[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONGRESS BACK HOME: MODERNIZING DISTRICT OFFICE OPERATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-222 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri Vice Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BOB LATTA, Ohio
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
COMMITTEE STAFF
Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Chairman Derek Kilmer............................................ 1
Oral Statement............................................... 1
Vice Chairman William Timmons.................................... 2
Oral Statement............................................... 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Danielle Radovich Piper, Chief of Staff, Rep. Ed Perlmutter.. 3
Oral Statement............................................... 3
Written Statement............................................ 6
Ms. Sarah Youngdahl, District Director, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler... 10
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Mr. George Hadijski, Director of Congressional Programming,
Congressional Management Foundation............................ 15
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Discussion....................................................... 21
APPENDIX I: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
Anne Meeker, Director of Strategic Initiatives, POPVOX Foundation 41
CONGRESS BACK HOME: MODERNIZING DISTRICT OFFICE OPERATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:01 p.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Derek Kilmer [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kilmer, Cleaver, Perlmutter,
Williams, Timmons, Van Duyne, and Joyce.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
Okay. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Today's hearing is titled, ``Congress Back Home,'' because
that is what our district offices are. Our district staff are
on the front lines day in and day out, helping our constituents
so that they can navigate the complexities of the Federal
Government from cities and towns all over the country. It is
incredibly challenging work, and I know we are all grateful for
the dedication and commitment of our staffs to serving the
American people. We could not do our jobs in Washington without
support from back home, which is why we need to make certain
that our district offices and staff have the resources that
they need to be successful.
Staff have told us that up-to-date equipment and
infrastructure are essential, as are clear policies and
guidelines. They need seamless access to the same services,
benefits, and training available to D.C. staff. I know Congress
is making progress on this front, and I would like to
acknowledge the good work that the CAO's coaches are doing in
partnering with district offices.
We also know that district staff do highly specialized
work, and that is why it is so important to seek their
expertise and feedback in an ongoing way. The casework they
manage on behalf of our constituents is often complex and
requires a detailed understanding of agency processes and
procedures. And this work is made more difficult when there is
little consistency across agencies in terms of how inquiries
are handled.
So, our goal today is to learn about what we can do to make
the lives of our district staff easier so that they can better
serve our constituents. And what better way to do that than
going straight to the source, because committee staff have been
holding listening sessions with district directors, two of whom
are joining us today, and will continue to incorporate their
insights into our work.
Even though we are meeting virtually today, we are going to
use the committee rules we adopted late last year that give us
more flexibility in the Q&A portion of the hearing. Our goal,
as always, is just to encourage thoughtful discussion and the
civil exchange of ideas and opinions. So, here goes.
In accordance with clause 2(j) of House rule XI, we will
allow up to 30 minutes of extended questioning per witness,
and, without objection, time will not be strictly segregated
between the witnesses, which will allow for extended back and
forth exchanges between members and the witnesses. Vice Chair
Timmons and I will manage the time to ensure that every member
has equal opportunity to participate. Any member who wishes to
speak should just raise their virtual hand, and either I or
Vice Chair Timmons will make sure you can jump in.
Additionally, members who wish to claim their individual 5
minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of
rule XI will be permitted to do so following the period of
extended questioning.
All right. With that, I would like to invite Vice Chair
Timmons to share some opening remarks as well.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are joined by a very special panel of witnesses today.
To be sure, it is unusual to have current staff testify at a
House hearing, but who better to hear from on how we as an
institution can better serve our constituents than those who
are on the front lines doing just that every day.
In that vein, I believe our witnesses today have almost 50
years of combined service between them. I want to thank each of
you for your service, not just to the institution itself, but
more importantly, to the people we represent.
And as you probably know, a big focus of our committee has
been and continues to be improving staff capacity. In other
words, how do we recruit talented staff to serve, and just as
important, how do we keep them here so we maintain that
experience and that institutional knowledge, which makes the
House stronger and improve our work on behalf of the American
people.
And I know that is not the topic of today's hearing, but
clearly, the offices where you have worked have done something
right. So perhaps we can take some time after our hearing
concludes today to get your recommendations on that front as
well.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you and I want to thank
Congressman Perlmutter for the passion behind this issue. I
have had challenges getting my district offices up to date. I
inherited two district offices in different parts of my
district, and then we combined them to one. And, you know,
there is cost savings there, there are efficiencies there, but
it took us 11 months to get internet. It literally took us 11
months to get internet.
So, you know, we all have our stories of the challenges of
setting up new offices, and I look forward to learning the best
practices and how we can improve Congress as a whole to better
serve the American people. I will give you all one example. We
do not--passports are obviously a huge issue, and we are
creating an online portal to shepherd the constituents to to
expedite that process as opposed to them calling me and texting
me and emailing me. So, you know, there are just so many
efficiencies that we can have everywhere. And if anybody on
this call has not gotten their passport renewed, please do it
now. That would be great.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Good advice. Good advice. Thank you, Vice
Chair Timmons.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses who are here to share
their thoughts about what Congress can do to modernize district
office operations. I also want to note that two of our
witnesses today run the district offices for two of our
committee members, Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Reschenthaler. We did
some research, and as far as we can tell, this is the first
time staff have testified to their own bosses, so another first
for the Modernization Committee.
Witnesses are reminded that your written statements will be
made part of the record.
So our first witness is Danielle Radovich Piper. Ms. Piper
serves as Representative Ed Perlmutter's chief of staff and is
based out of his district office. She previously worked in the
Colorado State legislature and was the chief of staff for the
State senate majority office. Prior to that, she was a senior
associate for a public affairs firm. She earned her bachelor's
of arts in political science from Colorado State University.
And for working with Mr. Perlmutter, she has earned our undying
gratitude and sympathy, really. He has got to be really
challenging to work with, but we are grateful that you are
taking time out and hopefully getting hazard pay for your work
with Ed.
But, with that, Ms. Piper, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DANIELLE RADOVICH PIPER, ON THE BEHALF OF THE
OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN ED PERLMUTTER (D-CO); SARAH YOUNGDAHL, ON
THE BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN GUY RESCHENTHALER (R-
PA); AND GEORGE HADIJSKI, ON THE BEHALF OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF DANIELLE RADOVICH PIPER
Ms. Radovich Piper. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chairman Timmons,
members of the committee, staff, and my boss. My name is
Danielle Radovich Piper. I am chief of staff to Congressman Ed
Perlmutter, Colorado 7. I have had the pleasure of serving in
my capacity as chief of his staff since January of 2007, and I
have the unique perspective of being based in the district
office since first opening our offices.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee
regarding modernizing district office procedures. I would like
to begin my remarks by praising the creation of the CAO Coach
Program. Since its inception last summer, the CAO Coach, in my
opinion, is by far the most helpful and informative program the
House has stood up in my 15 years on the Hill.
Additionally, the trainings and briefings provided for
staff through the staff academy are a tremendous opportunity to
provide staff with professional trainings for on and off Hill
work. I sincerely hope this committee and all Members of the
House will continue to support the CAO Coach Program, and I
encourage its future growth.
Over the years, our district office, like many others, has
grappled with technological challenges, antiquated House and
agency systems, and confusion regarding the use of the
appropriate House support offices. Regardless of these
challenges, we found a way to make it work, to provide the best
service possible to our constituents. However, I believe many
of these problems can be solved if we reduce barriers and
modernize systems.
A significant technological challenge for us is the speed
at which our office accesses and transmits electronic
information. We tried many fixes over the years to the problem,
from rewiring to purchasing our own server, neither of which
alleviated the problem. The main issue is the House firewall
and the need for data to travel to and from D.C. with every
click, which is slow, resulting in loss to staff time and less
productivity. One solution is to allow offices to use a secure
cloud system, thus removing the obstacle of the time it takes
for the data to travel back and forth.
