[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
95-992 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Jennifer Hemingway, Government Operations Staff Director
Chris D'Angelo, Professional Staff Member
Melissa Beaumont, Clerk
Subcommittee on Government Operations
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 16, 2015................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. David S. Ferriero, Archivist, National Archives and
Records Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
The Hon. Manuel Ehrlich, Board Member, U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Ms. Catherine V. Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
APPENDIX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Statement for the Record,
Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows............................... 82
Letter from Secretary Jeh Johnson to Chairman Mark Meadows and
Ranking Minority Member Gerald E. Connolly, Entered by Rep.
Gerald E. Connolly............................................. 86
Response Letter From The Hon. Manuel Ehrlich to Chairman Mark
Meadows, Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows...................... 89
Response Letter From the Hon. David S. Ferriero to Chairman Mark
Meadows, Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows...................... 91
August 14, 2015, ``DHS Employee Engagement Program'', Entered by
Chairman Mark Meadows.......................................... 94
May 21, 2015, ``Report of the DHS Employee Task Force'', Homeland
Security Advisory Council, Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows.... 103
THE WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Thursday, April 16, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:06 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Meadows, Gowdy, Massie, Buck,
Carter, Grothman, Connolly, Maloney, Norton, Clay, and
Plaskett.
Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will
come to order.
And, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
a recess at any time.
For the past few years, Federal employees have had surveys
that have revealed government-wide decline in employee
engagement and satisfaction. We get these results from the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. It is an OPM-administered
survey that reaches out to more than 800,000 Federal employees
in 2014. And, of that number, nearly 400,000, which is an
incredible number, replied. And this data was sorted by OPM to
provide numbers and kind of useful metrics that we can look at
in terms of employee satisfaction.
Ninety percent of the Federal employees surveyed are
willing to put in the extra effort necessary to get the job
done, an incredible number, and they consistently look for
better ways to do the job. Yet, employee perception of agency
leadership continues to decline, with only 42 percent of
workers expressing confidence in their superiors. And that is
from cabinet secretaries all the way to midlevel managers. And
only 50 percent of employees had positive things to say about
the integrity of their leadership, including communication and
the ability to motivate their workforce.
This is a considerable decrease and should be a concern for
agency leaders and raises questions about the priorities in
managing our Nation's more than 2 million public servants.
Seven in ten workers said that their chance at a promotion
is not based on merit, but on favoritism, something that is
extremely troubling, I know, to me and the ranking member. Are
agency leaders really doing enough is the question. Survey
results from agencies that appear before us today suggest that
not enough has been done.
Specifically, DHS and the Chemical Safety Board are
consistently below government-wide averages for employee
engagement and satisfaction. The Department of Homeland
Security--and, Ms. Emerson, we will be hearing from you--the
Department of Homeland Security rests as the worst place to
work among cabinet agencies and saw its score drop by nearly 3
points from 2013. DHS had ranked 19 of 19 in terms of cabinet
agencies on factors such as effective leadership, fairness,
empowerment, and skills to match the mission.
Specifically, one that is near and dear to me, as I have
mentioned to you previously, is that Secret Service employees
ranked number 276 out of 315 among places to work. I continue
to get emails from agents who are willing to give their life
for the President and, yet, they are afraid to engage with
supervisors in terms of making decisions.
So I say that we are having this hearing because this will
not be the first of any hearing. This will be an ongoing--
really, the ranking member and I believe that focusing on the
great workforce that we have is critical. We have agreed to go
out and meet with the rank and file on a regular basis to hear
from them. And so, if the message is out there today, there is
at least one Democrat and one Republican willing to look at
what matters most to the hundreds of thousands of Federal
workforce employees that serve our public every day.
From an National Archives standpoint, I want to just give a
personal thank you for allowing me to come in and meet with
some of the folks who are doing a job that really is part of
history. As I went around to see the dedicated workers that are
there, I got a real sense of their desire to serve sometimes in
a very hot warehouse, sometimes in a place that is not
necessarily the most glamorous in terms of working for, but,
indeed, they are part of history.
