[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION AT THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 1, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-172
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-179 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TED LIEU, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
KEN BUCK, Colorado MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROD BLUM, Iowa PETER WELCH, Vermont
JODY B. HICE, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, General Counsel
William McGrath, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director
Melissa Beaumont, Professional Staff Member
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 1, 2016................................. 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Joe Leonard, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
Ms. Lenise Lago, Deputy Chief, Business Operations, U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Ms. Lesa Donnelly, Vice President of the USDA Coalition of
Minority Employees/Federal Employee Advocate and Former USFS
Employee
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Ms. Denice Rice, Fire Prevention Technician, Region 5, Eldorado
National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
APPENDIX
Representative Gerald E. Connolly Statement...................... 68
Material submitted by Mr. Cummings............................... 70
Dr. Kobziar Congressional Statement submitted by Mr. Chaffetz.... 98
Ms. Moore Congressional Statement................................ 101
Letter of May 18, 2015, from Office of Special Counsel to the
President submitted by Mr. Chaffetz............................ 104
EXAMINING SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION AT THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
----------
Thursday, December 1, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Jordan, Walberg, Amash,
Gosar, Gowdy, Farenthold, DeSantis, Buck, Walker, Hice,
Russell, Carter, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Clay, Lynch,
Connolly, Kelly, Lawrence, Lieu, and DeSaulnier.
Also Present: Representative Speier.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order and, without objection,
the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
We have an important hearing today examining sexual
harassment and gender discrimination at the United States
Department of Agriculture.
Earlier this year, the committee held two hearings about
sexual harassment throughout the National Park Service. And at
these hearings, whistleblowers told the committee their stories
of harassment, discrimination, and the retaliation they feared
in coming forward.
While many changes are still needed, the Park Service has
begun the process of dealing with their cultural problems and
removed some bad managers from their positions of leadership.
Unfortunately, this problem is not contained to the Park
Service and I would also say at the EPA, where we've had a
number of hearings. But after the committee's Park Service
hearings, numerous Department of Agriculture employees who were
subject to sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination, also
came forward to the committee.
A number of examples and despicable acts were quite
horrifying. Some of these women had even been raped by
coworkers, but refused to testify due to the threat of
retaliation and having their careers destroyed. I don't even
begin to comprehend or understand how one instance of this
behavior is not considered an immediate crisis. That is just
beyond me. This isn't the first time the issue has been raised
at the Department of Agriculture and thus this hearing, because
this is the deep concern.
In 2008, the committee held a hearing regarding sexual
harassment and discrimination at the United States Department
of Agriculture. Lesa Donnelly, who is with us today, also
testified at that hearing. Back then she pled for help for the
employees at the Forest Service who were sexually assaulted and
then retaliated against. Even worse, when these concerns were
raised to the Department level, they were dismissed as isolated
incidents.
After 8 years in the current situation, we need to review
what has changed and what still needs to be fixed. And based on
what we've been reading leading up to this hearing, it doesn't
look good, not in the least.
Last year, the Office of Special Counsel, the OSC sent
letters to the President about the failings of the Office of
Civil Rights at the Department of Agriculture. We lean heavily
on the Office of Special Counsel. It is unusual that they have
to go to this length to actually send a letter to the President
about the failings.
But the Office of Special Counsel found that the office
failed to process complaints in a timely manner and that the
Office of Civil Rights leadership had an unusual high number of
complaints against their own personnel. How can employees trust
the Office of Civil Rights when its own leadership is alleged
to be discriminating? Even worse, when the ranking member, Mr.
Cummings, tried to investigate this problem, the Department
failed to produce documents and generally dismissed staff
concerns.
That's why the ranking member and I sent another letter
just last week requesting the documents that the Department
refused to provide. It is frowned upon, at best, it is
unacceptable and very frustrating to have this happen.
In addition to Ms. Donnelly, I would like to acknowledge we
are joined today by a Forest Service employee testifying in a
whistleblower capacity. She should be applauded for agreeing to
come forward, despite the fear of possible retaliation. It is
difficult to do this. It is not her first choice in life. I am
sure this is not something that she ever thought that she would
be doing, but we appreciate the brave approach and willingness
to represent what is, unfortunately, a significant number of
women.
However, the committee staff spoke with numerous other
employees who were so scared of retaliation they wouldn't come
forward publicly. But we do appreciate Ms. Rice and her
willingness to be here today.
I want to be absolutely clear, absolutely clear, that any
retaliation against any witness before this committee or a
victim of sexual harassment is totally completely unacceptable
and gravely concerns the committee. And I can promise you and
assure you that Mr. Cummings and I as well as members on both
sides of this aisle will fight and push and defend these people
who are whistleblowers, who are trying to do what is right for
the country, trying to do what's right for them personally, and
trying to do what's right for their fellow employees.
So I want to thank the ranking member and his staff for
their work on this issue. I know he takes the threat of
retaliation against whistleblowers as seriously as we do. We
are united locked in arm on this and look forward to a good
hardy hearing.
But, with that, I want to thank again the witnesses for
being here today.
And now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings of
Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And I want to start off where you ended. Without question,
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that we stand hand in hand with
regard to making sure that whistleblowers are not victims of
retaliation. And we said it many times, and sometimes I wonder
whether folk in the various departments really hear us. But I
want to make it real, real clear that I will fight for a
whistleblower and fight to protect them, because I do, I agree
with the chairman, for whistleblowers to come forward, to
provide testimony and after already being in many instances a
victim, and then to have to go through a process of worrying
about whether they keep their job or whether harm comes to
them, we are simply a better country than that.
Back in September, when our committee convened to hear the
testimony from whistleblowers in the National Park Service, I
began by expressing the very simple principles that have guided
my work on civil rights in the Federal workplace over the past
two decades. I will restate them today. No employee should ever
be afraid to come to work. Let me say that again. No employee
should ever be afraid to come to work. A real simple sentence,
but that's the way it should be. They shouldn't be afraid to
come to work. And no employee should ever fear retaliation if
she steps forward to report conduct that makes her feel afraid.
I thank Lesa Donnelly and Denice Rice for their willingness
to come forward today. Ms. Donnelly, who worked for the Forest
Service from 1978 until her retirement in 2002, now assists
others who have experienced sexual harassment and retaliation.
So I want to thank you, Ms. Donnelly, for your work. You have
taken your pain, turned it into a passion to do your purpose.
Pain, passion, purpose.
Ms. Rice is a fire prevention technician who has worked for
the Forest Service for more than a decade. And I, like the
chairman, know that it has been very difficult for you to come
forward today to speak about your experiences. And I deeply
appreciate your courage. Our staffs have told us about how
difficult this is for you, and I promise you we will be as
gentle as we can be, but just know that the people up here are
friends and we want to make life better for you and for the
people that you have come to represent.
For more than 40 years, the Forest Service has repeatedly
faced litigation alleging discrimination against female
employees. A lawsuit filed in the early 1970s--let me say that
again, early 1970s--and another lawsuit filed in the mid 1990s
each resulted in long-term consent decrees. Despite the changes
required by those consent decrees, we continue to receive
disturbing allegations of discrimination and retaliation 40
years after the first lawsuit. Forty years, 40 years of
harassment, 40 years of pain, 40 years of lost opportunity, 40
years of fear. It's long past time for the Forest Service to
finally break its toxic cycle of sue, settle and backslide.
Sue, settle and backslide. Sue, settle and backslide.
While many steps must be taken to ensure that all Forest
Service employees work in an environment free from
discrimination and harassment, one critical step must be
ensuring that the process of handling EEO complaints is
effective and efficient at both the agency and the departmental
levels.
Today, we are joined by the Department of Agriculture's
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Dr. Joe Leonard. I have
known Dr. Leonard for many years. I appreciate his commitment
to protecting civil rights and I thank him for being here
today. As Dr. Leonard knows, I was deeply troubled by a letter
that the Office of Special Counsel sent to the President back
in May of 2015, which the chairman referenced.
This letter was unprecedented and it was extremely
disturbing. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen a letter like
that since I've been here, and I've been here 20 years. It
warned President Obama that USDA's civil rights program, and I
quote, ``has been seriously mismanaged, thereby compromising
the civil rights of USDA employees,'' end of quote. It stated
that the civil rights office, quote ``has an unusually high
number of complaints filed against its own leadership,'' end of
quote. It stated that corrective actions did not, quote,
``provide sufficient redress for affected individuals,'' and it
recommended that USDA review their cases again, quote, ``to
assess how affected employees could be made whole,'' end of
quote.
To follow up on this troubling letter, as a followup, I
sent a request of my own to the USDA a year ago seeking
information about its management of EEO complaints and its
plans for making their employees whole. Unfortunately, I have
been extremely frustrated and disappointed by the response I
received from Department officials. They provided some
information, now, that's true, but they did not treat my
request with the seriousness I believe it deserved. This is
extremely important to me and extremely important to this
committee. And this unprecedented letter to the President of
the United States should have spurred the Department to make an
overwhelming effort to fully cooperate with my request and try
to get this right. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.
For these reasons, I was pleased that the chairman joined
me this month in a new request to USDA from this committee for
data on EEO complaints filed against senior USDA managers as
well as for internal and external reports assessing USDA's
handling of EEO complaints.
And as I close, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something
to the Department. You know, I don't want you to come in here
and rope-a-dope, just come here and tell us the nice things
that have happened and not tell us how you address these issues
and how you plan to address them. These things have been going
on for 40 years. That's a long time. And so, again, I emphasize
this is not a Republican issue, it's not a Democratic issue,
this is an American issue.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We'll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
members who would like to submit a written statement.
Chairman Chaffetz. And we'll now recognize our panel of
witnesses. We are pleased to welcome the Honorable Joe Leonard,
Jr., Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the United States
Department of Agriculture; Ms. Lenise Lago--did I pronounce it
right--deputy chief of business operations at the United States
Forest Service, the United States Department of Agriculture;
Ms. Lesa Donnelly, vice president of the USDA Coalition for
Minority Employees/Federal employee advocate, and former United
States Forest Service employee; as well as Ms. Denice Rice,
fire prevention technician for Region 5, Eldorado National
Forest at the United States Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture.
We thank you all for being here. Pursuant to committee
rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. So if
you can please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Thank you.
Please let the record reflect that all witnesses answered
in the affirmative.
We would appreciate if you would limit your verbal comments
to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be entered
into the record.
And, Mr. Leonard, we'll now recognize you for 5 minutes.
And, please, right up front, you got to pull that microphone
right up in front of you and just make sure it's on. Thank you.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE LEONARD, JR.
Mr. Leonard. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss USDA's improvements in the processing of equal
opportunity complaints and efforts to improve the civil rights
culture in the Forest Service and at USDA.
As a sixth-generation Texan and lifelong student of civil
rights but, more importantly, as a kid who received his first
death threat at the age of 5 when I integrated kindergarten
school in Austin, Texas, I am incredibly proud of my personal
and professional commitment to civil rights that I made 45
years ago. Every day I approach my role and responsibility as
Assistant Secretary with steadfast appreciation for the impact
my office has on the lives of the American people.
As the longest serving Senate-confirmed African American
appointee in the Obama administration and the longest serving
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the history of USDA,
I've had the privilege of seeing firsthand the positive and
transformative accomplishments of the Department of
Agriculture's programs and employees, while also witnessing our
collective interests and effort in continuously improving and
expanding our work for all involved.
When I assumed this position in 2009, USDA had a long and
complex history of discrimination claims brought against the
Department. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights has worked diligently for nearly 8 years to protect the
rights and privileges of nearly 100,000 employees spread among
2,200 parishes, counties, and boroughs throughout the United
States as well as those receiving services from USDA.
At the beginning of this administration, we started by
examining our history and bringing to light the most
challenging aspects of the Department's past. We made it our
mission to change the culture of USDA, to root out exclusivity
and build a culture of accessibility. As part of this effort,
we created new policies, corrected past mistakes, and chartered
a stronger, more inclusive path for our employees and the
communities we serve.
While there is still much to do, we have made significant
progress by accomplishing goals such as: Reducing the
approximate processing time for new civil rights program
complaints from 4 years to 18 months, creating a universal form
for program participants to report cases of discrimination at
USDA, the settlement of Pigford II, Keepseagle, Keepseagle opt-
outs, and the construction of the Hispanic women's claims
process, reducing the number of program form-related complaints
by 60 to 70 percent. But that's not enough.