Another problem for district offices is the lack of WiFi
capability. Since the House does not support WiFi in district
offices, we resort to workarounds such as the use of hotspots.
As we all experienced with the pandemic, having access to WiFi
is critical for a fully functioning office and would provide
staff more flexibility to be more mobile within the office
workspace.
Next, I would like to offer several thoughts regarding
casework and the interaction with agencies.
The digital privacy release forms. Not all agencies use
digital forms which would enable casework in these high-volume
issue areas to be less cumbersome, tedious, and time consuming
for both staff and the constituents.
Faxes. Not all agencies have gone digital, and some still
use the fax. We recommend the elimination of faxes across all
agencies.
Agency contact lists. CRS provides a helpful agency guide,
but it only has one point of contact for each agency, and all
are located in D.C. Casework teams require a list of local
field offices within each agency's region, including contact
names, numbers, and emails.
Service academy applications. Automating our application
system in 2011 was incredibly helpful to us and it
significantly cut down on the administrative time it took to
process applications. We recommend CMS vendors establishing a
template for the use for all offices.
CRS inquiry reports. Standardizing these reports across all
agencies would reduce confusion, increase staff efficiencies,
and ultimately result in better outcomes for the constituent.
As previously mentioned, standing up the CAO Coach Program
is a tremendous tool for us and, coupled with a customer
advocate assigned to each office, has streamlined
communications and helped to clear up some confusion regarding
the CAO and the services they provide. I hope this program will
be highlighted during new Member orientation and that each new
Member and their designated staffer will have the opportunity
to meet one on one with their customer advocate.
Lastly, I would like to take a moment to highlight several
events I hope the House will continue to support. We
participate in each of these events, and they all contribute
greatly to the lives of our constituents and our community.
The first is the Vietnam pinning program. Established in
2007 by an act of Congress and a subsequent Presidential
proclamation, the lapel pins were created to honor veterans who
served during the Vietnam war. These ceremonies were more
successful than we ever imagined. Our first one was held on
March 24, 2017, and since that time, we have held eight pinning
ceremonies, honoring more than 900 Colorado Vietnam-era
veterans.
The second is the Veterans History Project. We launched the
program in our office in 2007, and produced, in conjunction
with local schools, four feature-length films and several other
smaller interviews with dozens of veterans serving in Iwo Jima
to Vietnam to the Gulf war.
The third is the Congressional Art Show. We have
participated in the art show nearly every year since 2007, and
have worked with hundreds of students to display their
creations in our district and in the halls of Congress. Many of
these students are alternative learners, and the program
provides these young people, in many cases, with an experience
they would not otherwise be afforded.
Lastly, the STEM App Challenge is another favorite of our
office. However, it could be improved with allowing offices
more flexibility to hold these events during a time of year
which works best for the office and the schools.
So, thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, members, and staff,
for taking the time to hear my testimony today. I hope the
committee finds my thoughts helpful as you work toward
modernizing House procedures. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Radovich Piper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Piper. You got applause from
your boss. That is a good sign.
Mr. Perlmutter. Yay. Yay.
The Chairman. Our next witness is Sarah Youngdahl. And
before I formally introduce Ms. Youngdahl, I would like to read
a short statement from Mr. Reschenthaler.
He wrote: Although I could not attend today's hearing due
to a previous scheduling conflict, I wanted to provide this
statement welcoming and thanking my district director, Sarah
Youngdahl, for testifying on this important topic.
He writes: Sarah started working in my Pennsylvania State
senate office in 2017, where she served as event coordinator.
After election to Congress, Sarah joined my team as district
administrator, and has since been promoted to district
director. Sarah is a lifelong resident of western Pennsylvania
and a tremendous asset to my office. Thank you for allowing
Sarah to testify today, and I look forward to working with the
committee to modernize district office operations.
That, Sarah, may be better than any introduction I could
give you, so I want to thank Mr. Reschenthaler for that
statement. And, Ms. Youngdahl, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF SARAH YOUNGDAHL
Ms. Youngdahl. Thank you so much.
Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and members of the
committee, thank you for having me testify today. As the
district director for Congressman Guy Reschenthaler, I am
honored to share my experience and insight to help better
operations in congressional districts across the country.
My tenure with Congressman Reschenthaler began during his
time in the State senate, and then transitioned to his
congressional staff in 2019. It was evident from day one that
it would be a challenge to establish offices for a freshman
Congressman.
Pennsylvania was in a unique position from the beginning.
The State had just gone through a nondecennial redistricting.
Happening outside the normal timeline, there was much confusion
regarding offices start-up. We did not have the luxury to
receive guidance from the outgoing Member or their staff. We
would have to rely on our own experiences and instinct as we
found no person or entity to guide us through this process.
The following are some of my recommendations to make the
new office process smoother, and once in the office, operations
as streamlined as possible.
Selection for a brand new office in a newly established
district is challenging when there is uncertainty about finding
the best-suited location, necessary office amenities, or
acceptable and available furnishing. While the House Ethics
provided general internet needs, pricing allowances, and the
lease information, most basic logistics lacked guidance. Should
a new office be established near other government buildings;
should consideration be given to available security or safety
features; is it more feasible to have separate staff offices;
should a conference room area be considered, are all questions
facing a new director.
Freedom should be given to each office to fit their needs,
but information of what those needs may or may not be would be
critical in making the first decisions of the office and
alleviate possible issues in the future.
There are major differences as to how the flagship or the
main office is to be set up versus a satellite office. Having
one office designated as the main site gave us little
decisionmaking for its set up. Everything from the internet to
the phone contracts were made for us. While this was a welcome
assistance, a satellite office requires staff to not only
determine the needs but also contact a provider and oversee the
installation. Due to differing providers, office staff, not the
House technical staff, was also contacting providers to repair,
maintain, or replace equipment or service as time goes on.
Finances are separate for the multiple district offices, but
the setup should be more connected when those offices in the
end need the same thing.
It was also found that transitioning constituent casework
was more difficult than initially anticipated. Inquiries filed
by the departing office became lost or delayed in processing at
the Federal agency when the original office was no longer a
proper contact. For many constituents, re-creating a previously
filed inquiry delayed the receipt of Social Security or
veterans benefits.
While understanding the need for separation of districts,
having immediate access to casework and regional contacts with
Federal agencies would allow staff to be better equipped to
help new constituents from day one.
Over time, there has been an uptick in remote and alternate
work for the district office and our Federal agency partners.
While some accommodations were implemented, other issues were
more complex and resulted in a slower response time. One
suggestion to initiate quicker response times was to have
digital signatures. This would eliminate the time-consuming
printing, mailing, and returning of agency-required privacy
forms. However, it was found that numerous agencies do not
accept the digital format. A service that we would utilize to
help constituents was not feasible due to the agency-placed
limitations that we have been told should not exist.
Lastly, events throughout the district pose problems in
working with other organizations. Often it is found that State
and Federal agencies have their own set of guidelines and
practices they must follow. We frequently shy away from doing
events partnered with others due to differing ethics rules.
Being provided clear guidance regarding ethical practices for
these events would be helpful in planning.
For example, events targeting similar interested groups
would make more sense done in conjunction with other agencies
and organizations. While we can host and invite other groups,
this causes limitations for everyone else in advertising and
funding. There is also the possibility of constituents missing
out on valuable resources and assistance if it is not all in
one.
Thank you all for allowing me to shed light on my district
experience and the challenges that have come up from the start
of the office to today. I hope my recommendations will better
operations for not only Members and staff but the constituents
we serve. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Youngdahl follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thanks a bunch, Sarah. Also getting good
applause from members of the committee.
