The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Commission Meeting of Monday July 18, 2005




NAOMI C. EARP Vice Chair



Program Analyst

Associate Legal Counsel/Parliamentarian


Cari Dominguez

Bernadette Wilson


Deidre Flippen

Deidre Flippen

Everett Barnes

Jeffrey Smith




1:07 p.m.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: The meeting will now come to order. Good morning and welcome to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Before we get to the business at hand today, I just want to take a moment to recognize someone who just passed last Tuesday and who was a tremendous civil rights leader and that's Arthur Fletcher. You know, he was a World War II hero, purple heart recipient, but it seemed like everything he did he excelled and was a tremendous leader, the legacy that he leaves in the civil rights community, advisor to four Presidents.

I had the honor of serving as Assistant Secretary in the position that he created back in the Nixon Administration and I had a tremendous privilege of working in a number of programs that he conceptualized, starting with the Philadelphia Plan. And so a lot of people would only see him as a purple heart recipient, but also recipient of the hearts of so many people in our nation who have benefitted tremendously by his vision.

I was reading the stories about him and, you know, he personally raised funds to help the Brown v. Board of Education litigation. And so just on behalf of the Commission and I just want to say that we share in the mourning of tremendous loss and to his family our sympathies as well as a debt of gratitude on behalf of our nation for all of the wonderful things that he did. He leaves a tremendous contribution. His life was a life of purpose and a life that made a difference.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Madam CHAIR, I also knew Art Fletcher and he was a great American and I had the honor of working with him when I was at the Civil Rights Commission briefly during the early '90s and also worked with him when he was the Chair of the Civil Rights Commission. And one of the great things about Art Fletcher was that he was proud to do civil rights and he took it on with a passion. And he also brought to me, I think, the notion that civil rights is never really a partisan issue or it's a bipartisan issue that everyone embraced it.

And we had our differences on certain issues, but he did it proudly and he did it strongly and he was a great voice and we will miss him. So thank you for recognizing him. I think it is very important.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Okay. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss and vote on four procurement matters. Our original published agenda also had the FEPA designations for Springfield, Illinois Department of Community Relations and the Reading, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as well as the certification of eight FEP Agencies. But Commissioner Ishimaru changed his agenda vote to approve, making both of those items unanimous and eliminating the need for their discussion at this meeting.

In accordance with the Sunshine Act, today's meeting is open to public observation of the Commission's deliberation and voting. And so, at this time, let me ask Bernadette Wilson to announce any notation votes that have taken place since the last Commission meeting. Ms. Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Commissioners. I'm Bernadette Wilson from the Executive Secretariat. We would like to remind our audience that questions and comments from the audience are not permitted during the meeting and we ask that you carry on any conversation outside the meeting room departing and reentering as quietly as possible. Also, please, take this opportunity to turn your cell phones off or to vibrate mode.

During the period July 8, 2005 through July 15, 2005, the Commission acted on two items by notation vote: Approved FEPA designations for Springfield, Illinois Department of Community Relations, the Reading, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, and Approved the certification of eight FEP Agencies.

Madam Chair, it's appropriate at this time, to have a motion to close a portion of the next Commission meeting in case there are any closed agenda items.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Wilson. I'd like to make the motion that there be a portion of the next Commission meeting in case there are any closed agenda meeting items. Is there a second?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: All in favor?

ALL: Aye.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Oh, wait a minute. Is there any discussion after the second? I don't think so. Hearing none, all in favor?

ALL: Aye.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. It's kind of a slim attendance today and Monday morning. We have four procurement or contract matters on today's agenda. The first one is the renewal of our BNA Daily Labor Report Subscription. There is also a contract for the processing of the 2005 EEO-4 Report Survey, the renewal of our Novell Software Licensing Maintenance Agreement and a contract for Headquarters Support Services.

All of these requests are for approval of services or support systems that are necessary for the Commission's day-to-day operations. Our BNA Daily Labor Report Subscription allows our professional staff to stay current on legal issues and other developments relating to labor and employment. I, frankly, can't think of a better service the Commission has in terms of staying informed on labor and employment matters than that particular subscription.