We've also made profound strides in processing the
Department's conflict complaints, especially in addressing the
conflict of interest complaints filed against senior managers.
After significant review of the complaint process, we took
reasonable actions to ensure by 2014 we were processing 100
percent of the complaints within the regulatory timeframe.
These changes included but were not limited to changing
management and staff--we changed three different directors
within the division--an increase in the training and management
of supervisory employees, in addition to changing the vendor
that we utilize. Additionally, in accordance with the Office of
Special Counsel report, we reviewed all 120 cases that exceeded
the regulatory timeframes to identify whether any harm resulted
from prior delays in processing.
As a result, we determined that of the 120 cases that
exceeded the 180 days, 102 cases were subsequently closed.
Thirty-seven of them were settled before closing. Nine cases
are with EEO at hearing at present, six were incorrectly
identified, and only three of those cases remain open and are
pending decision.
Regarding the Forest Service, early in my career I met with
the Forest Service leadership in four regions to emphasize the
importance of preventing sexual harassment in the agency. The
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in its
oversight capacity has worked to support the Forest Service in
the following civil rights initiatives: Reorganization of its
civil rights structure, to have its national civil rights
director report directly to the Forest Service chief, and all
regional civil rights directors and staff report to the
national civil rights director. These changes were completed in
2016, and it's the first time in the 40-year history of the
Forest Service it's ever been implemented. It's valuable to
understand this, that now no one can say they don't know what's
happening. It goes all the way to the chief and it's not stuck
in a rural community in a far-off place.
We conducted an independent climate assessment of how
female employees in Region 5 are treated, including a report
with findings and recommendations to the Forest Service.
We strengthened and enhanced its sexual harassment
policies, and having the Forest Service employees be the first
at USDA to certify their agreement to abide by the Secretary's
new antiharassment policy statement.
We've also in the last 40 years,--and this is--the last
thing that I read and this, these are new. This isn't the same
old thing. We strengthened Region 5's standard operating
procedures for reporting and responding to allegations of
sexual harassment and misconduct reported to related
retaliation. And we have engaged OASCR and the Forest Service
has engaged OASCR in the enhancement of Region 5's informal EEO
complaint process.
The continued progress of the Forest Service's commitment
to civil rights will be evidenced by this committee's continued
oversight in the next administration. I thank you for this
opportunity to present our progress.
I thank you for the opportunity to review what our office
has accomplished in nearly 8 years and I'll be happy to answer
any questions you have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Ms. Lago, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LENISE LAGO
Ms. Lago. Thank you. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
Cummings, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss our efforts to eliminate sexual
harassment and gender discrimination in the Forest Service.
I've been a Forest Service employee for 27 years. Before my
career in the Forest Service, I worked in private industry, and
in that job I was a target of sexual harassment. I was young. I
didn't report what I experienced to management. I know
firsthand the pain and the shame and the difficulty of talking
about these issues.
I want to acknowledge the courage and share my respect for
Ms. Donnelly and especially Ms. Rice for coming here today to
testify. My experience is also why I am so committed to
eliminating all forms of harassment and discrimination from the
Forest Service. I am deeply committed to these issues and
making our workplace and our working environment a place where
all employees are given an opportunity to succeed and thrive,
based on their talent.
Throughout my career in the Forest Service, I've also
experienced the dedication and commitment of our employees at
all levels to work together for a working environment that's
free of harassment where all employees can thrive.
I believe we're making and sustaining progress, and there's
more that we need to do. Specifically, in the last 5 years,
we've improved our capacity to respond to misconduct and
specifically claims of harassment and sexual harassment. The
misconduct branch now reports directly to me. The civil rights
and EEO branch report directly to the chief. We have a national
review and assessment team to provide top-level oversight, to
ensure consistency, maintain--to avoid favoritism, and keep our
eyes on the most important issues.
We've implemented a revised antiharassment policy
addressing any type of harassment and mandating reporting and
investigating timeframes. We publish quarterly data on
misconduct, which both educates the workforce on unacceptable
behavior and demonstrates that perpetrators are held
accountable.
We are improving and we are not done. I know that there
have been stories in the press recently regarding sexual
harassment in the Forest Service. Those stories are disturbing
and hard to read. I can't discuss cases that are the subject of
litigation or ongoing investigation, but I sincerely want to
help you help me. Where we have completed investigations of
misconduct, I am willing to share those, to the extent
permitted by law.
I share your concern for employee welfare and safety. I
look forward to working with you and the members on this panel
to improve what we are currently doing. And while I still have
a minute, I want to assure you, we investigate all allegations.
We hold people accountable. We publish the results so the rest
of the workforce knows what we're doing, so it's visible and
transparent, and we train and train and train our workforce on
acceptable behavior, our leaders on acceptable behavior, and
the procedures in the event they experience unacceptable
behavior.
Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Lago follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Ms. Donnelly, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LESA DONNELLY
Ms. Donnelly. Thank you. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
Member----
Chairman Chaffetz. Pull that microphone just a little bit
closer if you would. Put it right up there. Thank you.
Ms. Donnelly. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and committee
members, thank you for inviting me here today to testify about
sexual harassment and discrimination at the USDA Forest
Service.
My name is Lesa Donnelly. I worked for the USDA Forest
Service in Region 5, California, in positions of administrative
and fire support from 1978 to 2002. I'm the vice president of
the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees. It is a USDA-
sanctioned independent organization that assists USDA employees
in issues of harassment, discrimination, hostile work
environment and reprisal.
In 2008, President emeritus Lawrence Lucas and I testified
before this committee, and along with current President Ron
Cotton have been invited to the White House three times under
the previous administration to discuss harassment,
discrimination, and reprisal against USDA employees and black
farmers.
I watched the recent hearing on the Park Service, and I
could not help but notice the difference between Secretary
Jewell's response to our 2014 report of sexual harassment at
the Grand Canyon and Secretary Vilsack's response to the same
issues. I commend Secretary Jewell's quick call for an
investigation, transparency, and decision to open up the
investigation across the entire Park Service. It is a far cry
from Secretary Vilsack's actions. We have been reporting
egregious incidents of sexual harassment, workplace violence,
job discrimination, and reprisal to Secretary Vilsack since
2009, to no avail.
Before any cultural change can occur, the agency must
acknowledge the scope of the problem and be willing to make a
good faith effort to change it. Despite mountains of evidence,
mountains of evidence, USDA and Forest Service have been
unwilling to do this. Forest Service management will not
investigate complaints properly; they will not hold
discriminators accountable; they will not settle EEO
complaints.
To emphasize the enormity of the problem, it is important
to point out that Region 5 was under court-ordered oversight to
address gender discrimination from 1971 to 2006, over 30
consecutive years. I was present in the agency during those 30
years in between. The Forest Service was unwilling to make an
honest effort to increase diversity under the 1971 Bernardi v.
Madigan class action consent decree. Forest Service management
formented an attitude that unqualified women were taking men's
jobs and were only hired to satisfy diversity requirements.
This attitude became a cultural norm and it plagues us to this
day.
The backlash against women, hired under Bernardi, was
tremendous, and in 1994, just 6 months before Bernardi ended, I
filed the Donnelly v. Glickman class action on behalf of 6,000
women in Region 5, based on harassment, sexual harassment,
hostile work environment, and reprisal.
The second court-ordered consent decree lasted through
2006. Working conditions did improve for that short period of
time, but by 2008 I started contacting the Secretary and the
chief again about discrimination, assaults and reprisal. Again,
they were nonresponsive. I wrote letters to Secretary Vilsack,
Chief Tidwell, President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Michelle
Obama, and I even wrote to Mrs. Vilsack, asking for help. There
was no response from anyone.
In 2011, we finally got a response. Valerie Jarrett's staff
contacted me and said that President Obama was concerned about
the harassment and violence against women in Region 5. He
advised the Secretary to correct the problems out here. The
Secretary was unwilling to do so and conditions for women did
not improve and, in fact, they have worsened.
Additionally, in 2011, the Coalition of Minority Employees
and several female firefighters met with Secretary Vilsack and
Chief Tidwell. In the entire discussion, Secretary Vilsack's
only answer to our concerns was to discuss the success of his
cultural transformation program. I question how Secretary
Vilsack can view his civil rights program successful when women
are raped but are unable to report it due to the retaliatory
culture.
And if you go out in the Forest Service and speak to any
employee in the field and ask them about the cultural
transformation and what it means to them, 99 percent will tell
you, I have no idea what it is.
In 2013, the coalition and several Region 5 female
firefighters met with Secretary Vilsack and Chief Tidwell's
staff. Just prior to traveling to Washington, I received a call
from a female firefighter that had been raped by a male
coworker, but would not report it. She didn't report it because
she knew Alicia Dabney had been fired for reporting an
attempted rape. There are many women suffering in this manner.
When I shared this information with officials and the media
and I received only a platitude, we do not--there's zero
tolerance for sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
We've heard it over and over, and it's just lip service.
Their failure to deal with these issues resulted in another
class action, the Bush v. Vilsack female firefighter class
action that was filed in August 2014. In January 2015, the
agency agreed to mediate the Bush v. Vilsack class complaint.
At a huge cost to the taxpayers, six class agents met in San
Francisco with USDA officials. To our great surprise, after
less than an hour of general discussion, the agency walked away
from the table. I fear that this new administration is going to
have another class action lawsuit filed in 2017, and it will be
a tremendous cost to the taxpayer again.
There are two indicators that USDA and Forest Service are
unwilling to acknowledge the pervasive and endemic
discrimination against women and others. First, Chief Tidwell
stated twice this year that the female firefighters'
discrimination claims are older allegations. These public
comments are his continued attempts to minimize the serious
civil rights violations and undermine our efforts to have them
acknowledged and addressed. These older allegations, to which
Chief Tidwell referred, are the women who have been in the EEO
system for years, because of continued reprisal, refusal to
hold repeat offenders, and there are many, accountable, and the
agency's refusal to settle EEO complaints.
As far as recent issues, last month I was contacted by a
female firefighter whose district ranger went on a diatribe to
her, and he talked about how smelly and disgusting female
firefighters, that go on fire assignments, get and that it
should be mandatory that they should be forced to shower daily.
The woman was humiliated, having to stand there and listen to
that. The most recent incident I received was just last week.
Another female employee was raped and she is afraid to come
forward.
These issues keep me from sleeping at night. When I know
that there's a woman out there that is raped, it's hard to
sleep. And I wish it was hard for Chief Tidwell to sleep and
Secretary Vilsack, because maybe we'd get something done.
In conclusion, the question remains how do we address these
problems and where do we start? I propose that in order to
effect a real cultural change, there needs to be a commitment
from the top for a collaborative effort between agency
employees and external organizations.
A strategy must be developed with implementation
timeframes, measurements for success, and evaluation. And it
should be similar to the civil rights action team under former
Secretary Glickman. It was a great model. The process should be
transparent, inclusive, and a focus should be on change and
accountability. And above all, Congressional oversight is
needed. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Donnelly follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rice, you are now recognized. Please bring that
microphone up. There we go. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DENICE RICE
Ms. Rice. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking
Member Cummings, and members of the committee. Thank you and
it's an honor to be here.
My name is Denice Rice and I have been in structure----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, could I ask that the witness
please speak into the microphone directly so we can hear her.
Chairman Chaffetz. Pull it. There you go.
Ms. Rice. My name is Denice Rice and I have worked both in
structured and wildland fire for over 20 years. I truly love my
job and the people I work with.
In 2011, I reported to my supervisor that I was being
sexually harassed by my second-line supervisor. Women are often
disregarded, not taken seriously, and passed over. I have
personally experienced this. The agency provides protections
for its offenders, often promoting them, while the victims are
shattered, left behind, and nowhere to turn.
Women are treated differently in regards to training,
assignments, and promotion. Women who report sexual harassment
are repeatedly retaliated against. It is your word against
theirs. The moment you speak up, you are committing career
suicide. Zero tolerance is baloney. The system is rigged
against women for reporting sexual harassment and assault. The
agency protects the offender.
From 2009 to 2011, my second-line supervisor repeatedly
sexually harassed me and assaulted me. I filed a complaint and
the instant my life changed. Management removed me of all my
supervisory responsibilities, moved me from my location,
isolated me to the office of where the perpetrator's friends
were and where his wife worked. I never have received a poor
evaluation.
