This is not a gimmick, and the amount of bonus pay is significant.  If you think you may qualify, please submit an application.  The government cannot send the money without your request.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) responded to a FOIA request for a similar dataset, as well as AJ elements and standards and licensing by requesting an extension.  They now have until next month to provide the bulk of information in a machine-readable format.

So you’re probably wondering where I’ve been, and why my typically lengthy analyses on the MSPB dataset has not yet been posted to the civilservicechange.org site.  Well, it a long story, but I’ve been busy trying to hire my first employee – Robert MacLean.

If the name sounds familiar, it should.  This is the same Robert MacLean who has been advocating for openness in government, civil service reform, and equity in the treatment of federal employees.  Being able to hire Bob has been challenging for me, but I anticipate this new venture will mean a lot to many.

For one, I’m a lucky person.  I’m getting a straight-shooting tell-it-like-it-is employee as The Art Blossom’s marketing lead.  He’s honest, hard-working, and knows his way around new technology.  He’s also reaching out to the same market he’s already built connections to.  It took me three years to realize that my civic advocacy should not be a secret from my line of work.  Everywhere I go, I work with individuals who set aside time from their busy personal schedules to speak out on behalf of greater community, whether neighborhoods, schools, or in your case – Country.

For Bob – well, let’s face it.  His ordeal at the Department of Homeland Security has left him without a job for a number of years.  We don’t mince words here.  Not only does he need a job, he needs a chance to start the retraining process.  (Although – gosh – if he were offered a federal job as settlement, I’d be more than understanding – and thrilled.)

Every pitch should finish with a pitch for action.  Here’s mine.  Robert (Bob) wanted to demonstrate his value from the very start.  We agreed to a commission schedule.  In September, for every sale made, Bob will receive 15% of the amount as his pay.  You will also be able to specify that an additional 15% of the sales amount go to a person or organization of your choosing.  The additional 15% is essentially a rebate check you give to someone.  You could give it to your child’s favorite teacher or the school association.  You could give it to the Government Accountability Project (GAP).  Since it’s a rebate check, technically you could even give it to yourself or to Bob again. Along with that check, you can also send a personal message.  This will help us to broadcast the message of giving back to others: the message of encouragement and of civility.

This is a huge leap of faith for me:  A huge leap of faith in the goodness of man, and in the ability of good people to band together to find creative solutions to civic need.  It’s also a statement.  A statement about community – the antithesis of the darker days of MSPB and its culture of Abu Ghraib where one could be complicit by virtue of one’s failure speak up and make change for the better.

Bob and I are not only members of the federal government advocacy community; we’re members of our local communities too.  Bob has two beautiful daughters attending public school in his neighborhood, and I have a son and daughter doing the same.  Not only do we care about what is taking place in federal agencies, we care about our next generation and the values that they carry forth.  That is, in many ways, what The Art Blossom is about: restoring our American heritage.

Bottom line: if you have photos or artwork that you would like memorialized, help us support one another by buying photo items such as printed removable and reusable wall vinyl, greeting cards or mousepads from the Art Blossom; you’ll be helping me, Bob, and our community directly.  You don’t have to have kids to participate, although we would appreciate your spreading the word about our fundraising program to your friends.

And yes, after telling a few stories about this incredible summer journey, I will return to my unpaid hobby of compiling MSPB statistics so we can hold this new administration to its promise for governmental transparency.

~Charlotte Yee

As indicated in that article I carefully separated out issues related to myself, which are being adjudicated before the MSPB (including the most significant case, which I won!), and those involving other employment applicants. In my latest appeal, I made sure it involved only other individuals so that the OSC could not say these matters were before the MSPB. And they can’t be, because these individuals do not even know they have been victimized by PPP’s.

Thanks to the Discovery Process in my own cases before the MSPB, I now possess a treasure trove of highly incriminating internal CDC documents and e-mails. I selected two that any reasonable person would place in the “smoking gun” category, that is, they are irrefutable evidence of the utilization of Prohibited Personnel Practices.