Our final witness is George Hadijski. Did I get that right,
George?
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah, that is correct.
The Chairman. All right. I am just going to skip it from
here on out and call you George.
Mr. Hadijski. Good. That is perfect.
The Chairman. George is in charge of congressional
programming at the Congressional Management Foundation. Prior
to this, he served in the United States House of
Representatives for 27 years, spending most of his career at
the Committee on House Administration as director of Member and
committee services and ending as a senior advisor. He earned
his bachelor of arts in political science from the University
of Miami.
Mr. Hadijski, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE HADIJSKI
Mr. Hadijski. Good afternoon. I thank Chairman Kilmer, Vice
Chairman Timmons, and the rest of the select committee, members
and staff, for inviting me to speak.
First, let me say I am quite happy about the committee's
focus on district offices, as they can many times be neglected
when most of the legislative activity and focus is on
Washington, D.C. In recent years, district staff have faced
enormous challenges, as much of the work related in the
pandemic fell on their shoulders with a groundswell of
questions and casework from constituents. Anecdotally, CMF
heard that total casework requests doubled in 2020 and 2021. It
is these challenges that make for constructive lessons that
would not only apply to the pandemic but also would be useful
in future situations.
Today I will focus on three categories: staffing, security,
and district office transitions.
In my experience, flexible policies can meet unexpected
challenges and serve the institution best. Take, for example,
how House Administration reconciled election year communication
restrictions when faced with a district hit by a sudden natural
disaster. House Administration modified the policy to allow
Members to communicate information only related to the natural
disaster to enable constituents to get vital assistance during
the critical time. It is that lesson that I believe can apply
to staffing.
Over the last several years, congressional offices
struggled with how to manage their unanticipated surge of work
in the district office. An office that was at the staff ceiling
had few options other than reallocating D.C. staff to help
relieve some of the load on the district staff. Instead,
offices would be well served with the ability to hire
additional personnel when they are confronted with a public
emergency.
Currently, official allowance regulations provide for
offices to hire temp agency personnel. However, those
additional staff count towards the staff cap. It makes sense to
examine a carveout to exempt temp agency staff during times of
crisis. CMF has been an advocate for lifting the staff ceiling
entirely and allowing Members to hire based on their office
needs. But in the interim, I would recommend a measure that
exempts offices temporarily from the staff cap in times of
crisis. This change would help alleviate staff workload and
could result in better constituent service.
Another area I would examine is casework. While this topic
could fill a whole hearing, I will just focus on the concept of
digitizing forms which has already been mentioned. The House
previously reformed processes with the finance office, and I
believe many of those principles can apply to casework.
Congressional staff spend significant time entering data
and seeking privacy releases from constituents. Having the
House or executive branch create a portal that is uniform that
everybody can use where constituents can securely provide their
information and digital signatures frees staff to focus more on
engagement with agencies on behalf of their constituents.
The next area I will discuss is security for district
offices. While security is not my expertise, I would have House
Administration examine how security expenses are paid.
Currently, many expenses are paid from the MRA, where Members
are weighing budgetary constraints and needs against their
office security needs. In the past, the House took steps to
authorize central funding for certain district office expenses.
I would recommend a process whereby security needs are entirely
paid through a centralized funding mechanism instead of the
MRA, with the appropriate oversight and signoff by House
Administration.
The last area on which I will focus deals with how
transitions take place. Currently, incoming members aren't
allowed to expend funds for new district offices until the
Congress begins, while D.C. offices begin their process in
December. The result is D.C. offices are ready to go on day
one, but district offices can take sometimes up to 2 months to
be fully operational.
I would recommend that the House authorize paying for these
setup expenses early to expedite the setup of district offices.
It may require the House to engage in short-term leases to
access the properties prior to swearing-in day. However, this
would create a degree of parity between the two offices so they
are both fully operational on January 3.
With that, I will conclude my remarks, and I have some
other comments in my full statement and ask that the full
statement be included for the record. And I thank the select
committee for providing me the opportunity, and I am happy to
answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[The statement of Mr. Hadijski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Hadijski.
Before we begin a period of extended questioning, I want to
invite Representative Perlmutter, if he has a few words. I know
one of our witnesses is a special guest from your office. So
let me recognize Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Danielle Radovich has been my chief of staff for the
whole time we have been here, and just very happy for her to be
able to testify and kind of describe some of our experiences
which, really, we have been--I think the district offices
sometimes are thought of as the frontier and kind of forgotten
in so many ways, particularly resources and some of the
technological resources.
So, Danielle, if you would kind of comment a little more on
some of the things where we have struggled, particularly with
the internet, with WiFi. You mentioned it a little bit in your
opening, but if you could touch on that a bit. And then maybe
one of George's comments about, you know, particularly during
the pandemic, we were just swamped, both technologically but
also in terms of demands on staff. We saw our casework just go
through the roof. So if you could comment on that.
Ms. Radovich Piper. Mr. Chair? Okay. Yes. Thank you.
I think I can give one example that illustrates the real
challenge, particularly the WiFi challenge and capability. So
in March of 2020, when we all--when the pandemic hit and we all
went to work from home, basically all at once, there was a run
on laptops. There was a run on equipment for the House. It was
hard to get laptops, iPads, what have you. We were able--we
also took our internship fully remote, and that was the first
time we had ever done that. We had never done a remote
internship before. So we really didn't know what we were doing
until we were doing it.
The only--and, of course, as you know, because of the
House, the firewall, the intranet, the use of the VPN, you have
to have approved equipment. And in doing so, you have to have
it set up correctly. So for our interns who, in some cases,
were not all based either in Colorado or in D.C., they were all
over the country, we had to set up iPads for the interns, and
then we had to mail iPads across the country so that they could
actually access the House information to be able to do their
internship. And because we didn't have WiFi, and as you all
know from iPads, you can't hardwire an iPad into the internet
in your district office. So we--our staff assistant had to sit
out in the hallway of our office, borrow the WiFi from the
office suite next door to us for hours on end, setting up the
iPads to get them out to interns.
It was really challenging and very stressful, as you can
imagine, because the whole work-from-home situation came at us
really quickly, and things were a mess anyway. So that was a
very challenging situation for us and would hope we could
rectify that.
The other technological piece of all of this, really, it
does go back to it is the accessing and transmitting everything
with every click that you have to go through D.C., right. So--
because you have to go to the main server, and it is the time
it takes to have to transmit that information is really a lot
of lost productivity.
The other piece that I mention more in my longer remarks
for written submission are the phone systems. There is not one
standardized way for district offices to do their phone system
for the purchasing, for setting it up with the provider, and it
is all very confusing. And you have to work with three
different people or four different people within the CAO in
order to get it done, and it seems like there could be some
real streamlining of services there.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. I will yield back to the chair.
I am just glad that Danielle--I have been hearing about this as
the Member about, wait, why don't--why do we get treated like
second-class citizens out here in the hinterlands. But, you
know, we have been able to work around and, obviously, they
figure it out. But we could make it easier, especially, you
know, somebody new coming in, as Sarah was talking about, as
George was talking about, if there is more attention paid to
the district office, because this is where the rubber meets the
road is out here in the district offices. That is where you
touch the constituents on a, you know, hourly basis. So, thank
you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. And I will
recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons to begin a period of
extended questioning of the witnesses. And just a reminder, any
member who wishes to speak or ask a question can just raise
their virtual hand or, you know, gesture like you are coming in
for a landing or whatever you wish.
I want to start by just asking about some of the challenges
with regard to starting up an office. I think each one of you
spoke in your testimony and provided more detail in your
written testimony about just some of the challenges of setting
up a district office for the first time.