Numerous investigations were held. There was an OIG
investigation with multiple interviews with multiple
investigators. I had to relive these incidents over and over
and over again. One of the investigators provided graphic
details to my peers of what my second-line supervisor had done
to me, including the assault. I had lost my reputation, my
dignity when they made my situation public. My family was
destroyed. My husband felt helpless, because he wasn't allowed
to protect me. My life was a living hell.
Another example is when the district ranger called an all-
hands Fire meeting, with all my peers in Fire, to discuss what
happened to me and what was happening to the perpetrator and
the investigations. I begged them not to make me attend. I was
directed to go. As soon as the district ranger started
discussing what happened to me and people turned and looked at
me, I was on display. These were my peers, people I've known
for years. I felt responsible, degraded, and I was humiliated.
My perception was I was being blamed for the destruction of the
Fire organization. I quickly left the meeting, shaking and in
tears. There was talk of putting me on AWOL for leaving.
I was being attacked by the ones who were supposed to
protect me. The agency protected my perpetrator, and while he
was under investigation for sexual assault he continued to
supervise women and was allowed to take agency-paid
developmental training to promote his career, and act as
district ranger. This message meant that nothing was wrong and
I was the problem.
I kept hearing he's entitled to due process. And this
lasted for months. After the investigations were done, they
were given to all the district rangers, who read all the
details; and once again violating my confidentiality, they
discussed it and they determined that he needed to be removed.
But before they were going to remove him, the Forest supervisor
took him out for coffee and advised him of the notice. He
retired the next day.
Then he was directly hired on a California incident
management team, which meant we could both be assigned to the
same fire incident, and allowing him to continually work with
women. And just this year, they brought him back, Fire
management brought him back, to give a motivational speech to
the Eldorado Hotshots on my forest. I have since then filed
additional reprisal complaints.
From working with the Coalition of Minority Employees and
being a class action agent for the female firefighter class
action, I know what happened to me happened to women all over
the region and Forest Service. I don't know of any women who
have been able to recover and lead successful careers after
filing sexual harassment claims. People need to be held
accountable for their actions. Management needs to protect its
employees and remove the offenders.
Thank you. I'd be glad to answer your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Rice follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. We appreciate you sharing
that.
We'll now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Rice, I want to thank you for being here, Ms. Rice, and
I want to tell you I doubt any of the members of this committee
that I'm looking at now have any idea what you just described,
but we do realize and recognize courage when we see it, and we
want to thank you for what we can imagine is an impossibly
difficult task.
I want to change gears for just a second. You testified
early on that you loved your job. I want you to tell the
members of the committee what you loved most about your job as
a firefighter.
Chairman Chaffetz. Put your sorry--microphone----
Ms. Rice. Being in the woods, protecting the forest,
fighting fire.
Mr. Gowdy. And you've done it for how long?
Ms. Rice. Over 20 years.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. To the extent you feel comfortable,
can you tell the members of the committee what harassment/abuse
you experienced.
Ms. Rice. From the perpetrator or just in general?
Mr. Gowdy. From the perpetrator.
Ms. Rice. He was constantly making comments. He removed me
from my office where I had a counterpart to an office back and
out of the way where he could come in the office and make
comments and approach me. The reason I filed was because I was
in his office and we were having an argument and he had taken a
letter opener and poked my breasts, both breasts, with a smile
on his face in an arrogant way like he could get away with it.
And I stood there in shock.
He has cornered me in the bathroom. He has lifted my shirt
up. He has stalked me. I would wait until everybody would leave
so I could pull in, because I work in the field, and he would
be waiting for me. He called me constantly. He interfered with
everything. He stalked me.
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Lago, Ms. Rice testified that the details of
her complaint were made public. Why would that possibly happen?
Ms. Lago. Well, it is not permitted. It's the first time
that I've heard the details were made public. Per our protocol,
only people involved in the investigation----
Mr. Gowdy. Listen. I don't want to be rude, but I really
don't give a damn about protocol. Do you doubt what Ms. Rice
just testified to, that the details of her accusations and
allegations were made public?
Ms. Lago. Well, I'm just saying I never heard that before
now. I'm just----
Mr. Gowdy. So do you doubt it is my question? Not whether
or not you've heard it. Do you doubt it?
Ms. Lago. No, I don't doubt it.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, if it's against protocol, as you
say, and you don't doubt that it happened, what have you done
about it?
Ms. Lago. I just heard it. I just heard about it.
Mr. Gowdy. What are you going to do about it?
Ms. Lago. I'm going to ask what happened following her
investigation, who knew about it, and why.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, if memory serves, her perpetrator was
allowed to retire. Is that correct? Had you heard that before
today?
Ms. Lago. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Why? Why was he allowed to retire?
Ms. Lago. When someone is proposed for removal, they have a
right to either retire or resign.
Mr. Gowdy. So what consequences would there be for his
misconduct if he was allowed to retire?
Ms. Lago. There could be legal action.
Mr. Gowdy. Such as?
Ms. Lago. He could be sued. He could be----
Mr. Gowdy. Privately by her?
Ms. Lago. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. What did you all do? You were the employer. What
did you do?
Ms. Lago. We fired him.
Mr. Gowdy. You didn't fire him; he retired. We just
established that.
Ms. Lago. He retired in lieu of being removed from his job.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, then if there's no difference between
retiring and being fired, why didn't you fire him? There must
be some benefit to retiring. What is that benefit?
Ms. Lago. You don't have removal on your record.
Mr. Gowdy. So you did confer a benefit to him, despite the
fact that you don't doubt the allegations that she just made.
Ms. Lago. We don't have an alternative to fire someone and
not offer them retirement.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I just heard the most glowing account of
all of the improvements that have been made over the past 8
years. And you mean to tell me that someone can engage in the
conduct that Ms. Rice just described and avoid all consequence
whatsoever?
Ms. Lago. Per the Federal regulations, yes. Someone can
retire or resign in lieu of being removed.
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Rice, how long was the investigation
ongoing?
Ms. Rice. At least 6 months.
Mr. Gowdy. You testified that you were forced to give
multiple accounts of your harassment/abuse.
Ms. Rice. Correct.
Mr. Gowdy. That would be the antithesis to best practices
for sex assault victims. So, Ms. Lago, why would victims of
sexual harassment or assault be forced to give multiple
testimonies or accounts?
Ms. Lago. At first, the issue was referred to law
enforcement. Law enforcement referred it to the IG, because of
the nature of the offense. I'm not sure how far the IG
investigation went. So, to answer your question, a reason
someone might have to give an account more than once is they
might have to speak to an OIG investigator because of their
investigation; they might have to speak to law enforcement; and
if either of those investigations aren't conclusive then we do
a misconduct investigation.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you agree that what Ms. Rice described is a
crime?
Ms. Lago. Yes, I do.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. So she would talk to law enforcement
first?
Ms. Lago. She spoke to her supervisor----
Mr. Gowdy. Okay.
Ms. Lago. --who referred the issue----
Mr. Gowdy. Who was the first statement made to?
Ms. Lago. I don't know.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. Well, let me encourage you to do this
in the past when you all are describing the glowing progress
that you have made. Making victims give multiple accounts, tell
what happened to them multiple times runs afoul of everything
every expert in sex assault and sex harassment cases teach. It
runs afoul of all of it. So if you can find a way to limit
victims to just having to relive it one time, I would encourage
you to do so.
And if you can share the regulations that allow someone
that commits the conduct that she just described to be
conferred the benefit of retirement as opposed to removal, if
you could share those regulations with the chairman and the
ranking member, I would be most grateful to you.
Ms. Lago. I will do that.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize ranking member Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that Congresswoman Speier, who previously
served on our committee, be allowed to join the committee today
and participate in the hearing.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. I also have another unanimous consent request
that a statement from Congressman Connolly be part of the
record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. I just want to engage in a brief colloquy
with you. Mr. Chairman, the committee has received statements
from a number of whistleblowers regarding the EEO program in
the Department of Agriculture, including from the following
individuals: Nadine Chatman, Gayle Petersen, Akio Watson and
Tori Jones. These individuals have raised serious concerns
about the management of the EEO program. In many cases, they
allege that their own EEO complaints have been handled
improperly. And now staff have received these and I believe
your staff have received them as well.
I know you share my concern about these allegations and I
hope we can work together to review these allegations,
investigate them, and take action in a bipartisan way.
Chairman Chaffetz. Absolutely. Again, I appreciate the
ranking member's passion and commitment, and we will continue
to work together and to pursue that and to make sure that those
people who have stepped forward and shared this information are
properly protected under the Whistleblower Act. So absolutely.
Mr. Cummings. One other thing. I ask unanimous consent to
place into the record an article entitled Out Here, No One Can
Hear You Scream, March 16, 2016, Huffington Post article.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lago, I want to pick up where Mr. Gowdy left off,
because you said something that really concerns me and I know
that it will concern him too. We have this article that
appeared in the Huffington Post, and it appeared--this
apparently was a--this is a scathing article about your
Department, about Agriculture, and it details Ms. Rice's case.
I mean, it's public, right here. It even has a picture of her
in it.
When did you come on board?
Ms. Lago. In August of 2011.
Mr. Cummings. Well, you just said that you didn't even know
about it. I can't imagine that somebody could have an article,
it's about 16, 17 pages and it's got this picture of her and it
describes her situation in detail, but you just said, sitting
here at the table today, you just realized that it had been
made public. You didn't read this article?
Ms. Lago. If I may clarify, what I said I didn't know about
was that her situation----
Mr. Cummings. You said you didn't know it had gone----
Ms. Lago. --was shared with district rangers. I wasn't
aware of that. I was aware of this case.
Mr. Cummings. And that this had been public, made public. I
think I'm following up on what Mr. Gowdy said. I mean, you had
asked her--I'd yield to the gentleman. That you had asked her
about--she had said to you that this was the first time that
she knew about it, right?
Mr. Gowdy. I think the gentleman's recollection is correct.
I was trying to establish that she had to give multiple
accounts of what had happened to her, that the perpetrator was
allowed to retire instead of be disciplined, and I was trying
to get a better understanding of why that could have happened
and what she knew and when she knew it, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Now, let me--it just concerns me that you sound like you
didn't know about that, because I think that if you were
anywhere else, in one of our offices and something had been
written about our office and you were a major employee in there
and this was your purview, you know, it just bothers me that
you would just be finding out, but be that as it may.
Dr. Leonard, last year the Office of Special Counsel sent a
letter to the President of the United States. It warned that
the USDA civil rights program, and I quote, ``has been
seriously mismanaged, thereby compromising civil rights of USDA
employees.'' When you see a letter like that, alarm bells
should go off. Would you agree?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. I can't hear you. You said yes, sir?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. You claim that significant improvements
have been made, but your claim is hard to reconcile with the
approach your Department took in response to my request in
January. For example, in my letter I asked for copies of
external reviews of USDA's EEOprogram. I asked for these
external reviews because the USDA claimed in its 2014 report on
its EEO program that, and I quote, ``the success of USDA's
recent efforts to confront the history of civil rights abuses
has been recognized and verified by a host of internal and
external parties and metrics,'' end of quote. That's what USDA
said. You touted these external reviews in your 2014 report.
So why hasn't the Department provided these external
reviews that I asked for 11 months ago? I mean, it seems like
that would be something that you would get to me very quickly
since it's something that is supposed to be complimentary. Help
me with that.
Mr. Leonard. Congressman Cummings, it's--I want to
apologize firstly for not being able to provide the documents
to you. As Ms. Rice said, there are a number of confidentiality
requirements. I did not find out until the conference call I
was on, with your staff on Monday, that some of those documents
were not provided. Because even in that conference call, I told
your staff we gave them the information. We gave them the
information. It wasn't until after the fact that I found out
that persons came here and read it to you and didn't give it to
you. I collected the information so you would have it.
So I do want to apologize about the miscommunication
between our staff and your staff. And I do look forward to
getting you some of the additional information----
Mr. Cummings. So when will the documents be produced? I
guess that's the question.
Mr. Leonard. The documents are produced in-house. They're
internal documents.
Mr. Cummings. But when will we have them?
Mr. Leonard. I will have to talk to OGC and try to get them
as soon as possible to you. As you know, when we--before we can
hand anything over, it goes to----
Mr. Cummings. Again, keep in mind I asked for them 11
months ago.
Mr. Leonard. My statement today was the OMB, OBPA, and I
apologize.
Mr. Cummings. Can you give me some kind of time? Because I
can't--time is short.
Mr. Leonard. Two weeks.