And so I share that to say I have great hope that today Mr.
Connolly and I will be able to embark and other members of this
subcommittee will be able to embark on an effort that is not a
hearing for TV or anything else, that it is a real hearing
about a message that these surveys and their input matters. And
we are going to put real pressure on those who don't perform.
I would be remiss in not saying, even though my opening
statement was negative about DHS, that the Secretary of DHS
just came by and had a meeting with Mr. Connolly and I and has
laid out a number of steps on where he is wanting to address
this particular concern for employee morale.
And so I thank all of the witnesses for being here today.
And I look forward to a working relationship where we can work
together to make sure that we have improved numbers, but, more
importantly, improved satisfaction among our Federal workforce.
Mr. Meadows. And, with that, I would recognize the ranking
member, Mr. Connolly, from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this hearing.
And I know your commitment is quite sincere. You want to
collaborate to make things better, not just cavil. And I think
that is a really important point to be emphasized. And you and
I most certainly will collaborate in trying to accomplish that.
Because it is easy to complain or highlight problems. It is a
lot more difficult to try to address them.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Homeland
Security cared enough about this topic to come see you and me
prior to this hearing. And I would ask unanimous consent that
the letter addressed to you and me written by the Secretary be
entered into the record.
Mr. Meadows. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
According to the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
administered by the Office of Personnel Management and the
Partnership for Public Service, employee morale and job
satisfaction in the Federal Government have declined rather
dramatically over the last several years.
The Partnership's Best Places to Work for 2014 analysis
concluded that the Federal employee morale fell to its lowest
point ever since the organization first started measuring it in
2003. The results of 2014 continue the troubling pattern of
decreasing employee satisfaction scores for the fourth
consecutive year, dropping from a high of 65 out of 100 in 2010
to 57 today.
Federal Government is clearly going in the wrong direction
with respect to supporting its people, particularly when
contrasted with private sector worker satisfaction. Private
sector workers increased their job satisfaction in the same
time period from 70.6 in 2010 to 72 in 2014. In fact, now the
gap between the two, Federal and private sector, has nearly
tripled in that timeframe since 2010.
Looking at the data and the dates, certain events have
likely contributed to the decline. After the Great Recession,
private sector job satisfaction started to bounce back in 2010.
Conversely, since 2010, Federal employees have endured a 3-year
pay freeze, $140 billion in pay and benefit cuts,
sequestration, budget cuts, hiring freezes, reductions in
performance awards and training budgets, and a 16-day
government shutdown, with also the threat of perhaps shutting
down the Department of Homeland Security, averted at the
eleventh hour last month.
It is not surprising that these events, along with
political attacks disparaging the Federal workforce by some
elected officials, including in this body, have actually had a
toll on Federal morale. Imagine.
The problem isn't just within Federal agency management.
Part of the problem is the political management problem right
here in the halls of Congress. We have to take responsibility
for the impacts we are having on your workforce.
What is even more worrisome is that majorities in both the
House and Senate recently passed budgets for fiscal year 2016
that would further slash agency spending below sequestration
levels by $760 billion over 10 years. These measures call for
additional Federal workforce-related cuts, more than $280
billion over 10 years in the House proposal alone.
I am worried about the negative impact of low employee
engagement and satisfaction and employment productivity, agency
mission, retention of valuable employees, and recruitment of
the next generation. We especially need to be mindful of the
long-term negative effects on the service the Federal
Government provides to the American people because, ultimately,
that is what we are going to be focused on.
Last March I joined with Ranking Members Cummings and Lynch
in requesting that GAO conduct a study of Federal engagement
trends as well as potential root causes. We asked GAO to
provide recommendations for improving workforce morale. I know
that GAO is completing that study and is here to testify about
some preliminary findings. And I welcome Mr. Goldenkoff to the
table.