I would love to ask our witnesses, you know, one, what do
you see as sort of the most difficult piece of that, and if you
have a recommendation for the committee about how we could
maybe improve that? I think we are keen to help there.
Mr. Hadijski, you mentioned something that I think is kind
of an interesting idea, and that is, you know, having the
House, in essence, have a startup fund. You know, I am curious
if folks have reactions to that and if there are things that
you think ought to be--kind of ought to be covered and ought to
not be covered in that type of a setup.
But let me start with the general topic of, what is the
toughest part of starting up an office, and what would you do
to fix it?
Go ahead, Mr. Hadijski.
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah. I think you are hitting on a foundation
question, right. The big problem right now is that not every
location, not every district is wired well. And building on
kind of the earlier discussion, that really is key for Members
as far as like being able to talk about communicating with
their constituents, having that first touch, when freshman
offices in particular are affected, but it is going to really
be an issue with regard to redistricting coming up when a lot
of Members may have to move their district offices.
But going into new facilities, getting that infrastructure
wired up, and getting a head start would be helpful, I think,
to incoming freshmen members, in particular, but to anybody
that is really moving any district offices. Because getting
that, you know, broadband access, getting wired up in the
office, Members anymore these days, you know, that is how they
communicate with their constituents. And you are talking about
social media, whether they are, you know, communicating via
electronic mail. It really is about a digital world and making
sure that the Member is up and running.
In many cases, particularly if Members are going into an
older building, if they are, you know, going into a new space,
they aren't wired upfront. And usually that process doesn't
start until the beginning of the Congress when there is a lag
and then Members aren't able to get operational right up on day
one. And so that is a big challenge, you know. Your members are
going to be dealing with constituents from day one, so it makes
sense to have that office fully operational on that day one.
The Chairman. So is that what you would cover--when you
made the recommendation that there be some sort of a startup
fund that the House covers, maybe not necessarily out of the
MRA, is that the most significant investment that you are
talking about, which is just getting wired, and so that on day
one you have got phones and internet and you can get cooking?
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah. That is a key component, because if you
are----
The Chairman. Is there something else?
Mr. Hadijski. If your systems aren't ready, you know--I
think the committee looked at staffing during that interim time
period from after the election, and all of a sudden, it made
sense to centrally appoint staff that are going to be working
on setting up the office. Well, the same thing can be true on
setting up district offices as well, right. If you have a
central funding mechanism and you can access that, maybe the
incoming Member doesn't have access since the outgoing Member
represents that district until January 3, then at least getting
the setup so that the Members that are coming in or any new
district offices can begin on day one. I think that would be
helpful to Members in general.
The Chairman. Do either of our other witnesses want to take
a swing at this?
Ms. Youngdahl. I would be happy to. I think the biggest
issue we found was casework. We were coming in, as I said, to
brandnew districts, and we found that a lot of constituents
reached out to us, one, when they finally were able to, once
our phone systems and emails were all set up. They were saying,
well, the outgoing Member said they weren't going to be my
Member in 3 months, so they really didn't want to take up the
case because they knew this was maybe a 6-month process.
So there were a lot of constituents who went--by the time
they got to us, they had already been waiting for normal
processing time of possibly 6 months, 3 more months waiting for
the election and the new swearing in. So hearing that and the
constituents just already feeling so disenfranchised at that
point was really tough.
And having a lot of the setup where we would find out about
it as we were going forward. So when I spoke on the internet
for the satellite office, while that office is completely
functional and where I sit today, the internet wasn't provided
to us. We were told, you need to make the call to your internet
provider. You need to set up the installation and stuff. While
the flagship, they are like, it is set up, here you go, here is
everything you need.
And while I understand the finances were different and
there is that separation, it just--it seemed like we as staff
who didn't know what we were doing really, had to reinvent the
wheel that was already made for us on the other side.
The Chairman. That is helpful.
Ms. Radovich Piper, do you want to take a swing or should I
move on?
Ms. Radovich Piper. I just--one thing, to not be
repetitive. There is something, though, that I think is as
important as tackling the technological piece. And when you
first open an office, it is establishing what your Member
priorities are. And this doesn't fit in the bucket of
technology, but it does fit in the bucket of what kind of a
congressional office do you want to be for your constituents,
and that can sometimes dictate, then, how you set up your
office and your offices.
So if the emphasis really is on constituent and outreach
and you are going to be the most accessible, you know, Member
that you can be, those decisions, I believe, are more helpful
made from the outset, because it can decide, well, how many
offices are you going to have then? Well, and then what kind of
technology do you need and how many staff members do you need?
So I think something that is nontechnologically based but is
equally as important is establishing those priorities early on.
And back to the alphabet soup of acronyms that we have on
the Hill, it really is that customer advocate now that has been
set up for us is so critical. And if I--if we during new Member
orientation had had that customer advocate to go to, I wouldn't
have necessarily had to go, well, GAO does this and HIR does
this and GSA does this, and you have to--I didn't know what any
of those things were, not to mention I was 8 months pregnant at
the time, so that was also a bit of a situation for all of us.
I am not sure I would recommend it. But we definitely could
have used that one person to say, okay, how do I have to get
the phones?
The Chairman. Great. Vice Chair Timmons, and then I have
got you, Ms. Van Duyne.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Beth, would you like to go first since you are in the car?
You can go ahead if you want.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you. Do you mind? I am sorry. Yeah. We
are on the way to go to meet the [inaudible] as a freshman
office, I can--first, I want to thank all of the witnesses,
because we have experienced exactly the same thing.
Something, you know, you are saying that you should be able
to have everything set up, you know, so that you are ready to
go on January 3. Technically, we are not allowed to do that.
Budgets don't start till January 3, so, technically, you don't
even have anybody who can do that because you don't have an
employer--or employee at that time. So I don't know if there is
anything that we can do about that, but that makes it very
difficult, because you really can't even hire anybody until
January 3. We didn't even get access keys to our office until
January 3. So there definitely is a gap where your constituents
aren't getting that kind of casework help that they need.
Another thing that we found had to do with casework files.
The previous Member in our case did not share any of those
casework files, and the people who end up suffering is not our
office, it is the constituents. So I don't know [inaudible] do
we have other solutions to that when the former elected
official is completely, you know, silent on that issue? What
choice--what work do we--could we do to possibly change that?
The Chairman. Go ahead. Would any of our--yeah. Go ahead,
Mr. Hadijski.
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah. I think on the issue--I will take the
first one. On the issue of accessing the office, most of the
setup I am talking about is basically getting the
infrastructure and the office up and running. And so it is more
dealing with the vendors and having maybe the CAO or
contractors engage with the House where they can set up the
office. The incoming Member may not be able to access it until
January 3, but if the CAO can occupy even a short-term lease
and pay for those expenses from a central fund and get the
office kind of wired and get it set up so that the computers,
wiring, the WiFi, all that stuff is ready to go, that might be
helpful, and paying for that centrally instead of paying for it
by the incoming Member or the incoming Member's staff. And so
it would be more of an institutional thing.
On the issue of casework, we had started to look--when I
was at House Administration, we started to look at kind of the
options for possibly standardizing transitioning casework.
Right now, it is very deregulated, right. Each Member kind of
decides whether they are going to give the casework back, have
them start up with the incoming Member. Some Members, there is
a friendly transition, and so it may be a little smoother.
But casework is the one thing that is maybe one of the most
significant things a Member engages in with their constituents,
right. And so it might be helpful to look at some kind of
standard process that everybody adheres to, and you just know
up front, these are going to be the processes for transitioning
casework. Because it is the one thing that is really--you are
not talking about a partisan issue. You are talking about
something that is about helping constituents, right. You are
trying to secure their checks, and you are trying to help them
engage, cut through the red tape with executive agencies that
they are having problems with. And so you are really more
talking about a customer service issue, and things like that
should not really be a partisan transition thing. They should
be more of a standard practice.