Mr. Cummings. All right, thank you, 2 weeks. I just have
just a few more things.
Dr. Leonard, OSC wrote to the President, that your office,
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, and I
quote, ``has an unusually high number of complaints filed
against its own leadership.'' We asked for information about
these complaints.
During the last meeting with my staff, your staff read
aloud some vague and cursory information about a dozen cases
filed against senior officials, but your staff refused to
provide the documents they were reading from. Instead, they
said that they had a car--I mean, you can't make this up.
Instead, they said they had a car waiting outside and had
to rush out. It wasn't until 7 p.m. last night on the eve of
this hearing that we finally received the written summary
document.
Why did that happen? Help me with that.
Mr. Leonard. As you know, Ranking Member Cummings, I
wasn't--I didn't attend that meeting. I don't know anything
about a car. I provided the documents to the staff that came
here, and my assumption was they were providing them to you. I
found out, again, they read the documents to you, and then I
did hear about the car incident and then they ran off.
I was shocked to hear about this on Monday. That's why I
wanted to make sure I got the information to you. And that is
the information that you wanted, sadly, 6 to 7 months ago that
you received on the eve of this----
Mr. Cummings. One other thing. Dr. Leonard, you know, my
goal has always been to try to be as effective and efficient as
possible and make sure that EEO operates in that way. Will you
commit to providing everything I requested in my letter in
January and everything the chairman and I requested in our
subsequent letter within the next 2 weeks?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. And finally, Ms. Donnelly, in my last few
minutes, my last minute, I want to discuss just one key issue.
In your experience, is the Department's handling--You know, I
sat here and even as I listened to you, to Ms. Lago, and I
listened to you, it sounds like we're talking about two
different worlds. I mean, it's like night and day. And I've
never seen testimony so far apart.
And so, in your experience, is the Department's handling of
EEO cases improving or declining, and what has been the
experience of the members of your organization?
Ms. Donnelly. In our experience, it's declining, and it's
declining in just about every facet of the EEO process. It
starts when an employee calls to file an EEO complaint. And
keep in mind, employees really know nothing about the process.
When you're a firefighter, you know about fighting fire, you
don't know about the EEO system. So they have to have some
faith that they are going to be treated correctly when they
file a complaint and given correct information.
Employees will call. They won't get calls back from the EEO
intake person. EEO counselors will tell them they don't have a
case when they do, because they'll call me and tell me that.
And I'll look at what happened, I'll go: Well, they shouldn't
have told you that.
Then when they get into the formal process, they wait
months for an investigation. The investigators come. I don't
know how they train the investigators, but some of these
investigations are so poorly done that you can't make heads or
tails of what is being said in the report, which is critical
for the employee.
And I have made numerous complaints to Eric Atilano and
Robert Shinn about they lose reports of investigations and they
don't send them to us. They miss dates. They will send in
address changes and they don't put the address change in the
database, and then the employee doesn't get--you know, the
stuff goes to their old address. It's just--it's numerous
problems. And then as you go further and get towards the
hearing, it's just delay, delay, delay.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Donnelly, clarification. You filed your suit--yeah, I'm
a freshman, I sit way down here--you filed your suit in 2000.
Is that correct?
Ms. Donnelly. I filed Donnelly v. Glickman as a lawsuit in
1995.
Mr. Palmer. But in 2002 there were 190 complaints in
California, more than any other region. That's Region 5. Is
that correct?
Ms. Donnelly. That's correct.
Mr. Palmer. So after you filed the complaint, 7 years later
we had still a major problem in that region. That's correct?
Ms. Donnelly. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Palmer. And then 10 years later we've still got the
same problem in the same region.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes, we do. Still has the highest number of
complaints.
Mr. Palmer. Ms. Rice, you were employed in Region 5. Is
that correct?
Ms. Rice. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Palmer. Ms. Lago, following up on Mr. Gowdy and Ranking
Member Cummings' comments, I don't believe you when you said
you didn't know about this. I also have a copy of this article
from the Huffington Post, ``Out Here No One Can Hear You
Scream.'' It's amazing to me that this has been going on so
long. And it's escalating. It's not getting better. How do you
respond to that? And would you answer truthfully?
Ms. Lago. Thank you. I'd like to clarify. I did not intend
to say that I didn't know about this. I do know about this. I
thought the gentleman was asking me did I know that her
investigation had been shared with district rangers. That is
what I was saying I didn't know about. Yes, I knew about this
case.
Mr. Palmer. Does the name Cheyenne Szydlo, do you know that
name?
Ms. Lago. No, I don't know.
Mr. Palmer. How about Dave Loeffler?
Ms. Lago. Say that again, please.
Mr. Palmer. Dave Loeffler.
Ms. Lago. No, I don't know that name.
Mr. Palmer. How about Alicia Dabney?
Ms. Lago. Yes, I know that name.
Mr. Palmer. And Chelly Kearney?
Ms. Lago. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Palmer. Chelly Kearney.
Ms. Lago. No, I don't know that name.
Mr. Palmer. Mike Harris?
Ms. Lago. No, I don't know that name.
Mr. Palmer. They're all in this article.
Ms. Lago. They don't all work for the Forest Service.
Mr. Palmer. It's all part of the pattern, though, that's
going on with sexual harassment, and apparently throughout
various agencies of the United States Government. I can't
remember how many times we have had hearings discussing this.
And then in regard to Ms. Rice and reading what is in the
article, listening to her testimony, I mean, the guy wasn't--
Beckett wasn't fired, was he?
Ms. Lago. As per Federal law, he was allowed to retire----
Mr. Palmer. You know what?
Ms. Lago. --and he was proposed. For removal.
Mr. Palmer. Yeah, that sounds suspiciously like your
protocol answer to Mr. Gowdy. And I associate myself with his
response in that regard. The guy not only should have been
fired, he should have been arrested.
And I don't understand why this continues to go on, the
Park Service, the Forest Service. I mean, isn't it your job to
investigate these things?
Mr. Leonard, I mean, what are you guys doing about this?
Mr. Leonard. I would say that things have improved a lot,
going back to my original statement. Prior to----
Mr. Palmer. How can you say that when you've got Region 5
that has this record?
Mr. Leonard. In 1999, the United States Department of
Agriculture, there were around 1,000 complaints a year. Last
year we had--in 2001--I'm sorry. Last year we had 540. In the
middle 2000s, there were around--2005, 2006, 2007--there were
around 750 complaints a year. Since 2009, when this
administration came in, we haven't had over 540 complaints.
From 2001 to 2008, the Department--the United States
Department of Agriculture had 12 EEO findings, from 2001 to
2008. From 2009 to 2016, we've had 127 findings. From 2000--
2000--let me get this right, because the Secretary constructed
blueprints.
At one time, from 2000 to 2010, my office would intake the
EEO complaints, and then we would give them back to the agency
to do investigation. We were 31 percent timely in those years.
We were not timely and potentially subject to sanctions.
The Secretary gave our office even more responsibility, for
two parts. One, he didn't like the idea of when someone files a
complaint, that the office that it's filed is investigating the
complaint. So it came to the Department. Since that time, we
have been--we went from 31 percent timely on our EEO
investigations to last year we were 59 percent. But we've had a
high of 74 and 65 and 63 in the last 4 years.
Our processes are improving. We have made generational
change in the last 7 years. I promise you. In addition to the
settling of the class action suits. In addition to knocking
down former complaints from 100 to 30. I think it was 41 this
year. In addition--so I can give you a lot of instances.
And I would say this----
Mr. Palmer. Why don't you provide that in writing to the
committee. I want to wrap up my period of questions here. And I
appreciate your response to that.
Mr. Palmer. My problem with it is that we've had people in
here from the EPA, we've had people in here from other
agencies. I know this is not the Forest Service, but it seems
be a culture within Federal agencies. We keep having these
hearings, Mr. Chairman. And today I think tops them all, from
what I heard from Ms. Rice's testimony, from what's in this
article, and the fact that Ms. Lago doesn't recognize some of
the names from some of these other people.
This is a cultural problem. And as much attention has been
given to this, particularly by this committee, for us to have
to keep bringing this up, that just defies common sense for me.
This is something that in this day and time there shouldn't be
any complaints.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I'm going to recognize myself. We would normally go to the
Democratic side. And we do see Ms. Speier, but per the rules of
the committee, we go through members who are on the committee
first before we go do those that have been UC'd on.
I want to follow up here. Ms. Lago, what about--you said
you, quote, ``hold people accountable,'' end quote. How long
have you been in your current position?
Ms. Lago. Since August of 2011.
Chairman Chaffetz. And how many people since that time have
been fired?
Ms. Lago. In the last--so last year, 200 people were fired.
The year before that, 115.
Chairman Chaffetz. And how many for sexual harassment?
Ms. Lago. In the last 3 years? Seventy people----
Chairman Chaffetz. Whatever timeframe.
Ms. Lago. Seventy people have been disciplined for sexual
misconduct; 30 have been fired or removed.
Chairman Chaffetz. When you say ``or removed,'' when you
say ``removed,'' does that include those that would just retire
or quit?
Ms. Lago. Retire or resign, yes. Seven were----
Chairman Chaffetz. So following up with us, I don't expect
you to memorize all this off the top of your head, I need you
to detail that for us with specificity. Don't break it into--
you can't say fired or just retired. I want to see the
difference between the two. Because the concern is that you
don't actually fire somebody. They get their full benefits.
They get everything else.
Now, this person in Ms. Rice's case, why was he hired to
come in and provide a motivational speech?
Ms. Lago. So I was very disturbed to learn that as well. I
found out about that last week. What I understand is he
encountered the existing hotshot superintendent at an off-
forest event for retirees or a going away party or something
like that. The current superintendent invited him to a
gathering. It's not clear that that superintendent knew the
history. I'm not sure.
When the forest supervisor found out after the event where
Mr. Beckett appeared, he sat down all of his staff and said: We
can't ever have this guy anywhere at any of our functions.
Chairman Chaffetz. And that's one of the consequences of
not having a disciplinary action, right, just allowing him--
patting him on the back saying, you know, good job. How much
did you pay him? How much did the taxpayers pay this guy?
Ms. Lago. He wasn't paid to appear there.
Chairman Chaffetz. He did the motivational speech and just
did it out of the goodness of his heart? It was just free?
Ms. Lago. That's correct.
Chairman Chaffetz. There was no paid compensation?
Ms. Lago. Yes, sir. No pay.
Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Rice, can you shine and illuminate
any--based on what she just said, what's your perspective of
this?
Ms. Rice. The superintendent did know Beckett. Knew him,
worked for him for many years, knew of the incident. He did.
Chairman Chaffetz. Give me some more details of this. He
worked for him and he knew of that incident. Why would he have
known of the incident?
Ms. Rice. Because the entire forest knew. They had an all-
hands meeting with all the people from fire. He was one of
attendees.
Chairman Chaffetz. The one that was detailed in the article
that Ms. Lago says she never read, that article?
Ms. Rice. The current superintendent for the hotshots used
to work for Beckett and was there when I was being harassed. He
was there--not--and then he was also there during the
investigations. He was very aware of what happened to me.
Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Lago, do you dispute what Ms. Rice
is saying?
Ms. Lago. No, I don't.
Chairman Chaffetz. So what are you doing about it?
Ms. Lago. So what we're doing is, the forest supervisor
instructed his staff never to let that happen again.
Chairman Chaffetz. Is he going to get a bonus?
Ms. Lago. He whom?
Chairman Chaffetz. The person who brought in the person who
had committed this atrocity against Ms. Rice. There's somebody
who had to actually approve this and set it up, right? That
person. What are you going to do? What's the repercussion to
him or her? Who is that person?
Ms. Lago. I'll undertake a misconduct investigation on the
actions of that person.
Chairman Chaffetz. And you'll get back to us on what the
ramifications are?
Ms. Lago. Yes, I will.
Chairman Chaffetz. Explain to me why it takes so long to go
through these harassment issues. Four years, you said, was the
average time that it took? And that's been improved to 18
months?
Mr. Leonard. That's the program if it was a form complaint.
That would be the form side, the program side.
Chairman Chaffetz. I'd like to learn more about this. My
time is very short. I want to go--this is--we have had a lot of
interaction with Carolyn Lerner. She is the Office of the
Special Counsel. She issued this report on--a letter to the
President on May 18 of 2015.
Ms. Lago and Mr. Leonard, I'd like you to respond to that.
Do you dispute anything in her findings?
