal
employment representative, said
Maldonadobarreiro came to her
with complaints about Smith
She came lo me in tears.
many time- -aid Anthony, who
now works for a different federal
agency. So ! know that it is not
just something she made up .""
Chandgie said many employ
ees couldn't understand why
Smith, a supervisor with a grade
14 ranking, one of the highest in
the federal government, was
spending an inordinate amount
of time" at the desk of an employ
ee with a grade 3 ranking, one of
the lowest
Everybody noticed 11 and
wondered what was going on.'
Chandgie -aid What would a
.rjrpT pe jiu: lO'P
Richard C. Smith INS district
director, admitted no guilt in the
harassment case
man in command be doing with a
nobody 1 "
Smith visited Maldonadobar-
reiro's desk three to four times a
week while he was trying to date
her heavily," Chandgie said
The visits occurred daily at
times and sometimes lasted 35 lo
45 minutes, he said
Maldonadobarreiro made it
clear to Smith she wasn't interest-
ed in his overtures. Chandgie
said
"When he couldn t get to first
base with her. he became vindic-
tive." Chandgie said
Smith had Maldonadobarreiro
transferred to a less desirable
records keeping job and contin-
ued lo harass her. Chandgie
said
Maldonadobarreiro went to
work for a military procurement
office at The Boeing Co in Janu-
ary 1986. where, according to the
sources close to the case Smith
repeatedly telephoned her super-
visor to inquire about her
Maldonadobarreiro was told
b> her supervisor that her boy-
friend" would have to stop calling.
the sources said She told her
supervisors that Smith wasn't her
boyfriend the sources said
Maldonadobarreiro left her
■*:^<<-,<<y,^
298
. ^*- -fc -■> — w -v *>■» Js^ — ■fc^' p-r —
A federal official said the process focuses
on whether a complainant should be
compensated and not whether the alleged
offender should be punished.
job at Boeing in June 1 ilHti and
moved to another stale
Smith, who was named deputy
district director in the Seattle INS
office on Feb 19. 1085. succeeded
Ronald Brooks in 1987 as the
district director. Smith came to
Seattle from the INS office in Salt
Lake City, where he served as
officer in charge
He was promoted to district
director by then-INS Commission-
er Alan Nelson, who was appoint-
ed by President Reagan
Brooks, who served as district
director in Seattle from 1984 to
1987, was promoted to assistant
commissioner for inspections in
Washington, D C
Brooks, now retired and living
in Jacksonville. Fla . said he
wasn't familiar with the circum-
stances of Maldonadobarreiro's
sexual harassment complaint
while he was the district director.
"I can remember Cynthia
working there and remember her
leaving," Brooks said "I'm not
fa-" ,; ar with the case at all I
di recall sexual harassment
proDlems."
But Chandgie and one of the
sources said Brooks was aware of
the case and protected Smith
Brooks "stuck with Smith,"
Chandgie said.
James Buck, who was the INS
regional administrator at the
time, knew about the case but
didn't take any action, Chandgie
and the spurce said.
Buck viewed Smith as a "fa-
vorite son," said the source, who
is a federal official.
Buck has left the INS and
couldn't be reached for comment.
One of the few documents
provided by the EEOC shows that
EEOC administrative judge James
Carroll set a hearing for Oct. 24,
1990, to hear evidence about Mal-
donadobarreiro's complaint. Car-
roll was to decide if sexual ha-
r.issmeiu had occurred, and
whether remedies should be rec-
ommended to the INS
But the hearing was canceled
when a settlement was reached
Maldonadobarreiro withdrew
her complaint as part of the
settlement, according to a letter
sent to Carroll by Susan Conley de
Castro, a Justice Department at-
torney involved in the case.
Carroll returned the case file
to the INS's Equal Employment
Office aller the settlement and, in'
a letter to the EEO, congratulated
the parties for "voluntarily resolv-'
ing this dispute "
The terms of the settlement
remain confidential, but Maldona-
dobarreiro returned to work at
the Seattle INS office in January
1991 She left in March under
circumstances that are unclear
The federal official close to
the case said the investigative
process is fundamentally flawed
because it focuses on whether a
complainant should be compen-
sated and not whether the alleged
offender should be punished
"My opinion is the system
doesn't work the way it is sup-
posed to.' the official said
The INS policy on sexual ha-
rassment was spelled out in a
February 1990 memorandum by
the agency's commissioner. Gene
McNary. who was appointed by
President Bush
"Sexual harassment is unlaw-
ful conduct and is expressly
prohibited by INS standards of
conduct." McNary wrote. "Each
employee has the right to work in
an environment free from unsolic-
ited and unwelcome. overtures."
McNary said he expected each
thaMh erand , su P erv| s°r to ensure
NS if;" env "-°nment a. the
h» f °J l e Xl,al nar assmont
He noted that disciplinary ac
''on against supervisors or em .
Ployees was an effective remerk
against sexual harassment >
An agency manual lists two
types of sexual harassment
■ Influencing, offering to in-
fluence, or threatening the career
Pay. orjobofanother person ^an
™an.,n exchange for"'.'
■ Deliberate or repeated of
tensive comments, gestures or
Phw.1 contact of ! ?S n?.
<u<-e m a work or work-related
environment
Sexual harassment takes van
s7re,n 0r T' '"eluding a constant
*"•"" "' " nal remarks about
h"n. "V SCXUal activities.
Body or dress, according to the
manual
Ti »' I S Justice Department,
which oversees the INS. issued a
Policy statement on sexual harass-
ment on Nov 28, 1989. in which
Th U k S ? U0rne * ^wal Dick
Thornburgh said sexual harass
went wouldn't be tolerated
"Any employee who engages in
such conduct will be subject 2
appropriate disciplinary action "
Th.ornburgh wrote
f
299
Old boy's
network
still rules
By RENA MILLER
Los Angeles Times
T| he federal government may
be the No. 1 enforcer of the
United States' equal employ-
ment opportunity laws, but Uncle
Sam still has a long way to go
before becoming a model employ-
er himself.
When it comes to women and
minorities, the federal work force
shows many of the unequal charac-
teristics that mark the Air.encan
work force as a whole. Significant
disparities exist in hiring, pay and
opportunities for promotion, gov- "
eminent statistics show.
Women held 43 percent of all
federal jobs in 1989. but they were
concentrated in the lowest eche-
lons, figures from the US. Office .
of Personnel Management show. "
They held onlv 3 percent of the top-
level GS-13 through GS-15 jobs, but
they made up 85 percent of all
federal clerical workers.
Members of minority groups
held slightly more than 28 percent
of all jobs in the federal govern-
ment, but only 7.5 percent of
senior-level jobs. Great disparities
exist in pay also: The average
salary for male federal workers
was $34,430 in 1989, compared to
$2f',015 for women.
Nor has the last decade seen any
breakthrough in the "glass ceiling"
on top managerial positions for
minority members and women.
Between 1982-89, the percentage
of women employed in the Senior
Executive Service rose by only
half a percent a year.
Figures compiled by the U.S.
Equal Opportunity Employ-
ment Commission show that
the situation for members of
minority groups is even worse: In
the same period, minority repre-
sentation in the Senior Executive
Service has grown by one-sixth of a
percent a year.
"Basically, the old boy's network
is still very much in effect," said
Evan Kemp, chairman of the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. The EEOC was itself
criticized in a government report
for not being aggressive enough in
promoting affirmative action in
government agencies.
Not only is the federal govern-
ment responsible for enforcing
equal employment laws, but it also
is the nation s largest employer.
What Uncle Sam does has a major
impact on what goes on in the work
force as a whole.
Jean Christiansen, president of
Federally Employed Women,
charges that the problem in the
government is much the same as it
is in private industry: Inertia is
standing in the way of progress.
"It seems there is not the
commitment at the top toward
changing," Christiansen said. "In-
dependent government agencies
are not following through and are
not committed."
She and several government
officials blame the EEOC, contend-
ing that it has not enforced equal
employment laws vigorously
enough.
Bernard Ungar. a General
Accounting Office analyst
contends that the EEOC has
been lax in enforcement and un-
clear on federal policies.
th J° reXam P le ' U n g ar notes that
the agency requires government
agenc.es to calculateme number
of women and members of minon-
/groups who are employed in
major occupations. ■•
The goal of this directive was to
^ack women and minority mem
bers.n jobs that lead to senior
'^'P 05 ' 110 ^. Yet, because of
ambiguity in the wording most
agencies list the jobs w,tiS em ost
employees - not necessaniy those
with advancement potential
Ungar charged also that the
t-EOC is not doing enough to hold
Krr/ ficia,sac counub d e
for the lack of women and minor,
y members insenior-leveW
tionsmthe.ragenc.es. ^
ma S n n nf "!h hn c Glenn - D -° hl °- ^air-
man , of the Senate Comm.ttee on
Governmental Affa.rs, agrees
Glenn noted at a heanng recently
Uiat the EEOC did not complete L
P ' an , f ° r re , d "™g discrimination n
he federal workplace until 1990 -
two years after its deadline
300
*.k:* -,-, .
i. s :.;;«;•■.; •..=
i%W{|.: UNITED STATES \ iliSil!
:iim*yr: code ^/--teiw^
il®fv-: ANNOTATED'- *MW/$
\-
'-••-^S
>; ; *-: |a'i»\v"'T si ' ?-■ skS:
and Employees
...■■■.•"»■■ ■ • ;■- J r --.-••.'.:.•••■•.. , ■-...•■' : •'■:•. • - ■: ■■■.*•• •■'■:■.
301
Ch. 3 POWERS 5 § 301
Note 30
l,y Congress in the appropriation Acts a> Plaintiff's motion for leave l<i amend
attached to the person in charge of the her petition v., a> lo assert rights under
several divisions ■■( natural science which giving the heads <if depart incuts the
arc employed in accomplishing the • •!. right In presenile regulations fur the
jects of the department and these chiefs ...lulmt .if its officers and employees ire
of ilivisinns are sudjccl I" all the regnla ates no right ..f action in the emp|.i\ee
tinfls in accordance with law which ru,i\ w hmiii v I S 1957! 1.77 <'i CI ~i57 <ei
l.c prolnulirateil In the head nf the de ■ i • • r ;| r i denied 7s SCt is 3Yi IS II 2
part men t I8M, 20 < ip Alty.Gen 703 I K.I 2d 2.1
16. Depart mental compliance with rreu „, .|„ ( |,,iul notice
latum*
Whenever In i In- cypres- language ..f
An executive department of the federal . tlll A , , ,, f c „„ t ., f ._ ,„,„,.,. ,, lMlrilM ,. d
government must comply with Us own ,,. e , r „ f , h) , ,,,„„.„.., , dP , lHrllll „ llls „ f
regulations Lipp v. U. S. 19G7. 1S1 Ct c rmiK . (1| ,,, ,, rcs ,. nl , e niU>s .,„,, rou .„
*-'■ 355 ' Ihih.iis for the | r.ansilct ion of business in
Where the major adjectives of a de which the public is interested and in re
partmental regnlat mn are fulfilled liy the -l ,fl « ' '" which they have ii right to par
agency's actions in connection with an '".pale. an. I l.v which they are t.i l.e
.employe, there has l.een suhstantial an. I cut rolled, the rules and regnlat i..n> pre
sufficient compliance with the regulation s, ril.ed in pursuance ..f sin Ii aullnintv
Creamer v". ( : S. 1906. 174 Ct CI. 408. cer be. nine a part of that l...dy of pndlic re<
tiorari denied 87 SCt 42. 385 U.S. 819. 17 "rds " f which the courts take judicial
L.Ed 2d 57 notice Caha v l S Kan ISM 1) SCt.
513 152 IS 221. .IS I. Kd"' 4 15
37. Rescission The courts take judicial notice of the
,,..„. ,„',»,, v...„- t ^ii. .-■*?i£. -Jk regulations of the executive departments
where I mtcd States seelts to res<irB
F.x parte Itemed. 1*79 100 IS 13. 10 Ittlo
13. 25 I. Kd 5.3S See. also Foster v it id
fiction of one of its agencies because of
"feed failure of agency .or. beneficirfv
a^^.&.:J^„i.^^. ti *^.^^;i>j2L Johnson. CC Ky 1909. 169 K 154: U eitner
v 7/evely. Intl.T.1905. 138 F. WOtt. 70 CC
A 633: W jlkins v l s .. Pa 1899 9li V
;,res*j*s«^*3;a,n.^nly.<be-fi«g wMEn .
t.i_ .t--.\ -2L*. • Jil^l.tSi;?; •■*?•> i x --.^ N3i. 3i CCA 088. certiorari denied 20 s
imjtous of^drrtse reirtMatwnfe. kephart v.
Wilson. I>i- s Xjef-W«»."iU» Wupp. :«01. af
firmed 3J» F2d Cti3. certiorari denied 66
H&ki:> for retg-j^sfon Is regulations th
Ct 1027. 175 IS 727. 44 I. Kd 3.19: State
v Holen. 1927. 254 [' 445 142 Wash 1KB;
sVct. wTaWes. »f:' in 'x3I'i^' Lf> " v Hans " n - im - 72 Me m
A regulation of the Federal Iteserve
28. Jurisdiction ' Hoard is not -„< I. depa n mi nlal a. t i.mi ::s
_ , will l>e judo 1.1 II v noticed without plea. I
Governments .nanage.uentjfunct.ons ,n j(i>; Capita. Grain Ji Feed O v Federal
area of national defense are committed to , {)1>orvo ,,.,„, „, A1|;UIK1 . , , , • ,; ;l ,,,._.,, 3
unreviewahle discretion of Rxecutive. leav ,. , „. ,
ing district court without subject matter
jurisdiction of action challenging closing A Post office inspector's authority to
of Army center. Local 1106. Nat. Federa demand and receive money order funds
tion of Federal Ktnp v. Laird, IJ.CD.C w :1 - a matter of post office Depart tiieiit
1970. 318 F Supp'l.VJ [n-w Postal Service I rules ,, n .l regnla
lions, of who I, the courts took indicia!
notice Foster v I S. </ C \ la 1919. 25H
29. Standing to maintt.ii! action y •,,-
A federal appc-llate < • ■ u r t shouhl iml he
ask.-d to take judicial notice of depart
mem regnlat Lois, hut where r»die«J .01
tliev should he read and put into 1 he rev
ord 111 the trial curl Nagh 1 v I S.
N \ IfiOfi. 145 F 302. 76 C (' A IN
A provision of ord-r of the Postmaster
General dueling seizure of checks which
were in possession of corporation en
gaged in husihess of delivering checks !••
creditors, that any one aggrieved by or
der or l>y seizure thereiimler might npplv
to the I'osi master General for hearing
and for 1 hfving order, was not iiutho I;, u ulat n.ns ..f Aiiorn.v l.eueral were
rized and failure to comply with the or part of that body of publii records of
tier did M ,,, preclude corporation from which courts would take judicial notice
maintaining summary proceedings to re I S v, S. hiieiderinati li.C.fnl I !'."._' Km;
Quire release of the .hecks Goldman v F.Stipp. 731 See. also I S v I'ertain
American Dealers Service. CCA N V 1913 Panels of Land. Ku I > C (al I'jM 15 K
IK F.2d 398 It 1' 224
27
302
CHAPTER 3— POWERS
Sec.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
Departmental regulations.
Delegation of authority.
Oaths to witnesses.
Subpenas.
Systematic agency review of operations
§ 301. Departmental regulations
The head of an Executive department or military department m
prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the c<
duct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its bu
ness, and^.the custody, use, and preservation of its records, pape
and property. This section does not authorize withholding infoin
tion from the-public or limiting the availability of records to 1
public.
Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 379.
Historical and Revision Notes
Derivation: United States Code
-» i: S.C. 22
Revised Statutes and Statutes at I.ar
RS. § 161.
Aug. 12. 1958. Pub.L 85-619, 72 Stat
Explanatory Notes
The words "Executive department" are
substituted for "department" as the defi-
nition of "department" applicable to this
section is coextensive with the definition
of "Executive department" in section 101.
The words "not inconsistent with law"
"All laws, orders, regulations, ano
cr actions relating to the National
tary Establishment, the Departmr
the Army, the Navy, or the Air I'e
to any officer or activity of such •
lishment or sucll departments, shfit
are omitted as surplusage as a regulatior. cept to the extent inconsistent wit
which is inconsistent with law is invalid
The words "or military department"
are inserted to preserve the application
<>f the source law. Ilefore enactment of
the National Security Act Amendments of
1919 (63 Stat. 578), the Department of the
Army, the Department of the Navy, and
the Department of the Air Force were
Executive departments. The National Se-
curity Act Amendments of 1919 estab-
lished the Department of Defense as an
Executive Department including the De-
partment of the Army, the Department of
the Navy, and the Department of the Air
Force as military departments, not as
Executive departments. However, the
source law for this section, which was in
effect in 1949. remained applicable to the
Secretaries of the military departments
by virtue of section 12(g) of the National
Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63
Stat. 591), which provided:
provisions of this Act. have the sari
feet as if this Act had not been.cn.-
but. after the effective date of tin
any such law. order, regulation, or
action which vested functions in a
erwise related to any officer, tlcpar
or establishment, shall be deemed t'
vested such function in or relate ;
officer or department, executive or
tary. succeeding the officer, depari
or establishment in which such fu
was vested. For purposes of this si
tion the Department of Defense sl>
deemed the department succeed in
National Military Establishment, ni
military departments of Army. Nav
Air Force shall be deemed the d
meats succeeding the Executive li
ments of Army. Navy, and Air I
This section was part of title IV
Revised Statutes. The Act of Ji
1917. ch. 343. ( 201(d), as added A
18
303
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
I, Mary K. Quinn-Valladolid (female). Immigration Examiner, GS-
1816-11, Examinations Branch, Portland District Office, Northern
Region, INS make the following statement freely and voluntarily
to David J. Koach, who has identified himself to me a Contract
EEO Investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration
and Naturalization Service knowing that this statement may be
used in evidence. I understand that this statement is not
confidential and may be shown to any interested party.