I understand the National Archives and Records
Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board have ranked
poorly in these surveys. This hearing offers us an opportunity
to discuss their particular challenges and the steps they are
taking to address them.
It is also important to note there are many Federal
agencies that are performing better than the ones before us
today, including entities that boast higher satisfaction and
commitment scores than the average private sector score of 72.
For example, NASA ranked number one of the large agencies
with a score of 74.6. The top six mid-sized agencies--FDIC,
GAO, Smithsonian Institution, Federal Trade Commission, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission--all scored higher than the private sector.
I am encouraged that, despite the decline in the indices of
employee engagement and work satisfaction, the 2014 Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey data demonstrates that Federal
employees, nonetheless, have persevered through a lot of
adversity and remain dedicated and overwhelmingly positive
about their service to the country, which the chairman alluded
to.
Ninety percent of our Federal employees believe that the
work they do is important. Ninety-six percent of our Federal
employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get the job
done. Ninety percent are constantly looking for ways to do a
better job. That gives us a lot to work with and renews my
faith in who are these public servants. They are dedicated
fellow Americans who want to make this a better country.
And I really appreciate that sentiment being expressed by
the chairman, who recognizes that in his own interactions with
our public servants.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
certainly look forward to hearing the testimony and having a
chance to have a dialogue with our witnesses.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Connolly, for those insightful
remarks.
I will hold open the record for 5 legislative days for any
members who would like to submit a written statement.
I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
to welcome the Honorable David Ferriero, the Archivist at the
National Archives and Records Administration; the Honorable
Manuel Ehrlich, a Board Member of the U.S. Chemical Safety
Board; Ms. Catherine Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer for
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. Robert
Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues for the U.S.
Government Accountability Office. Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. So I would ask you if you would please
rise and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony that
you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in
the affirmative. Thank you. And please be seated.
In order to allow some time for discussion and dialogue, I
would ask that you would limit your oral testimony to 5
minutes. But your entire written statement will be made part of
the record.
And so, Mr. Ferriero, we will come to you. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID S. FERRIERO
Mr. Ferriero. Good morning.
Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me here today to discuss the National Archives and Records
Administration and our ranking in the Partnership for Public
Service's 2014 Best Places to Work in Federal Government.
My written testimony contains details of the many actions
underway to address employee engagement and morale issues at
the National Archives. What I would like to convey now to you
and, more importantly, to any NARA staff member who may be
watching this hearing is that I take the results of the annual
Employee Viewpoint Survey very seriously and personally.
Much of the work that goes on behind the scenes at the
Archives is hard, physical work in windowless facilities that
lack amenities found in most Federal office settings. Believe
me, I know. I began my career pulling and reshelving books and
journals for long hours in the bowels of the libraries at MIT.
I have traveled to NARA facilities over the past few years
and met with employees. What is most distressing to me is that
many staff feel that they have felt undervalued and overworked
for years. They're also rightfully frustrated by the simple
facts that, over the past three decades, our holdings have more
than tripled, customer expectations have changed dramatically,
and electronic records requiring new resources, while at the
same time our workforce numbers have declined.
We are far behind finding efficiencies to do more with
less. The very nature of our work has changed to the point
where employees of 30 years ago would not even recognize it.
NARA staff work hard every day to continue to provide excellent
service to our customers and preserve and manage our holdings,
but the pressure does affect morale.
I inherited NARA's low EVS scores when I took this job 5
years ago. As you will see in my written testimony, much has
been done to address the results of the survey. But because you
invited me here today, you also know that positive change has
been slow in coming.
We have adopted some of the newest and most innovative
practices for engaging the Federal workforce, including the
strategies in the recently released OMB memo on strengthening
employee engagement and organizational performance and the six
best practice strategies recommended by the Partnership for
Public Service. These practices include holding executives
accountable for executing engagement, improvement plans
developed with staff, partnering with our labor union, and
being transparent about our EVS results.