The contract to process EEO-4 data will be used to compile the EEO data received from state and local Governments. The Novell Software Licensing Maintenance Agreement is essential to the operations of our Group- Wise email system, filing system and network management, which is all obviously a very principal means by which we communicate within the Commission and go about our work.

The contract for Headquarters Support Services will deliver those behind the scenes functions that are vital to our operations, such as the mailroom duplications and printing services, moving and labor services, state management and records management. Under our internal procedures, the Commission must approve the obligation of funds that exceed $100,000.

These matters exceed that threshold. In order to protect the procurement process, Commissioners are reminded that we cannot disclose any Government cost-estimates during the public meeting, other than to acknowledge that they do exceed $100,000. The specific amounts, of course, have been provided to the Commissioners in the written materials that were circulated for notation vote.

All four of these matters were submitted to the Commissioners for notation vote and each had received three votes to approve, including that of Commissioner Silverman, who couldn't be with us today. One vote from Commissioner Ishimaru was to place the matter on the agenda necessitating today's Commission meeting.

The first issues for discussion are the renewal of the Daily Labor Report Subscription and the contract for the processing of the 2005 EEO-4 Survey. These items are going to be presented by Deidre Flippen, Director of the Office of Research, Information and Planning. She is accompanied by Susan Taylor, who is the Director of the Library and Informational Service Division, and then will be followed by Joe Neckere, who is Director of the Program Research and Survey Division on the second item.

So, at this time, I will ask Deidre Flippen to, please, make her presentation on the BNA Subscription, after which, we will have any statements, comments and deliberations by the Commissioners on this item followed by a vote. We will then proceed to present the contract for the EEO-4 Survey. Ms. Flippen?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Madam Chair, I just want to make -- I have a question about what we can and can't say. We can't mention any dollar figure that we have been provided.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Even the total aggregate figure, just don't mention anything like that.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: And we'll be safe for the procurement.



CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: That's right.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Thank you very much.

MS. FLIPPEN: Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Commissioner Ishimaru, guests and colleagues. My name is Deidre Flippen and I am the Director of the Office of Research, Information and Planning for the EEOC. With me is Susan Taylor, Director of the Library and Information Services Division.

We are here today to request Commission approval to renew subscriptions with the Bureau of National Affairs for fiscal year 2005 and for four option years. These subscriptions are for the Daily Labor Report electronic version on the web for all Commission offices, and for a hard copy of the Daily Labor Report for the Headquarters Library.

This investment is vital to the daily operation of the Commission and its mission because the Daily Labor Report on the web provides the Agency with up-to-date analysis of key labor developments, court decisions, administrative rulings, and inside information from policy makers, union officials and industry leaders. This subscription also includes access to the Bureau of National Affairs Verdicts and Settlements service. This provides Commission legal staff with information on prominent verdicts and settlements in the employment discrimination field of law.

The Daily Labor Report is the best source of current news about the EEOC. The Daily Labor Report is available early each morning by 5:00 a.m. eastern time, to all EEOC staff on their desktops.

The hard copy or print version of the Daily Labor Report is maintained by the Headquarters Library which keeps this set going back to 1987 for historical purposes. The Library also has the Daily Labor Report on microfilm from 1941 to 1985.

The Bureau of National Affairs is the sole provider of the Daily Labor Report on the Web which precludes us from seeking out other competitors who might have this type of information. Other determining factors considered were:

(1) The Bureau of National Affairs editorial content is the intellectual property of the Bureau of National Affairs;

(2) The Bureau of National Affairs' analysis and editorial content is copyrighted information; and

(3) No other entity has been permitted to sell Bureau of National Affairs services.

Simply stated, without access to the Daily Labor Report, the EEOC would be severely hampered in accomplishing its mission. Thank you.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Flippen. We're now going to have an opportunity for statements or questions from our Commissioners. Madam Vice Chair?

VICE CHAIR EARP: I have none. I'm supportive.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Commissioner Ishimaru?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: I have a statement, Madam Chair. Could I just do that at the end after we hear all the questions and answers, you know, before we end the meeting?

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Is it related to this matter?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: It talks about the overall process today, so I'm happy to do it now and then ask questions, whatever you think is best.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: I think if you have -- so you have tied all of the different pieces under one statement? Is that it?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Yes, and I could either do it now or at the end, whatever you think is best.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Why don't you go ahead, Commissioner?



COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, thank you again for calling the meeting on my agenda vote. I appreciate that. We're being asked today to vote on four separate contracts covering a wide range of procurements that cover a substantial amount, for one year, and a number of them are multi-year contracts, which would bring them out even higher.

And as I have said before that money in this Agency is neither fungible nor infinite, when we choose to spend money on one thing, we are by definition selecting that activity or contract or procurement over others. In other words, where we spend our money sets our policy and shows our priorities.

It's simply impossible for me, as a Commissioner, to know where these contracts are a priority I would choose without seeing what the other choices are, without knowing where the rest of the money is committed. I have asked on numerous occasions for more information on how this Agency spends its money, so that I can know whether the expenditure in front of me is one that I can support. That information has not been forthcoming.

I do want to note, however, that through another form, I did receive additional information about our training budget and because it's a budget increase, I support that and commend the Chair for increasing our training budget after the mid-year budget review. I think that's a good thing to do and I'm glad to see that more resources are going for our training budget.

Many of you have heard me criticize the lack of money for training, especially compared to how we're spending our money on other activities. Apparently, the attorney training budget, as I have been informed, has increased to $75,000 and that's certainly a priority that I agree with and one that I have been encouraging the Agency to give more money to. And I again commend the Chair and her staff for making the increases to the training budget.

But frankly, my colleagues have made it clear that they also don't understand why this -- I believe that we have a fiduciary obligation as Members of this Body to understand the big picture. And we have gone back and forth over the prerogatives of the Chair and I understand your position on it. But I cannot, as a Member of this Body, make an informed decision on budget matters without knowing what the overall budget is.

And I would hope that that information would be forthcoming and until it is, I'm forced to be in this position of having to call meetings when other colleagues of mine would rather not. And I hope the information is forthcoming, so we can make a fully informed decision on how the resources of this Agency and the policy of this Agency will be set. But I do have a couple of questions on this issue in front of us.

Is there any other alternative to the Daily Labor Report, not as a how we get it from the provider, but are there any other sources that provide similar type of information or is this a unique service that's really only provided by the Daily Labor Report?

MS. FLIPPEN: It's my understanding that it's a unique service, but I will -- Susan, are there any other sources?

MS. TAYLOR: As far as I know, being Law Librarian here at the Agency, it is a unique service. There are some other online services with Westlaw and Lexis that people would have access to those, that would be the legal staff here at the Agency, they could access, but otherwise there is nothing else like the DLR.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Certainly not on a daily basis.

MS. TAYLOR: On a daily basis. You can sign up for some sort of news service via Westlaw and Lexis, so you could get information that way.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: But do those services basically cull from other printed or other sources of information? Is this like --

MS. TAYLOR: Probably like the AP Wire Services.


MS. TAYLOR: Court decisions, yes, Lexis and Westlaw would be doing that.


MS. TAYLOR: But there is nothing that would be of benefit for the entire Agency like the DLR.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: And there are other news letters and things like that that cover these issues, but are any of those daily, as far as you know?



MS. TAYLOR: BNA has a weekly one.


MS. TAYLOR: Called "Employment Discrimination Report."

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: And do we also get that?

MS. TAYLOR: We get that, yes.


MS. TAYLOR: In the library, yes.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: But no one, as far as you know, offers a daily service of the nature that the DLR offers?

MS. TAYLOR: No, correct.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Okay. Great. That's all, Madam Chair. Thank you.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Okay. A motion to approve the BNA Daily Labor Report Subscription would be in order, at this point, and I would so move. Is there a second?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please, vote aye.





COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: I would just ask that the record reflect that I am abstaining from this vote, but I do approve of it, but I'm abstaining from the vote.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: All right. So the results of the motion, the motion is approved, two in favor and one abstention, and so the vote is passed and the motion is carried.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Madam Chair, I have a technical procedural question that maybe Peggy came help us on. When we have three members here it's a quorum.


COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: For meeting purposes, for voting purposes, do you also need three votes in favor if we have a quorum or do you need just the majority of who is here?