The first series concerns the application of a veteran who is the top ranked on the Applicant Listing Report. The hiring authority, after an interview, does not feel that she has the experience or skills for the job. Fine, being a veteran should not make you qualified for any position. There is a perfectly legal way, and even a form, for handling cases such as these. The form is 62-108, “Agency Request to Pass Over a Preference Eligible or Object to an Eligible.” The hiring authority completes the form, but the higher ups at the Atlanta Human Resource Center deny the request to pass over the veteran, stating that she is minimally qualified. So far, all is legal. Then any reasonable person would conclude matters undertake an illegal turn. The Hiring Authority decides to close out the existing position unfilled, and an HR specialist says in the “smoking gun” e-mail that she will be “happy” to make adjustments to the specialized experience, etc. before the position is re-posted. The unstated adjustments are being made to disqualify the veteran, and favor their preferred candidate, the non-veteran.

What does the OSC say about this maneuver? “The vacancy was indeed cancelled and re-announced, but the most recent vacancy announcement closed recently, on July 29, 2010. The agency is still in the process of determining which applicants are qualified, and a Subject Matter Expert review will be conducted. Because no selection has yet been made, we are unable to determine that an unauthorized preference or advantage was granted in violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(6).” What is carefully avoided is the fact that this whole maneuver was done to “injure the prospects of another employee or applicant.” (Note: 5 USC 2302 (b)(6) says, in part, that actions cannot be taken  “for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment”. The emphasis is on the “or”.) That injury has already been done to the veteran. The focus is kept on the unauthorized advantage and since no one has actually been hired, no one has actually been advantaged! And, most importantly, quick, we are closing out your complaint before someone is hired, and therefore “advantaged.”

Concerning the second case, the Hiring Authority wants to hire a person who is #13 on the Applicant Listing Report. He is ranked so low that he is not even referred to the Hiring Authority (but somehow the Hiring Authority knows about him anyway.) So, the HA asks an HR Specialist in a “smoking gun” e-mail how we “get around the eligibility status” of the applicant who is ranked #13. The HR Specialist gives the now SOP advise of closing out the existing announcement number unfilled, and then reconfiguring the requirements. The OSC places its imprimatur on this procedure: “After considering the information you submitted, we see no indication that the preference granted was unauthorized. (Emphasis in the original letter from the OSC). The emails exchanged between agency officials suggest that (#13) obtained the position through a lateral reassignment. Under 5 CFR § 335.103, competitive procedures are not required when an employee is laterally reassigned. Nothing prohibits an agency from canceling a vacancy announcement and instead using a non-competitive hiring method to fill a vacancy.”

But were not the other twelve applicants who outranked #13 injured by this maneuver? The OSC does not address the matter. Furthermore, was #13 really the “best candidate” and this maneuver simply circumvented that proverbial cumbersome bureaucratic red tape so that the CDC could obtain that superlative employee? Any reasonable person, after reviewing all the documents, would conclude NO. Included in the Discovery documents was an analysis of all the candidates and it was quite clear that the Hiring Authority wanted two principal qualities in the candidate hired: 1. Health Communications experience. 2. International experience. #13 had Health Communications experience, but no international experience. Some of the candidates who ranked between #1 and #12 had both. So, why hire the person who does not have one of the most significant qualities sought? It is a question I would like to ask the Hiring Authority when he is under oath.

Note: The OSC responses in quotes above are taken directly from a letter dated August 18, 2010 that they sent me, with the names of the specific applicants omitted, and in the case of the matter immediately above, replaced by their ranking.

Will the OSC actually ever prosecute a case of the utilization of Prohibited Personnel Practices at a Federal Agency? Maybe after Santa slides down the chimney.

- John Paul Jones
john.jones@civilservicechange.org

If they do as they’ve indicated they would, perhaps we’ll have some substantive information within a week or two.

What’s the deal?  In July, I filed a FOIA.  In August, I was told that they’ve granted themselves an extension.  Also, in August, EEOC released its report on the federal workforce.   I read through it, needed a few answers to some simple questions, and spent half a day in voicemail hell.  That is, when I didn’t spend it in actual human communication hell.  In particular, the guy in their public relations department obviously doesn’t know what public relations does.  He spent his time interrogating me – rank, serial number, etc. . .