And so that is why I would recommend maybe looking at some
type of standard process for transitioning casework between
Members, and then you don't have to deal with a friendly-
unfriendly transition.
Ms. Van Duyne. Actually, that would be great, because,
again, the people who suffer the most are your constituents,
and it is completely nonpartisan. So anything that we can do on
that side would be very helpful.
Does anybody else have any kind of solutions, ideas on
that?
All right. Well, thank you.
Ms. Youngdahl. Oh, I was just going to say that I think
having the partnership with the agencies and speaking to them,
I understand that they give our specific office authorization
when the constituent signs off, but if the agency or there
would be something where it would be to the House or where we
wouldn't have to have the constituent re-fill out a privacy
form and provide all that documentation they had given to the
other offices would be helpful.
Ms. Van Duyne. Okay. And then also having access to
programs that the former Member may not have had but that are
official programs that normal congressional offices could run,
that would be also good. Because we were--like, for example,
like the art competition and things like that, I know the
previous office holder had not really utilized some of those
programs, and it took us a couple of months to be able to jump
into it. So having like a list of all of those things that we
could potentially do for our constituents as far as a service
for our office would be really helpful.
I yield back. Thank you very much, Congressman Timmons,
Ranking Member Timmons, for letting me have that moment. So we
are here now, so we are going to sign off.
Mr. Timmons. Happy to do it. Good luck with the rest of
your day.
The Chairman. Thanks, Ms. Van Duyne.
And I think that is actually an interesting idea, this
notion of maybe having just sort of, you know, the stuff your
district office can do handbook. I mean, I was in office for a
few years before I realized the opportunity to do the pinning
ceremony that Ms. Radovich Piper mentioned for Vietnam
veterans, just as an example. And so that is--I think we are on
to something there.
Vice Chair Timmons, let me yield to you.
Mr. Timmons. Sure. I will jump in.
So I wanted to--I really like the idea of facilitating
better continuity between offices and allowing members that are
going to be sworn in on January 3 to really get some sneak peek
or start doing their--be ready to execute their job on January
3.
One thing that came to mind, when I was a freshman, we
actually had Young Kim and Gil Cisneros both waiting on their
election results. So, I mean, they both came to orientation. So
while this would help the vast majority of the Members'
offices, certain issues would be created, so I guess we can
look into that.
I want to start out with questions for the district
directors. I would like to ask your perspective, district
perspective on an issue that I always talk about, scheduling
and the calendar and, in particular, how to achieve reliability
and certainty for you in how we serve our constituents back
home. Can you talk a little bit about what scheduling is like
for you with a Member in the district and whatever challenges
you face, particularly during busy committee workweeks like
this? I had to gavel into Financial Services and Modernization
at the same time. That was not fun. I am sure Mr. Cleaver had
the same issue. So could you just speak to any challenges with
schedule and the calendar broadly?
Ms. Youngdahl. Yeah. I would----
Ms. Radovich Piper. Go ahead, Sarah.
Ms. Youngdahl. I would be happy to. I think that the
biggest challenge that we see is just sometimes the uncertainty
with when it comes to we are coming on, say, this committee
week and we are trying to schedule a month in advance because
we have a four-county district. So I know many other Members
have much larger districts than ours, but even getting from one
end of the district to the other takes maybe 2 hours. So we are
trying to schedule as much as we can in certain areas, and we
are trying to get everything scheduled. And then if something
pops up where they have to be pulled into session again or
pulled into a committee meeting, that totally upends it. And,
unfortunately, sometimes it strains relationships with whomever
we scheduled with because we are like, it is out of our hands.
And they were all prepared and ready to have us, and sometimes
we are able to fill in staff, which is great, but we promised
the Member. So I think that is our biggest issue is just the
uncertainty that comes with it.
Ms. Radovich Piper. Yes. I agree with Sarah. I really
understand--and I guess we will find out if my boss and I have
different thoughts on this issue, but I certainly understand
the reason behind the committee workweeks. I will tell you,
from our perspective, the addition of committee workweeks has
been the most challenging on this schedule, and the reason is
because of the unpredictable nature of those committee
workweeks.
There is always a bit of unpredictability in what we do,
right, and scheduling and working around at any time things
have to be pulled down or brought back up on the schedule or
pulled off the schedule or changed on the schedule. However,
the addition of the committee workweeks has brought an
additional layer of unpredictability that has made it much
harder.
Part of the reason is because we don't know what is
happening on committee workweeks until the Friday or the
Thursday before that week. So it makes it really hard to do any
of the other things, meetings or outreach or other visits,
during that week while, you know, our boss is in the district,
whereas it is a little more predictable when you are in session
and you have votes. There is a rhythm we all end up getting
into, even though, you know, again, that rhythm changes. And
then district work periods, there is more predictability there.
But it is those committee workweeks that I feel like have been
a real challenge for us from the scheduling perspective.
Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you. I have got two quick
questions.
Mr. Hadijski, could you talk a little bit more about, I
guess, the challenges that Member offices face with constituent
services in terms of natural disasters? I have been fortunate,
in my 3 years in Congress, to not have any natural disaster
occur in my district, but I can imagine that when you have
thousands or tens of thousands of constituents that need help
from the Federal Government, it can be overwhelming. We had a
Member retreat recently and this came up. I mean, is there any
thought of having a float constituent services team that can go
wherever it is needed? I mean, just talk a little bit about
that broadly.
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah. Those are always really, you know,
tricky situations because, in many cases, when your district
has been hit by something that badly, all of a sudden, it is
like even your infrastructure is not, you know--trying to
communicate with constituents becomes the first order of
business. And over the years, the CAO has kind of done a really
good job at trying to figure out how do we get, like,
equipment, how do we get, you know, set up basically like a
temporary shop in those areas that are hit by natural
disasters. And so usually House Administration will engage and
find out what is needed.
The issue is more on the rules side, right, because there
are a lot of entities that are providing assistance, but they
may not be governmental entities. And Members in the past have
been limited as far as like what interactions, you know, they
can have with private entities and how much assistance they can
get because of the ethics rules. You can't have private
subsidies of official activities. And so in those areas, that
may be, you know, ripe for examining just kind of like, during
those situations, if it is assistance, is there a way to see if
there is a way to exempt the rules to allow, you know, for that
interaction.
Currently--or when I left, the Members were allowed to
engage and put information on their websites. They can send out
information, but it was typically limited to what was provided
on government websites. It was what was provided on the
executive branch assistance websites or ones that contracted
with the government, so there were some limits. But it may be
worth examining, like, the ability to kind of interact so that
Members--constituents are getting whatever assistance they
need, you know, at a time of crisis.
And so that might be an area to explore as far as like
looking at House Admin and the ethics rules and seeing if there
is more that can be done, because there are still--even now,
even relaxing them over time, there are still restrictions that
Members have to be mindful of as far as what resources you are
promoting, what interactions you are having when you are trying
to provide that assistance.
Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you. I have one followup, but I am
going to wait till everybody goes.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I saw Mr. Perlmutter raised a hand. I don't
know if it was in followup to something that Ms. Van Duyne
asked. But I am happy to see if others want to pull on this
thread around district office startup, and, if not, we can
shift gears.
Go ahead, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Yeah. Beth was asking about, you know, sort
of the transition stuff and felt like apparently she had--I
can't remember who preceded her, but was not much help in terms
of the transition. I can say the guy who preceded us--and,
Danielle, you can chime in--you know, they basically didn't
assign somebody to us, but they were very helpful to us during
our transition. And, in part, they had chosen to go--the guy
who preceded me, Bob Beauprez, ran for governor, so he knew he
was on the way out.
