Return to Home PageThe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Letter from EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez to Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
June 22, 2005
Mr. Wade Henderson
Executive Director
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
1629 K Street, NW - 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Henderson:
We appreciated the opportunity to meet with members of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) employment task force on May 31, 2005, to discuss your questions and concerns about my proposal to reposition the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's field offices. At the close of that meeting you indicated you would be submitting some additional questions. Thank you for your letter of June 14, 2005, providing those questions. We are responding in advance of the July 8, 2005, Commission meeting and, as agreed, will also post your questions and our answers on the Commission's web site.
The EEOC's last significant realignment of the field structure was in 1979, more than a quarter century ago. Our country, our government and the American workplace are immeasurably different now. The current challenge for the EEOC is to transform itself to meet these new realities, which include the following sobering facts:
In 1979, the Commission employed 3,800 staff. This fiscal year, the agency employs approximately 2,400 staff. Over a two-decade period, then, the Commission, because of budget limitations, has been unable to replace 1,400 employees who have left the agency.
In 1979, the Commission received 49,350 charges. During fiscal year 2004, EEOC received 79,432 charges, and the numbers of receipts were even higher for each of the previous three years. In plain terms, since the last restructuring, the Commission's private sector workload has increased by approximately 61% while at the same time EEOC has 37% fewer staff. The agency is at risk if we choose not to confront this reality and reposition accordingly.
In 2001, George W. Bush issued the President's Management Agenda, requiring each Federal agency to develop a restructuring plan so that it would become more customer-centered, results-oriented and performance-based. In 2002, the Commission contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to study and recommend to EEOC how we could increase the agency's effectiveness. NAPA concluded that EEOC could improve service to our customers by establishing a National Contact Center, reducing the number of district offices and streamlining our managerial structure.
I have therefore proposed a phased-in repositioning plan. Stage One was the establishment of the National Contact Center which now provides "real time" responses to more than one and a half million telephone and other inquiries the Commission receives annually. The current proposal is Stage Two. This proposal, when implemented, will improve service to all EEOC stakeholders by repositioning the field. The touchstone of the proposal is to increase resources to be spent on front-line positions - investigators, mediators, trial attorneys and administrative judges. Under repositioning, the number of staff dedicated to mission-related work would increase and not decline. The proposal also calls for EEOC to open two new field offices in underserved communities.
The resources to fund front-line positions would be secured by eliminating several high-level managerial positions and their attendant administrative staff. As senior field managers and administrative staff leave the agency, their positions would be eliminated. We plan to reduce management costs and reallocate the savings to those positions providing customer service to the public. There is one other significant aspect to this repositioning proposal: No existing field office will be closed. No EEOC employee will be left without a job, no EEOC employee will be fired or laid off, and no staffer will be involuntarily transferred to a different office. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, the repositioning proposal is employee-friendly.
Please note that LCCR's questions, which appear in italics, have been reproduced verbatim in the same format that they were submitted.
Questions and Answers
QUESTION
I. Changes to Offices Designation, Structure, and Staffing Levels. The Chair's Proposal calls for 15 District offices, each with a District Director and a Regional Attorney; 9 Field Offices, each with a Director and a Supervisory Trial Attorney; 15 Area offices, each with a Director and a Trial Attorney; and 14 Local offices, each with a Director. Further, the Proposal describes the District and Field offices as full service offices, while the area and local offices are described as providing a more limited set of services. This new alignment raises a number of questions about the relative capabilities of these offices, and what clients can expect. Specifically:
a. New Geographical Boundaries
1.) The Proposal reduces the current number of District offices from 23 to 15 - how was it determined that 15 district offices was the appropriate number, as opposed to some other number? How were these 15 offices identified?
ANSWER
The touchstone of the repositioning proposal is to reduce the number of upper-level management positions and reduce administrative costs. The reduction in the number of district offices will realize these goals. We believe that a national structure of 15 district offices provides the management oversight needed and a reasonable distribution of private and federal sector workloads to service the intake of charges, grow the mediation program, ensure an effective national litigation program, service federal sector complainants and provide quality customer service to all agency stakeholders.
QUESTION
2.) By reducing the overall number of District offices from 23 to 15, the geographical jurisdictional boundaries for each District office have been expanded. Please explain how these new boundaries were determined?