Mr. Leonard. I do.
Chairman Chaffetz. And what do you dispute in her findings?
Mr. Leonard. The Office of Special Counsel, as you know,
has so much power. It could have had an order of relief
demanding my office take action right way. It could have even
had a recommendation. But it had exactly what it said. It said,
``Make them whole.'' It didn't provide the direction. When I
provided the information to----
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Well, let me----
Mr. Leonard. When I provided the information yesterday, the
majority of--and it's important to say alleged discrimination
here and there. The alleged. The information--when people--I do
this all the time.
Chairman Chaffetz. That's not what it says, sir. That's not
what it says.
Mr. Leonard. It doesn't have an order----
Chairman Chaffetz. I'll read it to you. I'll read it to
you. I'll read it to you. Okay?
``The proposed corrective actions do not provide sufficient
redress for affected individuals?'' It doesn't say anything in
that sentence about alleged or anything else.
Let me read the paragraph right before it, because it's--
it's section 4, and with the indulgence of the committee here,
I am going to just read this.
``I have reviewed the original disclosure, the agency
reports, the whistleblower comments. I have determined that the
reports contain all the information required by statute.
However, the agency's findings are partially unreasonable. As
the whistleblowers noted, the office of''--the one that you
oversee--``is tasked with protecting civil rights of all USDA
employees. As such, this office should set the standard not
only for processing claims, but also for creating an
environment free of discrimination rather than leading this
effort.''
The report confirms that your office, Mr. Leonard, has had
an unusual high number of complaints filed against its own
leadership. In addition, almost half of these complaints were
not acted on in a timely manner. And even when they were
addressed within the legally mandated period, they were
processed in a manner that violated agency regulations. While
the report did not reveal any intentional wrongdoing, it
demonstrated that OASCR has been seriously mismanaged,
therefore compromising the civil rights of the USDA employees.
Given the seriousness of these concerns, the corrective
actions appear to only partially resolve the identified wrong
doing. While they adequately address the management and conduct
of OASCR going forward, the proposed corrective actions do not
provide sufficient redress for affected individuals.
We also have the number of EEO complaints filed against
USDA senior manager headquarters going from roughly 1 in 2011
to 24 in 2014, with zero findings of discrimination. In fact,
over 2011 to 2015, 42 complaints filed, zero findings of
discrimination.
Mr. Leonard. Again, senior management officials at USDA.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah. So going back to the special
counsel's letter, detail for us where they're wrong.
Mr. Leonard. But firstly, that's just not my office. That's
all of USDA----
Chairman Chaffetz. Understood. Understood. In the context
of it.
Mr. Leonard. In my office it was 12 for a 5-year period,
and we have 140 employees.
Chairman Chaffetz. That's a lot. That's a lot. Ten percent?
Mr. Leonard. The majority of complaints that are on senior
leaders in my staff are chain of command complaints.
Chairman Chaffetz. You don't think that's a lot, sir?
Mr. Leonard. The majority of the--the majority of the
complaints are chain of command and complaints. So they're
coming six down. So if you don't get a QSI, and you want your
QSI, you'll put it on the person on top of you, the other one.
I'm five people removed, but I'm still--I'm still in that
number. So I'm just trying to explain the numbers to you.
Chairman Chaffetz. We have an independent person, the
Office of Special Counsel, who sends just a handful of letters
to the President, and she sends one and comes to the finding. I
want you to explain to us why you think she's wrong.
Mr. Leonard. She came with a finding?
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes. I just read it to you.
Mr. Leonard. In my world, there's a finding or a
nonfinding. A finding would have an order of relief attached to
it. I mean, an order. An order. If there's a finding on the
Forest Service, I'm ordering them to put civil rights placards
up. I'm ordering people to go to civil rights training. I'm
ordering removal. I'm ordering----
Chairman Chaffetz. I'm asking you--I'm trying to lessen my
time here. I'm trying to ask you in this multipage letter where
you think she's wrong. Tell me what you dispute.
Mr. Leonard. I can--I will tell you this. Our Office of
Inspector General did the investigation of that, and there are
going to be few people who will come to you and say: I agree
100 percent with the Office of Inspector General report.
Chairman Chaffetz. I'm not talking about----
Mr. Leonard. I agree with it, but the----
Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard, you're not--
Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard, stop. Stop. Mr. Leonard, I want you
to stop. I'm not talking about the inspector general. I'm
talking about the Office of Special Counsel who sent a letter
to the President of the United States. That is not a common
occurrence. It happened more than a year ago. I'm asking you,
giving you the opportunity for you to tell me where you think
she's wrong.
Mr. Leonard. I agree with the inspector general report that
did the investigation. I have concerns with the interpretation
of said report.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. We'll revisit this. I've gone way
past my time.
I believe it's Mr. Hice of Georgia who I will now recognize
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Lago, let me get a few of these numbers right in my
mind again. I know you've stated it, so forgive me for
repeating this. But how many Forest Service employees have been
terminated in the past year for sexual harassment?
Ms. Lago. In the last year, 17.
Mr. Hice. Seventeen.
Ms. Lago. For sexual misconduct, to be clear. It isn't
always sexual harassment. They may not have harassed someone
else, but they conducted themselves----
Mr. Hice. How many have been terminated for sexual
harassment?
Ms. Lago. I'll have to come back to you with that number.
Mr. Hice. Okay. And you have mentioned a couple of times
``as per Federal law'' a person has a choice between being
removed from office or retiring.
Ms. Lago. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So why would they have a choice when we're
dealing with sexual harassment? Why would you permit them to
have a choice for retirement with full benefits as opposed to
removing them from office? Why did they get the choice?
Ms. Lago. Well, sir, I'm not sure how to explain it. But
per Federal law, the procedures for removing a Federal employee
provide them the opportunity----
Mr. Hice. Is there any behavior that an individual could
commit whereby they are not allowed a choice as per Federal
law? Is there any behavior whereby you would remove them from
office and they would not even have a choice of retirement?
Ms. Lago. I'm not totally sure about that. I'd like to get
back to you.
Mr. Hice. So you are saying, then, is this your testimony,
that based on Federal law, that an employee can commit any
crime or do any kind of behavior they want to and find
protection under Federal law to keep their job or to keep their
benefits when they retire?
Ms. Lago. I'm aware that we have removed people while they
were incarcerated, awaiting trial, that kind of thing, and I
don't believe we gave those people the option. But I'm not sure
the statute or the regulation under which we were able to do
that.
Mr. Hice. Don't you think it would be kind of wise for you
to know the boundaries within which you're able to walk as it
relates to people who are committing crimes, who are committing
sexual harassment, and you don't even know the law, you don't
even know the boundaries whereby you have authorization to
remove them from office? Don't you think that's kind of
important for you to know?
Ms. Lago. Yes, that's important.
Mr. Hice. Well then why don't you? This is not new. You are
not just finding out about these cases now. You've known about
these cases for a long time, by your own testimony. And yet
here you sit before us today and say that you still don't even
know the law as to what your rights are to remove people from
office?
Ms. Lago. I'm not sure the specific authority by which we
can remove people without providing them the option to retire--
--
Mr. Hice. You've stated that. My comeback is that is
inexcusable for you to be in a position such as you're in and
not even know the authority. You are allowing people to commit
crimes and not removing them from office, allowing them to
retire and get full benefit, and you can't even describe for
this committee what possible behavior a person would have to
commit in order for them to be removed from office. I find that
inexcusable.
Now, what about the discipline? You've mentioned--how many
have disciplined?
Ms. Lago. This year? In total, 600 people in 2016.
Mr. Hice. What kind of disciplinary action has been taken?
Ms. Lago. We've removed people. We've suspended people.
We've demoted people. There have been----
Mr. Hice. You've removed them. You've just reassigned them.
Is that what you mean?
Ms. Lago. We have removed, as in they don't work here
anymore, 200 people.
Mr. Hice. I thought you just said you couldn't remove them.
Ms. Lago. No, I didn't say that.
Mr. Hice. You did say that.
All right. Let's go back to disciplinary action. What does
disciplinary action look like? Are these people getting a slap
on the wrist?
Ms. Lago. As I mentioned, 200 were removed. Some number get
suspensions. Some number get demotions. Some people get letters
of reprimand and warning. It depends on the offense.
Mr. Hice. And some people get promotions. We've already
seen that today too. Is that considered a disciplinary action,
for people to receive promotions for their criminal behavior?
Ms. Lago. People don't get promotions for their criminal
behavior.
Mr. Hice. Well, it's happened, as has even been described
here today.
Mr. Chairman, I find this absolutely offensive, to sit
through this whole thing and to hear the incompetence that's
occurring in high-level positions.
And with that, sir, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We're going to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to say there's some inconsistency, Ms. Lago, with
your answers to Mr. Hice's questions. He was asking why people
were given the option to retire instead of being fired. And you
said: Well, we don't know how to get rid of them, so we have to
retire them. Then later on you said: We fired about 200 people.
So I'm just curious why, if you had the ability to remove
them, why didn't you remove them? Can you explain that?
Ms. Lago. I will explain that. If we have the ability to
remove them and don't have to offer them the opportunity to
retire or resign, we would do that. Some people don't exercise
their option to retire or resign, and we remove them.
Mr. Lynch. But under Title V you can remove people for this
type of conduct. You know that, right? Have you explored your
legal rights in terms of terminating their retirement for
sexual harassment?
Ms. Lago. I haven't personally, no.
Mr. Lynch. Well, it would seem that someone in your
situation, with what's going on in this Department, that you
should have a long time ago, if you were really interested in
serious discipline, you would know, you would know to the
letter what your rights were if you wanted to remove someone.
So I don't think you've given it serious thought. Nor do I
believe that you've gone back to your legal counsel and got
solid foundation in terms of what your options are. And I
suggest you need to do that.
Mr. Leonard, I want to go back to the chairman's line of
questioning. When the Office of Special Counsel wrote its
warning letter to President Obama, which is a serious and
unusual occurrence, it said this about your office, the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, and I quote here.
``A large number of EEO complaints had not been acted on in
a timely manner. The investigation revealed that from November
2009 through September 2014, OASCR received 231 complaints
filed against senior USDA managers, including 13 filed against
Ms. Scott or other OASCR officials. Overall, 112 of these
complaints, including at least 5 filed against Ms. Scott or
another OASCR official, were not investigated and reported on
within the 180-day time limit established by law.''
So we have 112 complaints--that's close quote--so 112
complaints that were not investigated within the 180-day time
period. Is that right?
Mr. Leonard. That's correct.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. How many of those 112 complaints have been
closed since the time of this letter that went to President
Obama?
Mr. Leonard. I believe, since the time of the letter, that
the actual number grew to 120. I believe there are only 3 open
at present.
Mr. Lynch. So they've all been closed except for three.
Mr. Leonard. Except for three.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. And what----
Mr. Leonard. At least two of those----
Mr. Lynch. And what does ``closed'' mean? Was there a
decision on the merits in those cases?
Mr. Leonard. There were 34 of them that were settled. There
were decisions on the merits on everything else, either EEOC or
a final agency decision that we did.
Mr. Lynch. So every single case except for three.
Mr. Leonard. Except for three. Except for three.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Mr. Leonard. It's important to realize that in the--I
removed three managers, GS-15s, from the positions that weren't
getting the job done. I removed three managers. I removed a
vendor that we were utilizing because there seemed to be gaps
in cases. Since 2014, we have been 100 percent accurate. Fiscal
year '14, fiscal year '15, fiscal year '16, we've been 100
percent accurate.
Once we made these changes in personnel and vendors in the
last 3 years we've been 100 percent accurate, and we're 100
percent accurate in the beginning of 2017.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. What steps has the Department made or
taken to make individuals whole by improper delays in their
cases lingering for such a long time?
Mr. Leonard. If it was merited, we settled 34 of those
cases.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Mr. Leonard. If many of them didn't have strong merit
because the alleged discrimination, there wasn't strong merit,
it went the usual route of either having a finding or going to
EEOC. But if we had merit, of the 120 cases, 34 of them, we
took it upon ourselves to encourage the agencies, those 120
cases, all the 18 departments and 17 staff offices of USDA. So
we took it upon ourselves that we said that these have merit.