And, you know, as we are transitioning out, we found that
there are steps that we can take. Do we continue to take new
cases all the way to the end or do we at some point cut it off
so that we can finish the work that we have had. And, you know,
our goal is to be able to, you know, hand it off to a Democrat
or Republican, hopefully a Democrat, but hand it off in as
clean a fashion as possible, and we will see, you know, how
that works. But we are doing this in advance.
If you have got that other situation, William, you
mentioned where, you know, you have got--you got it through the
election, almost, you know. The person loses. You know, how
happy are they to be, you know, handing it off to the person
who just beat them. That is a whole other dynamic than what we
are facing. But there is a pretty good system, and Danielle's
already been involved with it. If you are leaving in advance or
you know you are leaving, there is a pretty good transition
approach that is taken.
The Chairman. Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Hello, everybody. Just to chime in, because I
am still going through the freshman office woes, thinking
through the transition of not only casework but also like
database of, like, constituent communications, email lists.
When I asked this question during freshman orientation, I was
told that the previous Member could sign off to transfer things
over to the new Member. Well, but I had a unique case because
the previous Member, Mr. Lewis, passed away. And so they said,
then, typically they revert to the wife to act--so that the
wife could transfer information to the new Member, but Ms.
Lillian passed away before Mr. Lewis did. So they said that I
was in a unique situation, and so I started from scratch. Zero.
Nothing. Because staff were not allowed to transfer information
over, it had to come specifically from the Member is what I was
told by House Administration during new Member orientation.
And so I think that this information shouldn't belong to a
Member. It should belong to the district or to the--like, we
are doing work for people here, not for our own benefit. And
then to complicate things even worse, there was someone for 30
days in this seat who opened up a ton of cases and had people
thinking that all of this work was going to happen when he was
in Congress for 30 days, and nothing was closed. And so I had
all of these things waiting where people were, like, we were
told this was going to happen.
And so coming up with a way that this information does not
belong to the specific Member but it belongs to the district
and so that it goes from office to office regardless of the
party that is in the office, regardless of who the person is so
we are not waiting on a Member to grant someone permission to
serve the constituents that we are supposed to be serving.
The Chairman. I think this is a really good topic. Do any
of our witnesses want to chime in on that, the challenges with
regard to casework when you are in startup mode, but even on an
ongoing basis? I know some of you testified about some of the
just challenges on the casework front. Anyone want to give us--
give the committee some recommendations we ought to be thinking
about in that space?
Go ahead, Mr. Hadijski. I saw you unmute.
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah. I can talk a little bit about this. A
lot of times, it is--there are agreements, obviously, privacy
release forms, things like that, Social Security numbers, and
so there is a lot of data that is viewed as an agreement with
that specific Member. So I am wondering, I don't know if it is
possible, but maybe there is a way that some of the information
can be segmented, and things that are official legal agreements
with the previous Member, those, you know, can be separated
out. And maybe the database, the valuable information to an
incoming Member of names and addresses and topics and issues,
maybe those kind of things can be separated out and transferred
over to an incoming Member.
I am not the--technical expertise is not my strong suit,
but there may be something where you can provide the incoming
Member with the data that would be helpful that takes, in many
cases, years to accumulate. And those kind of lists,
distribution lists, and topic, you know, IDs with certain
constituents, but maybe there is a possible way of doing that.
It just probably has to be looked into.
The Chairman. Ms. Radovich Piper.
Ms. Radovich Piper. Yes, exactly. Well, thank you. There
might be actually a more simple fix to this, potentially, by
adding some language to the privacy agreements that are already
standardized, but maybe you add some kind of transfer language
to the privacy agreement where the constituent has to initial.
I assume the Office of General Counsel would need to take a
look at all of that, but that might be the way of--a more
simple way of fixing the problem is adding that language to the
privacy release, because we all need privacy release forms
anyway from the constituent to do the work with the agency. So
if you add that transfer language and they have to initial,
that might help to solve some of this.
Ms. Williams. Thank you. At the end of the day, our
constituents want--if they are reaching out to a congressional
office, they are usually at their last straw because they have
exhausted other resources. And so then to tell them that they
have to start all the way over because I am a new Member, it
just doesn't seem fair to the constituent.
Mr. Perlmutter. If I could just jump in. From a legal
standpoint, and, William, David, you could jump in too. I mean,
I would consider everything that I do is district business and
it is not my business. And so I am a little bit surprised by
House Administration's, you know, conclusions here. So I would
like to take a look at that as well.
And even with the privacy release, it is still with the
office. It is not with me, you know. It is not with you. It is
with your office. So I think we ought to take a look at House
Administration, and I wish Zoe were on here because that
doesn't make sense to me, what they told you.
The Chairman. Ms. Williams, do you have anything else you
want to ask about?
Ms. Williams. No. This was--right now, this is it.
The Chairman. I think you are on to something, and I think
that is another great topic for us to explore with the
potential of making some recommendations for reform in this
space. Because, again, if the idea is to help our constituents,
this should be more seamless for them. So great, great topic.
Thank you for raising it.
Mr. Cleaver, I see your hand up.
Mr. Cleaver. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, this is
actually one of the reasons that I have become obsessed with
GSA playing the role of a landlord in terms of them getting our
offices and getting them ready. I think when we start talking
about the wife makes the decision, it harkens back to a day
that I think--that I thought we had left behind. Dick Bolling
was in Congress 34 years in the Fifth District, you know. He
was, you know, one of the old bulls of the House. His wife, who
I love, she was very helpful to me in my campaign. She was his
chief of staff, essentially. And I just think, you know, this
preordained role for a spouse--for wives, not spouses, wives is
just kind of--it gives a bad taste in my mouth.
But the other part, what I really want to talk about is
this is one of the reasons I think GSA is important. I was
elected in some weird situation that essentially didn't have an
office anyplace, and I didn't even know what kind of office I
needed. I mean, you know, I didn't know if I needed an office
like I have in the church that I pastored. I didn't know if I--
you know, I didn't know anything except that I had just won an
election. And nobody called and said, this is what you need to
do, do this and do that and do this. Nobody.
And the previous people had put offices near their homes,
you know, the previous members from the Fifth District. And,
anyway, I ended up going into the Federal building paying
almost $100,000 a year in rent, and then leaving as soon as I--
once I realized what was going on.
I think to do all of this stuff without--all of this, you
are just getting--like, all the stuff falls in on us, and then
we have to go out and become a realtor, you know, trying to
find an office. And it is just--I think we are making it
difficult. And I think let's make life difficult for GSA. I
mean, everybody who works over there, they understood when they
took that job what it was. You know, we didn't take a job, you
know, about finding office space.
And so the GSA people, when you talk to Robin Carnahan, the
GSA Administrator, she will tell you, yeah, we have headaches,
and it was her--what she said to me. Well, when you apply for
job at GSA, you are saying, I like to have a headache. And so
let's give it to them. I think, you know, we can save ourselves
a lot of distress.
And when we had this discussion with the Missouri
delegation last week, Roy Blunt said it has been going--the GSA
has been doing this for us so long that nobody even remembers
when it didn't happen. And so I just think we are making life a
little more difficult than it should be.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Any of our witnesses want to respond to that
or react to that?
Go ahead, Ms. Youngdahl.
Ms. Youngdahl. Yeah. I have a funny story about the GSA.
When we started, being that we were in a brandnew district, we
had the leftovers of the leftovers in terms of picking
furniture. And myself and the district director at the time
were in a warehouse opening up crates and trying to figure out
what we needed for spaces that we weren't even sure we had at
that moment. So we were like, is this printer even working?