ANSWER
The repositioning proposal anticipates not only the current 51 field offices but also the opening of two additional offices in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Mobile, Alabama. The new geographical boundaries were designed to make it easier for charging parties and other stakeholders to contact the nearest EEOC office and also, generally, to apportion workload commensurate with enforcement resources (investigators, mediators, trial attorneys and administrative judges).
QUESTION
3.) As a result of these new jurisdictional boundaries, the responsibility for the following states/territories has been split across multiple District offices - Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. It is our understanding that some of these changes were proposed to encompass metropolitan areas that span across state borders, but it would be useful if you would explain in more detail why these splits/changes have been proposed. How will these changes be communicated to those in the affected communities? Will state-by-state statistics (for example, on number of charges filed, pending litigation, backlog) continue to be compiled for states that will now be split between multiple jurisdictions?
ANSWER
First, it should be noted that the jurisdictional boundaries for Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico are not being split between district offices.
Generally, the geographic divisions contained in the repositioning plan are designed to improve customer access to our field offices. That is, some charging parties and other stakeholders are in closer proximity to EEOC field offices in an adjoining state. To improve customer service, we determined that these field offices should serve contiguous geographic areas, although they may not be in the same states as the field offices. For example, just as the St. Louis District Office has effectively served the nearby southwestern area of Illinois for many years, it was decided to make adjustments to jurisdictional boundaries to give employees and employers access to the nearest EEOC office, for example, putting all of the Memphis metropolitan area under the Memphis office instead of having it divided among the Memphis, Little Rock and Jackson, Mississippi, offices. Such a realignment makes it possible to develop more effective enforcement, outreach and technical assistance programs.
EEOC will retain the capacity to generate charge data on a state-by-state basis.
QUESTION
b. Changes in Office Services and Staffing
1.) Please explain the services to be provided and functions that will be required in each of the four types of offices - district, field, area and local - and address how it will impact the Commission's goal of enhanced enforcement, service delivery, improved efficiency and/or cost savings. In particular, please specify the differences in the level of services to be provided or responsibilities that will be required in each type of office, and how each office description will change.
ANSWER
The answer to this question can be found in the "Field Offices by Type" document posted during May 2005 to our web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/reposition/fo-types.html.
QUESTION
2.) Please identify the specific staff positions that will be required in each of the four types of offices - district, field, area, and local.
ANSWER
Again, please see our web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/reposition/fo-types.html.
QUESTION
3.) For those offices being upgraded, will additional personnel be hired? If so, please identify the new positions that will be added. Conversely, for those offices being downgraded, please explain the specific changes in the staff composition that will be required at these offices.
ANSWER
Upgraded and newly created offices will receive additional staff, including appropriate upper-level management, front-line and legal staff. Under my repositioning plan, no staff person will lose a job. In the future, as attrition takes place in re-classified offices, senior managers will be replaced with management appropriate to the office classification. Additionally, resources currently devoted to some administrative positions will be re-allocated to front-line positions.
QUESTION
4.) Please detail any additional hiring of attorneys and/or investigators that is proposed for each type of office.
ANSWER
For the last four years, the agency has lost investigators and attorneys, and because of insufficient funds, has been unable to replace many of these critical personnel. With the elimination of a number of management and administrative positions, we will reallocate these salaries to front-line enforcement positions, which will allow us to hire additional investigators and attorneys as workload dictates and resources permit.
QUESTION
5.) Will legal staff, e.g., attorneys, be required in all area offices? Currently, how many area offices have legal staff? In area offices without legal staff, will legal staff be hired?
ANSWER
It is the Office of General Counsel's practice to locate attorneys in area offices pursuant to regional attorney requests and consistent with workload and the budget. No change is anticipated in that regard. Under the plan there will be 15 area offices. At present there are attorneys in all but three of those offices. It is anticipated those vacancies will be filled, budget-permitting.
QUESTION
6.) Is there legal staff in the area offices that are becoming local offices? What will happen to this staff? If these staff leave, or are moved elsewhere, will they be replaced with other legal staff at the same level? Will there be a requirement to have an attorney in these local offices?
ANSWER
Legal staff in offices becoming local offices will remain in those offices. Given the expected litigation workload of those offices, we expect to fill vacancies that arise.