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: I will defer to the Parliamentarian, my understanding is we just need the majority.

MS. MASTROIANNI: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Okay. All right. Good. So we'll continue to have our BNA Subscription, even though they have moved to or they are moving to Virginia leaving Washington, D.C. without a hearing, without any kind of posting on their website or anything like that. I'm very disappointed at their process.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: The power of the private sector.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: The power of the private sector. Hundreds of people are moving or whatever and, you know, we don't get to say a word about it, but notwithstanding that, we're very, very supportive of their work and are delighted that we'll continue to have it. Okay. Thank you very much, Susan.

The next item on the agenda is the Contract for Processing the 2005 EEO-4 Survey and it's also going to be presented by Ms. Flippen accompanied by Joe Neckere.

MS. FLIPPEN: Again, good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Commissioner Ishimaru, guests and colleagues. I'm Deidre Flippen, Director of ORIP for the EEOC. With me is Joe Neckere, Director of the Program Research and Surveys Division. We are asking the Commission for approval to contract for the processing of the 2005 State and Local Government EEO-4 Survey.

The EEO-4 is conducted every other year and collects data from state and local Governments with 100 or more full-time employees. The survey collects employment data by type of Government, by race/ethnic categories, by gender, by eight broad job categories and by salary intervals within each job category. Data are collected by full-time/part-time and new hire status.

The larger governments, those with 1,000 or more employees, file a report for each functional activity the Government performs. Those Governments with fewer than 1,000 employees file a single report summarizing all employees.

The EEO-4 was started in 1972 as a result of the Title VII amendment, which brought state and local Governments under the definition of employer. It was designed to serve the data needs of a number of federal agencies who formed a Joint Reporting Committee to develop EEO-4, so it would serve the data needs of each participating agency. It was conducted annually until 1991 when it was changed to the current biennial basis.

From the beginning, EEOC was responsible for the conduct of the survey. There are about 5,200 Governments who file 11,000 forms each time it is conducted. These Governments report 5.7 million full-time employees, 1.2 million part-time employees and over a half a million permanent new hires. These are data used by the Commission, the Department of Justice and other agencies in investigation of charges of discrimination in employment.

The data are shared with fair employment practices agencies and with researchers. The data are used by the Governments themselves in evaluating their EEO profiles. The solicitation includes the development of an online filing system for conducting the survey. We are asking the Commission to approve this request for processing the 2005 EEO-4 Survey. Thank you.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thank you. Madam Vice Chair, any questions?

VICE CHAIR EARP: I do have a couple of questions on this one. Let me open by saying generally I agree with Commissioner Ishimaru. I do believe that where we put our money is evidence of what our priorities are. However, it seems to me that it's more telling from a policy standpoint than it is for an administrative standpoint.

It seems to me that whether we like it or not, there are some back-office administrative operations that we have to fund and while we might like to shift those priorities to something else, it's not clear to me yet that we have a lot of latitude to do that. Although, the EEO-4 is an area where I do have some questions about over time whether or not we would need to continue the survey in the current fashion.

So a couple of quick questions, Deidre. The first one has to do with cost-sharing. Since we are the stewards of the survey, but we seem to use the data less than others, is there any possibility that the cost could be shared with the agencies that use it much more than we do?

MS. FLIPPEN: We have explored that with the other agencies a number of times. I think perhaps even at the end of last year we explored that. And the agencies response has been negative. They pretty much believe that OMB provides us with the funding to process the survey and they resisted that.

VICE CHAIR EARP: The timing for an online system, do you know what it is? How soon are we talking for having the survey online?

MS. FLIPPEN: Well, we hope to have the survey online for the filing deadline, which is September 30th. We're still hoping that we will accomplish that. We may need to extend that period of time for the filing deadline, but we're not sure right now.

VICE CHAIR EARP: Do you think that's realistic, given our experiences with some technological things?

MS. FLIPPEN: We're not sure. We're hoping that we'll be able to get it up and running.


MS. FLIPPEN: At least in a format that we can do the first year. I mean, even with the other surveys that we brought online. The first year, there were some bumps, but we were still able to accomplish the online system and to make improvements the next year.