I, HEREBY SOLEMNLY SWEAR:
v
I have worked for INS for about 21 and 1/2 years, since June 30,
1971. I have been assigned to the Examinations Branch in the
Portland District Office since November 2, 1987. I have been in
my current position, Immigration Examiner, GS-11, since March 25,
1985. My current supervisor is Assistant District Director for
Examinations (ADDE) Jerry Garcia. Previously, I was supervised by
former ADDE Jerry Uhde. There are currently no subordinate
supervisors or GS-12 Senior Examiners in the Examinations 3ranch.
My second line supervisor is Seth B. Libby, Deputy District
Director who is in turn supervised by District Director David
Page / of /H pages Initials: MtuVV
304
AFI IDAVIT
Beebe.
I allege that my sex was a factor in my nonselection for the
position of Supervisory Immigration Examiner, GS/GM-1816-12/13,
which was advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number NR-MSP 91-
30. The Selecting Official was Portland Office District Director
David Beebe, whom I believe was responsible for the
discrimination against me. Mr. Beebe has been the District
Director in Portland for about three and a half years. He
selected Jerry Garcia, but I was much better qualified for the
job. Not only was I more qualified, I contend that Jerry Garcia
was not even minimally qualified.
I am also alleging reprisal for having initiated an EEO complaint
concerning my nonselection. On November 12, 1991, Mr. Beebe
called me into a meeting concerning an alleged security violation
involving the mail. I believe that Mr. Beebe's real reason for
requiring me to attend this special meeting was to intimidate and
harass me because I had filed an EEO complaint concerning my
nonselection.
With respect to my nonselection, the date of the discrimination
against me is the date of the selection decision. Mr. Beebe
Page c^ of IH pages Initials: Mt(QV
305
AFFIDAVIT
informed me of my nonselection on October 4, 1991, but he
declined on that date to tell me who had been selected. The
announcement of Jerry Garcia 's selection was made by Mr. Beebe on
Monday morning, October 7, 1991. At the time I was serving as
Acting ADDE.
My basis for believing that my sex was a factor in my
nonselection has to do with the fact that I am very well
qualified for the job while the selectee, Jerry Garcia, was
unqualified. My reasons for stating that Jerry is unqualified are
contained in a memo to Douglas Halvorson, dated November 12, .
1991. The substance of that memo remains true and correct and I
hereby request that it be incorporated in my affidavit by
reference. I made reference in the November 12, 1991 memo to the
fact that Jerry Garcia did not possess the required security
clearance. It should be noted that as of two weeks ago Jerry
still had no security clearance. I also pointed out in the memo
that Jerry lacked inspectional experience of a comprehensive
nature, which was a selective placement factor for the position.
At the time of his selection he had no inspections experience
whatever. None. He still doesn't.
Another reason I believe sex was a factor has to do with a
Page
3. of lH pages Initials:
306
AFFIDAVIT
comment by Mr. Beebe on October 4, 1991. He said the reason he
could not promote me was that I lacked first line supervisory
experience. He did not make that same requirement of 01 in Ray
Jones, whom Mr. Beebe had selected for the position of ADD
Deportation only a month prior to my nonselection. Mr. Jones had
no prior first line supervisory experience, but Mr. Beebe
selected him anyway. Mr. Jones was also fired by INS in San
Francisco. He was subsequently rehired after winning in
arbitration. He has since been fired, again, from his position in
Portland, after having been found guilty of sex abuse against a
minor. Jerry Garcia said that Mr. Beebe said in a staff meeting,
on or about 10-21-92, that he, Mr. Beebe, had been aware of the
sex abuse charges since summer of 1991, prior to Olin Jones'
selection for the ADDD position.
I also don't believe that Mr. Beebe' s nondiscriminatory reason
for my nonselection is credible. It is illogical for Mr. Beebe to
use lack of supervisory experience as an excuse for not selecting
someone for a supervisory position at the GS-12 level. The GS-12
level is essentially entry level for supervisors throughout the
Service. Eligible candidates for supervisory positions at the GS-
12 level are not expected to have supervisory experience.
ZV_ pages Initials: \* fa$V
Page I of
307
AFFIDAVIT
I allege that Jerry Garcia was preselected for the ADDE position.
The fact is that the announcement was specifically tailored for
him. That is why it was announced at the GS/GM-12/13 level. He
would not have qualified at GM-13 level because of lack of time
in grade. I would not have qualified at the GM-13 level either,
but there were a number of others who did, one of whom was a
female.
From what I am able to gather, Jerry Garcia began his INS
employment in 1987 through the temporary legalization program
which sprang from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
He was initially employed in the Seattle District Office and
later went to the Yakima legalization office. All the
appointments in the legalization program were temporary. Time
served counted toward time in grade and benefits, but that's all.
It didn't count toward career status. The program's focus was
very limited. It dealt only with the area of legalization. Jerry
Garcia was not a legalization supervisor in Seattle or Yakima. He
became a supervisor when he appeared one day in Portland and it
was announced that he was the new legalization supervisor. I
don't know how Garcia got the Job or what his connections were.
It seems clear, however, that he wasn't selected because of his
qualifications. Later, in December of 1989, Garcia was selected
Page £ of >H pages Initials: l^yjojl/
308
/ AFFIDAVIT
flippy ,_ . ., ,
S-\ c.a.vn.e a.S w* Su.v- fV»Se . 6-av-Cic< t^<i.S aire pveJe'^cW -fc «- -fk<tjr posfTieii ,
for the position of Immigration Examiner (Trainee), GS-5/7/9. . I
-A
believe he was selected at the CS-7 level. It is significant- to
note that he received his basic Immigration Examiner training
course at Glynco, Georgia within thirty days of his appointment.
Female trainees have waited much longer before receiving their
basic training. The point is that Garcia had only about 18 months
Examinations experience at the time of his selection for the ADDE
position and four months of that was spent in basic training. He
has never handled the full range of Examiner duties and he cannot
begin to obtain certain kinds of experience until he obtains
security clearance.
Mr. Beebe also said on October 4, 1991 that he was looking for
someone who could readily assume the position of ADDE without
need for any training. Nevertheless, since his selection Jerry
has done little but attend basic supervisory training courses and
he even went to one course on basic grammar.
Lois Quam, Regional Personnel Specialist, was the person who
evaluated the applicants and prepared the selection certificate.
She was the person who made the determination that Jerry was
qualified. I believe that Lois Quam really stretched Garcia's
experience on the selective placement factor to find him
Page
jL_ of _L±_ pages Initials: ^t^^
309
AFFIDAVIT
qualified. Although I am not alleging discrimination aeainst Lois
Quam, I believe that she was influenced by Mr. Beebe to find
Jerry Garcia qualified. Everyone else on the selection
certificate met the selective placement factor pertaining to
comprehensive inspect ional experience. Mr. Beebe worked in the
Northern Region Office for twenty years. While I have no direct
knowledge, I suspect he knows Lois Quam and influenced her to
find Jerry qualified, regardless of his actual experience.
I would also like to make specific mention of a comment made by
Mr. Beebe to the EEO Counselor to the effect that he was not
selecting a technician, but instead, management. I find this
comment demeaning. I am an Immigration Officer, not a technician.
He referred to me, a female, as a technician. He does not
perceive of, or refer to, male Examiners in that way.
Jerry still cannot do the ADDE Job. For instance, every Friday
Inspectors from the airport come in to the District Office to
process refugees, applicants for temporary protected status and
deferred inspections. When they are in the District Office, they
come to me for guidance and they call me from the airport when
they have questions. The reason is that Jerry does not have the
technical knowledge to provide the guidance they need or field
Page 7 of /H pages Initials: r\
\(fol
310
AFFIDAVIT
questions. The previous ADDE, Jerry Uhde, was also inexperienced.
I am not in the chain of command for airport operations. I'm not
in any chain of command. I'm non-management. It is the ADDE's Job
to answer such questions. It is not in my job description. I
don't mind doing it. My point is that he doesn't know how to do
it and because an unqualified male was selected, my fellow
officers and I have to do his job. Another example occurred
shortly after Jerry Garcia's selection. Siva Muttaswamy, the
Supervisory Immigration Inspector at the airport called me at
home with a question about how to handle a situation involving a
crewman on a foreign vessel. I said call Jerry Garcia. He's the
ADDE. Siva said, " He doesn't know anything." He doesn't even
have an admissions stamp, which is necessary for the admission of
a qualified applicant to the U.S.. Portland is such a small
office that it is essential for the ADDE to have an admissions
stamp. Jerry has to call one of the other Examiners to apply an
admissions stamp when he needs one.
Another example of Mr. Beebe's different treatment of women was
when I received my twenty year service pin in July of 1991. Mr.
Beebe merely shook my hand and said thank you for twenty years of
dedicated service. About a year before, however, when Bob
Solmonson, District Counsel, received his twenty year pin, Mr.
Page
I__ of IH pages Initials: HJCcQV
311
AFFIDAVIT
Beebe asked Solmonson to tell everyone about his career. He spoke
for about ten minutes. Although I also have a story to tell after
twenty years service. Just like Bob Solmonson, my career, as a
female, was not considered significant enough to comment upon.
With respect to my own supervisory experience, although I dispute
that it was necessary or required, I have been the exclusive
acting ADDE for the Portland District Office since 1988. Whenever
ADDE Uhde was gone, I was the acting ADDE. I'd say that I
functioned as ADDE for a total of about sixty days between 1988
and October of 1991 when the selection for ADDE was made. I also
received a temporary promotion to ADDE, with title and pay, in
December of 1990. It was for a thirty day period. This was in
addition to the sixty days acting ADDE experience. Mr. Beebe has
said that he had to fight to get me the temporary promotion, but
he didn't fight hard enough. I never got paid for the temporary
promotion.
I dispute the assertion by Mr. Beebe that technical knowledge is
not important for the ADDE. This is a small office. Technical
knowledge on the part of the ADDE is very important for carrying
out the Agency's mission and it was also a basic requirement in
the Vacancy Announcement. Additionally, the ADDE in Portland
Page
2 of 'V pages Initials: ntd)V
312
AFFIDAVIT
supervises relatively few people.
T also want to note that 1n .Inly of 1<991 when former ADDE Jerry
Uncle left for a Job at TNS Headquarters, T was functioning as
Acting ADDE, but I was pulled off and replaced by Jerry Garcia.
Mr. Uhde decided that the Acting function would be rotated. They
had never done this before. Previously, I had always functioned
as Acting ADDE. The purpose of rotating the acting ADDE
assignment to Garcia was obviously to afford him the opportunity
to meet, the KSAO's for the ADDE position, which was announced in
August, while Carcia was acting uV/vc^ ^^ -££— ^'i^J^
With respect to how much supervisory training I would have needed
to assume the ADDE position, I would have needed only the basic
two week training required of all new supervisors. This was also
required of Jerry Garcia. If anything, I would have required less
training than Garcia. He has never even attended the Journeyman
Immigration Examiner class.
In summary with respect to my nonse lection,- the reasons given by
Mr. Beebe, I.e., that I lacked first line supervisory experience,
are pretextual. He did not require such experience of Olin Ray
Jones and the male who was selected received the same supervisory
Page 1° of fj pages Initials: nWJ*'
313
AFFIDAVIT
training I would have received had I been selected. I also have
the necessary security clearance, comprehensive technical
knowledge and managerial potential to perform the full range of
ADDE duties. I trained Jerry Garcia. He did not then, and does
not currently, have the knowledge or clearance to do so. My
record as an employee is exemplary. Other than the fact that I am
female, I can think of no reasonable explanation for my
nonselection. They simply do not promote women into upper
management positions in the Portland Office.
With respect to my allegation of reprisal, my memo to Douglas
Halvorson, dated November 25, 1991 provides a description of the
events of November 12, 1991. The substance of this memo remains
true and complete and I request that it be included in my
affidavit by reference.
My participation in the meeting of November 12, 1991 lasted about
a minute and a half. Mr. Beebe asked me if I had made a copy of a
piece of mail. I said I had not and then asked, "Is that all." He
said yes and I left. I had never previously been called in to
such a meeting. At the time I did not have a clear understanding
of the purpose of the meeting. Everyone in the District Office
has a master key to the copy room, yet I was the only one called
Page Ji of M pages Initials: tvCQV
314
AFFIDAVIT
into this special meeting shortly after filing an EEO complaint
against Mr. Beebe. The EEO Counselor had just met with Mr. Beebe
concerning my complaint on 11-6-91.
The harm I experienced was the intimidation and harassment I felt
in being called into the meeting. I felt that the finger was
being pointed at me because T recently filed an EEO complaint. I
believe that Mr. Beebe thought that by intimidating me and
harassing me, he might get me to back off on my complaint.
No personnel, action was ever taken against me.
Prior to the EEO Investigator informing me during this interview,
I was unaware of Mr. Beebe' s claim that Pam Cooley mentioned my
name as someone to whom she had spoken about the OPM
correspondence having to do with a name request for Anna T.ukasik.
I have no recollection of Pam Cooley ever mentioning any such OPM
correspondence to me in the copy room. Prior to my interview with
the EEO Investigator, I had never seen the OPM correspondence in
question or any of the so-called anonymous letters about an
alleged affair between Seth Libby and Nellie Basmeson.
My response to Mr. Beebe 's suggestion that I was called into the
Page /**• of IH pages Initials: MlVV
315
AFFTDAVTT
meeting of November 1?, 1991 only because Pam Cooley mentioned
that she had Informed me of the OPM correspondence Involving Anna
Lukaslk, is that it doesn't explain anything to me. If it's true
that there was an ongoing problem with the circulation of
anonymous letters, why wasn't everyone else called in for
questioning as to their knowledge? I assume that I was the only
one called in. I still maintain that the real reason was for
purposes of intimidation and harassment, not Just because Pam
Cooley mentioned my name. I feel that I was singled out and
treated like a suspect in retaliation for having filed an EEO
complaint against Mr. Beebe.
The remedy T am seeking in this complaint is still current as
listed in Section 8 of my complaint, dated November \$>, 1991,
under Corrective Action. My home address and the other
information on the complaint form also remains current.
Page
Initials:
fltafl/
316
AFFIDAVIT
I HAVE READ THIS STATEMENT, CONSISTING OF U± PAGES, AND IT IS
TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE INFORMATION I HAVE GIVEN IS NOT BE CONSIDERED
CONFIDENTIAL AND THAT IT MAY BE SHOWN TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES.
' -mtA^ C(
Ml*^
fiant's signature)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
BEFORE ME AT PORTLAND, OREGON
ON THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 1992
(Investigator's signature) (
or Notary Public)
Page I i of 'i pages
Tnlt
UK, HWV
317
U& Department of Justice
DJ 187-4-324 "-'": | 7 ,'993
NUntn, ac 30S3O
FINAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECISION
in the matter of
Marv K. Ouinn-Valladolid v. Immigration and Naturalization
Service
On November 15, 1991, Mary K. Quinn-Valladolid, complainant,
filed a complaint of discrimination against the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) , Portland, Oregon, pursuant to
Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16, alleging that she was discriminated against
based on her sex when she was not selected for a GS-12/13
Supervisory Immigration Inspector position. On February 10,
1992, complainant filed a second complaint of discrimination
alleging that she was retaliated against on November 12, 1991,
when District Director David Beebe questioned her about an
alleged security violation. Complainant seeks a promotion to
Supervisory Immigration Inspector, removal of the selectee and
Beebe, who was the selecting official, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees.
Procedural History
On October 9, 1991, complainant contacted an Equal
Employment Opportunity Counselor concerning her claim that she
was discriminated against based on her sex when she was not
selected for a Supervisory Immigration Inspector position.
Efforts to resolve the claim informally were unsuccessful, and on
November 15, 1991, complainant filed a formal complaint
(Investigative File (IF), Vol.1, Tab 2A) . Complainant then filed
a second complaint on February 12, 1992, claiming that she was
retaliated against when she was requested to attend a meeting
with management officials to discuss her knowledge of a security
violation. Both complaints were investigated, and the
investigative file was presented to complainant with the option
to request an administrative hearing, or a final agency decision
without a hearing (IF, Vol.1). On April 16, 1993, complainant
requested a final agency decision without a hearing. On April
27, 1993, the investigative file was sent to the Complaint
Adjudication Office for a final Department of Justice Decision.
85-526 0-94-11
318
- 2 -
Facts
On August 21, 1991, The Northern Regional Office announced a
vacancy, number NR-MSP 91-30, for a GS/GM-1816-12/13 Supervisory
Immigration Examiner (IF, Vol.1, Tab 27A) . The selectee would be
the Assistant District Director of Examinations in the Portland
District of the Northern Regional Office under Deputy District
Director Seth Libby (IF, Vol. 1, Tab 27B) . The vacancy
announcement stated that selection for the position was subject
to headquarters' approval. The position consisted of ninety
percent supervisory duties and ten percent non-supervisory duties
with the incumbent supervising approximately twenty three
employees at the first, second, and third line supervisory levels
( ibid .) .
Complainant, a GS-11 Immigration Examiner in the
Examinations Branch of the Portland District Office, applied for
the position and made the GS-12 selection list (IF, Vol.1, Tab
27C) . Eleven employees were on the selection list, including
nine men and two women ( ibid . ) .
The vacancy announcement said the incumbent would develop
and execute local policies, procedures, and programs to meet
local conditions, plan and direct the work of the branch, review
officers' and clerks' progress on cases, offer direct leadership
and guidance in program areas, resolve the more difficult and
complex technical problems of subordinates, and correct errors of
procedure or policy, analyze new legislation, regulations and
•policy, make recommendations to District Director for changes in
policy or procedures, assist in establishing production
standards, and prepare performance ratings, conduct formal and
informal on-the-job training, and recommend disciplinary actions
(IF, Vol.1, Tab 27A) .
The selective placement factor 1 required that the selectee
have knowledge of the laws, regulations, and procedures
concerning the entry of persons to the United States and
eligibility for benefits under the immigration laws. The
selectee's experience must have "involved inspectional work of a
comprehensive nature which employs a variety of knowledge and
abilities associated with the performance of either inspecting,
examining, or enforcing phases of the Immigration and Nationality
Act," or related laws (ibid.).