Your individual agency and/or staff office needs to attempt to
settle.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. I'm going over my time. But in closing I
just want to say that the number of cases, the volume of cases
here in this one Department, indicates a culture. And I just
hope you're doing everything possible to eradicate that culture
so that other employees aren't similarly aggrieved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We'll now go to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Ms. Donnelly, you've been testifying before
this committee for apparently quite a while. And I know you
were before this committee in 2008 when maybe many of us
weren't around. Could you let us know whether you feel there's
been improvement over the last 8 years, you could compare the
current environment at the Forest Service today compared to 8
years ago?
Ms. Donnelly. I wish I could say there was improvement,
one, one thing, that had improved, and I can't. Things have
gotten worse in terms of the blatant harassment against women,
minorities, and people with disabilities. The complete
disengagement of Secretary Vilsack and Chief Tidwell and Dr.
Leonard from working with the coalition and other groups to try
to resolve these issues.
In the previous administration, we had access to the
Secretary, meetings, access to the chief. We were invited to
the White House. And there was more of a collaborative effort.
And in the last 8 years, there's been virtually no response to
our requests.
And our request has been very simple. It's to merely sit
down and start talking, have a dialogue, to talk about the
issues and exchange ideas and move towards resolution. And
Secretary Vilsack and Dr. Leonard and Chief Tidwell have
absolutely not wanted to do that. And the conditions for
employees have worsened.
Mr. Grothman. Wow. So under the current Ag Secretary under
the Obama administration, as bad as things were in 2008, things
have gotten even worse, even more callous, even more who cares?
Ms. Donnelly. That's correct. I've actually seen an
increase in women reporting rape. Now, the agency won't tell
you that. But women are afraid to come forward and report it.
They won't even report it to the police because they don't want
the agency to know. Because, again, I refer back to Alicia
Dabney, when she reported these things, the agency trumped her
up on false charges and terminated her. And they did it
publicly so other women employees could see the chilling effect
it would have for a woman to come forward. And people have
children, they have mortgages. And women will suffer in silence
rather than lose their job. It's a disgrace.
Mr. Grothman. I'm going to switch aside just to one other
question and then I'm going to come back to you. This question
can be, I guess, for whoever feels qualified to answer it. We
always get a, you know, a variety of information before these
hearings.
I noticed here there was a consent decree under a, like,
probably a 40-year old case now, Bernardi v. Madigan. Is that
consent decree still in--if you guys are familiar with it--is
that still in effect?
Ms. Lago. No, it isn't.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Okay.
Ms. Donnelly, can you give us some more--I mean, this
Beckett thing is just almost unbelievable. I mean, just when
you think the government couldn't get any worse, they get
worse. But could you give me some other examples of cases that
you'd like to tell this committee.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes, I do have many. And one thing I would
like to make really clear to the committee that hasn't been
brought out very clearly, when Mr. Beckett was brought back
this year to be a motivational speaker, it wasn't the first
time the agency did that after he retired.
Very shortly after he retired, the agency let him come
back, be hired on an incident management team that goes out to
fire assignments across the Nation. And we found that out. It
was done very sneakily, and we found that out. And Ms. Rice was
very concerned because she would possibly unknowingly run into
him on a fire assignment. And it took us a lot of work to get
the agency to take him off the team.
Mr. Grothman. So he got back on the payroll again, is what
you're saying.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes, yes, absolutely. And the agency
supported it until we really fought to get him off that team.
So bringing him back as a motivational speaker was the second
time.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Ms.
Lago, you made a point of saying that when he came back as
a motivational speaker he wasn't paid. And even then that was
not appropriate. Do you agree, though, that he was also brought
back as a paid employee for a while and could have wound up
working with Ms. Rice?
Ms. Lago. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. In
fact, he was picked up on a California contract crew, and he
appeared on one of our fires. And Ms. Donnelly helpfully raised
that to our attention and we immediately intervened to get him,
his contract crew off our fire, and to put direction out that
he should never be allowed to be contracted with, appear on our
fire, et cetera.
Mr. Grothman. Ms. Rice, it looks like you have something to
say. Do you?
Ms. Rice. I disagree. He was picked up on a team with the
agency.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Ms. Rice. I disagree. He wasn't on a contract crew. He
didn't have a contract crew.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, we're not going to be able to
settle that today. But obviously we should be able to get to
the bottom of that.
Ms. Rice, you're pretty confident that he was working for
the Forest Service again?
Ms. Rice. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Why don't we track down the answer to
that.
Chairman Chaffetz. And if the gentleman will yield, do you
have--how long, what was the timespan? So he leaves the one
position. How long before he's back on a crew?
Ms. Rice. A month?
Chairman Chaffetz. About a month later?
Ms. Rice. Two months?
Chairman Chaffetz. And then how long did he serve in that
role? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Rice. I don't think it was very long. A couple months.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
Let's recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me thank the witnesses for being here today. Ms.
Donnelly and Ms. Rice, I would like to thank you for your
courageous testimony today. I know it must be very difficult
for you to revisit your experiences in such a public setting,
and we appreciate you coming forward.
There is a history of discrimination and harassment of
female firefighters in the Forest Service spanning more than
four decades.
Ms. Rice, let me begin by asking you about the events
leading up to your decision to file an EEO complaint in 2011.
In as much detail as you feel comfortable providing, can you
describe what you endured?
Ms. Rice. It started off with just the, you know, sexual
innuendos, and it escalated to touching me and cornering me and
trying to be inappropriate with me. He had me removed from the
office to this other office where he could come and go as he
pleased and nobody would see him. I had even quit announcing
myself on the radio to avoid running into him because he would
show up at my location.
Mr. Clay. And what made you finally want to come forward?
Ms. Rice. This had been going on for a couple of years, and
it was--I was breaking down. I couldn't take it anymore.
Mr. Clay. And in your written testimony for today's hearing
you state, and I quote, ``Women who report sexual harassment
are retaliated against. It is your word against his. And you
know the moment you open your mouth to speak up you are
committing career suicide.''
Can you elaborate on this statement? What retaliation did
you experience after reporting?
Ms. Rice. The way they handled my case. It was--it was--
everything was done wrong. I was the bad guy. They protected
him. You know, he----
Mr. Clay. And, Ms. Lago, how do you respond to Ms. Rice's
deeply troubling statement that reporting harassment is
tantamount to committing career suicide and to the allegations
of retaliation she has expressed?
Ms. Lago. Well, I think what she experienced was
horrifying. And I think the actions of Mr. Beckett are
unforgivable. I think anybody that goes through that, it's
horrifying and unacceptable.
As far as retaliation, we don't condone, tolerate, accept
retaliation. We have procedures when people report retaliation.
But what we struggle with is there's fear of retaliation.
People fear reprisal. So that fear suppresses people coming
forward. It makes it difficult for us to take action to
demonstrate our commitment.
Mr. Clay. Well, and here, to me it sounds as though if this
has been going on for four decades in this service, then there
is a problem with the culture of the Fire Service. So how do we
attack and change the culture of men feeling they can dominate
women? What is this all about?
Ms. Lago. Sure. Thank you. So I think there are two things
that we have underway that are going to be helpful in this
culture change. Because, as you mention, it's long term, it's
longstanding, and it takes time to turn it around.
So the couple of things that I'm thinking of is we have
workshops and skill building and team building for women in
fire programs across the country. So that's one thing.
And the second thing is our efforts to include more women
and minorities in our fire jobs. The number one way people come
into the fire job is through our apprentice academy. And, for
example, in the most recent advertisement, there wasn't enough
diversity in the applicant pool. So Regional Forester Randy
Moore cancelled the advertisement and is rerunning it and he
asked to get more outreach.
Mr. Clay. What about more severe action and requiring that
some of these heads roll, that people be fired, actually, for
their actions on the job? Any movement towards that?
Ms. Lago. You know, my boss, the chief, says, you know, if
you get a chance to ask the committee, ask them to help us make
it easier to fire people. So we have a code, a penalty guide.
We use that for our guidance. And, yeah, we would like to fire
people.
Mr. Clay. It shouldn't be too difficult with people
conducting themselves in that manner where they are harassing
and overtly harming their coworkers. It shouldn't be that hard.
My time's up.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We're very pleased to have Ms. Speier who's joined us. She
was a full member of the--of the committee, and we wish she
still was, quite frankly. But we're glad that she's joined us
today. We ask for unanimous consent that she join the
committee, which we have already done.
And so we're pleased that you're here, and I now recognize
Ms. Speier for 5 minutes.
Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I would love to be
able to join this committee again. I truly enjoyed the time I
spent here. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing, because this issue is a very, very serious one.
You know, I'd like to paraphrase Shakespeare and say there
is something rotten in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the Forest Service. This has been going on for 40 years. And
lawsuits are filed, they are settled, there are consent decrees
that go on for a period of years, and then the behavior
reoccurs again and again and again.
Now, I sent a letter, with a number of my colleagues, to
the USDA OIG in 2014 asking the IG to look into the allegations
of sexual harassment. And the IG from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture wrote back and said: We're not going to do this
investigation. They're working hard on it. Things will improve.
And then more recently, Mr. Chairman, you and many others
from the Senate and the House, bipartisan, have sent yet
another letter, and it appears that there may be an
investigation.
Ms. Lago, you met with me at one point. And if I remember
correctly, we had asked that you do a climate survey. And you
said you were going to do one but you were going to require
that people identify themselves. And I said that was pretty
outrageous, that you're not going to get accurate information
by doing that. And then you chose, rightfully, to make it
anonymous.
But in that conversation that we had, you said something to
the effect that, you know, boys will be boys, that the
environment is such that you can't trust what goes on in the
backwoods, and you can't really trust what people say. Do you
remember that conversation?
Ms. Lago. I'm certain I never said boys will be boys.
Ms. Speier. Well, maybe I'm paraphrasing it. But you said,
you know, when you have an environment like this and they're in
the back country, these kinds of things happen.
Ms. Lago. Well, I'm not sure what I said.
Ms. Speier. Well, let me ask you this. You made reference
to the fact that you're not sure you can trust everything
that's said. Do you believe what Ms. Donnelly and Ms. Rice have
attested to?
Ms. Lago. I believe what Ms. Rice has attested to. I don't
believe that all of what Ms. Donnelly has attested to is
accurate.
Ms. Speier. Did you all stand and raise your right hands
and swear under oath when you came in this morning?
Ms. Lago. We, yes did.
Ms. Speier. So you believe that she swore under oath and
she's still not telling the truth.
Ms. Lago. I said I didn't think it was accurate.
Ms. Speier. Well, you're mincing words here. Either you
believe her or you don't.
Ms. Lago. Well, you can be factually incorrect and think
you're telling the truth.
Ms. Speier. So you think she's factually incorrect.
Ms. Lago. That's right.
Ms. Speier. All right. Let me ask you about Mr. Beckett.
Everyone seems just shocked that he was rehired in any
capacity.
Ms. Lago. I agree.
Ms. Speier. What have you done to the person who rehired
him? Have there been any personnel actions taken against that
individual? Have you even looked into it?
Ms. Lago. Yes, that was 2011 or '12. But my understanding
was he was hired on an interagency crew, not a Forest Service
crew, as a contractor. We took action to get that contractor
off our fire.
Ms. Speier. All right. Do you know what I'd like for you to
do, and if the committee would so allow, I'd like to have you
show us documentation of that, because there appears to be some
dispute as to whether he was a contract employee or not. We
should see that.
Ms. Speier. And even if he was hired as a contract employee
on an interagency, someone had to know that he was being
brought back. Someone had to make the decision to have him come
back as a motivational speaker, whether he was being paid or
not. And, frankly, that has really nothing to do with it,
because it's sending a huge message to everybody that even
though this individual has been terminated, even though he has
been found to have conducted himself inappropriately, we're
bringing him back as a motivational speaker. So everyone, you
know, shut up.
Now, let me move to retaliation. In the ICF report it makes
it very clear that there were systemic differences in the
survey responses between female and male perceptions of the
workplace. Women provided consistently less favorable responses
than men.
My time is almost up. What are you doing to address the
fact that women in the Forest Service feel that they are
retaliated against and that the environment is hostile?
Ms. Lago. Yes. Thank you. So since that survey we have
added a position in the regional office who is sort of an
ombudsman for work environment who works directly with all of
the forest. We have done--we have dispatched civil rights teams
who meet with--or who travel with OGC attorneys, to meet with
forest, to have groups talking about our antiharassment
training, appropriate conduct in the workplace. We are hosting
focus groups around retaliation because, again, it's a fear of
reprisal, and if people don't come forward and describe their
experience, we don't have the opportunity to follow up on it.
So we're piloting those focus groups in several of the forests.
Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but let me
just finally say that the way that you make sure that there's
not reprisals, the way you make sure that people do not feel
fearful in terms of reporting is to enforce the law and take
action against the perpetrators.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
Does any other member have any additional questions.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make sure that I understood your answer to
one of my questions correctly, Ms. Lago. I asked you do you
recognize the name Alicia Dabney.
Ms. Lago. My answer was yes.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. And Alicia Dabney alleged that an
attempted rape occurred, that she was in put in a chokehold and
the guy attempted to rape her. Was there a criminal
investigation into that?
Ms. Lago. Not that I know of.
Mr. Palmer. Why not?
Ms. Lago. Because she did not make that allegation in her
misconduct investigation inquiry.
Mr. Palmer. That was also mentioned in Congresswoman
Speier's letter. Was anyone fired?
Ms. Lago. In events associated with Ms. Dabney, yes.
Mr. Palmer. The perpetrator was fired?
Ms. Lago. Unrelated to the allegation of rape, yes, someone
was.
Mr. Palmer. Was the perpetrator, though--the person who did
this was fired, but it had nothing to do with the alleged
attack on Ms. Dabney?
Ms. Lago. That's correct. It was a different event.
Mr. Palmer. And wasn't Ms. Dabney fired later?
Ms. Lago. She resigned.
Mr. Palmer. That's in conflict with one of the documents
that I have. I'd like for you to look into that and give
clarification.
Ms. Lago. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We'll recognize Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah, couple more questions for Ms. Lago.
That Bernardi v. Madigan consent decree apparently expired
or was--it was no longer in effect around 2005, 2006, correct?
Is that what----
Ms. Lago. I think it was sooner than that.
Mr. Grothman. Sooner than that.
Ms. Lago. I think it was in the '90s.
Mr. Grothman. In the '90s, okay. I think at the time, what,
your goal was to get 43 percent women in every position?
Ms. Lago. In California.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah. And after it expired, do you still have
similar goals or could you comment on----
Ms. Lago. Sure. So currently in the Forest Service about 35
percent of the workforce are female. That's been consistent
over the last several years. In California it's slightly less.
I think it's 32 percent. So we're not at 43 percent.
And the reasons for that are complicated, or complex, I
guess I should say. So what has changed since the '90s is the
workforce in California is a much higher percentage of
firefighter than it used to be. We have probably doubled the
number of firefighters in California while the total workforce
has stayed the same or declined. So there's a greater
percentage.
When you look at the civilian labor force and look at the
firefighter occupation, between 4 and 5 percent of firefighters
are women, compared to about 12 percent are women firefighters
in the Forest Service. It's hard to reach that 43 percent
parity with the civilian labor force with the proportion of
firefighters that we have. But we are implementing strategies
to increase our outreach in hiring for women.
Mr. Grothman. You are doing what you can to promote women
and that sort of thing?
Ms. Lago. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. And--okay. I'll leave it at that.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
We'll recognize Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Just very quickly.
Dr. Leonard, OSC wrote its letter to the President in 2015.
And when did you first become aware that a majority of the
complaints filed against the senior managers were not being
acted on in a timely manner?
Mr. Leonard. Probably----
Mr. Cummings. I can't hear you.
Mr. Leonard. Probably 2014. Twenty fourteen is when we
began to make personnel changes in that office, 2014 or 2013.
Because when the report came out, we had been timely for--100
percent timely a year. So we had been working towards that aim
prior to the report coming out and even prior to the
investigation of the office.
Mr. Cummings. So how could it get so bad that 81 percent of
the complaints were not acted on in a timely manner? How did
that happen?
Mr. Leonard. Congressman, it's important to realize this is
1 division within 13 divisions that we have at USDA. It's 1
division. We have 13 different divisions that have around 140
employees. This division was lacking. Once we realized it was
lacking we began to make every adjustment that we could. And as
I've said before, moving persons around, getting new personnel
in, getting new leadership in, and really reconstituting the
office, in addition to a new vendor that we had to procure out
and remove the other one that was not doing the job properly.
Mr. Cummings. Let me say this. I just think we can--we
can--we got to--Ms. Lago and Mr. Leonard, we got to do better.
You all are Presidential appointments.
Mr. Leonard. I am.
Mr. Cummings. And you, Ms. Lago?
Ms. Lago. No.
Mr. Cummings. All right. So you'll still be there, Ms.
Lago. And when I hear what Ms. Donnelly said as compared to
what you said, I'm sorry, we've got a long way to go. And I
know you're sensitive to these issues. I understand what you've
said about your background. But I think we got a lot more to
do.
And, you know, I've tried a lot of cases in my life. But I
got to tell you, as I sit here and I watch Ms. Rice, it's very
painful. I mean, you can--I can feel her pain.
And she said something that I want, you know, I want you to
think about. And Mr. Gowdy alluded to this, and I think the
chairman did too. We're men. So we may not be able to feel
everything that you feel. But you talked about your husband.
That we can relate to, you know, and how he felt as a man that
he could not protect you. And then to see you--the idea of
seeing you pack up your lunch, get dressed, and march out every
day to a place where you are in fear. That's not right.
So we've got to deal with this. And the idea that we have a
40-year history?
And so, Ms. Rice, I hope that you--and I know that the
chairman agrees with me on this--if you feel that you're being
retaliated against, you know how to get ahold of our offices. I
beg you, I'm not asking you, I beg you, and I mean that, to do
that.
Ms. Rice. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. Because we want to do everything in our power
to surround you with some protection. And it pains me to even
say that, that we have to be about the business of protecting a
Federal employee who simply wants to do her job.
And so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for calling
this hearing.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. Very well said. I appreciate
that.
I now recognize Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Lago, I want to discuss some of the discrimination and
harassment suits that have been brought against the Forest
Service over the years. One of the requirements of the consent
decree was to bring the California staff in line with the
percentage of women in the civilian workforce. Is that correct?
Ms. Lago. That is correct.
Ms. Kelly. Was this achieved?
Ms. Lago. I don't know if it was achieved during the period
that it was in effect.
Ms. Kelly. You don't know if it was achieved?
Ms. Lago. No, I don't.
Ms. Kelly. After that consent decree expired, there were
more allegations of discrimination, and there was another class
action suit in 1995.
Ms. Donnelly, you were the lead plaintiff in that class
action. Is that correct?
Ms. Donnelly. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Kelly. And that class action resulted in another
consent decree. Is that correct? Right?
Ms. Donnelly. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. All right. What changes to the Forest Service
policies are required by that consent decree?
Ms. Donnelly. There was mostly administrative injunctive
relief. We had a group of people that we put together to work
on some issues. We looked at the performance evaluations and
made changes to the evaluations so that there would be more
accountability. That's no longer there. After the consent
decree ended, they took it out again. There was a mentoring
program. There was an investigation process for reprisal. There
was a scholarship program, and a women's conference every year.
There was a women's special emphasis program manager put in
place in the region, and things that would--we were trying to
change the culture so that women could feel comfortable using
these processes and kind of make up for past problems that were
caused so that they could move past some of the things that had
happened to them.
Ms. Kelly. Except for the one thing you mentioned, is
everything else still in place?
Ms. Donnelly. No. They dropped just about everything. It
was incredible. The consent decree ended in 2006, and within a
couple days I got a call from one of the women that was in a
meeting. They announced that it was over, and one of the men
stood up and they clapped and they said, we're back. And
shortly after that, the agency dropped almost everything that
was in that consent decree. And I believe that's one of the
reasons that they started backsliding. And in 2008, I started
contacting the Secretary and the chief again, saying, we're
going back to the way it was.
Ms. Kelly. Just the idea that someone would stand up and
say, we're back, is utterly ridiculous.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. And so even though you did all of those things,
that couldn't have done much for changing the culture of the
environment.
Ms. Donnelly. It didn't change the culture at all. And one
of the reasons it didn't is because Region 5, the Forest
Service, looked at the items they had to implement as something
they were just ordered to do. It was not something they felt
they wanted to do or they wanted to incorporate and make
changes. They did it because they had to do it, and they were
waiting for it to get over to not have to do it.
Ms. Kelly. So they didn't see the need for it?
Ms. Donnelly. No. And they still don't.
Ms. Kelly. Ms. Rice, it is my understanding that there's
another complaint making its way through the EEO process even
now. Have you attempted to mediate this complaint? If so, what
happened during that attempt? Ms. Rice.
Ms. Rice. She's my representative. I have to let her tell
me.
Ms. Kelly. Whoever is comfortable in answering is fine.
Ms. Rice. The class action? Could you repeat the question?
I'm sorry.
Ms. Kelly. I'm just asking about the--there's another
complaint making its way through the EEO process.
Ms. Rice. Correct. Correct. We have a class action lawsuit.
Ms. Kelly. And what are next steps that you guys are
thinking about? Whoever wants to answer.
Ms. Donnelly. I can answer that. There was an opportunity
to mediate in January 2015, and six of the class agents and
myself, we went back--at the cost of the taxpayer, they brought
all the women in and said they wanted to mediate.
So we went to San Francisco. We were pretty excited about
it. We thought, we're finally getting some dialogue from the
agency. The women put a lot of effort into it. They had notes
and they had flip charts and ideas. And it was a pretty vibrant
process for them and so there was a lot of hope.
So we came into the room and there were attorneys, agency
attorneys, from Washington and region, and there was a mediator
judge. We brought in our flip charts. We brought two of our own
facilitators. And, unfortunately, all the agency would do--we
had about an hour of general discussion, introductions and
discussion, and then the agency--the judge wanted to talk to us
separate. And we started going through our flip charts, and the
judge got excited about it, because she could see we had put a
lot of effort into working some resolutions out.
She went to talk to the agency, came back, and she seemed--
she was kind of excited and she came back and she seemed kind
of upset. And she brought the agency in, and they just said, we
don't want to talk, and they just walked away from the table.
And since that time, nothing has happened, nothing. We're still
waiting for a judge to be assigned.
Ms. Kelly. I know my time is up, but I just wanted to say I
watched Good Morning America this morning and this was the very
topic. And it's just unbelievable how widespread this issue is
with many different entities. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I now recognize the
gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As many of you know, I stated on the record that I was an
EEO investigator prior to coming to Congress. It's totally
unacceptable for any woman or man to be in a work environment
where they are subjected to sexual harassment.
I have a question for Ms. Lago, because I know for a fact
that the tone is set from the management of any work
environment what is acceptable in that workforce. When there is
a complaint of discrimination, it is directed to the
individuals who have the responsibility of that workforce.
So I'm going to ask you a question, Ms. Lago. Lago, I'm
sorry. In the assessment for 2013, the Forest Department
selected ``no'' in response to the question, and I quote: ``Do
senior managers meet with and assist the EEO director and other
EEO program officials in identification of barriers that may be
impeding the realization of an equal employment opportunity?''
In fact, the Forest Service wrote in response to that question,
and I quote: ``Leadership is not fully engaged.'' That was
2013.
Can you explain why that situation existed?
Ms. Lago. I can't fully explain why that existed in 2013,
but I can tell you that the opposite is true in 2016, and we
have our top leadership engaged in meeting with our civil
rights leadership throughout the country. Since 2013, our civil
rights organization has been redesigned. The organization
reports directly to the chief. The civil rights director has
direct meetings with the chief.
Mrs. Lawrence. When you say chief, which chief?
Ms. Lago. The chief of the Forest Service.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. You told our staff that the head of
the EEO function began reporting to the head of the Forest
department earlier this year. However, in the Forest Service
assessment, the agency marked yes to the question: ``Is the EEO
director under the direct supervision of the agency head?'' Did
the EEO director report to the agency head back in fiscal year
2013, or was this a wrong report?
Ms. Lago. In 2013--well, for as long as I've been in my
job----
Mrs. Lawrence. And that's been how long?
Ms. Lago. Since 2011.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
Ms. Lago. The civil rights director, the head of EEO,
reports to the chief. Prior to 2014, it reported through my
office. After 2014, that position reports directly to the
chief.
Mrs. Lawrence. So if there is a complaint of a department--
and that's very unusual. If there's a complaint of a
department, that complaint is managed by the director of the
department where the complaint is happening? To give you an
example, if the Forest department, there's someone in the
Forest department, files an EEO complaint to the EEO director,
then the EEO director is subjected to supervision by the
director. Is that correct? The chief?
Ms. Lago. The chief, that is correct.
Mrs. Lawrence. Is that normal for all Federal agencies?