VICE CHAIR EARP: This question, in my mind, is somewhat related to costs. Have we given any thought to a triennial or a quadrennial, I guess, spreading the survey out over longer periods of time to save? I know you have gone to biennial and that sounds really good. Any thought to making it farther and fewer between?

MS. FLIPPEN: We have not. We have not explored that option. And Joe may want to speak to quality issues.

MR. NECKERE: There will be considerable resistance from the Justice Department. They were the ones that didn't even want us to go to a biennial, but it seems that OMB has put this on us -- at the beginning. It was understood that EEOC was going to be responsible for conducting these surveys and sharing the data. And like as Deidre has explained, whenever we have gone, we have done it a number of times, to ask for funding or joint funding, they would always say well, OMB did not give us the money, they gave it to you. And that's why we have, in fact, gone to a biennial basis.

Also, when the survey started, every Government of whatever size was required to file by function. And so there are, you know, on the forms, 14 functions, so that any Government of any size will file 14 forms. And so we have gone away from that and just the smaller Governments now. So that has reduced the number of reports we get each year from about 60,000 to now we get like 11,000.

VICE CHAIR EARP: My final question and you may have actually already answered it, Joe, in looking at the EEO-1, we have had a number of conversations with other agencies like Labor and OMB and Justice and there is at least an argument that can be made about the EEO-1 being less useful to some agencies today than it was a couple of decades ago. I don't think that there is a definitive position on that, but there is at least that argument.

We don't use it quite so much for litigation. DOL kind of does its own thing when it is surveying and making decisions about how to approach analysis for its clientele. Could the same argument be made about the EEO-4 or is it inherently different because these are state and local agencies and Justice seems to rely on it more than say, for example, DOL does?

MS. FLIPPEN: Well, certainly, it is unique and we do, I mean, we get about 14,000 state and local charges a year and we get about 1,000 requests for the information. And they come from the field, they come from external sources, so there is interest in the survey information. We have not posted the information on our website, but we hope to do that. So I think that there is an interest in the information.

And we also, through our IPA Program, our Inter-Personnel Government Act Program that we have with researchers, we have a number of researchers who are very much interested in the state and local Government data. The EEO-4 data particularly because it includes the salary data. So they do a lot of analysis and research around that survey, much more so than the EEO-1 Survey.

VICE CHAIR EARP: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thanks. Commissioner Ishimaru?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Yes, that has peaked my interest. Is this EEO-4 data publicly available to researchers and academics to do this analysis?

MS. FLIPPEN: It is through our IPA Program, yes.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: But not through a FOIA request? Is it treated the same way EEO-1 data is treated?





COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: So it's not generally available and it's not identifiable through --

MR. NECKERE: Only in aggregate form.

MS. FLIPPEN: Aggregate form.



COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: So you would not know that the city of X has this characteristic?

MS. FLIPPEN: No, it would be in aggregate form.


MS. FLIPPEN: If we posted it on the website. Similar to the EEO-1 information.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: But for the academics who get through our IPA Program, are they similarly limited to --




MS. FLIPPEN: No, they are not. Right.


MS. FLIPPEN: They are considered Government employees.


MS. FLIPPEN: You know, they sign an agreement around confidentiality and there is a process. We know exactly what it is that they are going to research.


MS. FLIPPEN: And, you know, we interact with them on their proposals, yes.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: And that's the same process we use for EEO-1 as well?




COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: This web-based system that's part of this, this is a new requirement for the contract. We did not do this in past years.




COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Can I ask, Peggy, how much of this contract, the increase would be attributable to this new requirement. Is that allowed under the procurement rules? I don't want to break any. It may be something that we could just answer by a little bit or a lot. I'm just curious how much adding something like this adds to a contract, but I'm not interested in specific numbers.

MS. MASTROIANNI: A little or a lot is appropriate.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: A little, yes. Right. A little or a lot, does it add to the overall processing contract?

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Or does it reduce the overall?


MR. NECKERE: Well, eventually that, of course, is the hope that it will reduce it, as a matter of fact. But initially, our estimate is that between 25 and 30 percent over the last time the survey was done, which was done manually.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Manually, yes, right. Right. And for the EEO-1, there is also an online version of that.




COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: And there has been, how can I frame it, less than robust participation in the online?

MR. NECKERE: Oh, no.

MS. FLIPPEN: No, no.

MR. NECKERE: It's if we have like 85 percent of the employers file on line --


MR. NECKERE: And last year, as an aside on the EEO-5, which is elementary and secondary school districts.


MR. NECKERE: We had that developed, the online filing system, and over 95 percent took part.


MR. NECKERE: So the following year, once like one knows where you are going, the price will definitely go down. But initially, you do have to --

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: You have to develop it, right.

MS. FLIPPEN: Get it set up, assistance.


COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Right. Well, that's good to hear then. So our processing costs for the other surveys then has gone down quite a bit.

MS. FLIPPEN: Yes, considerably.



MR. NECKERE: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Yes. Can you tell me how we at the Agency use this data? Are you in a position to tell me how much we use it? I would assume that our offices use this as we get charges and investigate the charges.



MS. FLIPPEN: Of the thousand reports that we get, I don't have the information in front of me in terms of how many of those requests are from the field, but we do maintain that information.


MS. FLIPPEN: In terms of how many of the requests are from the field for that information.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: But we get 1,000 Agency, EEOC Agency, requests for information from this form.


COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: I see. Okay. And the last question that I had is are we using the same -- is this the same survey that was used two years ago? Because I know on the EEO-1 there is a question of what would the new survey look like, and I think that's one of the points at issue that there is some controversy over.

Are we using the same format we used in collecting the data and, I guess, specifically what I'm asking, for the multiple race question that I know is on the EEO-1, are we asking people -- how are we asking people to provide that information here in the EEO-5? Is it the same way?

MS. FLIPPEN: We are using the same race/ethnic categories as we are for the EEO-1. Once a decision is made on the final changes to the EEO-1 race/ethnic categories, we will make the same changes --

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: We would follow that.

MS. FLIPPEN: -- to the 4.


MS. FLIPPEN: So that is going to be the model but, at this point, we're using the same as we are with the EEO-1 until we get that approval.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: So a person can choose one race.

MS. FLIPPEN: Yes, of five race categories.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Of the five race categories?





Thank you, Madam Chair.



CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: I am hoping that, at some point, we can use that report to come up with some sort of an analysis on the state of diversity in the local Governments, state and local Government, because ORIP has done really good work, diversity in the legal profession and looking at the EEO-1 Report, to do some trending, which is really, from our perspective, probably the most valuable component of this effort, of the collection that we have of the data. So that would be helpful.

So at this point, a motion to approve the 2005 EEO-4 survey would be in order, and I would so move.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Could I ask a technical question before we -- or maybe I could do that after we do the voting.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: After the vote? Sure.


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Is there a second?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye.


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Opposed? Abstentions?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Again, Madam Chair, I would abstain from the vote.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: All right. So the result of the -- the motion is approved with two votes in favor and one abstention, so the motion carries. Did you want to --

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: It's a technical question on this. Will there be a separate contract that we will have to approve or was this the approval for a contract itself or is this searching for a contractor?

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: This is the approval for the contract.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: For the contract itself.


COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Okay. Even though there is no vendor yet? We're searching for someone, but this is the final approval to do it?

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: That's correct.


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Okay. The third item on the agenda is the -- thank you very much, Deidre and Joe. The third item on the agenda is the Novell Software Licensing Maintenance Agreement, which is going to be presented by Everett Barnes, Director of the Telecommunications and Network Division in the Office of Information Technology.

At this point, I will invite Everett to come up.

MR. BARNES: Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice Chair and Commissioners. I am Everett Barnes, the Director of the Telecommunications and Networking Division at the Office of Information Technology. I come before you today to discuss the Novell Software Licensing Agreement that was submitted for Commission approval.

The Agency is currently under a Software Maintenance Agreement with Novell and it will expire in August 2005. The renewal of this agreement is necessary for EEOC to be licensed to use the network operating system, the GroupWise email system, and the ZenWorks network management software. Also, this agreement includes 24/7 technical support, software upgrades and patches.

Since all EEOC employees need to have the network and email system available to them continuously in order to conduct their work and to communicate electronically, this request is a recurring requirement. I am hereby asking your approval of this request. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Barnes. At this point, we'll ask for either statements or questions from our Commissioners and I will start with the Vice Chair.