More importantly, we listened to staff and are following
through with actions they identified as important to improving
their satisfaction, including developing a cadre of motivated,
well-trained supervisors, administering a fair and effective
performance management system, providing meaningful career
paths, creating a culture of respect and appreciation, and
making workplace safety a priority, providing easy access to
the tools employees need to do their jobs.
We have started to see the results of these efforts in our
annual scores. In 2014, the majority of NARA employees
responded positively to questions focused on the relationship
with their supervisors, including trust, respect, and support.
We have seen improvement in questions related to performance
management and diversity and inclusion.
Our employees have consistently demonstrated their
commitment to NARA's mission and work, and this is reflected in
the EVS survey. They've also responded positively to questions
that measure their perceptions of teamwork and quality of work.
These are strengths that NARA must nurture and grow in order to
build greater trust in agency leadership and pride in being
part of our agency as a whole.
They deserve an agency that they can honestly call one of
the best places to work in the Federal Government. I firmly
believe that we are on the right path and that the future is
bright for the National Archives. Millions of people visit our
facilities and walk away full of pride, having been inspired by
the history of our Nation.
Three thousand NARA employees make that experience
possible. From those who are driving forklifts to those who are
helping respond to more than 1 million annual requests, to help
veterans claim benefits, to those who are caring for the
Declaration of Independence, they all work for the common good
of the National Archives and the citizens of our country, and
we should all be proud and inspired by their service.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you so much for your testimony.
And I have been informed that it is streaming back to some
of your employees. And so I know they take to heart your
comments.
But I would be remiss if I don't say personally a real
thank you to many of them for the hospitality that they showed
me when I was visiting there and for the way that they treated
me with not only such genuine hospitality, but frankness and
support.
And I look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Mr. Ehrlich, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MANUEL EHRLICH
Mr. Ehrlich. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear here today representing the U.S. Chemical Safety Board
and the USB. We welcome your visitation to the agency with your
colleagues so you have a better understanding of what we do and
how we do it.
Since the CSB is recently without a chairperson, the agency
for now is being run with three presidentially appointed board
members, of whom I am one. Although we are working together, my
views today are my own.
I came to the CSB with training and experience in human
resource issues. I spent over 50 years in the chemical industry
in a variety of positions, much of my career spent with BASF
Corporation, the largest chemical company in the world. At
BASF, I worked as a chemical plant manager and in many other
roles.
I completed graduate studies in chemical engineering, and I
have master's degrees from Columbia in counseling psychology
for business and industry. I understand the issues related to
some of these human behavior topics.
In the 5 months that I have served on the U.S. Chemical
Safety Board, what has impressed me most is the dedication and
professionalism of the staff. I have been to industrial
chemical accident sites with investigation teams and have seen
firsthand how diligently they perform potentially hazardous
work, put in long hours, and spend months away from home. They
have a steadfast commitment to making industrial chemical
facilities safer places for workers, companies, and
communities. I am privileged to work alongside them and the
rest of the staff.
The Federal Viewpoint Survey does show CSB staff morale is
low in some areas. The board is taking steps to improve morale,
and I also believe there are critical steps that Congress can
take to help. But the survey does not tell the whole story.
Since I became a board member, I have personally met with
virtually every staff member face to face. I have listened to
their concerns, sought their input on what we, as
presidentially appointed board members, can do to show our
appreciation for them. I have found commitment to the CSB
mission and workplace to be very strong and morale in many
areas is high.
The staff derives a great deal of job satisfaction in
finalizing reports, presenting them to communities in public
meetings and news conferences, and seeing their safety
recommendations implemented. They tell me they get considerable
job satisfaction in saving lives. That is the CSB mission, and
we take it personally.
To address morale issues, the CSB has an active workplace
improvement committee, members of which were suggested by the
staff itself, which has been meeting regularly to suggest
specific improvements. They have spoken to all staff members.
