AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL STATEMENT OF DONALD PANZERA, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 2910 ACCOMPANIED BY: STANLEY A. GORDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL 26, Senator SASSER. We will move on to the next witnesses, Mr. Michael Peterson, president of local 2477, AFSCME; Mr. Donald Panzera, president of local 2910, AFSCME; and Mr. Stanley Gordon, executive director of council 26, AFSCME. Who wishes to lead? Mr. PANZERA. Mr. Chairman, I am Donald Panzera, president of the Library of Congress Professional Guild, Local 2910 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. On my right is Michael Peterson, president of the Library of Congress Employees, AFSCME Local 2477, and on my left is Stanley Gordon, executive director of the Capital Area Council of Federal Employees. We have submitted a prepared statement for the record which I would like to briefly summarize at this time. On behalf of the AFSCME Locals 2477 and 2910, we would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before your committee today. AFSCME requested this opportunity because of our conclusion that the Library of Congress equal opportunity programs are inadequate to provide either an effective affirmative action program or a fair and expeditious discrimination complaint system. The need for affirmative action to overcome the effects of past discrimination at the Library is as great today as it was in 1972, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Act included the Library of Congress in its coverage. Three-fourths of the blacks and more than half the women employed at the Library are in jobs at the GS-8 level and below. Blacks hold only 5 percent and women 39 percent of the policymaking positions at the GS-14 level and above. There has been remarkably little change in these statistics in the past 5 years. The Library's affirmative action plans have had only a minimal impact on these employment patterns. The Library administration has never committed enough positions to the training, appraisal, and promotion-TAP-program to make it meaningful, and that meager commitment has actually fallen by approximately one-half in recent years. Most of the vacant positions that are commited to TAP are nonprofessional jobs with little promotion potential. Tuition_support, the other major component of affirmative action at the Library of Congress, suffers from inadequate funding in the face of steadily rising tuition costs. The discrimination appeals system, which is administered by the Library of Congress Equal Opportunity Office, has been a major disappointment. The employee who wishes to file a discrimination complaint must contend with lengthy delays in the office arising from the large backlog of cases. The delays are so severe and the consequent threat to due process so great that a Federal judge recently ordered the Library to establish a fund to pay employees' legal expenses in prosecuting complaints against the Library of Congress. Other procedural problems, such as unilateral selection of hearing examiners by the Equal Opportunity Office coordinator, further undermine the integrity of the entire system. AFSCME feels that the Equal Opportunity Office needs more staff, the regulation governing operation of the office needs substantial revision, and the Library must negotiate with the exculsive bargaining agents to allow employees the option of filing discrimination complaints under the negotiated grievance procedures. AFSCME is committed to equal employment opportunity at the Library. We ask the committee to recommend measures that will commit enough resources to Library programs to make the Library of Congress verbal commitment to equal opportunity a reality. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to comment very briefly on Mr. Welsh's response to your question concerning the Library's affirmative action plan and equal opportunity program. These comments are not in the prepared statement. We have, in testimony we have submitted for the record, addressed the question of the training, appraisal and promotion program and affirmative recuitment and selection. But I would like to mention that in regard to point No. 4, validation of selection procedures-that is the process that has been underway since 1973-there is a great deal of need for this process to go forward. But we feel that the procedure suffers from many of the same problems that affect the Library's affirmative action programs in general, namely, a lack of specific deadlines and a lack of specific statements indicating what action will be taken, rather than more vague generalities that the Library will endeavor to do such and such. This kind of vague language appears frequently in the Library's affirmative action plan, and we feel weakens the thrust of those plans considerably. On point No. 7, part time work at the Library, Mr. Welsh did acknowledge the Library, at present, has only 4 percent part-time positions compared to an 8 percent average in the rest of the Federal Government. The attempt to increase the number of parttime positions has been going forward for the last couple of years, but that progress has been very slow. Our prepared statement also addresses the question of career counseling and supervisory responsibility for affirmative action and equal opportunity. We do feel the additional funding recommended by the Library, as indicated by Mr. Welsh, really is not sufficient to make the affirmative action programs in the Library and equal opportunity discrimination appeals system at the Library truly effective in addressing the needs of minorities and women who are employed at the Library. One final thing on the question of the statistics, which Mr. Welsh also cited. I would like to call attention to the discussion of the same statistical data that is contained in our prepared statement. We feel that there are a number of ways of looking at those statistics; different conclusions can be drawn depending on the kinds of things one is interested in. We feel the conclusions we have drawn should have your consideration. We would also like to mention the discussion in our prepared statement of the Library unwillingness to provide the statistics regarding the discrimination appeals system that we have been attempting to obtain for the better part of the last 9 months. At least some of the material that the Library has refused to turn over to us has been published in the past, at least up until 1978, and these statistics are of a nature that a great many other Federal agencies do regularly publish. We are very troubled that the Library is not publishing this material. We feel that it is very important that not only the Library Administration, but all the Library employees, know what is happening with the discrimination appeals system. That, unfortunately, is not taking place at the present time. We will, of course, be happy to answer any questions. On behalf of the 3,300 employees represented by AFSCME at the Library, we again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to present our views here today. PREPARED STATEMENT Senator SASSER. Your statement will be inserted in the record at this point. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AFSCME has asked for this opportunity to address the Committee on the subject of equal opportunity programs at the Library of Congress. As you know, the Librarian of Congress enjoys singular authority to initiate, administer, and review the effectiveness of such programs at the Library. Discrimination complaints are not processed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but instead are investigated by the Library's own Equal Opportunity Office; Affirmative Action Plans likewise are developed entirely by the Library's administrators. In exercising his legal authority, the Librarian has a responsibility to devote sufficient resources to these programs to fulfill the mandate of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. AFSCME does not believe that the budget proposals presented to this Committee by the Librarian are in fact adequate to meet the Library's moral and legal obligations to its minority and women employees. Affirmative Action The need for affirmative action to overcome the effects o a long history of discrimination against minorities and ropen at the Litrary of Congress is just es great today as it was in 1973, when IC drafted its first Affirmative Action Plan. Though some very modest gains have been made, the overall picture remains unchanged since 1973. |