1 A selective placement factor is a particular skill or other
qualification which is essential to the performance of a specific
job which is added to the minimum Office of Personnel Management
standards for a certain position (IF, Vol.1, Tab 2D-6) . An
applicant lacking a selective placement factor will not be eligible
for the position even though he or she met the OPM minimum
qualifications ( ibid . ) .
319
- 3 -
The position description for the ADDE position characterized
the job as ninety percent supervisory, including oversight and
planning of workloads, analyzing new regulations and legislation,
acting for the District Director, and providing leadership. The
other ten percent of the duties were non-supervisory, including
examining applications and using "seasoned judgement" and
intensive inquiry into facts, laws and precedent cases to resolve
sensitive issues. The position description said certain
decisions required "a more intensive knowledge of Immigration
Laws and precedent cases" (ibid.). The position also required
expert interviewing skills, great skill in dealing with people,
the ability to respond properly to congressional inquiries, to
prepare quarterly budget requests, and ensure that allocations of
funds were maintained, and all expenditures were posted (ibid.).
1. Complainant's experience and credentials
At the time of the ADDE selection, complainant had been a
GS-11 Immigration Examiner in the Portland Office for four years
(IF, Vol2, Tab 28 at 2). Prior to that, complainant was a GS-11
Legalization Officer in the Anaheim, California Office for seven
months during which time she supervised the work of nine
adjudicators, and occasionally served as Acting Chief
Legalization Officer (ibid.). From March, 1985, to April 1987,
complainant was a GS-11 Immigration Examiner, and from May, 1978,
to March 1985 was a GS-9 Immigration Inspector in several INS
Offices ( ibid . ) .
Complainant said her experience as the Acting Assistant
District Director of Examinations (ADDE) provided her with
knowledge of administrative procedures, procurement, personnel,
and budgeting forms (id., Kasos at 3). Complainant explained
that as Acting ADDE, she managed both the Examinations and
Legalization branches of the Portland Office (ibid.).
Complainant received an "outstanding" performance rating for
the 1990-1991 rating period for which Jerry Uhde was the rating
official and Seth Libby was the reviewing official (IF, Vol.1,
Tab 24C) . Uhde wrote, "has twice served as Acting
ADD/Examinations (total of six weeks) and did very well. Has the
confidence of supervisors and management team" (IF, Vol.2, Tab
28) . Uhde also said complainant had performed well assisting in
the training of lower grade officers, she worked well with fellow
employees and the public, and had received positive comments from
other District employees and the public about her performance
( ibid . ) . Complainant received an "excellent" rating overall for
the 1989-1990 performance rating for which Jerry Uhde was the
rating official, and Seth Libby was the reviewing official (IF,
Vol.1, Tab 24A) . Complainant was highly recommended for
promotion on her December, 1988 Officer Corps Rating, and Libby
wrote, "she has been an acting supervisor on occasion and [did]
320
- 4 -
an outstanding job. She is clearly ready to be a supervisor,"
while Uhde said "She is fully prepared for promotion to the
Senior or Supervisory level" (IF, Vol.1, Tab 24B) .
2 . Garcia' s experience and credentials
Jerry Garcia worked as an Immigration Examiner in the
Portland Office from December, 1989, until he was promoted to
ADDE in October, 1991 (IF, Vol.1, Tab 21). Immediately prior to
his promotion, Garcia was assigned to serve as acting Assistant
Director of Examinations (IF, Vol.2, Tab 29). Prior to that,
Garcia was a GS-11 Supervisory Legalization Officer in the
Portland Office for eighteen months from July, 1988 to December,
1989 (IF, Vol.1, Tab 21). Garcia worked as a GS-9 Spanish
Instructor at Glynco from March, 1988 to July, 1988, as a GS-9
Legalization Adjudicator from September 1987 to March 1988, and
as a GS-11 Legalization Officer from May, 1987 until September
1987 ( ibid . ) .
Garcia received an "excellent" rating on his 1990-91
performance evaluation and Uhde wrote, "his experience as SLO,
leading our outreach efforts in Legalization. .. shows. Several
more positive comments received from the public" (IF, Vol.2, Tab
29). Garcia 's knowledge of administrative procedures included
familiarity with budget and requisition forms, travel
authorization forms, and personnel action documents ( ibid . ) . As
SLO, Garcia also learned to use the Resource Management Systems
Guide and Administrative Procedures Manual, and in 1989 attended
'a four-day class in managing government resources ( ibid . ) . In
his role as Acting Assistant District Director of Examinations,
Garcia prepared the 1992 Fiscal Year budget ( ibid . ) .
On September 23, 1991, District Director Beebe sent a
memorandum to Executive Associate Commissioner of Operations
Michael Lempres recommending GS-11 Immigration Examiner Jerry
Garcia, of the Portland office, for the GS-12 Supervisory
Immigration Inspector position (IF, Vol.1, Tab 21). Beebe
explained that as of July, 1991, District Directors no longer had
authority to select employees for the Assistant District Director
level as they previously had. Instead, a District Director made
selection recommendations to his first line supervisor (IF,
Vol.1, Tab 7 at 2) .
Beebe explained that Garcia was a "proven administrator" and
"proven team leader" who saw that jobs were completed on time
(ibid.). Beebe also described Garcia as an excellent oral and
written communicator with superior inter-personal skills, and a
thorough command of all management skills ( ibid . ) . Beebe also
said he recommended Garcia, "not only because of his proven
abilities but also because of his tremendous potential for
continued personal growth and professional management development
( ibid . ) . Complainant was notified on October 4, 1991, that she
321
- 5 -
was not selected for the position. Complainant said Beebe told
her that he selected Garcia because Garcia had management
experience, and Beebe felt he needed someone who did not need to
be trained, and could readily assume the duties of the position
(IF, Vol. 1, Tab 4A at 4, Tab 6 at 6) .
3 . Other applicants' credentials
Aside from complainant and Garcia, two applicants qualified
for the GS-12 level, Gino Freselli and Jeff Hicks. Freselli had
three years experience as a GS-11 Supervisory Immigration
Inspector supervising ninety employees in Honolulu, Hawaii, nine
years experience as a GS-9 Immigration Inspector in Lynden,
Washington, nine months experience as GS-5 Border Patrol Agent
(IF, Vol.2, Tab 30A). Freselli was rated "excellent" overall for
1990-91, though his supervisor noted that he needed to exercise
more patience and diligence in carrying out upper management
policies and decisions ( ibid . ) .
Jeff Hicks had two years experience as an Immigration
Examiner, sixteen months experience as an Immigration Inspector,
five years experience as a Border Patrol Agent (IF, Vol.2, Tab
23B) . Hicks had no supervisory experience. Hicks received an
"excellent" overall rating for 1990-91, though his supervisor
noted that several people complained that Hicks lost control
during primary inspections, and on occasion Hicks was not polite
£o the public and complaints were made ( ibid . ) .
Seven applicants qualified for the GM-13 level for the ADDE
position. Daniel Hodge had three years experience as a GS-12
Port Director where he supervised eight employees, fourteen
months experience as GS-11 Immigration Examiner, fifteen months
as a GS-11 Supervisory Immigration Inspector, two and a half
years as a GS-11/12 Immigration Examiner, five years as an
Immigration Inspector, and one and a half years as a Detention
Officer (IF, Vol. 2, Tab 30C) . Hodge received an "excellent"
performance rating for 1990-91, and his supervisor noted that he
did an outstanding job motivating a developing his staff and was
an "efficient manager" (ibid.).
James Mohr worked as a GS-12 Supervisory Immigration
Inspector (Port Director) , supervising twenty five or more
employees from 1987 to 1991, he had three years experience as a
GS-11 Supervisory Immigration Inspector supervising thirty seven
employees, sixteen months experience as a GS-11 Immigration
Examiner, five years experience as a GS-9 Immigration Inspector
supervising ten employees, and four years as a GS-11 Criminal
Investigator for INS supervising (IF, Vol.2, Tab 30D) . Mohr had
also taken course in Budgeting for Field Managers, Position
Management, Supervisor's Role in Personnel Administration,
Supervisory EEO training, Interaction Management, IMMACT
instructor training, and Small purchase training (ibid.). Mohr
322
- 6 -
received an "Outstanding" performance rating in 1990-91 as well
as in 1989-90 ( ibid . ) .
Roger Miller had three years experience as a GM-13 Deputy
Chief Inspector, two years experience as a GS-12 Assistant Port
Director supervising sixteen employees, where, among other
things, he oversaw the inspection budget, prepared annual reports
and budgets, and supervised the inspection and adjudication
programs (IF, Vol.2, Tab 30H) . Miller worked for two and a half
years as a GS-11 Supervisory Immigration Inspector supervising
seventeen employees, and for eight months as a GS-9 Immigration
Inspector ( ibid . ) . Miller received an "Outstanding" performance
rating for 1990-91 ( ibid . ) .
Jeanette Otto worked for one year as a GM-13 Supervisory
Immigration Officer supervising thirty employees, she had two
years experience as a GM-13 Supervisory Legalization
Officer/Deputy Director supervising sixty-five employees, one
year experience as a GS-12 Chief Legalization Officer supervising
three SLO's first line, and twenty-one legalization officers
second line, and five years experience as a GS-11 Immigration
Examiner supervising between seven and ten employees (IF, Vol.2,
Tab 301) . Otto also had seven years experience as a GS-9
Immigration Inspector, and received an "Excellent" performance
rating for 1990-91 ( ibid . ) .
Roy Adams had seven months experience as a GM-13 Regional
Immigration Examiner, three years as a GS-12 Supervisory
immigration Examiner supervising seven employees, eight months as
a GS-11 Immigration Examiner, eight months experience as a GS-11
Chief Legalization Officer, supervising seven employees, two
years experience as a GS-11 Immigration Examiner, and nine years
experience as a GS-9 Immigration Inspector (IF, Vol.2, Tab 30G) .
Adams completed Basic Supervisory Training in 1989, and received
an "excellent" performance rating in 1990-91 ( ibid . ) .
Darvin Weirich had one year of experience as a GS-12
Supervisory Immigration Inspector where he supervised thirteen
employees, two years experience as a GM-13 Chief Legalization
Officer where he supervised twenty employees, seventeen months
experience was a GS-12 Supervisory Legalization Officer
supervising 27 employees, three years experience as a GS-11
Immigration Examiner, and six years as a GS-9 Immigration
Inspector (IF, Vol.2, Tab 30E) . Weirich received "outstanding"
performance ratings for nine of the prior ten years, including
his most recent evaluation ( ibid . ) .
Charles Williams had fifteen months experience as a GS-12
Criminal Investigator for INS, four years experience as a GM-13
Senior Special Agent, two years experience as a GM-13 Criminal
Investigator, seven years experience as a GM-13 Detention and
Deportation Officer, two years as a GS-13 Program Analyst for
323
- 7 -
INS, two and a half years as a GS-11 Criminal Investigator for
INS, and two and a half years as a GS-9 Border Patrol Agent (IF,
Vol.2, Tab 30F) . Franklin received an "Outstanding' performance
evaluation for 1989-90 (ibid.)- His 1990-91 rating was not in
his application package, and he did not appear to have any
supervisory experience.
4 . Complainant's allegation of sex discrimination
Complainant contended that the selection discriminated
against her based on her sex because she was more gualified than
Garcia for the position, and she claimed that Garcia was not even
gualified for the position 2 . Complainant claimed that Garcia did
not have the necessary inspect ional experience, which she claimed
was a selective placement factor (IF, Vol.1, Tab 2D-5, Tab 6 at
3) . Complainant also claimed that although the vacancy
announcement said that retention of the position was subject to
satisfactory completion of all Department of Justice
security/suitability reguirements, Garcia did not have a secret
security clearance and therefore could not review certain files
(IF, Vol.1, Tab 6 at 3) . Complainant claimed that Garcia also
lacked an admissions stamp, which complainant claimed he needed
as the ADDE (id. at 8) . Complainant claimed that Regional
Personnel Specialist Lois Quam "stretched Garcia' s
experience. . .to find him gualified" for the section list because,
complainant alleged, Beebe influenced Quam to do so (id. at 7) .
With regard to Beebe 's assertion that he selected Garcia in part
because he was an "excellent written and oral communicator,"
'complainant said that when Garcia was promoted to ADDE he was
reguired to take a "basic English grammar course" (ibid.).
Complainant said when Garcia began working as the ADDE he
was unable to answer inspectors' questions because he lacked
technical knowledge, so the inspectors asked complainant for help
(id. at 7) . Complainant said Jerry Uhde, the previous ADDE also
lacked what complainant claimed was necessary experience (id. at
3) . Complainant was convinced that Garcia was preselected for
the ADDE position because Garcia had the vacancy announcement
first, and gave her a copy (id. at 10) .
2 On December 13, 1991, complainant filed a grievance alleging
that Garcia lacked the selective placement factor of "inspectional
work background" which was necessary to gualify for the selection
list for vacancy announcement number NR-MSP 90-30. On January 3,
1992, Barbara Johnson, Special Assistant for Management, responded
to complainant's grievance finding that Garcia met the
gualifications to make the selection list. Johnson explained that
complainant's interpretation of the selective placement factor was
too narrow, that actual Inspections experience was not necessary,
and that Garcia' s experience in examinations and legalization met
the criteria (IF, Vol. 1, Tab 23).
324
- 8 -
Complainant claimed that Beebe's explanation that he
selected Garcia because of his supervisory experience was
pretextual because Beebe had recently promoted Olen Ray Jones to
Assistant District Director of Deportations, yet Jones had no
supervisory experience (ADDD) . Complainant also said Beebe's
claim that Garcia' s supervisory experience was the determining
factor was "illogical" because GS-12 was the entry level for
supervisors, and applicants were not expected to have experience
(IF, Vol.1, Tab 6 at 4). Complainant claimed she worked as the
Acting ADDE for a total of about sixty days between 1988 and
October 1991, and said one of those times was for a continuous
thirty days (id. at 9) . Complainant claimed that Beebe did not
promote women to supervisory positions (IF, Vol.1, Tab 6 at 11).
Complainant also contended that the discriminatory hiring
practices in the Portland District Office were perpetuated by
Deputy District Director Seth Libby because Libby, who influenced
selection decisions, favored his male friends for positions (IF,
Vol.1, Tab 6, Aff.2 at 2). Complainant cited several examples of
situations when she believed Libby used his influence to secure
jobs for his friends, all of whom were male, but identified only
one position in which one or more women applied and an alleged
friend of Libby 's was selected (ibid.). Complainant claimed that
she was told by someone at Glynco, Georgia, "I heard you can't
get a job in Portland unless you are a personal friend of Seth
Libby' s," and on another occasion a male classmate in a training
course in Arizona asked complainant to "ask Mr. Libby when I am
going to get that job in Portland he promised me" (ibid.).
5 . Management's explanation for selecting Garcia
District Director Beebe explained that he selected Garcia
for the Assistant District Director for Examinations (ADDE)
position because Garcia had demonstrated skill as an
Administrator, and he had knowledge of position management and
classification, training and development, procurement, budget
planning, disciplinary actions, and property management (IF,
Vol.1, Tab 7 at 4, Tab 21). Beebe explained that although these
duties were typically delegated to the District Administrative
Officer, the duties were re-delegated in the Northern District to
the Assistant District Directors (ibid.). Beebe said the primary
reason he selected Garcia over complainant was that Garcia had
demonstrated supervisory, managerial, and administrative ability
when he worked in the Portland office as a Supervisory
Legalization Officer (IF, Vol.1, Tab 7 at 8) . Complainant, on
the other hand, had no first line supervisory experience on a
permanent basis (ibid.). Beebe said when complainant served as
Acting ADDE it was for short periods of time when the ADDE was
out of town or on vacation, and she did not perform the full
range of duties, she addressed only the day-to-day concerns as
they arose (jld. at 10) .
325
- 9 -
Beebe also described Garcia as a "proven team player who has
earned the respect of the entire management team and employees,"
and who was an excellent communicator, with "superior inter-
personal skills" and a "thorough command of all management
skills" (IF, Vol.1, Tab 21). Beebe said these were the only
things he considered when he recommended Garcia (IF, Vol.1, Tab 7
at 4) . Beebe said Assistant District Director of Examinations
Jerry Uhde, Garcia's predecessor, recommended Garcia for the
Supervisory Legalization Officer position Garcia initially held,
but Uhde did not participate in the decision to select Garcia for
the ADDE position (id. at 5 , 14).
With respect to complainant's claim that Garcia lacked the
necessary technical experience, which complainant had, for the
ADDE position, Beebe said he did not think technical experience
was necessary for a supervisor (id. at 11) . Beebe said good
technicians do not necessarily make good supervisors (Id. at
12) . Beebe denied that he preselected Garcia for the ADDE
position or that gave Garcia "special treatment as someone who
had been identified for advancement" (id. at 15) . Beebe said he
did not recall whether, as the new ADDE, Garcia took as basic
grammar course as complainant alleged (id. at 11) . Beebe
explained that he selected Olen Ray Jones for an Assistant
District Director of Deportation (ADDD) even though he had no
supervisory experience because that position had only first line
supervisory duties while the ADDE position had both second and
third line supervisory responsibilities (id. at 15-16) .
Beebe said he did not consider Garcia's lack of a security
clearance to be significant when he selected Garcia because it
was common for a new supervisory employee to receive the
appropriate clearance after being selected (IF, Vol 1, Tab 7 at
6) . Beebe said without a security clearance Garcia would not be
allowed to see certain classified files, but this did not impede
his ability to do his job because the number of classified files
was small, and the ADDE rarely had reason to see them ( ibid . ) .
In fact, Beebe said, former ADDE Uhde also lacked a security
clearance when he held the ADDE position, and did not encounter
any problems (id. at 7) . Beebe also said it was not necessary
for Garcia to have an admissions stamp, and he was not aware of
other ADDE's having them, or needing the them frequently (id. at
8) . Beebe explained that if Garcia needed an admissions stamp of
his own, the process to obtain one was very simple (ibid.).