QUESTION
7.) Will deputy regional attorney positions be required under the proposal? If so, how many? Where will these positions be located, e.g., in the District offices or the Field offices or some combination? Will these positions be competed?
ANSWER
The deputy regional attorney position will be a district position available to individuals not continuing as regional attorneys. Accordingly, the position will not be competed. The number is dependent on how many individuals choose to serve in that position. The individual could serve anywhere in the district.
QUESTION
8.) What will happen with the 8 regional attorneys whose offices are downgraded? If they are moved to deputy director positions, how does this advance the Commission's stated purpose of moving more employees to the front lines?
ANSWER
As stated above, the deputy regional attorney position will be available to those regional attorneys no longer assigned to a district office. These individuals will be retained by the Commission but in different positions. The reduced cost of our management structure will permit us to move more employees to the front lines.
QUESTION
9.) For each of the downgraded offices (from district to field and from area to local), what positions will no longer exist and what positions will be created? Will any ADR positions be lost through this reorganization? If so, how will this effect the ADR program?
ANSWER
The repositioning proposal anticipates that no EEOC staffer will lose a job. In some offices, as senior managers leave the agency, their positions will be converted to front line positions, reflecting the new field organizational structure. Similarly, where the Commission finds unnecessary duplication of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Coordinator position, one of the positions will be converted after attrition to a front-line mediator position. As a result of such staff adjustments, we will enhance our mediation program.
QUESTION
10.) One of the stated goals of the plan is to increase consistency and uniformity of service that the public receives. In order to meet that goal, will there be consistency and/or uniformity in how offices are staffed - either by types office (district/field/area/local) having a specific number of investigators/attorneys, or by tying the number of investigators/attorneys to the number of charges?
ANSWER
Yes, we staff offices based upon workload needs and office designation.
QUESTION
c. Impact of Restructuring on Customer Service
1.) In what ways do you anticipate EEOC customer service will change for the better with restructuring?
ANSWER
We believe that repositioning will bring about significant cost reductions in management staff and we will re-allocate these funds to front-line positions that better serve the full range of our customer base. Additional investigators, mediators, attorneys and administrative judges will enhance our customer service and the quality of charge processing. Further, the new jurisdictional boundaries will make EEOC services more accessible to the public.
QUESTION
d. Criteria Used to Reclassify Offices
1.) Please identify all the criteria used to select which offices will become district, field, area, and local offices? How were the criteria weighted?
ANSWER
Workload and geography, as well as other factors, were major considerations. For example, Las Vegas, where the plan calls for a new office, is the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the country. The EEOC is conforming its structure to the work that has to be done by redeploying staff to the front lines in the areas of greatest need. This proposal was informed by the work group created by Vice Chair Earp and then-Commissioner Miller. That group developed criteria which included workload, economies of scale, changes in population, demographics, geographic proximities and employment data.
QUESTION
2.) Please walk through how the criteria were applied to a given office. In particular, please explain the specific assessments made regarding any offices downgraded or upgraded from their current designations.
ANSWER
A variety of factors, including historical workload patterns, population and job growth, demographics and geographic accessibility, were taken into account to determine how the agency could best fulfill its mission. Again, the status of offices was decided with a view toward how we could best serve all agency stakeholders.
QUESTION
3.) If workload was a criteria, what does this mean - number of charges per year, number of Charges per investigator, population covered, minority population covered?
ANSWER
Workload was a criterion, encompassing the average number of private sector and federal sector receipts over the last four years.
QUESTION
4.) How were litigation numbers - i.e., the number of cases pending, the number of cases filed in different regions, the quality of pending cases, specific litigation goals - considered in this repositioning process?
ANSWER
A variety of factors, including workload, was considered during the repositioning process. The emphasis was on redeploying staff to the front lines in the areas of greater need and maintaining a strong presence throughout the country. Under the new structure, the Office of General Counsel anticipates that case filings will remain in the range of prior years' filings.
QUESTION
5.) How were local demographics considered in the repositioning proposal planning?