VICE CHAIR EARP: I have none. To me, again, this is another one of those back room day-to-day, we have to have it and I don't think that we can either abstain or not support it while we try to figure out if there are more economical ways to do this.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Commissioner Ishimaru?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: How long are we using this system, the Novell System, for? We had an earlier vote, I assume, on procuring the software license for this. How long does that go and --

MR. BARNES: Currently, the software licensing goes for -- the agreement goes for two years. We were trying to prolong it but because of GSA's schedule, they only basically provide this type of agreement for two years.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Right. But to use the underlying software, there are other products out on the market besides these products that are competitive in nature. And I know we migrated to a different word processing and other application software recently. Yet, we're still using this software.

I guess my question is for purposes -- for now, we're using this software and we will be continuing to use it for at least the next two years or is it even longer than that?

MR. BARNES: For the next two years. We should be using this software for the next two years.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: And then the question of whether we can switch to another type of software, another package like we did from WordPerfect to Word, would come up?


COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: I see. So this is to provide maintenance services for this software for the next two years?

MR. BARNES: Yes. This is just for licensing purposes only for the next two years.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: A motion to approve the Novell Software Licensing Maintenance Agreement would be in order, at this point, and I would so move. Is there a second?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please, say aye.


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Aye. Opposed? Commissioner Ishimaru, abstention?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: I abstain, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: All right. So the motion carries with a vote of two in favor and one abstention. Thank you so much, Mr. Barnes.

MR. BARNES: Thank you.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: That was an easy one, huh? The last item on the agenda is the Competitive 8(a) Contract for Headquarters Support Services, which is going to be presented by our Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Smith.

At this point, I'll ask Mr. Smith to come up, Jeff, accompanied by George Betters.

MR. SMITH: Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Commissioner, General Counsel and guests. I am Jeffrey Smith, the Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Office of the Chief Financial Office and Administrative Services. I am accompanied by George Betters, Director, Resource Management Division. Thank you for the opportunity to present information on the need for a competitive 8(a) contract to provide facilities and support services for our Headquarters building. The 8(a) Program is administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to assist small disadvantaged businesses to compete in the American economy and provide access to the federal procurement market

. This procurement helps support our annual small business contracting goals.

This procurement involves contracting to provide facilities and support services at our Headquarters building, which include: mail management, bulk mailings, technical printing, duplicating services, laborer, warehousing, driver services, records management services, directives management services, and space management services.

The current contract will expire on December 31, 2005. The current contractor has graduated from the 8(a) Program and all option renewal periods have been exercised. Therefore, a new competitive contract must be awarded to continue these essential support services. The proposed period of performance for the new contract is December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006, with four option years.

The general requirements for the contract include: Mail Management Center Operations - The contractor will process official incoming and outgoing mail from the postal service and other government and non-government sources, sort and deliver mail to EEOC Headquarters offices and the Washington Field Office. The contractor operates all mail systems and equipment. In addition, the contractor provides daily messenger mail and courier services. The contractor is also responsible for bulk mailings, including surveys.

Duplicating Center Operation - The contractor performs the duplicating (copying) services for the Headquarters offices. The contractor operates a variety of duplicating and copy machines. The contractor serves as the technical subject matter expert for printing for the Agency. As such, the contractor may develop and draft printing specs for external printing services, prepare unique or printing-specific forms on an as-needed basis for Agency requirements.

Laborer Services - The contractor moves and transports furniture, supplies, equipment, and performs other related moving services such as training and conference room setup, as needed. In addition, the laborers perform minor adjustments to systems furniture including adding and dismantling components.

Facilities Services - The contractor performs a variety of facility services such as: issuing photo ID cards and proximity key access cards; orders interior signage for the building; performs a daily walk-through of the building's common facilities to determine any deficiencies and repairs needed; prepares requisitions for copy room supplies; maintains the key control for offices, workstations, and file cabinets; manages the garage parking spaces; and coordinates the use of government vehicles.

Other Services - The contractor may also assist with Records Management, Directives Management and Space Management on an as needed basis.