I did, eventually, get a very bright individual who did answer my questions about the EEOC report on the federal workforce.  That was purely luck, and extreme perseverance on my part.  This contact answered my questions candidily and intelligently.  Problem is, too candidly.  I’m currently deciding how I want to present the material contained within the report.  Some – admittedly – is outside of EEOC’s control.  Others, are simply misleading: an attempt to present something, where nothing to validate it exists.  Again, not the fault of those that carry out their duties, but the fault of those above them who haven’t stopped to evaluate exactly what they’re spending resources on trying to accomplish.

Today, I attempted to log into the account EEOC said I should create.  I found out I’m not in the system anymore.  I created my login three days ago.  Three days ago I created my login, and found that EEOC hasn’t connected my FOIA request to my contact information.  I sent them a note on Sunday and haven’t heard back since. 

Yesterday, I tried to contact them by phone.  I pressed countless buttons, only to be returned right back to the first automated message I began with.  No person, and no option to reach one.  I finally made up a number, using the area code and first three digits of the phone number followed by something a few digits off of the original number.  I got a voice message.  I tried again – success!  I reached a person.  A person who really didn’t want to help me, but when offered the chance to pawn it off on someone else, took the bait.

Broken?  I’ll let you decide.

Freedom of Information Act request dated July 20, 2010
EEOC reply - extension of deadline dated August 18, 2010

Sometimes there is no actual blood. Take the recent case of Shirley Sherrod. There was a rapid response – far too hasty and ill-informed in the opinion of any impartial observer. A carefully selected portion of her speech before the NAACP was chosen to deliberately distort her message of reconciliation between the races and was used to project exactly the opposite message. And the fear was that somehow this distorted message would be used on the Glenn Beck show. So, there was a classic rush to judgment, and Ms. Sherrod was hastily asked to resign, without even being asked her side of the story! Fortunately, she was just as rapidly vindicated, and received a personal call from the President of the United States which served as an apology.

Almost all our interactions with government agencies are far more prosaic. Nonetheless, a determination of the seriousness of the matter is made, and the appropriate speed of the response. Is the matter so serious that it is, roughly, a “high crime,” like a terrorist threat that brings out the SWAT team? Or is it a “misdemeanor,” say, watering your lawn during drought restriction measures? Or is it something that can be pretty much ignored without consequence, those proverbial “red tape” rules that stand in the way of “getting the job done.” Sometimes those “red tape” rules have a very real purpose, like having a contingency plan in case a deep-water well blows out. As we now know, those rules were waved in the interest of “getting the job done,” and so the assumption was made that no plan was needed because no blow-out would ever occur.

As a by-product of my case against the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, in which the MSPB ruled in my favor, I also acquired, via the Discovery Process, highly incriminating internal e-mails that irrefutably indicate that Prohibited Personnel Practices are routinely used. But how serious is this? A “High Crime”? A “Misdemeanor”? Or just some pesky “red tape” that must be ignored in order to “get the job done”? In my previous column, I indicated that these e-mails, along with a formal complaint, had been submitted to the Office of the Special Counsel. Still no action has been taken; the original complaint was filed on April 08. Equally important though, I submitted them to the Director of the CDC. Now, if the e-mails had described ways of selling government lab equipment, and pocketing the proceeds, or how to pad official government expense accounts with personal expenses – and I would like to emphasis, they do not - wouldn’t some action have already been taken? So, why this insouciance, this casual disregard of rules governing the hiring process. If the priority is to hire the friends and relatives of existing employees, are veterans preference rights just so much “red tape” that can be safely ignored?

John Paul Jones
john.jones@civilservicechange.org

For three years, I’ve hidden my advocacy work from business contacts as though it were a secret.  “What would they think?”  I asked myself. It’s taken me this long to discover that my customers are individuals like me, who already understand the importance of a strong civic voice.  Perhaps back then, I didn’t want them to know how much I cared about rebuilding our country – how that still had influence over my time and effort too.  That of course, was a valid concern.

As we begin the 2010-2011 school year however, so much has changed.  I am pleased with the direction this country has taken toward rebuilding a common culture.  I’m ready to move on; I’m ready to build my next dream of bringing art and money to our schools while supporting my own family and children.  Thanks to those who share the same vision, there is a business still to return to, a seedling in a greenhouse where this dream has been incubating and waiting for watering, nurturing and the full warmth of everyday sunshine.