Beebe said he would never deny a selection recommendation to an
applicant who lacked either an admissions stamp or a security
clearance (ibid.).
With respect to complainant's claim that Garcia's
supervisory experience could not have been the reason he was
selected because he required supervisory training after he was
promoted, Beebe explained that the training Garcia received was
326
- 10 -
required by the INS for all new supervisors or supervisors who
had yet to receive formal training (id. at 10) .
Deputy District Director Seth Libby said his first choice
for the ADDE position was Jeanette Otto because she had
Examinations and Inspections experience as well as supervisory
experience (IF, Vol.1, Tab 8 at 3) . Libby said he wanted someone
with supervisory experience because the Portland Office was
developing the Examination Branch, but also because he thought
the position required technical experience (ibid.). Libby said
his second and third choices for the position were James Mohr and
Roger Miller both of whom had extensive inspections and
examinations experience (id. at 4) . Libby said he and Beebe
discussed Garcia, who was Beebe' s first choice, and Otto, but
Beebe selected Garcia because he had done a good job as
Supervisory Legalization Officer in the Portland Office (id. at
5) . Libby said when he pointed out to Beebe that Otto had more
technical experience than Garcia, Libby said Beebe told him that
the ADDE was a managerial job and he was not looking for
technical experience ( ibid . ) . Libby said he disagreed with Beebe
because the Portland Office did not have a Supervisory
Immigration Examiner who would serve as the "subject matter
expert," so he thought the new ADDE needed subject matter
knowledge to handle the job (id. at 6). In Libby's opinion, that
Garcia 's lack of technical knowledge had not interfered with his
ability as ADDE, nor did his lack of a security clearance because
cases requiring a clearance were rare (id. at 7) . Libby said
Garcia' s selection was "in line with Mr. Beebe 's management
style" because, he explained, Beebe wanted to delegate some
administrative tasks which were historically the District
Director's responsibility, to managers beneath him ( ibid . ) .
Libby explained that, as the Supervisory Legalization Officer,
Garcia proved to Beebe that he could manage program resources and
administration (id. at 7) . Libby said he was not involved in the
preparation of the memorandum recommending Garcia for the
position ( ibid . ) .
Libby denied that he ever promised jobs to anyone, though he
said he gave favorable recommendations for two of his students
and the husband of an old friend who applied for part-time work
(id. at 14) . Libby said he did not seek them out to offer them
work, he merely gave them information about the INS when they
requested it, and if asked, he gave them favorable
recommendations (id. at 15) . Libby said he did not know Garcia
before he came to work at Portland (id. at 16) .
Former ADDE Jerry Uhde denied that he participated in the
ADDE selection decision, or that he even offered his opinion
about who should be selected (IF, Vol.1, Tab 15 at 5). Uhde said
he did not believe that Garcia was preselected for the position,
and said Beebe did not indicate in advance that he intended to
pick Garcia (id. at 6) . Uhde also said he did not recall
327
- ii -
suggesting at his farewell luncheon that Garcia was going to get
the ADDE position, as several people alleged (id. at 7) . Jerry
Uhde said he did not have much technical knowledge when he was
promoted to ADDE, and he thought management and supervisory
skills were more important for the position because technical
knowledge could be acquired more easily (IF, Vol.1, Tab 15 at
11) . Uhde claimed that as the Supervisory Legalization Officer,
Garcia performed "extremely well supervising a very difficult
program" (id. at 12) . Uhde said selecting Garcia was a
"reasonable decision," because he thought Garcia' s writing was
superior to complainant's, and Garcia had supervisory experience
that complainant lacked (id. at 13).
Supervisory Personnel Staffing Specialist Lois Quam, who
signed off on the selection list for the ADDE position, denied
that Beebe influenced her to find Garcia eligible for the
position (IF, Vol. 1, Tab 16 at 1). Quam said Mary Melcher did
the qualifications analysis for each candidate, and Quam did not
believe that Beebe knew Melcher, or influenced her analysis of
the candidates for the selection list (id. at 2) . Quam said she
never spoke to anyone from the Portland office about applicants
for the ADDE position or about any position (id. at 2) .
6. Complainant's co-workers' opinions
Assistant District Director for Investigations Joseph
Shaffer said he had no reason to think that Garcia was pre-
selected for the ADDE position, though he was not involved in the
selection, and did not know why Garcia was chosen over
complainant (IF, Vol.1, Tab 18 at 1-2). Shaffer also denied that
a "good ol' boys" system, which favored men over women for
promotions, existed in the Portland Office (id. at 2) .
Administrative Officer Nelly Basmeson did not believe that
Garcia 's sex had anything to do with his selection for the ADDE
position, and said she had always been treated the same as men in
the office (IF, Vol.1, Tab 12 at 6). For example, Basmeson said
Beebe waived a training requirement for her to be promoted to a
GS-11, allowing her to receive training afterward, just as he did
for two male deportation officers ( ibid . ) .
Records and Information Supervisor Elizabeth Nelson said she
was surprised Garcia was selected for the ADDE position, and when
she told Beebe her feelings, he explained that he chose Garcia
because he had good management skills (IF, Vol.1, Tab 9 at 8) .
Nelson did not think management in the Portland office favored
males over females for promotion, and never heard or saw anything
that suggested that Beebe or Libby was motivated by sex bias (id.
at 9) .
Examinations Branch Applications Clerk Patricia Johnson
believed that Garcia' s sex was a factor in his pre-selection
328
- 12 -
because Garcia was "one of the good ol' boys" who was friends
with Beebe (IF, Vol.1, Tab 10 at 6). Johnson said Beebe did not
establish friendships with women in the office like he did with
the men ( ibid . ) . Johnson recalled Uhde commenting at his
farewell luncheon, before the ADDE position was announced, that
Jerry Garcia would handle the acquisition of new furniture when
he got the job (.ibid.). Johnson said Uhde's comment surprised
everyone because it sounded like Garcia was preselected for the
position ( ibid . ) .
Johnson, who worked with complainant and had the opportunity
to observe Garcia, said she believed complainant was more
qualified for the ADDE position because of her acting ADDE
experience, and technical knowledge which was substantially
better than Garcia's (id. at 2). She also thought complainant
was more respected in the office than Garcia, and had better
inter-personal skills and written and oral communication skills
(id. at 3). Johnson said Garcia "tended to be gruff" when
dealing with the public, he turned simple encounters into
conflicts, and his writing was frequently grammatically incorrect
( ibid . ) . Johnson added that as the ADDE, Garcia was "less than
professional" during Administrative hearings and this behavior
embarrassed clerical staff and the District Director (id. at 4) .
Immigration Examiner John Brinker, who worked closely with
complainant since she arrived in Portland and with Garcia before
he was promoted to ADDE, said Garcia's sex was a "critical
factor" his promotion because Garcia was good friends with Jerry
Uhde, and Uhde did not establish similar friendships with women
in the office (IF, Vol.1, Tab 11 at 2). Soon after the ADDE
position was announced, Brinker said, he heard Garcia on the
telephone with his wife talking about the job and Garcia
"appeared overly excited and seemed overly confident that he
would get the job" (id. at 6) .
Brinker said complainant's qualifications for the ADDE
position were "significantly greater than Jerry's" because she
had comprehensive subject matter knowledge while Garcia did not
(IF, Vol.1, Tab 11 at 2). Brinker considered complainant's
acting ADDE experience and Garcia's supervisory experience in
legalization, which Brinker called "ad hoc," to be equivalent
(ibid.). Brinker said Garcia was not even minimally qualified
for the position because he lacked inspections experience, an
area the ADDE supervised (id. at 3) . In addition, Brinker
explained that the ADDE signed all denials for the District
Director so he had to know whether the inspector or examiner who
prepared the denial interpreted the law correctly, and had to be
familiar with precedent decisions (id. at 4). Brinker said if
the examiner made a mistake, and the ADDE did not catch it
because he was not technically proficient, the mistake would not
be corrected because there was not further review beyond the ADDE
( ibid . ) . According to Brinker, Garcia's lack of technical
329
- -13 -
knowledge prevented him from effectively reviewing denials
( ibid . ) . Brinker disputed Beebe's claim that Garcia had earned
the respect of the employees his supervised in Legalization, and
said complainant was more respected than Garcia for her technical
knowledge and based on her performance as Acting ADDE f ibid . ) .
Jim Martin said that prior to the selection for the ADDE
position, it was rumored in the Portland Office that Jerry Garcia
was going to be selected over more qualified applicants because
Garcia was "one of the Good ol' boys" (IF, Vol.1, Tab 4G) .
Supervisory Applications Clerk Tammara Ammerman, whose first
line supervisor was Garcia, said she believed that Garcia was
pre-selected for the ADDE position because Jerry Uhde implied
that Garcia had the job when he said that certain things would be
taken care of when Jerry took over (IF, Vol. 1, Tab 13 at 1).
Ammerman believed that men were promoted over women in the
government as a whole, and said, with the exception of her own
promotion, the few management positions filled in Portland were
given to men (id. at 2). Ammerman claimed that Uhde and Garcia
were friends and that Uhde influenced Beebe to select Garcia, but
she did not think Garcia' s sex influenced his selection (id. at
3). Ammerman said, however, that Uhde made comments that
indicated he had stereotypical views about women, and his
constant joking often offended women (ibid.).
Ammerman said when she learned that Garcia was selected for
the ADDE position she was "shocked, surprised, and angry because
of Jerry's lack of experience with immigration" and because
complainant was not selected (id. at 3-4). Ammerman said there
was no question in her mind that complainant was more qualified
at the time for the ADDE position than Garcia because complainant
had served as Acting ADDE many times and performed very well, and
she had many years of immigration experience, and was highly
respected (id. at 4).
Immigration Examiner Anna Lukasik believed that Garcia wa
pre-selected for the ADDE position because when Uhde announced he
was leaving the Portland Office, Garcia told Lukasik he was going
to take his wife out to celebrate because he had waited a long
time for this, suggesting he knew before the job was even
announced that it was his (IF, Vol.1, Tab 14 at 1).
7 . Selection Statistics
The selection statistics for GS-11/12/13 positions in the
Portland District Office from October, 1989, through October,
1991, when Beebe was District Director in Portland are listed
below (IF, Vol.2, Tab 3 6A-B) . The statistics also indicate that
Beebe made two additional selections in the beginning of 1992 for
two GS-11 Immigration Inspectors. In the first case, there were
six males and one female, and the Beebe chose the female, and in
330
- 14 -
the second case ther were eight males and no females, and Beebe
selected a female (ibid.).
Position and grade #male/female applicants selectee
1. Supervisory Immigration 9 males/ 2 females male
Examiner GM-12/13
2. Supervisory Immigration 15 males/3 females male
Inspector GS-12
3. Supervisory Immigration 2 males/2 females male
Inspector GS-11
4. Supervisory Detention & 7 males/0 females male
Deportation Officer GS-12
5. Senior Immigration 7 males/ females male
Inspector GS-11
6. Deportation Officer 7 males/0 females male
GS-12
8 . Complainant's claims of retaliation
Complainant claimed that Beebe retaliated against her when
he called her in to a meeting on November 12, 1991, to discuss
complainant's knowledge of a security violation that had occurred
(IF, Vol.1, Tab 2B, Tab 6 at 2) . Complainant said Deputy
District Director Seth Libby, Administrative Officer Nelly
Basmeson, and Records and Information Section Supervisor
Elizabeth Nelson were present at the meeting (ibid.).
Complainant claimed that Beebe explained that the meeting
concerned a confidential piece of mail, a job announcement, that
had been circulated around the office ( ibid . ) . Complainant said
Beebe asked her whether she had made a copy of the announcement,
and she said she had not. Complainant asked Beebe why she was
questioned, and Beebe told her that she was in the copy room when
Pam Cooley was there with a copy of the job announcement in her
hand. Complainant said she answered only one question and was
dismissed ( ibid . ) .
Complainant also claimed that Beebe retaliated against her
on November 29, 1991, when he told complainant's husband, Larry
Valladolid, also an INS employee, that complainant was to prepare
a memorandum for Beebe designating her representatives for her
EEO complaint (IF, Vol.1, Tab 2D-2) . Complainant's husband then
contacted an EEO counselor explaining that he had faxed Beebe a
copy of a newspaper editorial entitled "Bush's Civil Rights
Thing," and Beebe called him to his office to ask why he sent the
article (IF, Vol.1, Tab 26B) . Beebe then allegedly said he knew
complainant's husband had given Nelly Basmeson a memorandum
concerning complainant's EEO case, and Beebe asked complainant's
husband whether he was officially designated as complainant's EEO
representative (ibid.). Complainant's husband explained that he
dropped off the memorandum because it was convenient, and
although he objected, told Beebe he would provide a list of
complainant's representatives ( ibid . ) .
331
- 15 -
Complainant claimed that she was also retaliated against on
November 11, 1991, when she received a recruitment packet from
headquarters instructing her how to apply for GS-5/7 entry level
positions (IF, Vol.1, Tab 2D). Complainant said the only person
she knew at headquarters was Jerry Uhde, who knew about
complainant's EEO complaint involving the selection of Garcia
( ibid . ) . Complainant believed that Uhde mailed the package to
coerce and intimidate her by suggesting that she would soon have
apply for entry level positions (ibid.). The letter enclosed
with the packet was addressed "Dear Applicant" and said, "We
encourage you to apply for these positions and ask your
assistance in letting your friends, relatives, associates, and
other acquaintances know that the Service is in the process of
filling Inspector and Examiner positions ( ibid . ) .
9 . Management's response to retaliation claims
Beebe denied that he called complainant to the November 12,
1991, meeting about the security violation to retaliate against
or harass her because of her EEO complaint (IF, Vol.1, Tab 7 at
21) . Beebe explained that he questioned complainant because
Immigration Examiner Pam Cooley said she told complainant that
she had some correspondence from OPM indicating that management
requested Anna Lukasik for an Immigration Examiner Trainee
position, even though the position had not been announced,
suggesting that Lukasik was preselected for the position (id. at
23) 3 . Beebe said shortly thereafter, the Regional Office
.received an anonymous letter, along with a copy of the
correspondence, alleging that Lukasik was preselected for the
trainee position ( ibid . ) . Beebe said he asked Cooley if she knew
about the anonymous letter or had made copies of the OPM
correspondence, and Cooley denied she had ( ibid . ) . Beebe said he
then called complainant in to the meeting and asked her whether
she knew anything about the anonymous letter to the Regional
Office, which complainant denied (id. at 24). Beebe said
complainant asked why he questioned her, and Beebe explained that
Cooley told him she told complainant about the OPM correspondence
about Anna Lukasik ( ibid . ) . Beebe said he accepted complainant's
word that she knew nothing more about the situation, and that was
the end of her involvement ( ibid ) . Beebe said he questioned only
Cooley and complainant because apparently no one else knew about
the announcement and name request (id. at 25) .
Seth Libby denied that complainant was called in to the
meeting about the security violation to harass her because of her
EEO complaint (IF, Vol.1, Tab 8 at 10, 12). Libby explained that.
the only reason she was questioned was because Pam Cooley said
3 The investigative file indicated that management in the
Portland Office was accused of pre-selecting Anna Lukasik for a GS-
7 Immigration Examiner position (IF, Vol.2, Tab 31C-F) .
332
- 16 -
she showed the vacancy announcement in question to complainant.
Libby said anyone Cooley mentioned would have been similarly
questioned, but she named only complainant (id. at 12) .
Administrative Officer Nelly Basmeson who was present when
complainant was questioned about the security violation because
the mail was addressed to her, said she did not think Beebe's
questioning of complainant was retaliatory (IF, Vol. 1, Tab 12 at
2) . Basmeson said Pam Cooley mentioned that she showed the
vacancy announcement to complainant, so complainant was asked
whether she had seen it (id. at 4) . Basmeson said complainant
responded abruptly to the question, which surprised Basmeson
because complainant was not accused of anything ( ibid . ) .
Basmeson thought Beebe was concerned about the fact that someone
tampered with the mail, and did not believe he was motivated by
complainant's EEO complaint ( ibid . ) . Basmeson claimed that
anyone who was alleged to have seen the documents would have been
questioned as complainant was (ibid.).
In response to complainant's husband's reprisal claim, Beebe
explained in a memorandum that he questioned Mr. Valladolid after
he received the faxed Civil Rights article because he thought the
article suggested that he was using official time to advocate
complainant's EEO complaint (IF, Vol.1, Tab 26D) . Beebe said he
called the meeting to clarify whether complainant's husband was
officially representing complainant in her EEO case because
complainant had yet to designate her representatives ( ibid . ) .
Jerry Uhde denied that he sent complainant the package
concerning entry level positions, or that he retaliated against
complainant in any other way (IF, Vol.1, Tab 15 at 4).
Discussion
Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16, makes it unlawful for a federal employer to
discriminate against an individual because of that person's sex.
To create an inference of discrimination, the record must show
that the actions of the employer, if not otherwise explained,
were more likely than not influenced by impermissible
considerations such as religion. Furnco Construction Co. v.
Waters . 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1987). Once the employer offers
evidence that the action was motivated by legitimate and non-
discriminatory considerations, the reviewer proceeds to an
examination of the entire record to determine whether the
employer intentionally discriminated against the employee because
of her sex. U.S. Postal Service v. Aikens . 460 U.S. 711, 715
(1983) .
333
- 17 -
A. Selection issue
1. Beebe's explanation for sel ecting Garcia was supported bv
the record L
Beebe claimed that he chose Garcia over complainant because
Garcia demonstrated supervisory experience while he worked for
eighteen months in a temporary position as the Supervisory
Legalization Officer in Portland, while complainant had only
acting supervisory experience totaling about two months (IF,
Vol.1, Tab 7 at 8) . Although complainant contended that Beebe
focused on Garcia's supervisory experience to distinguish
complainant from Garcia so Beebe could promote Garcia for
discriminatory reasons, the record did not suggest that Beebe
relied on management ability, and overlooked Garcia's less
comprehensive technical knowledge, in order to select Garcia
based on his sex. The ADDE position was, after all, ninety
percent supervisory in nature, so it was not unreasonable for
Beebe to focus on those skills over the technical expertise and
other responsibilities that made up only ten percent of the
ADDE's duties (IF, Vol.1, Tab 27B) . In addition, the evidence
showed that Beebe consistently claimed that supervisory ability
was the determining factor in the selection, and did not simply
rely on that explanation once complainant challenged the
selection. Both Libby and Records and Information Supervisor
Elizabeth Nelson said Beebe told them from the beginning that he
chose Garcia as ADDE because he had proven management skills (IF,
Tab 8 at 7, Tab 9 at 8) , which lends credibility to Beebe's
claims here.