Does this laptop connect to internet?
So I must echo that. I think GSA could do a really better
job in preparing, because we didn't know what we were doing and
it was quite a headache to even find matching chairs for us.
And, again, there was an office prior to us who got first dibs.
And while we did get a stipend to fill in what we weren't given
from the GSA, it was still--even then we didn't know what we
should buy. We didn't know what was the best thing for our
buck.
Mr. Timmons. To that point, let me just add something real
quick. I am getting hit in the campaign issue because I purch--
I spent money to up the office that I am saving money because I
consolidated, so there is a political issue that is associated
with this as well. I mean, I had to buy furniture because they
didn't have any left, so, I mean, whatever.
Mr. Cleaver. And that is one of the points, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Vice Chair, is that, you know, if you come in and buy a
new cute chair, then you are just--I mean, you are going to
make plans to read about it, you know. It is $2.98, whatever it
is, you know, he is already going out and spending a lot of
money. He or she is already buying drapes and so forth. Let GSA
do it. I mean, nobody gets mad at GSA, I mean, unless
somebody's stealing ballpoint pens or something, you know. Let
GSA handle that.
We have got--we are supposed to be running the Nation and,
by extension, the world, and we are running around trying to
find chairs. You know, I just--I don't get it. I don't
understand it.
The Chairman. I am just jealous. I heard Ms. Youngdahl say
that they have matching chairs in their office. I am still not
there, so that is amazing.
Mr. Cleaver, do you have anything else you wanted to ask
about or--okay.
Anyone else want to ask about the startup stuff? Otherwise,
I might want to shift gears. I don't--Vice Chair Timmons, did
you have something on this topic?
Mr. Timmons. Sort of. I mean, with respect to the
technology issue, I know we have talked about WiFi. My follow-
up question was, what other technology issues do you have? I
lasted, I think, 3 months on the House servers. I now use
Gmail. I just said--I just can't--I can't manage it. It was
constantly creating problems. So, I mean, what other challenges
relative to technology have you all experienced?
And I guess the other thing was, how prepared were you all
for COVID when you had to send people home? Was that a huge
challenge as it relates to getting technology that they could
work from home with?
The Chairman. Go ahead, Ms. Radovich Piper.
Ms. Radovich Piper. Yes. Thank you.
Well, I will answer the COVID question. The answer is yes.
It was a huge challenge, a big surprise, and I wasn't quite
sure that we were going to--I wasn't sure how we were going to
make it work. We did.
Our issue was that not everyone between--we have two
offices, one in D.C. and one in the district. We just have one
district office. We have 15 total staff, including myself, and
then our intern program.
As I mentioned earlier, not all of our full-time staff had
laptops leading up to March of 2020. I just couldn't foresee
that a global pandemic was going to hit and we were all going
to have to work from home. I also couldn't foresee, before
March 13 of 2020, how a district office would work remotely
either, because we are so ingrained in the community and we
depend so much on being open and our office being open and
having face-to-face contact with our constituents. So that was
one of the biggest challenges was just wrapping my mind around
how we were going to do this and still serve our constituents
the way we have held ourselves to the standard.
And then not having enough laptops for everybody was a real
challenge, which is--and then the House had a run on laptops,
so they didn't have enough laptops, so that was why we
purchased so many iPads. And so not only for the intern program
did we have to purchase iPads, but we had to purchase iPads for
our full-time staff. And then that created a problem because we
use Fireside as our CMS provider, and our caseworkers who were
on lap--on iPads, excuse me, were having a devil of a time
connecting to Fireside. And so they were having a really hard
time doing their casework, which resulted in us having to ask
our D.C. staff, our leg team, to actually pull some casework
duty because some of them had laptops that were easier to work
on.
So, those first 3 months were a real rodeo, if you will.
And then we, finally, in the summer when we were able to get
laptops for each staffer, we then were able to sort of ease
into the new normal at that time. So that was pretty tough.
I would say to your earlier question, the first question
around navigating the technology, I think for my boss, really,
he has not used the intranet all that much until--and has his
own email. We just didn't use a lot of the official channels
with him. So it was not as hard early on.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Anyone else want to respond on this? A
rebuttal by Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No. Just--my question is, is this being
recorded?
The Chairman. Yes. I want to shift gears--go ahead, Mr.
Hadijski.
Mr. Hadijski. Just real quickly. We also found, you know, a
lot of times people forget that a lot of times these
individuals come in, and this is kind of in our--you know, in
our basket here of management practices, right. A lot of the
things--you are coming into a Capitol Hill office, and a lot of
people have never had management experience before. This is
where professional development and educational training, we
think, you know, would be beneficial.
We initially, when the pandemic started and everybody had
to kind of go to their--go remote, we had a training session
for staff specifically in this area on just kind of developing
plans, and this is a shameless plug for our publication. We
have one that is specific to district offices called Keeping it
Local, and it is a guide for managing congressional district
and State offices. That hits on a lot of areas as far as like
crisis management. It tells you kind of like how to develop
plans.
A lot of, you know, staff aren't aware of these things, and
these kind of training sessions sometimes can be really helpful
to managers, particularly if they don't have any background in
those areas. And so those are things that--like exactly what
Danielle was talking about, we found a lot of people didn't
have the right equipment, and we just need to develop kind of a
strategic plan and what exactly are your needs and how do you
fulfill those needs, so----
The Chairman. I will give two quick public service
announcements on that front. One, Mr. Hadijski, I want to just
commend CMF. I got to listen to the first podcast directed at
Members, and I thought it was terrific, looking at how we--how
Members manage their offices. I think that type of--it is
strange being in Congress in that there is not really
professional development opportunities for Members, and I think
we are working to change that, and I really commend CMF on that
podcast.
Also, since we have, I think, covered well the topic of how
we start up offices and technology. We are working with HIR to
pilot WiFi in a few offices. You know, I think, again, sort
of--private industry has sort of figured out how to use WiFi.
We are working to make sure any sort of security issues would
be addressed and the network could be protected from many bad
actors trying to access it, so that has been the slowdown. But
the--I think that is something that we have heard as we have
engaged district directors and district staff along the way, so
it is something we are working on.
I did want to just shift gears because I think at least one
of you mentioned it in your testimony, the issue of how offices
work with community partners, you know, when we do job fairs or
when we do tax preparation services for constituents to talk
about, you know, how do you get the Child Tax Credit or things
like that.
I just want to get your sense of how that is going and what
has been challenging on that front and if there are fixes you
could suggest to just better facilitate those working
relationships with outside organizations to serve your
constituents while also complying with ethics rules. Any
reactions to that topic?
Go ahead, Ms. Youngdahl.
Ms. Youngdahl. Yeah. Coming into Congressman
Reschenthaler's office from being the event coordinator in his
State senate office, I did a ton of events from our State side,
and doing senior fairs and that--those type of events for
constituents. So I knew what was available through the State
side, and I knew how meaningful it would be to partner with the
State offices, and then now that we were on the Federal side,
working with the Federal agencies, very similar how we did on
the State.
But we have come into multiple cases where we speak with
the agency or the State office, and they say, well, we can't
have you saying that you are hosting it. We have to say we are
hosting it. Well, we can only be--we can only have the
Congressman as a speaker then.
So the verbiage just back and forth between ourselves and
with whomever we want to partner with almost makes it not worth
it, and then at the point of which we might strike out on our
own and just do an event ourselves. Then somebody down the road
is doing possibly the same event and constituents might be
getting all the information they need, but they might have to
go to four events to get what they are looking for.
So I think that is the biggest thing, that if we could have
more understanding of what can be done overall. I know
Pennsylvania is very unique in the sense of how involved the
State legislature is in their agencies. And I know, speaking
with some of our colleagues in other States, sometimes the
State legislature is not as big and the congressional offices
have to pick up what our State legislator does.