Your approval is requested to obtain these essential facilities and support services. This concludes my statement. Thank you.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We will now have the opportunity for statements and questions from my fellow Commissioners starting with the Vice Chair. Madam Vice Chair?

VICE CHAIR EARP: Thank you. A couple of questions. Jeff, George, as a part of facilities management, can you replace these covers on the microphone? I mean, I know we're in bad shape financially, but this thing is falling apart. Seriously, how many employees oversee the contract, Jeff?


VICE CHAIR EARP: And the question of directives is an added requirement for this contract. Is that right?

MR. SMITH: Yes, it is.

VICE CHAIR EARP: And am I to understand that our employees are not impacted by the fact that the contractor would pick up responsibility for directives?

MR. SMITH: That's correct. It's an as needed requirement.

VICE CHAIR EARP: Okay. As needed. I think that's it.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Ishimaru?

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff, for both the directives requirement and the space management requirement, following up on the Vice Chair's question, both of those are on an as needed basis?

MR. SMITH: Yes. The reason that we set that up is the bench strength gets thinner through reductions in staff as we go through many peaks and valleys in facilities and support services, simply mail volume, driver services, records, space management.

We were in a short-term leasing strategy. We have moved back to a long-term leasing strategy. So we have a lot of lease renewals coming up in 6 and 7. So we would invoke this contract only to the extent our in-house staff need additional capacity for those specific functions.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Yes. For both the directives piece and the space management piece, was there a Fair Inventory Act Review done of these functions and were they recommended to be or were they tagged as outsourceable?

MR. SMITH: Both the space and the directives management are on the Fair Act Inventory. They are listed as susceptible to commercial competition.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Okay. Great. And it's my understanding when we do a competitive outsourcing of functions that have gone through this process, that employees of the Agency are in a position to bid as well as outside companies. Would that be the case here for these various functions?

MR. SMITH: Well, first of all, the rest of the functions that are listed are not on the Fair Act Inventory. They have been contracted out, as the documentation said, between 12 and 20 years. So they are not subject to additional competition.


MR. SMITH: To the extent that we added, have a need for additional services for space management, which is on the Fair Act, and directives management, that would be subject to competition. But as I pointed out, these are at best probably part-time positions as needed.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: So we're also faced with just the fact that people are retiring, I don't know what the figure is, but that a large number of our staff is in a position to retire having served here long and honorably for many years. When they leave, would it automatically go to outsourcing or is that an issue that would lie for another day?

MR. SMITH: It would be for another day. It's a case-by-case thing.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: So the Chair would deal with it --


COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: -- as a personnel matter and look to see what the economies are and things like that?

MR. SMITH: That's right.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Okay. And, Jeff, this is a multi-year contract that does grow on the out-years. Is the out-year growth -- again, Peggy, stop me if I'm asking the wrong question. But is the out-year growth due to the new requirements, the space management and the directives, or is it just due to the possible growth in all of our requirements across the board?

MR. SMITH: It's both. When we do a multi-year contract, we're required to estimate what we think might be the ceiling of the contract each year. This is not an obligation to contract for that amount of money, simply to define the scope of the contract. So we, in our Government cost estimate, as responsible people would include not only the anticipated cost of normal inflation and growth in any particular activity, and possibly if we add on the space and directives function part-time.

COMMISSIONER ISHIMARU: Okay. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank Mr. Smith for coming by to give me a briefing that was very helpful to answer most of my questions before we got here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Good. All right. There being no further discussion, let's move with a motion to approve the Competitive 8(a) Contract for Headquarters Support Services, and I so move. Is there a second?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please, vote aye. Aye.


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Opposed? Abstention?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: The result of the vote is two to approve and one abstention, and so the motion carries.

I want to thank everyone. I think this is one of our shortest meetings, so this is a nice way to start the week. I want to thank everyone here for joining us today. We very much appreciate your being here.

And there being no further business, do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting? Is there a motion?




CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: All in favor?

ALL: Aye.

CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: Opposed? No abstentions?


CHAIR DOMINGUEZ: All right. The ayes have it. The motion carries and the meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 1:58 p.m.)

This page was last modified on August 5, 2005.

Home Return to Home Page