Furthermore, Libby said although Garcia was not his first
choice because he did not have technical knowledge, Garcia's
selection was "in line with Beebe's management style" because
Beebe wanted his managers to be skilled administrators (IF,
Vol.1, Tab 8 at 6-7). Libby explained that Beebe wanted to
delegate to his managers some administrative duties that were
traditionally the District Director's responsibility, and Garcia
had proven to Beebe when he was the Supervisory Legalization
Officer in the Portland Office that he could to effectively
handle those duties (id. at 7). From Beebe's perspective, then,
Garcia was better qualified than complainant because he had
substantially more supervisory experience. While management was
highly complementary of complainant's performance when she served
as Acting ADDE on several brief occasions, her experience was not
comparable to Garcia's eighteen months of full time work as
Supervisory Legalization Officer.
Several people agreed with complainant that Garcia's lack of
extensive technical knowledge, which complainant believed Beebe
overlooked because Garcia was male, affected his suitability for
the ADDE position. The record showed, however, that Garcia's
lack of technical expertise was not overlooked because he was
334
•- 18 -
male, but that Beebe believed managerial skill was a more
important factor for consideration. It appears that Beebe viewed
the ADDE job from more of a management perspective and valued
administrative skills over the technical expertise that the
examiners and "hands on" managers like Libby believed was so
important. It is certainly not unusual for management and non-
management employees, or two managers like Beebe and Libby, to
differ about what makes for a good supervisor. Both sides here
had legitimate but opposing views about the skills the new ADDE
needed to successfully perform, and those views were based on the
position from which they worked with the ADDE. Because he was
the selecting official, however, Beebe' s preference for
managerial skills over technical expertise, which the record
showed was his true motivation, determined the outcome of the
selection process.
Though Beebe' s explanation for selecting Garcia over
complainant is supported by the record, Garcia' s selection over
several others, not including complainant, is somewhat troubling
considering the fact that several of the other ADDE applicants,
had substantially more supervisory experience than Garcia, and
received "outstanding" performance ratings as supervisors while
Garcia was only rated "excellent." For example, James Mohr had
seven years experience as a supervisor, was rated "outstanding,"
and had formal training in budgeting, position management,
supervising, and purchasing, as opposed to Garcia' s on-the-job
training (IF, Vol.2, Tab 30D) . Roger Miller had over four years
experience as a supervisor, was rated "outstanding," and, as
Assistant Port Director for two years, he oversaw and prepared
the budget and annual reports (IF, Vol.2, Tab 30H) . Jeanette
Otto had four years supervisory experience, one of which she
worked as Chief Legalization Officer, the level above Garcia's
highest level of supervisory experience as Supervisory
Legalization Officer (IF, Vol.2, Tab 301) . Otto also had two
years experience as a Supervisory Legalization Officer, compared
to Garcia's eighteen months in that role ( ibid . ) .
Had Beebe intended to promote someone who could readily
assume the management duties of the position as complainant said
Beebe claimed, he could have chosen any one of these or the other
highly gualified applicants with several years of successful
management experience and formal training, over Garcia. This
suggests, then, that some factor, in addition to demonstrated
management skill, affected the selection of the ADDE.
2 . Garcia was selected because Beebe knew him
Four of complainant's co-workers believed that Garcia was
pre-selected for the ADDE position (IF, Vol.1, Tab 10 at 6, Tab
11 at 2, Tab 13 at 1, Tab 14 at 1), and the record lends some
support to their belief. There is little doubt that comments
were made around the Portland Office, before the actual selection
335
- 19 -
process occurred, which strongly suggested that Garcia was
Beebe's intended choice for the ADDE position (IF, Tab 6 at 10,
11 at 2, Tab 4G, Tab 13 at 1, Tab 14 at 1). Pre-selection is not
illegal as long as the selecting official was not motivated by a
prohibited factor like the selectee's sex. Goostree v. state of
Tennessee . 796 F.2d 854, 862 (6th Cir. 1986). For example,
favoritism, unless based on the selectee's sex, or familiarity
with a particular individual can be a legitimate non-
discriminatory reason for pre-selecting one candidate over
another. Holder v. City of Raleigh . 867 F.2d 823, 826 (4th Cir.
1989), Parrott v. Cheney . 748 F.Supp. 312, 316 (D.Md. 1989).
The record here showed that Beebe's familiarity with Garcia,
and his first-hand knowledge of Garcia' s managerial abilities
influenced his decision to select Garcia for the ADDE position.
Though Beebe did not explain why he chose Garcia over each of the
other applicants who were not from the Portland Office, the
implication from the language in the letter recommending Garcia
was that Beebe selected Garcia, in part, because he personally
observed Garcia' s performance. Beebe described Garcia as a
"proven team player who has the earned the respect of the entire
management team," a "no nonsense, goal directed manager," with
"tenacity" (IF, Tab 21) , all of which suggest a personal
familiarity with Garcia' s abilities. In addition, Beebe said in
his affidavit that he chose Garcia because "he had demonstrated
to our management team the ability to manage people, projects and
resources" (emphasis added) (IF, Tab 7 at 8) , again implying that
his personal observation of Garcia was a key factor in the
selection. Title VII permits the employer to select a gualified
person he or she has observed or worked with over a possibly more
qualified but "unknown" applicant. In Lerma v. Bolger . 647 F.2d
589, 592 (5th Cir. 1982), for example, the court upheld the
employer's good faith defense where the record showed the
selecting official knew the quality of the selectee's work. That
appears to have been the reason for Garcia 's selection over the
better qualified applicants from outside the Portland Office.
Though three employees of the Portland office believed that
the Portland Office management fostered a "good ol r boys" network
which favored males for promotions to higher level positions, and
influenced Garcia's selection (IF, Vol.1, Tab 10 at 6, Tab 11 at
2, Tab 4G) , they did not provide any concrete examples to support
their claims, and the record provided no support. In fact, the
promotion statistics show that there were only three instances
when Beebe made selections for GS-11/12/13 positions where both
men and women were in the pool of applicants (IF, Vol.2, Tab 36A-
B) . While men were chosen for all three positions, in two of
those cases, the number of male applicants far out numbered the
number of female applicants, so the selection of two males was
not suspicious. Several courts have held that where the sampling
is very small, as it is here, no conclusions can be reached about
an employer's allegedly discriminatory employment practices.
336
- 20 -
Palmer v. United States , 794 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1986) (statistics
comparing the ages of twenty two supervisors in 1976 and 1978
with the ages of seven supervisors in 1984 is too small a
sampling to have any predictive value about alleged age
discrimination), Haskell v. Kaman Corp , 743 F.2d 113 (2d Cir.
1984) (testimony of ten officers about the circumstances of their
terminations over eleven year period not probative because sample
size too small to be statistically significant) .
In conclusion, the evidence pointed to one explanation for
Beebe's selection of Garcia, the fact that Beebe was familiar
with Garcia 's work and had seen him demonstrate the managerial
and administrative ability he was looking for in a the new ADDE.
No one disputed the contention that Garcia had demonstrated this
ability while he served as Supervisory Legalization Officer for
eighteen months, and the record showed that this, along with the
fact that Beebe had personal contact with Garcia, was the reason
Garcia was selected.
B. Retaliation claim
Title VII prohibits the federal government from retaliating
against an employee for engaging in protected activity. Although
Section 717 of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in
federal employment, does not contain language prohibiting
retaliation, both case law and federal regulations have extended
the Title VII prohibition against retaliation to federal
employers. Mitchell v. Baldridqe , 759 F.2d 1129, 1143 (D.C. Cir.
1985). See also 29 C.F.R. 1613.261, and 1614.103(a). To prevail
on a retaliation claim, the complainant must show that she
engaged in statutorily protected activity, that the employer took
adverse personnel action against her, and that a causal
connection exists between the two so that a retaliatory motive
may be inferred. Jalil v. Avdel , 873 F.2d 701, 708 (3rd Cir.
1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1023 (1990); Irvin v. Airco
Carbide , 837 F.2d 724, 727 (6th Cir. 1987).
supra.
The record does not support complainant's claim that either
Beebe or Uhde retaliated against her. Complainant established
that she engaged in protected activity when she contacted an EEO
counselor on October 19, 1991, and that Beebe knew of her
complaint because the EEO counselor interviewed Beebe on November
6, 1991 (IF, Vol.1, Tab 4A) . However, the record did not support
complainant's claim that she was called to the meeting about the
security violation for retaliatory reasons. Complainant was
asked one question, and Beebe accepted her response and dismissed
her. Beebe's explanation for calling complainant to the meeting
— that Pam Cooley mentioned complainant had seen the vacancy
announcement — was supported by everyone interviewed in the
investigative record (IF, Vol.1, Tab 8 at 10, 12, Tab 12 at 2,
IF, Vol.2, Tab 32). Had Beebe threatened complainant with
337
- 21 -
disciplinary action, or refused to accept her claim that she knew
nothing about the announcement, Beebe's motives might seem
suspect. However, there is no indication that Beebe was
motivated by anything but a desire to prevent future security
violations.
The record does not suggest that Beebe retaliated against
complainant when called complainant's husband to his office to
ask. him about the Civil Rights newspaper article he sent to
Beebe. Beebe explained that the article made him wonder whether
complainant's husband was advocating complainant's EEO complaint,
and he wanted to know whether her husband was doing so in an
official capacity as complainant's designated EEO representative
(IF, Vol.1, Tab 26D) . The record does not suggest that Beebe
harassed or otherwise tried to intimidate complainant's husband,
and Beebe had a legitimate right to know whether complainant's
husband, also an INS employee, was representing complainant's
interest. It is worth noting that Beebe did not initiate the
contact with complainant's husband, he simply inquired about the
meaning of complainant's husband's fax.
There was no evidence that Uhde was responsible for
complainant receiving the entry level job application package,
and he denied any knowledge of it (IF, Vol.1, Tab 15 at 4).
While the letter enclosed with the information was addressed
"Dear Applicant," the letter also said the INS was asking for
assistance in letting other interested applicants know that INS
was involved in an intensive recruitment and hiring effort to
fill entry level positions throughout the country. There is no
indication that anyone solicited the information on complainant's
behalf for retaliatory reasons, and the letter seemed to suggest
that many INS employees received the packets (IF, Vol.1, Tab 2D).
338
- 22 -
Decision
The record does not support complainant's claim that she was
discriminated against based on her sex when she was not selected
for the Assistant District Director of Examinations position, or
that she was retaliated against.
Mark L. Gross
Complaint Adjudication Officer
/ Barbara Durkan Axelsson
Attorney
Complaint Adjudication Office
339
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
OF
FINAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECISION
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ln tha „ atter of
FOR DISCUSSION ia ^^ miSBzSMllMisli ^
PURPOSES ONLY
V •
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Agency No. 1915985
GFO Docket V.o. 01934780
DJ 187-4-324
Complainant, Mary K. Quinn-Valladolid, submits this Statement
in support of her Appeal of the Final Department of Justice
Decision.
Summary of Argument
The record clearly shows that Mary Quinn qualified for the
promotion to Supervisory Immigration Examiner, given her 22-years
experience in every branch of the INS. The record is equally clear
that Jerry Garcia, the male employee who received the promotion,
was wholly unqualified, and probably did not meet the minimum
requirements to apply for the position.
The INS rejected Ms. Quinn under circumstances that give rise
to an inference of unlawful discrimination. The Selecting
Official, David Beebe's, proffered reasons for the rejection, are
pretextual. Beebe preselected Garcia for the position. For these
reasons, the EEOC should rule that complainant was unlawfully
discriminated against because of her sex.
1 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
340
Jerry Garcia's Qualifications
The record reveals the obvious fact that Jerry Garcia, an
employee of the INS since only 1987, was grossly under qualified
for the position. The August 21, 1991, Vacancy Announcement (IF,
Vol. 1, Tab 27A) sets forth criteria for the Supervisory
Immigration Examiner position. 1
Inspections . The Announcement provides that the applicant
must have experience with inspectional work of a comprehensive
nature. Mr. Garcia was the only applicant who did not have
inspectional experience. Thus, Mr. Garcia did not meet this
minimum requirement in the Vacancy Announcement.
Examinations . According to the Vacancy Announcement, the
applicant must have specialized experience in the examinations
function of the INS. Beebe gives much credit to Garcia for brief
periods of time when Garcia worked in the Legalization program.
This experience, according to Beebe, is "specialized" enough to
qualify Mr. Garcia for the position. Let there be no
misunderstanding here: Legalizations experience has nothing to do
with examinations experience. Both types of functions at the INS
are completely different. Yet, Beebe decided that Garcia's
legalizations experience made him qualified for ADDE. One co-
worker witness put it in this perspective:
"At the time of Jerry Garcia's selection, I was shocked,
surprised and angry, because of [Garcia's] lack of
experience with Immigration."
This title is synonymous with the working title,
Assistant District Director of Examinations ("ADDE") ,
which is referred to frequently in the record.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
341
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 13) .
Garcia' s examinations experience was wholly inadequate, yet
the promotion made him supervisor over other examiners. The record
shows that Garcia became a trainee examiner in December 1989.
Complainant was Jerry Garcia' s trainer . Garcia attended a basic
training course January, February and March 1990, then became a
journeyman examiner one year later in March 1991. The INS filled
the ADDE position in October 1991. Thus, Jerry Garcia only had one
year of experience in examinations when he received the promotion
to supervisor over other examiners.
Despite Beebe's continued insistence that technical knowledge
was unimportant for ADDE, he was clearly using this excuse to
justify Garcia's inadequacies. Seth Libby, Deputy District
Director 2 , recognized the importance of technical ability for the
ADDE position in Portland:
"In most [other] districts there is a Supervisory
Immigration Examiner between the Examiners and the ADDE,
who serves the function of the subject matter expert.
Under those circumstances, it is not as critical for the
ADDE to have comprehensive subject matter expertise and
managerial experience becomes more important. In the
Portland Office, however. there is no Supervisory
Immigration Examiner [between the Examiners and the
ADDE]."
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 8, page 6, Emphasis Added).
Thus, the ADDE position in Portland required specialized
skills only acquired after years of experience. No one disputes
that Garcia lacked technical experience needed for this job. One
witness said:
2 This is the second highest position at Portland INS.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
342
"There have been a few occasions when [Garcia] gave out
misinformation that caused embarrassment. His
performance at administrative hearings [and]
naturalization hearings, has caused embarrassment for the
clerical staff and, I dare say, for the District Director
as well ..."
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 10, Emphasis Added).
Security Clearance . The Vacancy Announcement further required
that applicants obtain Department of Justice security clearance.
As complainant pointed out: "If an individual is not even
authorized to review certain files, it is impossible for that
person to even meet the primary duties listed on the [Vacancy]
Announcement." (IF Vol. 1, Tab 2).
Jerry Garcia did not have a security clearance. Adding to her
list of qualifications, Ms. Quinn had the appropriate security
clearance many years before the announcement of the ADDE position.
Much is written on the importance of security precautions by
government employees. For example:
"[T]here are serious concerns about the adequacy of
efforts to select INS personnel and to insure their
honest and appropriate behavior once hired . . . The
opportunities for corruption are tremendous. INS
employees guard access to the United States . . . INS
employees also have the ability to get and sell another
precious commodity: the documentation that will allow an
alien to stay in the United States and to get work. The
corruption threat to the Department cannot be
overemphasized ... "
( Union Calendar No. 122, Second Report by the Committee on
Government Operations, August 4, 1993, page 13.). Yet, Mr. Beebe,
in his reply to the EEO investigator, made this unsettling comment
when confronted with the fact that Garcia did not have the required
security clearance:
4 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
343
"I don't know off hand, whether Jerry Garcia lacks
security clearance, today. He did lack clearance when he
was selected ADDE, but I did not find it significant ."
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 7, page 6 Emphasis Added).
Communication Skills . The ability to express oneself was an
important criterion for the ADDE position. Yet, Mr. Garcia's
shortfalls are clear. A co-worker witness observed:
"I would disagree that [Garcia] had superior
interpersonal skills, [and] certainly not superior to
[complainant]. [M]y observation of his interaction with
the public is that he had some difficulty. He tended to
be gruff. He could turn a simple encounter into a
conflict. He still does that today. He definitely does
not have excellent written and oral communications
skills. His memos and informal notes are often
grammatically incorrect . . . [Complainant] is very much
superior to [Garcia with respect to written and oral
communications . "
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 10, Emphasis Added).
The witness further observed:
; "On the issue of Jerry Garcia and his non-professional
representation of INS: There have been numerous
(countless) occasions where ADDE Garcia has used the word
"physical" in place of the word "fiscal" during meetings
of official business."
(Id.)
Jerry Garcia was not even minimally qualified for the ADDE
position. Even so, David Beebe ignored his clear inadequacies and
promoted Garcia over Ms. Quinn.
Complainant's Qualifications
Complainant's History with the Service . During Mary Quinn 's
22 years experience with the INS, she worked in every branch of the
Service, including inspections, examinations, adjudications and
legalizations. Unlike Garcia's brief one-year experience in
5 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
344
examinations, complainant has worked as an Immigration Examiner
since March 25, 1985.
Complainant's Supervisory Experience . Ms. Quinn served as
Acting ADDE several times. In this position, she experienced the
full range of ADDE responsibilities. Jerry Garcia, on the other
hand, had no such experience. One witness observed:
"We were . . . accustomed to her supervision since
[complainant] had functioned as the Acting ADDE . . .