ANSWER
Local demographics was a criterion in determining the status of field offices. We evaluated surrounding minority and ethnic populations near a field office. District directors recommended the establishment of two new offices to enhance services to underserved communities in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Mobile, Alabama. Additionally, district directors recommended changes to existing jurisdictional boundaries. For example, we determined that we could enhance our services in northern Mississippi. Because of the distance between the Jackson Area Office and northern Mississippi, we believe that service to that area can be improved. Accordingly, the proposal realigns the boundaries of the Memphis District Office to include counties in northern Mississippi. This geographical realignment makes it possible to develop more effective enforcement, outreach and technical assistance programs.
QUESTION
6.) Was it assumed that a decrease in charges from a community with a large racial or ethnic population automatically signaled a lesser need for an EEOC presence in that community, e.g., in Detroit, Boston, Cleveland?
ANSWER
Definitely not.
QUESTION
7.) To what extent was the proposed restructuring for any of the offices based on the conclusion that the respective fair employment practices agency (FEPA) for that geographic area was effective; and if so, what data was relied upon by the Commission is assessing the FEPA performance?
ANSWER
For repositioning purposes, we considered EEOC and FEPA workloads. For example, we propose to open an office in Mobile in part because there is no FEPA in Alabama.
QUESTION
8.) With regard to reclassifying offices and geographic boundaries, what comparative charge processing data was analyzed? An office, for example, that has a decreasing number of charges while also increasing productivity may provide more reliable insight into structure and staffing, than an office that shows an increase in charges taken but then paltry enforcement or relief for victims.
ANSWER
In determining district status and jurisdiction, workload receipts over the last four years and geographic proximity were prominent criteria.
QUESTION
9.) Can you explain the rationale and statistics that justify moving the five counties in Maryland from the Baltimore District Office to the Washington, DC Field Office?
ANSWER
For charging parties and respondents in those counties, travel to the Washington Field Office is significantly closer than travel to the Baltimore District Office. The Commission office nearest to an area usually is best able to serve it.
QUESTION
10.) With regard to federal sector charges:
ANSWER
Federal sector workload was not considered in isolation. A combination of private sector charge receipts and federal sector case receipts were primary considerations in determining an office's status and geographical jurisdiction.
QUESTION
II. Impact of Repositioning Plan on the Commission's Overall Litigation Efforts. The Chair's Proposal raises a number of questions about its impact on the Commission's litigation and enforcement efforts. Specifically:
1.) The proposed reduction of the number of District offices from 23 to 15 would result in the elimination of 8 regional attorney positions. What is the projected impact of the repositioning on the total number of cases the Commission expects to litigate in the coming fiscal years? Do you expect to litigate the same number of cases as under the prior structure, or will you be litigating more cases, or will you be litigating less cases? What factors did you consider to make this assessment of the impact on the Commission's litigation efforts?
ANSWER
The Office of General Counsel anticipates that subsequent to repositioning case filings will be within the range of prior year filings. Commission litigation is largely dependent on the charge filing process. The charge volume has been fairly consistent for the past number of years. Accordingly, the number of litigation cases produced has been fairly consistent as well. Absent an unanticipated sudden increase or decrease in charge filings, there is no reason to expect any significant change in the filing of litigation matters.
QUESTION
2.) What steps will be taken to ensure that the 15 regional attorneys under the new structure will be able to review and authorize the same levels of litigation as the 23 regional attorneys under the current structure? By what percentage will the caseloads of regional attorneys, or other attorneys, increase? If no increase is projected, how was this conclusion reached? What is the projected impact of the Proposal on the length of time to process cases, and please explain how this conclusion was reached.
ANSWER
The vast majority of court cases brought by the Commission are authorized under the "Notice of Intent" procedure. These cases are submitted to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) by regional attorneys with a covering memorandum detailing the case. After a review by OGC, the case is authorized for filing. A small percentage of cases proceed under the "Presentation Memorandum" route which provides for authorization by either the General Counsel or the Commission itself. A review of the case filings of the last several years indicates that similar numbers of cases are well within the capacity of 15 regional attorneys. It is anticipated that the docket a regional attorney would have responsibility for would, on average, increase by one-third. There is no change anticipated for other attorney staff as the repositioning proposal does not contemplate staff changes at other than the regional attorney level.
It is unclear what is meant by "the length of time to process cases." To the extent this refers to the litigation authorization process, we do not anticipate an increase in the time to authorize cases for filing as the personnel assigned (including 15 regional attorneys) will be adequate for that purpose.