So understanding those lines as well as understanding how
we can cross over would be a huge help whenever we are wanting
to plan, and then making it easier for whenever, going back to
new offices, understand what they can do and can't do when they
want to do this outreach.
The Chairman. Mr. Hadijski, I think you referenced this in
your testimony too. Do you have any reactions to this and areas
where you think we could make some reforms?
Mr. Hadijski. Yeah. I think, you know, just examining how
those rules with private entities, you know, and those
interactions should be examined. Most of this stuff, you know--
I am not the ethics expert, but the Ethics staff has really
good staff there in their Advice and Education and kind of
sitting down and maybe talking with them about examining some
of these rules. You know, some of these rules date back to even
the Watergate era. And so you wonder over time, you know, have
they evolved to kind of capture or ensnare more things that
were maybe not intended as a rule restriction.
And these kind of things, particularly with attention to
serving constituents, where the Member is more just a
facilitator of getting constituents, you know, assistance or
information or resources, those are kind of areas that, you
know, the private sector may fulfill a need that maybe the
government entity may not. And so it may be worthwhile
examining, you know, those specific rules, and can you put in
something with some carveout or some checks in place that
prevent exactly what the intent--the rule was prevented--you
know, intended to prevent, like subsidizing official activity
with private resources versus resources and information that
can go directly to constituents, and the Member just more acts
as a facilitator in that regard. So I think there is definitely
room for reform and probably examining some of these rules.
The Chairman. Terrific.
Let me open up to the committee. Are there other topics
that you all want to explore? I think we have unearthed some, I
think, really good ideas in this space. But let me see if
others have questions that we haven't hit.
Go ahead, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. And Mr. Hadijski hit on one, and you were
talking about it too, Derek. I think we end up tripping over
ourselves. We really ought to go back and kind of do a look at
some of the ethics rules that, you know, one guy 42 years ago
did something that went a little too far, and then we put a
rule in place that then creates a monster, where you really
could help constituents.
We had--we ran afoul of this one a little bit many years
ago where a woman who was in charge of our military and
veterans stuff very much wanted to improve the lives of women
in the military, and she got involved with some organization
and was said to have been promoting it, which was in violation
of whatever, you know, ethics rules and, you know, had to do a
mea culpa and all that stuff. And all she was doing was helping
women in the military, you know. And so we need to take a look
at some of those things.
We have had this big fire up north that wiped out a
thousand houses. And so then the question becomes, can we only
work with FEMA, or can we work with the Red Cross, and how does
that--you know, how does that all play out, you know. And the
private sector and the non-profits, you know, really play a big
role in this, but there is this limitation that we have in
assisting them or them assisting us.
So, I think, Derek, you are right, we ought to take a look
at some of those ethics rules, because we just pile them on and
we never go back and, you know, say, okay, this one was--just
doesn't make sense anymore.
The Chairman. Ms. Radovich Piper, go ahead.
Ms. Radovich Piper. There is another example that I could
add to that that would underscore the need to possibly review
some of those rules, and that was several years back in one of
the government shutdowns. Our office, you know, as we know,
that during that time of the government shutdown, it was
Federal employees obviously were the most impacted immediately,
and we had Federal employees. We don't--our district office is
not housed in a Federal building; however, we do have an IRS
office in our building and some other Federal agencies. And we
had Federal employees come to our office who were just
distraught over the shutdown and not getting paid and not sure
what they were going to do and how they were going to do it and
how they were going to pay their rent. And it was coming up on
the first of the month at the time. I think this was in 2013,
if I am not mistaken.
And one of the things that we wanted to do was provide--
well, we were providing computer space for folks so they could
come in. We could help them with unemployment. We were
providing just a safe space for them to be and actually talk
about their situation and how scary it was, helping them with
housing situations, but we wanted to provide them some food and
be able to take home, for instance, a sack lunch or something,
right, and the House said no, that we can't--we couldn't do
that, and we couldn't pay for that kind of thing out of the
MRA. And, you know, these were for Federal employees. We
weren't, you know, feeding the whole town. So it is just
another example of something that could be looked at that seems
maybe a little out of date or archaic.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I am just looking to see if any other members
have questions. I do--Ms. Youngdahl, I am curious. You know, a
lot of our recommendations have come from Members who served in
a State legislative body and said, hey, why is Congress like
this? That is stupid. Are there other things that you witnessed
when you served within the Pennsylvania State legislature that
you thought, gosh, as we look at how district offices function
or, you know, some of the rules or the resources, things that
you think we ought to be looking at within this committee?
Ms. Youngdahl. Yeah. I think going back to the idea of
sharing casework and stuff, now with the House, we all have our
different CMSs, but in the State legislature, we were all using
the same one under the different caucuses. So Congressman
Reschenthaler was able to access data dating back to two, three
senators of his district prior. And it was just in our CMS. It
wasn't separated, and we could see if we had a frequent flyer
or something like that.
We have brought over a lot of kind of the tactics that we
used in terms of tackling casework, and it really helped us to
understand what our needs would be also with the district in
terms of the offices and the location. And I think having for
each State, understanding what, like I said, the State can do.
So I know I worked with--I believe it was a Virginia office
or a Maryland office, because they don't have a department of
transportation on the State side with the legislators, and that
is handled by the Congress, congressional office, so we were
having kind of across State lines issue. While, for us, the
department of transportation, any of those type of issues are
handled through the State legislature.
So that understanding--I couldn't imagine coming into our
office and not knowing where our congressional office fit, not
knowing that, oh, this PennDOT issue, this department of
transportation issue, that is a State issue, and just being--
trying to figure that out and possibly even going to the point
of which I would reach out to the Federal Department of
Transportation, and they would be like, no, no, no. It is this
level. So I think those clear guidelines of where things are
handled through the States would be invaluable information, and
it is just so different across the country.
The Chairman. Super.
Before we wrap up, any topics that our witnesses wanted to
share that we didn't touch on? Otherwise, we will let you get
on with your day. Any closing thoughts, or did we hit it?
I think I see mostly nodding heads. Terrific.
I thought this was great. And I just want to commend all of
our witnesses. And I texted Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. Radovich Piper,
he is lucky to have you. And, Ms. Youngdahl, Guy is lucky to
have you too. So I am glad you are part of these terrific teams
and have dedicated some of your professional time to serving
the good people of Colorado and Pennsylvania, respectively.
I think we pulled some interesting ideas out of this, the
idea of having some sort of a, you know, ready for day one fund
that might be able to help you move into an office on day one
that may have--in that it would be an office where the tech is
ready to go. I think that is something that we should look at.
These issues around casework transition, I think, are also
really valuable because, again, if this--if the goal of our
committee is, you know, make reforms so that Congress works
better for the American people, that casework, to Ms. Williams'
point, should rest with the office, not with the specific
Member, because having that kind of turn and making our
constituents start over from square one doesn't seem right or
fair.
Some of these issues around partnering with regard to, you
know, resource fairs or with community organizations I think is
a thread we can continue to pull on.
And then, Mr. Hadijski, I know you mentioned the issues
related to staffing, particularly when there are issues--when
there is an emergency or a natural disaster or something like
that. I think those are good ideas that we can hopefully find
some common ground on as a committee. So thank you all for your
recommendations.
With that, I also want to thank our committee staff for
pulling together such terrific witnesses and for helping us put
together another successful virtual hearing.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses
for their response, and I ask our witnesses to please respond
as promptly as you are able. Without objection, all members
will have 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous
materials to the chair for inclusion in the record.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks,
everybody. Appreciate you.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX I
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]