[Mr. Garcia] does not exhibit superior supervisory and
management skills. He still doesn't know what each of us
does individually and we have to beg him for staff
meetings, rcomplainantl always exhibited superior skills
in that regard. "
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 10, Emphasis Added).
Another co-worker witness stated:
"I have had considerable opportunity to observe the
performance of [complainant] and [Mr. Garcia]. I would
say that [complainant's] qualifications for the ADDE job
were significantly greater than [Mr. Garcia's] . . .
[His] ad hoc experience as a Legalization supervisor may
have been a factor in his favor, but [complainant] had
functioned as Acting ADDE on a number of occasions . . .
r Complainant] clearly would have been the better choice
for the ADDE position . Based on qualifications, I was
shocked that [Mr. Garcia") was selected. "
(IF Vol.1, Tab 11, Emphasis Added).
A third witness said:
"There is no question in my mind that [complainant] was
better qualified than Jerry Garcia for the ADDE position.
I say that because she had functioned as Acting ADDE on
numerous occasions and because she had twenty years
experience with Immigration. As far as I am concerned,
she performed very well as Acting ADDE ..."
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 13) .
Complainant's Technical Expertise . Mary Quinn 's technical
expertise was far superior to Jerry Garcia's. For example:
6 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
345
"[Mr. Garcia] never achieved the subject matter expertise
of Mary Quinn and still has not done so." Complainant,
on the other hand, was more qualified for the ADDE
position. She had served as Acting ADDE whenever ADDE
Uhde was away from the office and always did a good job
... I don't think that at the time of his permanent
selection he was qualified to make the kinds of decisions
an ADDE has to make. After his selection we continued to
go to Mary and other examiners with questions ... I
don't believe Jerry was the proper choice for the
position of ADDE. It was a shock to all of us because he
lacked the experience and knowledge for the job.
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 10, Emphasis Added). Another co-worker noticed
that complainant "had comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter
while [Mr. Garcia] did not." (IF Vol. 1, Tab 11).
Beebe's Explanation for Selecting Garcia
Beebe's proffered explanations are unworthy of credence.
First, Beebe said he did not promote Ms. Quinn to ADDE because she
lacked first line supervisory experience. The Vacancy Announcement
for the ADDE position contains no such requirement.
Beebe said that Garcia had more supervisory, managerial and
administrative skills. Garcia apparently displayed such skills
when he served briefly as Supervisory Legalization Officer for 18
months. Thus, by . comparison, Garcia worked 18 months as a
supervisor in IiQjiLiij.1 Iwiini a completely different branch of the
INS. 3 Complainant, on the other hand, worked as acting ADDE, and
according to the witnesses cited above, did this flawlessly.
Beebe said Garcia had superior oral, written and interpersonal
communications skills. (IF Vol. 1, Tab 21) As shown above,
Garcia 's communication and interpersonal skills were clearly
3 This was just before complainant started training Mr.
Garcia as an Immigration Examiner.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
346
inadequate for the leadership role of ADDE. During the EEO
investigation, Beebe tried to cover-up Garcia 's inadequacies in
this area: "I am not aware that Mr. Garcia went to a course on
basic grammar. I would judge his writing skill as a 4 . 5 on a five
point scale." (IF Vol. 1, tab 7, page 11). To the contrary, Ms.
Quinn's investigation revealed that shortly after the promotion,
Beebe signed an SF-180 form used to enroll Mr. Garcia in a basic
English grammar course.
Beebe thought Garcia had superior abilities in procurement,
budget planning and property management. Complainant submits these
are fancy labels for chores delegated to entry-level clerks. In
other words, anyone who can fill out forms can handle these duties.
No one should believe Beebe' s explanations for why he chose
Garcia over Ms. Quinn. Clearly, the articulated reasons are poor,
unpersuasive excuses — a cover-up — for the unlawful
discrimination against Mary Quinn.
Preselection
Evidence of preselection further discredits Beebe 's proffered
explanation for his employment decision. Goostree v. State of
Tennessee . 796 F.2d 854, 861 (6th Cir.1986). Here, there is more
than enough evidence of preselection.
One witness recalls:
"I remember very well a comment by Jerry Uhde at his
farewell luncheon indicating that Jerry Garcia had been
preselected for the ADDE position. This was prior to the
announcement or prior to the opening of the announcement.
He said when asked about new office equipment, that [Mr.
Garcia] could handle that when he got the job.
Conversation stopped. We were shocked. "
8 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
347
(IF Vol. 1, Tab 10, Emphasis Added).
Another co-worker observed:
"I believe that [former ADDE] Jerry Uhde groomed Jerry
Garcia to be his replacement and that Jerry Uhde
influenced Mr. Beebe to select Jerry Garcia. I believe
that it's true that sex was a factor in [Mr. Garcia's]
selection. I believe that Uhde and Garcia were good
friends and that this was the critical factor in his
selection to replace Uhde. I did not see Uhde have
similar friendships with female employees."
(IF Vol.1, Tab 11, Emphasis Added).
Another witness said:
"At the time of his selection, there were strong
indications that Jerry Garcia was preselected for the
ADDE position. [Former ADDE] Mr. Uhde refereed to it a
couple of times. He would refer to "when Jerry took
over." There is one specific occasion I recall. It was
at Jerry Uhde's farewell luncheon, which, I believe, was
prior to the vacancy announcement. In the midst of a
conversation about problems in Exams, he said Jerry
Garcia would have to handle them when he took over."
(IF Vol.1, Tab 13) .
A co-worker put it this way:
i "After an informal meeting in the Portland District
Office at which Jerry Uhde announced he would be leaving
for a new job at Headquarters . . . Jerry Garcia turned
to me and said that he was going to call his wife and
take her out to dinner to celebrate because he had been
waiting for this for a long time . My impression from
what he said was that he was celebrating because he knew
he was going to get the ADDE job that Mr. Uhde was
vacating. "
(IF Vol.1, Tab 14) .
There was a concerted effort, at least by one of the officials
involved in the promotion decision, to cover-up the preselection
problem. Jerry Uhde, the former ADDE, states:
"I was not involved in any way in the selection decision
for my replacement as ADDE. That whole process started
after I left Portland. I did not recommend Jerry Garcia
9 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
348
or encourage David Beebe to select him. I was not asked
for my opinion. I did not discuss the matter of who my
successor as ADDE should be with Mr. Beebe or Mr. Libby.
(IF, Vol 1, Tab 15, page 5). This statement does not coincide with
Beebe 's recommendation to the Headquarters of INS when he chose
Garcia for the promotion: "Mr. Uhde . . . has been very successful
in developing Mr. Garcia' s managerial attributes that we are now
seeking to employ." (IF, Vol 1, Tab 21). Mr. Uhde's statement
also does not coincide with the witnesses who stated that Jerry
Uhde knew about the preselection of Garcia.
The preselection issue is explained-away in the Final Agency
Decision by concluding that Beebe lawfully selected Jerry Garcia
over complainant because of his firsthand knowledge of Garcia 's
managerial abilities. This excuse is insufficient. Beebe, along
with the witnesses cited above, had firsthand knowledge of Ms.
Quinn's managerial abilities, but overlooked them. Unlike Garcia,
not one witness said anything negative about complainant's
management abilities. Unlike the complainant in Lerma v. Bolqer .
647 F.2d 589, 592 (5th Cir.1982), cited in the Decision, Mary Quinn
was not an "unknown" applicant. Mr. Beebe knew her well, and
observed her often, but ignored her excellent qualities because she
is female.
Conclusion
There is an abundance of evidence in the record that the
reasons given for the employment decision made by David Beebe were
not the true reasons, but rather a pretext for unlawful
discrimination. Therefore, the Administrative Decision should be
10 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
\
349
reversed. The EEOC should find in favor of Mary Quinn
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of October 1993
Todd W. Wetsel, OSB 90410, Attorney for
Complainant
11 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL
350
Memorandum
Subject
Equal Employment Opportunity in
the Portland, OR, District Office
Date
July 1, 1993
To From
Carolyn V. Hodge Patricia J. Johnson
Director, INS/EEO (former) HEPM, POO
After our meeting last August at the Special Emphasis Program
Manager Training in Denver, it is an honor to meet with you once
again. A quick review of my notes shows that you are charged with
overseeing the Commissioner's responsibility to 1613.203. You
mentioned utilizing employee potential to the fullest extent, and
Attorney General Barr's goal of diversity in the workplace.
Although I was not as well informed last August, I did note your
comment that the Department of Justice is the worst offender of all
federal agencies. Another point you stressed was that an EEO
Counselor is required to remain neutral in handling complaints.
I have listed below several of my concerns (many have been
mentioned in my quarterly CADM 757 reports) regarding non-
compliance with EEO law here in the Portland District:
1) Sexual Discrimination (ADDE)
2) Luevano Decree Abuse (two IE positions)
3) Reprisal against EEO witnesses (verbal threats by
both the District Direct and the Deputy District
Director)
4) Sexual Offenders/Sexual Harassers (awarded and
promoted, allowed to proceed with little or no reprimand)
5) Non-selection of highly qualified minorities (in
favor of less-qualified anglo applicants)
6) Biased performance by NRO EEO Counselor
7) Concealing information from employees by the
District Director (a. vacancy announcements
b. task force interview opportunity, task force findings
report )
I realize that my list is very general, and that each point could
conceivably warrant an entire investigation. I only mean to point
out the magnitude of problems here in the Portland office, and to
plea for action. It is time for a serious change, and I will not
rest until something is done.
351
September ?, 1993
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
Congn?..;:. .if the United States
House of Representative
Committee of Government Operations
Chairman
THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS
RE: Falsifications & Misleading Statements to create Racial Disharmony
Dear Congressman Conyerei
This lette* is written in reference to voice great concern over Officer
misconduct under the misconception of union concern within the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, Department of Justice of the Los Angeles District,
Western Region.
It has been brought to the attention of Management and other Employees of this
facility (San Pedro Processing Center) that some members vithin the Local
Union 505, including the President, Mr. Janes Humble Sanchez, has waged a
personal campaign against Management.
The Management Staff of Immigration and Naturalization Services, Department of
Justice at San Pedro Processing Center, which includes Mr. John Bagley,
(Officer In Charge) Mrs. Gloria Kee (Assistant Officer in Charge), and Mr.
Rafael LugotChief Detention Enforcement Officer) and Mr. David Talley,
Supervisor of Deportation. This Management Team has been singled out and
wrongly slandered publicly as poor Managers for their efforts of promoting
minorities and assuring a healthy work environment. When in actuality they
should be commended not only for their actions but their positive manner in
dealing with all employees very fairly according to policies of the United
States Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service Policy and
£E0 policies and procedures.
This flagrant abuse by a select group of Cronies is apparently not acceptable
behavior for the United States Department of Justice employees and its
Officers misconduct according to Standard Schedule of Disciplinary Offenses
and Pe.-.alties for Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1. #22 Falsification, Misstatement, exaggeration, investigation or
concealment of material fact in connection with employment or
other proper proceeding.
2. 423 Discrimination in official action against an employee or
applicant because of race, religion, sex, national origin, age,
handicapping condition or any reprisal action taken against an
employee for filing a discrimination complaint, grievance, or
complaint with the special counsel, MSPB.
352
•In reference to this group of Cronies (see names below) these names vlll be
used periodically throughout the rest of thia rfecuwvnL,
James Humble Sanchez,
Richard Poplin,
Robert Lakin,
Williar Veiinberg,
FACTS OP STATEBENT
Criminal Investigator/ President of Local 505
Deportation Off icmr/Assiatent to the Pres. of Local 5B5
DEO/ Union Steward
Training Officer/Union Steward
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Officer Rorye Hoaley, was selected by Management of San Pedro Processing
Center to be the Firearm Instructor, however. Officer Hoaley was asked
by DOS T. Lakin to write a memo to the effect of allegations that were
falsely charging Br. Hosley of making statement of not wanting to be an
Instructor. This is another well planned tactic used by a group of
cronies due to the fact Robert Lakin DEO/ (Union Steward), Richard
Poplin (Deportation Officer /Assistant to President of the Union)
conspired with DOS T. Lakin to discredit Officer Rorye Hosley from being
Firearm Instructor.
It was stated by four Officers (for the purpose to discredit then) that
DOS T. Lakin referred to thee as 'Black Officers". This memo was
written to discredit Supervisor Detention Enforcement Officer, Michael
Williams, who «*« appointed this position by management of the SPC
(Immigration I Naturalization Services), who has shown in their opinion
great leadership skills and would make a great Supervisor.
Again, DOS T. Lakin in abuse of her authority along with a group of
Cronies that l-unopired to underline The Facility and management policy,
whose sole purpose was to discredit all management of this facility;
for enhancing] EEO policies and upward mobility for all employees.
After repeated attempts
Processing, utilizing the
stated in one of the Locsl Union 305 Newslett
SPC (San Pedro Processing Center) terminated
(said) Officer waa married to a Caucasian
attempt by this select group of Cronies
DISHARMONY at this facility for their own pe
of Cronies felt betrayed by management for
enhancing EEO policies at this facility.
to undermine the management of San Pedro
Media and making fjalac statements, it was
that the Management of
Black Officer because
man. This is another
to create total RACIAL
onal agenda. This group
promoting minorities and
It is apparen
filed (See A
Justice, Los
Cronies) Na
President of
Sanchez, Cri
A.P.G.E.
that extreme fabrication was taken when a grievance waa
.tached Document) by Local 505, against the Department of
Angeles District. (Co-incidently by the same group of
fly, Richard Poplin - Deportatjion Officer/Aeskstsnt to
.ocal 905, Robert Lakin DEO/Union
Steward 503, Ji
tinal Inveatigator (Fraud Unit) /President of ti>uul 303
is Humble
353
For no other apparent reason than to create an atmosphere of HASS CONFUSION
t Racial Disharmony. Theee attempts to fabricate and to create total
Disharmony Is not tolerated by the by the Justice Department or INS
(Immigration & Naturalization Services) policy and procedures.
It has been repeatedly stated to John Bagley (Officer In Charge), by the
Training Officer William Vennberg, former Commands f TIAC, that there is a
Racial problem about to explode in SPC (San Pedro Processing Center) there is
no supporting data to the effect, but as a part of the group designated as
Cronies flr. Vennberg is also a training Officer/Union Steward. It is apparent
that there is only a select group that viev these problems and it is ironic
that these same few see this as a problem that fir. Wennberg was replaced by a
minority as (TIAC) Tactical Intervention and Control team coamander.
It has been stated by This small group of Cronies that Management
Sympathetic to Kinorities' in this Facility.
is *Too
I strongly feel as a member of this Facility (San Pedro Processing Center)
that Management and Minority employees are being singled out by this group of
Cronies within the Los Angeles District, for the sole purpose of causing
racial disharmony and undermining Facility policy, j for their own personal
campaign against people of color.
I would like to have the following organizations investigate these allegations
as to why such flagrant abuse was not only permitted but tolerated.
Labor Relations Management
Office of Management
Office of Inspector General
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Civil Rights Dli vision)
Acting Commissioner of Immigration & Naturalization Service
Copies to each of the above.
354
STATE OF)
COUNTY OF>
AFFIDAVIT
I Charles Jamee, Detention Enforcement Officer at San Pedro
Service Processing Center, San Pedro, California, under perjury
and penalty give the following statement aa a true fact:
On June 25, 1993, I received a phone message from a caller. When
I returned the call at (213) 894-2613, the peraon anawering
replied in a rage and threatening manner.
| i
On August 5, 1993, I discovered a fictitious story waa invented
by officera of Local 505 to slander and discredit my character.
On August 11, 1993, I filed a charge against Local 505 union
preaident Jamea Humble-Sanchez for unfair labor practicea.
labc
On September 1, 1993, at approximately 9^30 a.m., Hr. Jamea
Humble-Sanchez made a call to mo vith the sole purpose of
intimidation and questioned me as to what waa I doing by raising
questions into the methods of his running an i organization.
He also asked if snyone had called me from I Local 1200, I stated
not to my knowledge. Hr. James Humble-Sanchez ctated to me in a
threatening manner that he would ruin my creditability.
Since the date of June 25, 190D, Hr. Humblej-Sanchez has involved
me in a character assignation in an attempt to atop me from
finding out the | truth of their endeavors. Thia is a continuous
method of racial j overtone used by Hr. Humble -Sanchez of Local 505
in slandering my integrity.
355
In the matter of the Grievance between:
LOCAL 505, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO )
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE COUNCIL )
and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT OFFICE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
INFORMAL STEP II LEVEL GRIEVANCE
Mr- Rjrhurd Poplin. Grievar|t
Mr. Rober t T.^lcin. Grievar
H-- AlbTt Soto. Grievant
Submitted by:
Mr. James Humble-Sanchez
President
A.F.G.E Local 505
P.O. Box # 1590
Los Angeles, CA 90053-1590
(213) 894-2813
Personal Set-vice
356
STEP II GRIEVANCE
OFFICER SAFETY ISSUE
July 15, 1993
I
Mr. Clifton Rogers
Acting District Officer
Los Angeles, CA
Mr. James Humble
President
A.F.G.E Local 505
Los Angeles, CA
THIS GRIEVANCE IS FILE PURSUANT TO:
The Agreement between the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and the American Federation of Government 1 Employees, National
Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, Article 47
Grievance Procedure, Section E. Step I:
CC Union
file
357
THE GRIEVANCE:
On or about the fourth week of February 1993, Detention
Enforcement Officer, (DEO), Mr. Robert Lakin and DEO, Mr.
Albert Soto , (non-supervisory), witness an assault and battery
of three Chinese detainees, identified as You, Rui-Naun, (A71
824 270), Yo, Tong-Dee , (A71 824 274) and Yu, Li Binft, (A71
824 339). These detainees were unnecessary and excessively
beaten by three DEO(s), identified as Mr. Patrick Gandara, Mr.
Roy Stewart, and Mr. James, first name unknown at this time.
This incident appears to have been covered up by tjhe then
supervisor on duty, Mr. Manny Vasquez, (Supervisory Detention
Enforcement Officer), SDEO, with the possible consent and
involvement of upper management at the facility.