QUESTION
3.) One of the stated purposes for the restructuring is to "enhance" its enforcement presence. How will requiring directors and regional attorneys (the official responsible for authorizing litigation) to cover larger territories advance this purpose?
ANSWER
Enforcement presence is a direct correlation of enforcement ability. The senior managers of a district will as a result of consolidation have more staff to utilize and accordingly be better able to staff larger or more complicated investigations or litigation. This ability to leverage our resources will enable cases to be addressed in a more comprehensive and timely manner.
QUESTION
4.) Does the proposed new structure reflect a specific strategic litigation plan? Does the Commission have a strategic litigation plan with litigation goals and priorities? Are there certain types of cases being targeted? Are there target goals for number of cases, and type of cases, litigated in each jurisdiction? If so, please provide details.
ANSWER
The Commission's litigation program is guided by the agency's Strategic Plan, the National Enforcement Plan and the Strategic Issues List, as well as the general program principles applied by the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Additionally, OGC has worked with regional attorneys to develop district-specific goals. The proposed structure will further a strategic approach to litigation by the consolidating of offices providing regional attorneys the capacity to better address impact cases.
QUESTION
5.) Are there any substantive areas in which the Commission seeks to increase litigation, and if so, how are these goals reflected in the Proposal? Please explain how the proposal will enable regional attorneys to increase certain types of litigation in different regions of the country? (For example, there are growing concerns about the low numbers of race discrimination cases being litigated in the Deep South, even though these same jurisdictions reportedly have some of the highest rates of discrimination charge filings in the country.)
ANSWER
The substantive areas in which the Commission seeks to increase litigation are contained in the Strategic Issues List. The proposal furthers this goal by making greater resources available and providing more flexibility to regional attorneys.
QUESTION
6.) In states split into separate jurisdictions, what steps will be taken to ensure the two district offices responsible for one state work together to investigate patterns of discrimination?
ANSWER
The geographic lines which delineate areas of responsibility do not constrain investigations, nor will they have an adverse impact on our litigation efforts. An investigation begun in an office may be pursued wherever the evidence leads. To the extent that the "partnering" of offices within a state or over multiple states would be helpful during either the investigative process or during litigation, such efforts will be facilitated by the Office of Field Programs and the Office of General Counsel.
QUESTION
7.) What will happen to litigation, investigations, mediations, federal sector cases, and conciliations currently going on in the offices that will be downgraded? Will they be supervised by and decisions made by the new District Directors and Regional Attorneys or will they continue to be supervised by and be under the control of the current staff?
ANSWER
Ongoing litigation, investigations, mediations, federal sector cases and conciliations will continue to be processed by current staff at their present locations. New charges received and litigation filed after the plan's effective date will be handled under the new office boundaries.
QUESTION
8.) Will the deputy regional attorneys be able to authorize litigation or will that authority remain with the regional attorneys only? Or will district directors be able to authorize litigation? If deputy regional attorneys have to have their litigation approved by regional attorneys, how does this decrease the layers of management?
ANSWER
The litigation authorization process is set forth in the response to #2 in this section above. Under our present procedures, all cases must be submitted to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for filing authorization. District directors have not in the past had litigation authority nor will they under the repositioning plan. Any proposal to initiate litigation must be submitted by a regional attorney to OGC. No change in the process is anticipated.
QUESTION
III. Proposal Implementation Plan and Communication of Changes to Public. We have several concerns about the steps that will be taken to ensure that affected communities receive accurate, timely information about changes in office services or locations. Specifically:
1.) To what extent have you made any efforts to reach out to those who would be affected by changes to office locations/structures in local communities to determine how best to meet their needs? If so, by what means? What have been the results? If not, what plans have you developed for communicating changes to local communities affected by restructuring?
ANSWER
Once the Commission has approved the repositioning proposal, the agency will launch a national outreach campaign to alert all stakeholders of the changes to geographic boundaries, the status of various offices and appropriate contact information. This campaign will include notification to the news media, information to be posted on EEOC's web site and dissemination of information at the community level.
QUESTION
2.) What steps will be taken to ensure that claimants whose local EEOC office is outside their state are not confused about where to file a charge?