The past few months have been extraordinarily busy.  I’ve been fixing things needing fixing, upgrading for larger clientele, and wondering how to bring my life together to show that — just as in our children’s fairy tales — good begets good.  It, along with the the important Obama theme of pulling one up by one’s bootstraps, form the moral of the American theme of a people-run country.

Once again I was asked if I drank the Obama kool-aid, and I replied that I had extra helpings.  I’m not faking it.  I approve of how Obama is running this country.  As I see it, I’m not alone.  According to HarrisInteractive, Barack Obama Continues to Be Most Popular World Leader in Five Largest European Countries and the U.S.  Additionally, according to a recent 2010 Siena College poll, Barack Obama ranked 15th among 43 Presidents – quite a feat for a sitting leader. 

Yesterday, I had a thoughtful conversation on the myriad of backgrounds Americans come from, and the need for assimilation.  My friend laughed, noting that assimilation is an often cited conservative value.  (These days, in light of the rather extreme Tea Party — a bit ironic)  For me, my love of Obama has been his preaching of tolerance and of understanding one another.  That is, one does not have to completely give up one’s own cultural heritage, but one must be open to new thought and compassionate toward those with different views.  And, importantly, one must embrace our Constitution and the tenets of democracy and be an active participant.  These are the foundations upon which our values were built.

I watched Obama on The View, as he downplayed race and instead emphasized the bigger picture when explaining the Shirley Sherrod incident.  This was the very view Sherrod herself emphasized.  It’s not about race.  American values are about equity and insuring that we do not disempower others by virtue of prejudice.  It’s about reaching out to other cultures and knowing where they come from before making judgment: having empathy.

As Americans, one of our biggest struggles has been in defining ourselves.  We’ve forgotten who we are and what we stand for.  We’ve forgotten that once upon a time (and soon-to-be once again) the people of the world looked up to us — an example of what the hoi polloi, in their more autocratic governments, wanted for themselves.  Make no mistake, democracy is a fluke: one that can only be maintained by the “fairy tale.”  The fairy tale of good begets good, hard work always pays off, and that there is a safety net for everyone.  Add to that the fairy tale that “your vote counts” and that volunteerism is a virtue and we can restore integrity and innovation to our country.

Going back to my discovery of my own customers, they’re mainly PTA/PTO parents.  By economic standards, fools.  By democratic standards, heroes.  While 95% of school families give no more than just money (often, if that at all), these 5% give their all, running a large enterprise usually comprised of 500-2,000 students, parents, teachers and other school staff, entirely as a volunteer effort.  They’re struggling.  They’re not just struggling with the burden of trying to keep up with the technological changes that have taken place with regard to communication and information dissemination, they’re struggling with the language to describe why the PTA/PTO effort is important and why every parent needs to contribute to the effort with at least a few volunteer hours a year — even if they’re working parents.

I take as an example, our own local elementary school.  It’s one of the top-rated in the state.  Thankfully, our PTO doesn’t struggle with donations as do some other schools.  We do, however, struggle with what to do with the donations.  Culturally, working parents seem to think that money=services.  It’s a reasonable assumption — generally speaking.  However, for a group led by volunteers, it’s not a reasonable assumption.  More projects=more work.  More work=less leisure, or time with family.

I’ve watched, time and time again as each school finds its PTA/PTO president, the person who leads for a year or two then burns out.  When I say “find,” I don’t mean vote for — unless you mean vote for the one person willing to take the position.  At our own school, we often lament the difficulty in getting others to step forward, how we cycle through the same small group of burnt-out parents for help.  Yet, stories from other schools tell us that not only are we not alone, we’re lucky to have who we have, and that our board does function and services are provided.

Every year, we get one or two parents that accidentally show up at PTO member meeting, only to find a dozen or so people around a table discussing matters of great importance to the school.  They don’t understand why we volunteer, while at the same time wondering out loud why there aren’t more people.  In any case, these are the people that the Obama Administration is reaching out toward.  The election of Obama made public service noble; the election of Obama made community activism glamourous.  For me, my favorite moment in the 2008 election battle wasn’t where McCain called Obama ”that one,”  but when Obama scoffed at Gulliani’s attempts to demean his experience as a community activist.  In both cases, the American people reacted.  Obama called it right.  We’re ready to reclaim ”being American.”