ALL FACTS RELATING THERETQ:
[INCLUDING NAMES OF ANY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST WHOM THE GRIEV
MADE]
(1) On or about: the fourth week of February 1993, between the
hours of twenty- three hundred and zero 'three hundred hours,
Mr. Robert Lakin, (DEO), was the senior officer in charge of
facility control with the assistance of Mr. Albert Sotjo, (DEO)
when the assault and battery took place.
This assault and battery took place the
to processing area at the Service Prodessing Center. (see
attached declaration)
C]
EXHIBIT "A" 4
This assault and battery was tape on the
at the facility and was given to Mr
Robert Lakin, whereby Mr. Vasquez then
into the machine and proceeded to erase the tapje. The
destruction! of this evidence was witnessed by both ^r. Lakin
and Mr. Sotb.
sally-port, adjacent
'B'
monitoring Equipment
Manny Vasquez by Mr.
place the tjape back
358
(2) The detainees are believed to have been placed in the Kern
County Facility, (jail space leased by Immigration and
Naturalization Service, INS and U.S. Marshals). The detainees
are believed to have been place by the order of Mr. Rafael
Lugo, Chief Detention Enforcement Office, and Mr. J.J.
Gastone, Chief Detention Enforcement Officer Los Angeles
Staging Area, per information received by the U.S. Marshall's
Office.
The aliens have retained counsel by the name of Ms. Judy Wood,
Attorney at Law, [(213) 000-0000], which has contacted
individuals at the facility. Mr. Richard Poplin , Deportation
Officer has numerous occasions has been contacted by Ms. Wood.
Ms, Wood stated that the aliens claims that they were struck
by Service Officers. Ms. Wood made further statements
concerning a writ about the length in incarnation and why the
aliens were in the custody of the U.S. Marshall Service.
THE REASON FOR DISSATISFACTION:
The witnesses involved believe that their exist a real and
present danger to their safety and the safety of the detainees
at the facility. That the continue present of the alleged
perpetrators constitutes an unreasonable and unnecessary
danger to all parties involved.
THE AGENCY POLICY(IES), ARTICLE(S) AND
AGREEMENT AND OR TITLE 5 USC WHICH I
S)ECTION(S) OF THE
IN DISPUTE::
The criminal title which these allegations are in violation
still needs to be indentified and these! issues need further
investigation into all facts in question or those yet to be
indent i f ied.
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) DESIRED:
1. The alleged perpetrators be immediately reassigned from
the San Pedro Processing Center, ( SPPC 1 , to a non-sensitive
position until such time that the necessary investigation,
(Office of Inspector General) is completed and the appropriate
action is taken.
359
2. That management take action to alleviate the overcrowding
conditions and staffing shortages which have significantly
contribute to this type of incident.
360
IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
The Agreement between the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and the American Federation of Government Employees, National
Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, Article 47
Grievance Procedure, Section E. Step II:
THIS INFORMATION IS BEING FURNISHED:
Mr. James Humble-Sanchez will be the Union Representative for Mr.
Robert Lakin, Mr. Albert Soto and Mr. Richard Poplin in this
action. His full name and address is as follows;
Mr. James Humble- Sanchez
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Room B 222
Mr. Humble-Sanchez is an employee of the Seifv
duty location is as follows;
j
Special Agent (Criminal Investigator)
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Room B 222
His title and
361
IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
The Agreement between the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and the American Federation of Government Employees, National
Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, Article 47
Grievance Procedure, Section E. Step II:
THIS INFORMATION IS BEING FURNISHED:
The name(s) and address(es) of witnesses ar» to include but not
limited to the following individuals;
Mr. Richard Poplin Mr. Robert Lakin
Mr. Albert Soto
The addresses are the same. All witnesses are from the following
location; (the work/room locations change according to assignment)
2001 Seaside Avenue
San Pedro Processing Center
San Pedro, CA 90012
CC Union
file
362
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A" Not available at this time
EXHIBIT "B" Not available at this time
EXHIBIT "C" Not available at this time
363
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Lcs An-jt Ir=i- 3uh - Reg ior.a I Office
35? South "iyuesoa Street, Suite 370
Los Angeles, California 90071
RE: Case #SF CC-31493
Dear Ti: :
This is in response to your request as to the unfair labor
pr ejc-tiive of which I have filed against Local 505 and executive
officers of ~=ii.ci local.
Cut line of -hair, of events:
T. riti.'.i. 1 ' of hew stewards are chosen at SPP. No Union steward
an.'c -uncersent was ever posted at SPP or mentioned by fir.
Poplin to anyone that the position was available.
a. On 1 /14/93 I asked Mr. Poplin if I could become a steward.
b. Mr. Poplin chose Mr. Lakin and Mr. Fonteiera as stewards
c. In April 28, 1393, it was again asked by myself to Mr.
P.'r'lin if I co\jld become a steward. He indicated that I
could not; there were no more positions.
d. yir . Wer.nberg was chosen as another steward
e. I asked Mr. Humble-Sanchez, Union President, why the
membership could not chose their own steward, his reply
was "they can't".
IT. On June 3, 1993, a vote of no confidence in the stewardship
was p. er en ted to Mr. Poplin.
a. Stewards at SPP refuse to represent members of the
bargaining unit of color.
b. Mr. Wg>r;:iherg, Mr. Humble-Sanchez, have! voiced that there
is a racial problem exist at SPP to the 0. I.C. and the
A. 0. 1. C.
c. Statement msde by Mr. Hunble-Canchez to the A. 0. I.C. to
the effect that there are officers involved in an OIG/FBI
investigations are the FED problem.
III. Felso uiltijatioris alleged against me ae 3 reprisal to*
inquiring of the methods of how stewards pre chosen and
voicing my r.r-r.ccrr.s as a me-.ber of the bargaining unit;.
364
b.
On July 15, 1993, a grievance was filed falsely with
false statements for the sole purpose of slandering my
character with malice.
Misconduct of union official and abuse of their
authority.
On 8/26/93, I made an attempt to talk tc Mr. Poplin. I call to
moke appointment with his clerk, Me-. Suzy Cottrell. Mr. David
Metz, Food Service Administrator, a neutral , liaison, also tried
to arrange a meeting, on my behalf, with Mr. Poplin to no avail.
I humbly request that until a inquiry / invest igat ion has been made
into these false allegations due to the f|act that Mr. Humble
refuse to suspend or even inquire into the falsehood due the
facts of which I have no idea of. Therfqre, an unfair labor
practice is charged against Local 505 and all participants of the
false grievance which was filed.
Sxtip&ryly
I
365
Memorandum
SPP 1253/38-C
Subject
Union Hatter
Dale
Dec-smber 31, 1192
To
From
John ft. Bagley
Officer in Charge
San P=d;o SPC
Offrce of the
Assistant UIC
San Pedro SPC
I was approached by Mr. Richard Poplin, Vi|ce President of the
Uninn, in which he wanted to address a detention problem that he
had heard about. He advised me it was in ' regards to Detention
Enforcement • Officers maintaining their T
Records. He stated it wa3 a change in t
cannot be done. I then a3ked fir. Poplin
Lybbert, Acting Chief Detention Enforcement
to resolve the issue. fir. Poplin informed] me that he has been
directed not to dea L with Mr. Lugo, Chief Retention Enforcement
Officer, 3nd to speak only to my3elf or fir. Bagley, OIC.I
questioned, he stated this directive was| made by M]|-
Humble -Sanchez.
ime and Attendance
heir work duties and
to speak; to -Mr. Jeff
Officer, 'to attempt
After
James
Poplin also stated to me that if mysel
f and Mr. Bagley did
Mr
not take care of this situation ourselves tjhat he would have to
take whatever steps he felt was necessary to
As a result of Mr. Poplin's statement. I r
Between U.S. Immigration Naturalization Ser
Immigration and Naturalization Service Coun
77. In my opinion, if Mr. Poplin follows hi
stated he will be in violation of that
agreement.
y mj^
GLORIA E
Assistant Officer in Charge
go hiqher.
viewed the Agreement
ce and the '. National
1, Article 47 D page
s course of action as
paragraph of that
KEE
366
LOS ANGELES SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE
350 SOUTH FIOUEROA STREET. SUITE 370
LOS ANGELES CALIFOBNIA M071
(«13l»««»r*X (I'J) »•»-»»«
UNITED STATES OF AMtHit,*
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE
901 MARKET STREET, SUITE 220
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 84103
(415) 744-4000 FAX [4151744-4117
August 19, 199 3
Charles Janes
2001 Seaside Avenue
Terminal Island
San Pedro, CA 90731
Re:
American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 505, AFL-CIO
(US Immigration and Naturalization Service)
Terminal Island San Pedro, California
case NO. SF-CO-31495
Dear Mr. James:
The charge you filed was received and docketed. If you have not
already done so, you must submit a statement outlining the bases
of your charge, setting forth the dates and events involved in
the case and the names of persons who can testify in support of
the allegations, their workshift and work and home telephone
numbers. You should also submit any documents or materials
available to you which have a bearing on the case. Failure to
submit evidence promptly may lead to dismissal, of the charges
without further investigation. This information must be received
in the Los Angeles Office by September 2, 199$.
Although formal charges have been filed, the parties should meet
and attempt to resolve the issues informally.
Sincerely,
Ronald T. Smith
Regional Director
Assigned to: Authority Agent Roger E. MonreaJ.
Office
Enclosures
RTS/gr
, Los Angela's
367
Memorandum
Subject
Detainees Sleeping on floor
No blankets, Sheets or Cots
Date
May 18, 1993
To
Front
Rafael Lugo, Cheif
Detention Enforcement Officer
Service Processing Center
San Pedro, California
Michael Williams
supervisor Det. Ofcr.
Service Processing Ctr.
San Pedro, California
In response to the memorandum dated May 08, 1993, I was releived
of duty at approx-iwat-eiy 0/io uy 6uBG Soto who "tit tha ; t ti'mfe ■ was i*" *" " v
down in processing while the detainees were being fead. At no
time did any detainee complain to Mr. Soto or myself about the
accusation of what was put in that memorandum. Before being
releived I informed SDEO Soto on what my shift had accomplished
and to why the detainees were left in processing overnight.
On the above mentioned date, I had a shift- compiled of four * w..
Detention Enforcement Officers or (black officers as we are beirttj
referred as). DEO Mosley was transportation Officer who spent nc*'-
more than one or two hours in the facility on my shift that night.
DEO Phillips post was segregation who was releived by DEO Stewart
when she so-called (abandoned her post) to process female detainees,
DEO Stewart was in processing as the; processing
as much as he could within the
control Officer that night
Officer who did
time we had. DEO Hblman'was the
In order to violate .£he written order of "NO DETAINEES ARE 1*0 BE
SLEEPING ON THE FLOOR", I would have had to give the detainees
sheets and blankets and told them to' lye on the floor until the
next morning. I can't be responsible for each person who choose
to lay on the floor and sleep.
ASDEO Kendalla was also on duty that night who spent more time in
processing than myself. Be advised that Officer Kendalla alio wear
supervisor bars and is also of the Afro-American decent as myself.
TO
368
In order to conclude that segregation was abondoned all night,
the author of the afore mentioned memorandum dated May 8, 1993
had to have been at the facility the eight hours of duty in question.
The integrity of the facility is lost when we use detainees as
(spokesman or the one representing the detainees) against fellow
Officers, Until this memorandum I was not aware of the accusation.
As the supervisor of the shift, I should have been Informed
first to make corrective actions, Then my first line supervisor
who is DOS Lybbert than up the chain of comand..
There was no formal investigation done on the matter, so this
memorandum is very fictitious and is based solely to belittle
the so-called black officers who's name appears at the end of the
memorandum. There is no consistency in the memo which states
(after checking schedule of who was working and what post they
were assigned to) the only Officer who had a fixed post was the
control Officer and didn't mentioned ASDEO Rendalla at any time.
I conclud from pastexperiences between myself and Dos Lakin and
the the other so-called black officers and Dos Lakin that this
memorandum was motivated by personel dislike for certain Officers.
Due to the unprofessionalism in the labling of certain Officers
who all wear name tags daily, and the emotional feeling you get
from the memo, I feel that this is an Equal Employment Opportunity..,,
Commision matter as well as an Detention matter. ;' , '
369
Memorandum
Subject
MY (DEO MOSLEM'S) RESPONSE TO MEMO SUMMITED
BY T. LAKIN. DATED 05-08-93
D»t»
05-14-93
To
From
CHIEF R. LUGO
DEO R.J. MOSLEY
SIR;' TulS K2MC XJ i'w ;^roi>o«i aw lot HfaOVt MENTIONED MEMO, DATED 05-08-93
ON THE DATE OF 05-07-93 DURING DOTY HOURS (2200-0600 HRS) I WAS ASSIGNED AS
THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AND ACTUALLY WORKED FROM 2100-0500 HRS. I SPENT A
MARJORITY OF THE SHIFT AT LAX, PERFORMING DEPORTATIONS OF DETAINEES.
I (DEO MOSLEY) WAS NOT DOWN IN PROCESSING TALKING WITH OTHER BLACK OFFICERS r
AND NOT DOING ANV WORK PCS Fiys TC SIX HOURS, AS Trffi MEMO STATES. I HAVE
LOOKED OVER THE MEMO NTJMEiKX"5 ?'*iES AND CANNOT FIND ANYTHING FACTUAL NOR
EVEN NEAR TO BEING ACCURATE, AS TO HOW I PREFORMED MY DUTIES ON THE SAID
DATE. I WAS HOWEVER ABLE 33 SEE THAT THIS SAID MEMO WAS DESIGNED TO BELITTLE
CERTAIN OFFICERS, AND IS BASED CN HEARSAY AND RUMORS. I FEEL IT'S EMOTIONAL
AND UNPROFESSIONAL; AND I FOR ONE.- FEEL FOOLISH ATTEMPTING TO RESPOND TO XT.
SIR; THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING MB THE OPPORTUNITY TO VENT MY FRUSTRATIONS
THRU MEMO FORM ALSO] AND AGAIN THE MEMO IN QUESTION IS FRUDULENT AS
WRITTEN, ALSO I REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAM
DO MX PART.
AND WILL CONTINUE TO
370
Memorandum
Subject
To
Detainees Sleeping on Floor
No Blankets, Sheets or Cots
SPP 1251/aa-c
Date
Kay IB, 1993
Ftpm
Rafael Lugo
Chief DEO
San Pedro SPC
THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS
Deora Phillips -
Detention Enf.Offa
San Pedro . SPC •■'■ • * i
In response to the memorandum of DOS Lakin. on Hay 8, 1993, I was
assigned to segregation and only left to dress in several female-,
detainees, aft^r- b«?tr>rj «-«3.irv5i by L*u Steward and I never
abandoned my post. I have no knowledge of any "Black Officers"
only talking for five to six hours. I find these accusations to
be untrue, personally and professionally insulting. Having a
value which can only be described as stereotypical. Furthermore,
I find it odd that we would have to be referred to in such terms
when our name tags are so displayed that it would not be
diff ioult to obtain a name or two if needed. In conclusion , I
respectfully request that thi% matter be further investigated
through official channels.
371
» 'AWiAlUi MiiUWi
Suojcct
[Detainees Sleeping on Floor
No blankets; Sheets or Cots
Dait
May 18, 1993
Rafael Lugo, Cheif
Detention Enforcement Officer
Service Processing Center
San Pedro, California
From
Roy J/i . Steward
Detention Enforcement Ofcr.
Service Processing Ctr.
San Pedro, California
This Memo is in response to the above mentioned memo dated May 08, 1993,
On the date of May 07, 1993, during duty hours (2200-0600hrs). I was
assigned the processing Officer for the shift. DEO Mosley was assigned
the transportation Officer and DEO Phillip* was assigned the segregation
Oi.-ficer.lhc supervisors £3i: the shift were ZueCH. Williams nad ASDEO
Kendalla.
When I assumed the duties as processing Officer their was sixty three
detainees in processing at the 2200 hour count and the Los Angeles bus
arrived with fighty-eight detainees, room and boards and one temp out.
At that time SDEO Williams, ASDEO Kehoall= ind myself began to process
the room and board detainees. Aft-.er we had processed all 1 of the room
and board detainees we escorted them to pcd'J. until it was full. The
remainder of the room and board detainee? was given cot and blankets
and was housed in processing for the night. We than started to process
in the sixty three keeper detainees. During the time we were processing
the keeper detainees, no detainee was told to sleep on the floor or
given any blankets or sheets.
DEO Mosley was transportation Officer who spent most of the shift at LAX
not in tne processing area. DEO Phillips came to processing to dress the
females detainees, at that time I assumed the duties as the segregation!
Officer. At no time during" the shift was four(HLACK OFFICERS) standing
around in the processing area talking and not working for four to five
hours. It appears that DOS Lakin did no type of formal investigation
of this matter, also it appears that she has a personal problem with the
so-called (BLACK OFFICERS) as reffered to in the memorandum.
372
Memorandum
Subject
DETAINEES SLEEPING ON FLOOR, NO BLANKETS
NO SHEETS, NO COTTS
Data
MAY 15, 1993
^Lm ■ i ■■■Ml ii *l H~l.l~
ROCKY HOLLMON
DETENTION ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER
To
From
JEFFERY C. LYBBERT
DETENTION OPERATIONS SUPERVISIOR
SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER SAN PEDRO, CA.
Zxt .'c-.x.-ic '.o the Marccirandi^a ia;2d .'-Liy S, 1293 to Chief Lugo fx6m"Taia.-Lax_i.n,
DOS, while working in control on May 8, 1993 I did not observe or have any
knowledge of detainees sleeping on the floor. I did not see any officers
standing around idle. To my knowledge DEO Phillips assisted in processing
stripping female detainees. DEO Stewart rwnned segregation during this time.
373
Memorandum
"T 1 251. 'PS -C
^
Subject
False Statelier.'!' M:
Wilil.arr. Ke:inl-erg
Unio n G t <r w a r J
To
Rafael Lugo
Chief TEC
Can Pedro SPC
T.DEC
San Pedro SPC
THROUGH CFFICTAL CHANNELS
I request, irs «r:.'.ir,ci, for fir . Wennhc-rg, Training Officer, to
explain why he -rse'e a false statement to the effect that three
DEC's at this Facility have approached hiw with a complaint.