ANSWER
The agency has multiple channels of communication that provide information to potential charging parties on where to file a charge of discrimination. Regardless of where a charging party is located, he/she may continue to file a charge in any convenient EEOC office. If it is determined that the office where the charge is filed is not the proper one to process the charge, the charge will be transferred to the appropriate office.
Additionally, EEOC will undertake a national publicity campaign to provide stakeholders with information about the offices that serve their jurisdictions.
QUESTION
3.) What steps have you taken (or will you take) to ensure that if the reorganization is approved, there will be a smooth transition for cases and complainants?
ANSWER
In anticipation of an approved repositioning plan, transition teams comprised of field and headquarters senior managers and analysts are examining all facets of agency operations.
QUESTION
4.) To what extent have you evaluated the impact of the Proposal on the state fair employment practices agencies that also receive discrimination charges? Will the proposed jurisdictional changes alter the reporting lines for these agencies? How will such changes be communicated and coordinated?
ANSWER
The repositioning proposal addresses EEOC's field structure and not the FEPAs' structures or charge processing. Thus, the proposal has no substantive impact on FEPAs. The majority of FEPAs will maintain relationships with the same district offices. However, as a result of repositioning, some FEPAs will develop relationships with different district offices.
QUESTION
IV. Cost-Benefit Analysis. We are interested in gaining a better understanding of the relevant costs and benefits associated with the proposal. Specifically:
1.) Please identify all financial costs expected to be incurred to implement this proposal, including costs associated with staffing changes, rent, increased travel, re-training, and others.
ANSWER
As part of repositioning, we anticipate incurring costs associated with opening two new local offices, establishing two new field senior executive service positions, funding for permanent change of station (PCS) moves, staffing field office director positions, and filling new service manager and administrative technician positions. We do not anticipate any additional training costs as a direct result of repositioning. Most importantly, however, the costs will be more than offset through the savings achieved through the elimination of senior management and administrative positions.
QUESTION
2.) Does the cost analysis include the relocation costs for employees who move and of increased travel for District Directors and Regional Attorneys? If not, is it expected that these individuals will not travel to the offices that they cover? Does the cost analysis include training money for the administrative people who will be switched to investigator functions?
ANSWER
Yes, the cost analysis does include permanent change-of-station costs for some staff who voluntarily move pursuant to the repositioning. We do anticipate a modest increase in travel expenses above current levels. Because we do not know how many administrative staff may take advantage of opportunities to convert to enforcement-oriented positions or what skill sets they might
possess, we are unable at this point to determine if there will be any associated training costs.QUESTION
3.) How much money will be saved by this proposal? In particular:
ANSWER
This proposal anticipates that the elimination of senior management and administrative positions will result in compensation savings of $4.8 million over an eight-year period, which will be reallocated to front-line enforcement efforts.
QUESTION
4.) To the extent there are cost savings, what will these funds be used for, and will the Commission require that these funds be used for a specific targeted purpose?
ANSWER
Please see response to #3 in this section above.
QUESTION
5.) If the cost savings includes lower salary costs as higher level/management staff - primarily senior attorneys - leave the agency, is there any commitment or requirement to replace these staff with other attorneys?
ANSWER
First, the assumption in this question that savings will come primarily from the attrition of senior attorneys is incorrect. Most of the projected cost savings will result from senior employees, in general, as well as administrative enforcement staff. The savings from these departures will be reallocated to the Commission's litigation program or to administrative enforcement as circumstances dictate.
All staffing decisions will be based upon workload needs. The Commission's urgent need is to staff front-line enforcement positions (investigators, mediators, trial attorneys and administrative judges).
QUESTION
6.) We understand that over half of the cost savings are projected to come through staff attrition, such as through Regional Attorney retirements. This suggests that the projected cost savings will not be realized for several years, is this correct? Please explain.
ANSWER
Yes, we anticipate cost savings will be achieved as a result of projected staff attrition over a period of years, rather than only in the first year of implementation.
QUESTION
7.) How much work will have to be transferred among offices? Are these costs being measured? If so, please explain how these measurements will be determined, and what the estimated costs are.