Thanks to the Discover Process in my on-going case with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, I now possess a treasure trove of incriminating internal CDC documents that clearly indicate that PPP’s are routinely utilized. How incriminating? As just one example, I have an e-mail from an HR specialist to a Hiring Authority stating that she would be “happy” to rewrite “…the specialized experience, questions, etc. before resubmitting the vacancy posting package to AHRC for competition.” That is the “smoking gun” in a series of e-mails in which various CDC personnel are attempting to illegally circumvent the veterans’ preference of one applicant so that a less qualified non-veteran can be hired. And there are numerous other e-mails, and numerous other violations.

My initial complaint to the OSC was filed on line, on April 08, 2010. There was a follow-up in May, with the delivery of numerous supporting documents. It took until July 15 for the OSC to indicate that it would not investigate this matter. Their reasoning? Since you have presented your case to the Merit System Protection Board (MSBP), our efforts would only duplicate the MSPB’s work.

I filed my appeal of their decision (and they granted only 13 days to do so) on July 23. I carefully re-did my initial complaint, making sure that any matter that I had placed before the MSPB concerning myself was eliminated from the complaint. The complaint, in the appeal, solely involved other applicants, a total of 12, veterans and non-veterans alike, who would not have appealed their cases to the MSPB because they would not even be aware of the CDC’s actions which denied them their rights to a position by utilizing re-configured job requirements.

The takeaway: if you are considering filing a complaint with the OSC, make sure that the issues could not in any way be construed as being before the MSPB. And stay tune for the results of my recent appeal, which I hope will be resolved positively, in less than three months.

- John Paul Jones
john.jones@civilservicechange.org

Much has changed with the advent of this new administration.  Perhaps there is something left to gain, although probably not for me.  It’s probably too late for me and the thousands of others who spoke up too early.  Still, we can’t be short-sighted, and now we must look to the future and the generation that will continue feeding our country and rebuilding our democratic heritage.  Now that there is the potential of turning back bad precedent, I’ve retained the services of David Colapinto, partner at the esteemed law firm of Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto.

Granted, this is a shared responsibility.  Mr. Colapinto was gracious enough to work with me to find a mutually agreeable arrangement: one that satisfies his need to run a business and one that satisfies my need neutralize risk.  Like me, Mr. Colapinto is more than just a business owner; he is someone trying to do the right thing while earning a proper living for his efforts.  Like me, David Colapinto believes in the necessity of an open and strong civil service: one that runs efficiently and can self-correct itself where necessary.

I am quite excited about the prospect of giving this new administration the opportunity to show that it means business when it comes to government business.  Based on the District Court release of the infamous “Sandler Investigation,” the one where the agency ridiculously investigated ME for being ATTRACTED to the man I complained was sexually harassing me, we’re requesting that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) grant a motion for reconsideration.  We’re also tying in the “flog a whistleblower” ruling, which essentially states that federal employees are without legal remedy from the most heinous of workplace acts: exempt from criminal statutes, and exempt from tort.  A sample of acts included are false imprisonment, torture, rape and murder too.

And for those following this story, just remember that the theme of MSPB and the government’s past failure to protect federal workers is: ABSURD.

One-third of employees had tenure of less than five years.

I did a quick cross-check between the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)’s federal worker database and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recently released report on the Federal Workforce.  Because OPM’s database is transparent to a high level of detail and kept current with quarterly data, I’d give more credibility to it over the opaque annual report issued by the EEOC.

To which I say, in comparison to OPM’s personnel database, the EEOC report on federal diversity appears to be inflated by as many as 50,000 minorities.   I’ll of course need to do a little more research to explain my findings and document the methodology used.

FedScope is a powerful tool, and one highlighted on DATA.GOV.  This utility allows users to view highly detailed information crosstabulated on agencies by area, GS level, occupation, race, ethnicity and more.  With so many aspects, it’s not intuitive, but once a researcher figures out how to drill down and extract information, invaluable.