(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

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"

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