I also would likw Xc request f!r. Wennherg to
these DEC'S who have complained to him.
produce -nemo's
from
1 feel this is or: ongoing situation between the union stewards at
CPP in an attempt to discredit ail manage-nenti.
374
Memorandum
SPP 1252/00-C
Subject
Due
Incident of 7/9/93 Involving
Acting Assistant OIC Rafael Lugo
and Deportation Officer Poplin
July 12, 1993
To
From
David Talley
Supervisory Deportation Officer
San Pedro SPC
rtXjG
Charles Jinai
DEO
San Pedro SPC
While assigned to the administration area I witnessed Deportation
Officer Poplin, in a loud raging manner, ask for someone to call
the Harbor Police and for AAOIC Rafel Luge} to get out of his
office or he would have him handcuffed and escorted off the
premisses and arrested for obstructing Justice. The incident was
caused over the AAOIC Rafael Lugo, asking to see an Alien File.
This was quite alarming and disruptive to see in a workplace.
375
Memorandum
SPP 1250/00-C
Subject
James Humble-Sanchez
Dale
August 11, 1993
Tu John R. Bagley
Officer in Charge
San Pedro SPC
From
Office of the
Acting OIC
San Pedro SPC
On August 9, 1993. I received a call from Mr. James Humble-
Sanchez at approximately 1(9:45 a.m. advising me that he had been
at the Facility on 8/7/93 to attend a meeting, which he stated,
Mr. Charles James had arranged and had been approved by
management. Mr. Humble then advised he was told that Mr. Robert
Lakin would be written up due to allowing Mr. Humble into the
Facility Control room. Mr. Humble expressed concern because he
has been told this is an ongoing breach of security which always
goes unattended. He felt if Mr. Lakin was to be written up, it
would be considered retaliation. He again asked for fair and
equitable actions. I advised Mr. Humble that I had no knowledge
of the issues at this time, and then asked why he was even here.
He advised he was here to attend a meeting which Mr. James had
set up and was approved by management. I advised Mr. Humble I
would look into the matter.
Memorandums have been requested from personnel regarding this
Incident. Mr. James submitted a memorandum stating he had no
knowledge of a meeting.
Mr. Humble also advised that thia Facility has an EEO problem
that needs to be dealt with. He advised the officers who have
allegations pending by OIG/FBI case are involved. I advised him
I did not know names of any officers which are named in the
allegations.
GLORIA S. KEE
Acting Officer in Charge
376
Memorandum
SPP 12S2/00-C
Subject
To
Union Meeting
D»if
Auyust 12. 1 S>9 J
From
6u — A
Ms. Gloria Kee
Acting utricer in charge
San Pedro, CA
Armando Lares
Deportation Oiticer
San Pedro, CA
The purpose or. this memorandum is to assure you Chat I was not
aware that a Union meeting had been scheduled on August 7. 19S»J, at
the San Pedro Service processing Center.
1 learned aoout the meeting when Mr. James Humble, Che President of
the Union, entered the administrative area at the San Pedro Service
Processing Center. I was working on my (locket, when I nociced his
presence. 1 asked him his purpose for visiting Che facility. He
stated that a Onion meeting had been scheduled for 6-.M AM. I
advised him Chac no Union Meeting had been scheduled and
immediately contacted the supervisor on ducy to verify che natter.
The supervisor on ducy expressed no knowledge of a Union meeting
being scheduled.
Once again I advised Mr. Humble, that no Union meeting had been
scheduled. We disgust the situation for several ainuets. before Mr.
Humble s departure from che facility.
In conclusion: to the best of my knowledge no Union meeting had
been scheduled tor August 7, 1993. Furtheraore, several days
before the mention date, I contacted a member fro* che Union Mr.
Chris Carter and he made no mention of any fucure Union aeeting
being scheduled at the San Pedro Service Processing Center.
377
Memorandum
Subject
To
James Humble-Sanchez
John R. Bagley
Officer in Charge
San Pedro SPC
^pp I7^<7i /ao, -r
D*ic
August 12. 1993
From
Office of the
Acting OIC
San Pedro SlPC
On August 12. 1993, I called Hr. Humble and requested that he put
in writing concerns he had about this Facility with regards to
racial and/or EEO problems which he had mentioned on August' 11,
1993. Mr. Humble excused himself due to a meeting and Stated he
would call back. He never committed himself as to whether cr not
he would put anything in writing nor did he call back.
Before I asked him about racial /EEO concerns, he had asked me
what I had found out about the Lakin issue, j I told him we were
still looking into it but that Mr. James stated that no meeting
had been addressed for Saturday. Hr. Humble stated that his
was set
integrity was at stake and that a meeting
up and that
Chris Carter was witness to the arrangements
were in the conference room on 8/S/93 ark doing
whether or not they heard a meeting was scheduled
x&<
Union members that
as to
.OR I A S. KEE
Acting Officer in Charge
378
• . _ _ ^ . DECEMBER 2, 1994
C/o Randy Katsoyanis
Legislation of National Security
Senate Subcommitte
B373
Rayburn House Bldg.
Washingon, D. C. 20515
Looking at Racism in the Chicago Deportation Branch of the U. S. IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Under the Diretorship of A.D. MOYER.
I believe that A. h. Moyer arrived at Chicago, INS in approximately the year
1982, and has empowered himself to discriminate against ail " black African
Americans uf the Service.
Since arriving in Chicago, at U.S. Immigration & Natz. Service, A. D. Moyer has
not reasonably selected qualified Black African American applicants from the
Vacancy Announcements - whom have been slated to the Panel of qualifyed selectee's
into the " Officer Corp Positions in Chicago, Illinois, in the area of
Examinations Branch, Adjudication's and Deportation Officer, Thus he has
renamed, or deemed this positions of Officer Corp, as "Key Positions "; thus
discriminating against the " Black African American Male" severely. He is
totally eliminated from the Officer Corp. Positions.
Racism is overwhelming in Chicago's IftS, Importation branch; I have been employed
by this Service since 1970; aad there has never been a BLACK AFRICAN MALE DEPORTATION
OFFICER, slated to this position or even detailed into.
The " Black African Male & Female at INS Chicago have been deprived of success in
this field or " Key Positions" because the " officer Corp Positions offer
Handsome Pay, or High Grades ( Gs/5 thur Gs/12 ) overtime, access to AUO,
Automatic Uncontroled Overtime ) decision making influence on policy making in
at Chicago, Immigration & Naturalization Service; among other benefits and
empowerment; oversee 's details paid by ghe Govt; per deim checks; Pager's;
beeper's and Govt, cars, Thousands of dollars when they relocate to diffrent
states, etc.
Yet somehow in the Powership of A. d. Moyer in his twelve ( 12 ) or so years at
Chicago, INS there has never been a BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE selected for
an " OFFICER CORP POSITION" or His "KEY POSITIONS". I am positive that
" Black African Males did apply for this position, and was qualified.
As a matter of fact in his 12 years at INS, CHICAGO, A. D. MOYER has hired
only one ( 1) BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE as a Deportation Officer.
There was in fact another " Black Female Deportation Officer employed at Chicago
Immigration & Natz. Service, BUT WAS NOT HIRED BY A. D. MOYER; ( she was already
in the Position when A. d. Moyer came to Chicago, IL. ) and she recently retired
in September 1993 and her position was cancelled. A. D. claims there was no
money in the Budget to keep this position open; COINCIDENTALLY, this was the
SAME YEAR, the " OFFICE of the COMMISSIONER, Washington, D. C. H.Q, released
the analysis fo the EEO TASK FORCE FINDINGS on " Alleged Racism in Immigration
& Naturalization Service, and also titled " Improving Minority Representation
within the Immigration and Natz. Service." issued June 24, 1993; which infact
A. D. MOYER did issue a memo to all service employee's - in an attempt to deny
379
that racism existed in the Chicago, INS Office; yet you wonder if he Deliberately
had this position cancelled ( Deportation Officer ) to continue his flagrant
disregard of quallfiedy Black African- American; male and female applicants to
be deprived of this position.
YET, a few months ago, a minority male supervisory ( Male, Asian ) grade Gs/13
was promoted to the position of " DIRECTOR/ DEPORTATION/ DETENTION/ BRANCH, in
Chicago, INS, GS/14; and then his old supervisory position was cancelled. RIGHT?
WRONG: his position of " Supv. Deportation Officer " had " Paperwork prepared
by A. D. MOyer, who justified keeping this position open as needed ( something
about it being an FTE POSITION ) Incidentally; there will be NO BLACK QUALIFIED
AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES TO QUALIFY; as their competitors WHITE MALE DEPORTATION
OFFICER'S already in this field wilL OUT QUALIFY any " BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE
APPLYING: ( The reason he has never EXISTED IN U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE HISTORY AT CHICAGO, and thus since A.D. MOYER has had the POWER to make
all selections.
The Black African American Female " Deportation Office who was selected by
A. D. MOYER, OF INS CHICAGO, was selected from an " UPWARD MOBILITY PROCESS":;
and she in fact had earned a " DEGREE" from COLLEGE; thus in contrast to selecting
her for the " Upward Mobility" he has in fact hired "White Males" whom were not
in Posswssion of "DEGREE'S OF HIGHER LEARNING" from an accredited college or
University.
Further discrimination displayed by A. D. MOYER in his hiring practices of
" Minorities" a~ Chicago, INS DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPORTATION BRANCH; the
entire support staff is " BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE" all over the Age's
30 years of age, 40 years of age and even 60 yrs of age. they all hold clerical
positions which lack advancement and any potential to the standards of the
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The grade's are low paying Gs-4/5/6 positions; which
are denied access to OVERTIME, AUO, DECISION MAKING, GRADE INCREASES, LOCALITY PAY,
and SPECIAL RATE PAY. Therefore Deportation Clerks in the Chicago, Illinois,
INS, worked a total of 5 hours overtime; they were not included in locality pay;
and lost their special rate of pay, ( the DISTRICT DIRECTOR, CHICAGO, IMMIGRATION
& NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DIRECTOR A. D. MOYER; did not request it, even though
OPM regulations thru Congress said that he could; and last but not least the
Deportation Officer/ Officer Corp position was enriched to advancement of a
more pay, AUO, and GS-12; the deportation clerk was employed in the same atomsphere
and she received absolutely nil.
my name is Peggy M. MOUNIA, I have been employed at Chicago, INS since 1970; in a
minority position, and would like for the " OUTRAGEOUS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
of " BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES" to CEASE IMMEDIATELY.
SINCERELY,
-*&« - ' ' •'
-r«fgy H. MOUN&""" ' *"- - -' .: _■
INS EMPLOYEE
MY mailing address IS: P.O. BOX A3406, Chicago, IL 60690-3406
OFFICE/PHONE; ( 312) 886-8068 x 411, HOME: ( 312 ) 327-4219
380
Statistics are not kspt on yearly Battlement cost by
■ex/race/handicap. We have statistical information for the past
five fiscal years regarding all closures which combine final agency
decisions (decisions determining whether die crimination occurred
issued by the Department of Justice) and settlements. Those costs
are listed below:
FISCAL TEAR 1990
22 settlements, 21 final agency decisions (2 were findings of
discrimination )
$189,986.97 Backpay
$12,110.00 Attorney Pees
FISCAL TEAR 1991
9 settlements, 28 final agency decisions (1 was a finding of
discrimination)
$32,362.10 Backpay
$ 4,683.00 Attorney Fees
FISCAL TSAR 1992
25 settlements, 11 final agency decisions (1 was a finding of
discrimination)
$15,000 Backpay
$ 0.00 Attorney Fees
FISCAL TSAR 1993
42 Settlements, 68 final agency decisions (9 were findings of
discrimination)
$24,166 Backpay
$ 3,400 Attorney Fees
FISCAL TEAR 1994
31 Settlements, 117 Final Agency decisions (6 were findings of
discrimination )
$104,196 Backpay
$ 12,843 Attorney Fees
381
ETHNOGENIC REPORT
SESSIONS STARTED SINCE OCTOBER, 1993 THAT HAVE ALREADY GRADUATED:
(SESSIONS 264 THROUGH 268)
TOTAL STARTS
TOTAL FINISHED
MALE FEMALE
MALE FEMALE
WHITE
122
IS
98 10
BLACK
4
3
HISPANIC
90
10
82 4
ASIAN /PACIFIC
2
1
2 1
ISLANDER
AMERICAN INDIAN
1
1
OTHER
1
TOTAL
219
+ 27 -
246
186 + 15 = 201
SESSIONS CURRENTLY ATTENDING
(SESSIONS 269 THROUGH 274)
WHTTE
194
6
171
6
BLACK
3
3
HISPANIC
102
4
93
3
ASIAN /PACIFIC
2
2
ISLANDER
AMERICAN INDIAN
OTHER
TOTAL
301 +10-
■311
269
* 9 - 278
382
o ©
a
gSH CSS,
S3
2
g /j j
3
I
CO
CO
-J
it
tt. — o — •
S
£ £ £ *
^ H § * * S
o
a
5 a
5
o 2 Q <
S9 eo *~ 2
X < <
n
+
li
-a s
B,veonO
is-: s .
2a(i w
2 a •■*
s-c-o
o o
o o
NO
©
i
>
o
OC
r-
+
S
© ©
o o
i
|8
5 ca
s
O ft. Q
"iS
P- ^ J
II s
Z
<
5
3
1
1
I
e
If
1
sf
383
<J *
ST i
-8
i
I
o
§
b
"i
is
o o.
a o
6|
Eg
W 3
«0
§
o
c
is
u 1
« + «>«<f* + *>-*e>*'2?.™™'2™'?.r~ZZ2'Zmo><t>rZ
fiillllliliiilililiisMsIiliJ
nan
fl
IS
SSESSSiiSiS^.
:|IIIIhH|hi
: x 1 1 1 x xx
Hi
tiiiftil
b£2
tea
ill
ill
in
5 i i
iililll
Iililll
O in to O en < <
It
88
■ - as J -
■= M-l* 111
1 ? ? " C c
n. o. C C ct S •
Uit 6 51'
- -g -s e i
co'coiocntniococncflcocncnenS
I > > i
a a
< CO
1! «
5 Li. 5
• Sc
lis
CO <N —
PI
Ol
s
-5
E
a
u.
c
-2 5
(0 s
Su- g
.€.€.§
2 -c i
??<
« «- <N
CO
UL
C
y s
3 ||
o| 5
3.3 3.
£4: .2
><X
CN «- «N
«0
3
|i
2 u.
o
•c
I
c c S "- |
as & a cd co B
^ "£ E £ £ .2
<«>«-,- <N «- •*
»»»uBu>22??5ts2?2|2<222222222::::££::
in
at
6
a
384
/ /
UJ
Q
^ O
UJp
2i
CC°-
LU
CO ,
385
LU
Q
wg
0°
o
DC
Q.
cc
LU
CO
386
LU
Q
5
CO
■z.
o
LU
p
O
o
2
>
o
cr
DC
0.
LU
0)
CO
CO
CD
E
<
c
CO
o
CO
o
CO
|—
CO
o
CM
s
CO
O
"c
o
cd
Q.
CC
CO
Q.
CC
O
CO
>
cc
LU
Q_
Z>
CO
o
o
CO
I
CO
o
CO
0)
/
387
AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN
MULTI-YEAR AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM PLAN
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
II. PROMOTIONS - SUPERVISORY POSITIONS GRADES 9 AND UP
SERVICEWIDE SUMMARY PAGE
09/30/91 - 09/30/92
CATEGORY
PROMOTIONS
LZ
ALL WOMEN
158
(33.91%)
AMERICAN INDIAN MALE
(0.00%)
AMERICAN INDIAN FEMALE
(0.00%)
(0.43%)
ASIAN/PI MALE
2
ASIAN/PI FEMALE
12
(2.58%)
BLACK MALE
8
(1.72%)
BLACK FEMALE
26
hi ii hi i i ii i a
(5.58%)
HISPANIC MALE
93
(19.96%)
HISPANIC FEMALE
19
(4.08%)
WHITE MALE
205
(43.99%)
WHITE FEMALE
101
(21.67%)
TOTAL
466
100%
388
AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN
MULTI-YEAR AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM PLAN
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
II. PROMOTIONS - SUPERVISORY POSITIONS GRADES 9 AND UP
SERVICEWIDE SUMMARY PAGE
01/31/93-09/30/93
.
CATEGORY
PROMOTIONS
n
%
ALL WOMEN
134
(32.60%)
AMERICAN INDIAN MALE
2
(0.49%)
AMERICAN INDIAN FEMALE
1
(0.24%)
ASIAN/PI MALE
6
(1.46%)
ASIAN/PI FEMALE
6
(1.46%)
BLACK MALE
15
(3.65%)
BLACK FEMALE
20
(4.87%)
HISPANIC MALE
81
(19.71%)
HISPANIC FEMALE
25
(6.08%)
WHITE MALE
173
(42.09%)
WHITE FEMALE
82
(19.95%)
c
TOTAL
411
100%
389
AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN
MULTI-YEAR AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM PLAN
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
PROMOTIONS - SUPERVISORY POSITIONS GRADES 9 AND UP
SERVICEWIDE SUMMARY PAGE
09/30/93 - 09/30/94
CATEGORY
PROMOTIONS
U
%
ALL WOMEN
188
(31.28%)
AMERICAN INDIAN MALE
2
(0.33%)
AMERICAN INDIAN FEMALE
3
(0.50%)
ASIAN/PI MALE
14
(2.33%)
ASIAN/PI FEMALE
13
(2.16%)
BLACK MALE -—
32
(5.32%)
BLACK FEMALE
43
(7.15%)
HISPANIC MALE
113
(18.80%)
HISPANIC FEMALE
35
(5.82%)
WHITE MALE
252
(41.93%)
WHITE FEMALE
94
(15.64%)
TOTAL
601
1 00%
o
85-526 (396)
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05982 490 2
ISBN 0-16-046441-2
9 780
60M6441
90000