ANSWER
Currently, we must transfer work, including both private sector charges and federal sector hearings requests, from one district to another, in order to balance workloads. We hope to reduce inter-district transfers, but we cannot anticipate whether transfers will be necessary under proposed repositioning due to uncertainties associated with projecting future charge receipts and staffing levels.
QUESTION
8.) Under this new plan, Administrative Judges will have further to travel (for example, the Oklahoma office was covered by Dallas District Office, now it is covered by the St. Louis District Office). Is there funding for more travel for Administrative Judges, and, if not, is the plan to have them do more hearings telephonically?
ANSWER
Staff from any functional component (that is, outreach, alternative dispute resolution, enforcement and federal sector) may be assigned to an office when the need arises even though the functional component is not a part of the normal organizational structure of that office as outlined in a chart available on our web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/reposition/fo-types.html. Consequently, where workload demands indicate that there is a need for an administrative judge in a given office, resources-permitting, one will be assigned to that office, thereby eliminating the need for additional travel costs.
QUESTION
V. Backlog. Over the last decade, the Commission has made significant progress in reducing its backlog of cases. The most recent data over the last two fiscal years, as well as the early data from this fiscal year, shows a small increase in the Commission's backlog.
1.) How will the backlog be addressed by the repositioning effort?
ANSWER
The Commission does not have a backlog. The Commission's pending inventory as of the end of the fiscal year, for each of the past three years, has held steady at approximately 30,000 charges.
QUESTION
2.) What is EEOC's current backlog?
ANSWER
Please see answer to #1 in this section above.
QUESTION
VI. Headquarters Reorganization. We understand that the next stage of the repositioning effort is to undertake a reorganization of EEOC Headquarters.
1.) What criteria and goals will be sought with Headquarters' reorganization?
ANSWER
We intend to streamline headquarters operations and reallocate some of our current headquarters positions to field operations.
QUESTION
2.) When will the Headquarters' reorganization proposal be made public?
ANSWER
The headquarters repositioning proposal is still under development.
QUESTION
3.) Will you brief stakeholders and employees on the Headquarters' proposal and offer an opportunity for public input?
ANSWER
As with the pending field proposal, we will brief stakeholders and provide opportunities to comment on the proposed headquarters structure.
QUESTION
4.) Why is the Headquarters' reorganization being done separately from the field?
ANSWER
We firmly believe that one of the principal responsibilities of headquarters is to provide support and service to the field structure. Accordingly, until the new field structure is in place, we are only in the initial stages of a proposal for headquarters repositioning.
QUESTION
VII. EEOC Staff Support for Restructuring Proposal. Because EEOC staff will have to implement the Proposal, it is important to consider their views on the Proposal and how it will work.
1.) Do you think having broad staff "buy-in" is essential to a successful restructuring and do you think you currently have "buy-in" from EEOC Staff? In other words, do you believe there is internal support for restructuring EEOC offices, and do you believe such support is necessary before moving forward?
ANSWER
Opportunities for staff input have been extensive and continue to date. EEOC employees have been invited to submit repositioning proposals generally, to provide responses to the National Academy of Public Administration report and the recommendations contained therein, and, most recently, to comment on the specifics contained in my repositioning field proposal. Many employees have availed themselves of these opportunities. Significantly, our employees raised concerns that the agency not close any existing field office, not lay off staff or have a reduction-in-force, and not involuntarily transfer employees to different offices. The Chair's proposed repositioning is sensitive to all of these concerns. While protecting every EEOC employee's job, she has proposed a plan that enhances service to all agency stakeholders.
QUESTION
1.) What steps will the Commission take to get staff "buy-in" to the Proposal?
ANSWER
Please see response to #1 in this section above.
QUESTION
VIII. Timing. Questions have been raised about the timing for moving forward on the Proposal.
1.) If the reorganization is approved, when will it be implemented? Why have you selected that date?
ANSWER
If the repositioning proposal is approved, we expect implementation by October 1, 2005. This date was selected because it marks the beginning of a new fiscal year.
Again, thank you for your interest in and concerns about the Commission's proposal for restructuring the field. I hope that this information is of assistance.
Sincerely,
Cari M. Dominguez
Chair
cc: Vice Chair Naomi C. Earp
Commissioner Leslie E. Silverman
Commissioner Stuart J. Ishimaru
This page was last modified on June 23, 2005.