Mr. Leonard. Can you repeat the question one more time,
please?
Mrs. Lawrence. So you're telling me that the EEO director--
so anyone that files an EEO complaint in the Forest department
to the EEO director, that EEO director is now subjected to
supervision by the chief of that department?
Mr. Leonard. I think the 18 agencies, Forest Service being
one of them.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Leonard. On the informal side, they are--they control
that informal process. But the minute that you file formal, you
come to our office.
Mrs. Lawrence. Right, and I understand that.
Mr. Leonard. As an EEO investigator, I know that you do. So
the minute we intake the case, we do the investigation of the
case. So no, the Forest Service----
Mrs. Lawrence. And who do you report to?
Mr. Leonard. Secretary Vilsack.
Mrs. Lawrence. What department?
Mr. Leonard. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
Mr. Leonard. So we take it out of the department's hands
and we process the case so they won't do their own
investigation. That actually changed----
Mrs. Lawrence. What is the percentage of these cases that
were filed informally that went formal in the Forestry
department?
Ms. Lago. About 50 percent. About 50 percent.
Mrs. Lawrence. About 50 percent. So about 50 percent of
them are managed through the actual head of the department, the
chief?
Ms. Lago. No. No. They're resolved----
Mrs. Lawrence. They're resolved, right.
Ms. Lago. --at the informal stage.
Mrs. Lawrence. I have another question. Ms. Lago, you
stated that it's better now, in your opinion. Am I interpreting
that right? That now the allegations and the concerns in 2013
no longer exist and that it's better.
Are you stating on the record that the serious issues with
discrimination are in the past and that currently your
department, the Forest department is now not in the same place?
Ms. Lago. What I am saying is we've improved over the last
5 years. We've improved both from the standpoint of holding
people accountable for misconduct as well as reducing
incidences of workplace discrimination. And that's borne out,
in my opinion, by the declines in complaints based on gender,
the declines in complaints based on sexual harassment, and the
declines in actual findings of discrimination.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Chair, I know that my time has expired.
I just want to close with this: It's unfortunate that we have
to have hearings on this in 2016.
I'm a fierce fighter when it comes to having a work
environment that does not discriminate, does not sexually
harass. And as a Federal agency, sitting on this oversight
committee, I will be continuously and I will start monitoring
the number of cases that are being filed. And I'm going to hold
you at your word that it is improving. We would like zero
tolerance; that's the objective. But it must continue. Thank
you so much.
Ms. Lago. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
We'll now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Cummings for calling this important hearing. And thank
you, Ms. Donnelly and Ms. Rice, for your courage in testifying.
I'd like to drill down a little bit deeper on the workplace
environment assessment. About a year ago--and this is directed
at Ms. Lago--as you know, a consulting firm produced a
workplace environment assessment report for the Forest
Service's Pacific Southwest Region. Just over a thousand
employees responded to their survey. And while the survey found
that the majority of participants surveyed were relatively
satisfied with their workplace environment, the survey also
found, and I quote, ``women were consistently less favorable
than men on all aspects of workplace environment.''
Based on this report, have you assessed why woman are less
satisfied with their work environment in the Pacific Southwest
Region?
Ms. Lago. Well, we've taken several followup actions as a
result of that survey and that report. First of all, we
disseminated the report to all the employees and held
discussion groups about the findings. We have created a
position in the regional office that is an ombudsman for the
work environment who is a person people in the field can go to
directly to elevate issues. We've created civil rights and OGC
partnership teams that go out to forests and do trainings,
listening sessions on civil rights, and in particular, to help
people understand retaliation, what their rights are with
regard to retaliation, et cetera.
Mr. Lieu. Okay. And I apologize if this was already asked
before, but I'm just going to ask it again. The survey also
found that fear of retaliation is a concern for a substantial
percentage of your employees in the region, and if you could
elaborate on whether the steps you have taken you believe have
mitigated that?
Ms. Lago. Right. I did, but I'd be happy to repeat.
So, in our experience, fear of retaliation is a problem.
And the problem is that, because it's a perception, it's hard
to validate. It suppresses people, and so people don't take
action. And so what we've been developing are courses, and
trainings and--the last part of my last answer--discussion
groups around perceptions of retaliation, how to give people
more comfort and confidence to bring up issues when they fear
retaliation.
Mr. Lieu. Has this survey been administered in other
regions?
Ms. Lago. Not specifically. There was a similar survey--not
by this organization--for our law enforcement branch, and there
is a climate assessment underway in our Washington office
research branch.
Mr. Lieu. Do you believe other regions should also be given
this survey?
Ms. Lago. Well, I think it's a great idea for any region.
Yes, I do.
Mr. Lieu. And is there a way you can help make that happen
so that other regions are also given the survey?
Ms. Lago. Yes, I can do that.
Mr. Lieu. Great. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter the following
documents into the record: A statement by Dr. Leda Kobziar,
president of the Association for Fire Ecology; a statement of
Melissa Moore of the United States Forest Service; and a May
18, 2015 letter from the Office of Special Counsel to the USDA.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Chaffetz. We're trying to get a video. I think
that we may have it.
So let's now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Ms. Lago, there has been a lot of back-and
forth about your knowledge of Ms. Rice's case. I want to be
fair to you today, and so I'm going to play the clips of your
testimony from today's hearing. I want you to take a look at
this.
[video shown.]
Mr. Cummings. Now, that clip, we heard you say that you did
know that her investigation had been shared with district
rangers. You said you did not. Is that right?
Ms. Lago. That is correct.
Mr. Cummings. I can't hear you.
Ms. Lago. That is correct.
Mr. Cummings. Well, this is why I'm confused. You said you
read the article that we referred to in Huffington Post?
Ms. Lago. I read it when it came out, yes.
Mr. Cummings. And that was in March of 2016, right?
Ms. Lago. Correct.
Mr. Cummings. Well, the Huffington Post article, and this
is a quote from that article. It says, In--and I quote, in
2012, at the district ranger's request, Rice's supervisor
called an all-hands meeting, called an all-hands meeting. Rice
was certain that Beckett would be on the agenda. She begged not
to have to attend, but said she was required to show up. Rice's
former supervisor couldn't verify this, but said that the
meeting was handled insensitively: ``Nobody took into
consideration that maybe she was still feeling like the target
in the case.''
Now, this is the onethat got me. This is continuing the
quote. ``The situation with Beckett was discussed in front of
at least 50 colleagues; Rice walked out in tears. 'I think that
was the worst thing that ever happened to me,' she said.''
That's the end of quote.
So did you or didn't you know about the rangers, because
I'm confused?
Ms. Lago. So what I'm attempting to say is I heard Ms. Rice
say her investigative report was shared with rangers. What I
imagine that means is the transcript was passed out to district
rangers. Maybe I misinterpreted. I am sorry, I apologize, but
that's what was a surprise to me.
Mr. Cummings. So you did know that her testimony, that the
district rangers knew about it? I mean they knew about her case
and the facts of it. That's what I meant to say.
Ms. Lago. Yes, I do.
Mr. Cummings. All right. That's all. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize myself.
I'm glad we're having this hearing and I think you're
seeing and feeling the bipartisan frustration. And we're not
going to let go of this. You haven't dealt with it
appropriately. You've had years to deal with it.
Here's the vicious cycle, and I see this above and beyond
just the Forest Service, quite frankly, but here's the vicious
cycle. In most cases women, but it happens to men as well,
there is some sort of inappropriate behavior to outright rape.
It is so difficult, I can't even imagine. I mean, Mr. Cummings
talked about this. I can't even imagine having to go through
this, let alone trying to recount it, let alone trying to
document it, and how brave and how courageous people have to be
like Ms. Rice to come forward and do that. I can't even
imagine.
But when that does happen, here's where I see the--and we
see this repetitive behavior, and it's a total failing of the
system. That should be reported to law enforcement and
oftentimes it is, because it's a crime. And law enforcement
will look at it and say, well, you know what, the government
can take care of this itself. And so rather than treating it
and prosecuting it as a crime, it's given back to the
departments and agencies.
Then the department and agency will go and sit, as in this
case, and have coffee with this person and say, you know, the
case against you is getting a little tougher, why don't you go
and take all of your benefits, all of your retirement, and why
don't you just retire, wink-wink. And they're allowed to just
walk out the door unscathed.
Now, part of this is on Congress. We're going to have to
have some civil service reform. Let's be honest with what Ms.
Lago is saying, because this isn't the first time we've heard
this. We've heard this at the EPA from the administrator
herself. We've heard this from other departments and agencies.
There comes a time where they have to be able to fire somebody
and they can't just let them off the hook and simply retire. I
mean, we heard these ridiculous cases over the last several
years where they shouldn't get the full benefit if they are
proven, if they go through the adjudication process and they
can just simply walk away.
That's where I hope we do come together in a bipartisan way
and break this vicious cycle where these predators can just
prey predominantly on women and have no repercussions. We heard
the one testimony where we have----
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Just on that point, I think the evidence in this
case, and the testimony in this case, has shown that management
didn't even explore Title V and the recourse available to them
to remove these people who should have been removed. So the law
is there. It shouldn't be easy to just fire people for any
reason, but for good cause, you can use the law. And, you know,
I'm a former labor attorney.
You have the ability to fire these people; you just chose
not to do it. It was either by malfeasance or nonfeasance.
Choose whatever course you want. But you had the right to fire
these people; you just did not. It may have been because you
weren't paying attention, you didn't believe the allegations;
but you had the right to fire these people and you should have,
but you didn't.
But I agree that there--you know, we've got to make sure
that legal counsel in these departments understand that we will
not put up with this crap, really. This is unconscionable.
We all have daughters go to work every single day. Do you
think we want to see this go on at a workplace like this where
we have, you know, hundreds of complaints about sexual
harassment. Fire these people, or if you refuse to then you
need to be removed. That's the bottom line.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
So the other thing--and we addressed some legislation to
this effect, but we can't have these predators simply bounce
from one job to the next.
Now, it seems to me that in this particular case, Mr.
Beckett, right, is his name, it's a small community, they knew
what was going on here. To go back and hire him and then
subsequently bring him in as a motivational speaker, I can't
think of anything more offensive.
And you have to take a good hard deep look in the mirror
and figure out what in the world the Department of Agriculture
is going to do to make sure that never ever ever happens again.
You could go down to Office Max or Best Buy and get a piece of
software off the shelf and create a little database and say,
this is the do not hire/do not interact list. You can do that
for about 50 bucks, okay?
I don't want to hear about any more excuses. And I don't
want the Department of Agriculture--why don't they blaze the
trail? Why don't they, you know--let's actually have them lead
in this area rather than deal with this for 40 years. I don't
ever want to have to call you up here again, but I do want to
know that you're leading the way. But you're not going to prove
that until you actually do it.
You know, it's--we hear too many people say, oh, my stats
are good and I did 100 percent within the timeframe and
everything that, but the evidence shows to the contrary. So
that's what I hope we do accomplish.
Lastly, as we gavel down here, particularly to Ms. Rice,
thank you for the bravery that you've shown to be here and do
this. This is not a dream come true testifying before Congress.
But I hope you do know how inspirational you are to a lot of
women and you represent a lot of voices that are quiet and
silent, and they're watching on their computer, TV. And I hope
when you go back and, you know, visit with your husband that
there's satisfaction in that. It's helpful to us, and we want
to be part of that solution and I know you do too.
And, Ms. Donnelly, thank you for well for your leadership
on this.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, would you just reiterate what I
said about making sure they are protected, because I want to
make it clear that we're on the same page.
Chairman Chaffetz. There is no daylight between what Mr.
Cummings is saying and what I'm saying, as the chairman of this
committee too. On behalf of all of the members, we will go to
the end of the earth to protect you and the other women that
have gone through this, but don't be bashful in picking up that
phone and letting us know. It will be answered and we will
respond.
And to those in management and in other positions, I'm
telling you what, we will use every power we possibly can from
this pulpit to make sure that they are treated with dignity and
never have to go through that again in any way, shape or form.
You will see more subpoenas and more hearings than you can
possibly imagine if we hear one thing about any sort of
reprisal in any way, shape or form. I can't say that strongly
enough.
It's been a good hearing. I appreciate the four of you
taking time and testifying today.
The last thing, Mr. Leonard, within 2 weeks--2 weeks--I
expect that Mr. Cummings' letter, the letter that we jointly
did gets responded in its totality. Two weeks.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]