Since last summer, the committee has created action items
on improving employee on-boarding, creating a database of CSB
best practices, and clarifying employment policies, as they are
now working to implement these action items.
I emphasize again that the core work is being accomplished.
The CSB has been highly productive, particularly the past year,
since the OPM survey was last conducted. The number of cases is
now down to 7 from 22, the case backlog 5 years ago. We closed
2 more cases in a recently public meeting, and a total of 8
reports over a 9-month period. Despite the agency's challenges,
we are in a period of very high productivity.
I will draw to a close by suggesting that morale could be
improved even more if two things could happen. First, we need a
chairperson confirmed. We need the ability to hire more
investigators. Right now we have only 20 to cover the entire
country, based on our current budget.
As a result, we frequently must pull investigators off of
one investigation and put them in new ones on an ad hoc basis.
This has caused more than a few morale problems. And
investigation delays over the years has led to criticism. We do
not let the quality of investigations falter. So additional
resources are needed to perform the CSB's mission.
In summary, I would like to reiterate the following:Good
work is being done at the CSB. We are productive. All of us
whom the President appointed to the board are committed to
working collegially to further improve morale. We look forward
to working with you and other congressional committees to
continue to serve the public. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ehrlich follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich.
Now, are you streaming this back to your employees today,
this hearing?
Mr. Ehrlich. I'm sorry. But I don't know, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Ms. Emerson.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE V. EMERSON
Ms. Emerson. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly,
members of the subcommittee, thank for the opportunity to
appear before you today to address the Department of Homeland
Security's efforts in enhancing employee engagement.
I am Catherine Emerson, the Department's first career Chief
Human Capital Officer. I'm responsible for the Department's
human capital policy, which covers recruiting, diversity
inclusion, learning and development, and workforce planning in
support of DHS's mission. My office supports employee
engagement efforts led by Secretary Johnson and Deputy
Secretary Mayorkas.
DHS employees stand on the front lines day in and day out
to protect our citizens from threats at home and abroad. Our
employees do difficult work under challenging circumstances,
from protecting the border at the Rio Grande Valley to guiding
maritime traffic on the Mississippi River, to managing
shipments at the Port of Seattle, and welcoming visitors at the
JFK International Airport.
Therefore, as the Deputy Secretary has stated, we must
create the Department our employees deserve. We recognize that
we must start with our leadership to improve employee morale.
Employee engagement is not a human resources program. We see
employee engagement as a leadership responsibility for the
entire Department with human capital support.
Demonstrating this leadership responsibility, the Secretary
and the Deputy Secretary launched the employee-focused Building
the Department You Deserve initiative. Led by the Deputy
Secretary and coordinated through an operationally focused
employee engagement steering committee, three items this
initiative have focused on are the Secretary honoring over 300
employees at a recent award ceremony.
This was the first one that was held in over 6 years. The
Secretary has directed component leadership to host appropriate
ceremonies and events to honor the contributions of their
employees and DHS partners,and we are doing this to acknowledge
and recognize the fine work of our employees.
Our employees have asked for greater transparency in the
Department's hiring process. We have posted personnel
information on our internal Web site, provided helpful tips for
managers that highlight how to lead a transparent hiring
process,and we have made a concerted effort to more prominently
post job opportunities.
Additionally, DHS is continuing to build a common
leadership experience that begins at our on-boarding and
continues throughout our leaders' careers. We will continue to
emphasize our key executive programs, including the DHS Senior
Executive Service Candidate Development Program and the
Department's own Executive Capstone Program for new members of
the senior executive service.
Moreover, the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary are
committed to personally hearing from our employees. Both of our
senior leaders hold regular meetings with rank-and-file
employees as well as with supervisors, managers, and executives
when visiting field offices or in video conferences. In these
meetings, they're listening to the concerns and suggestions of
our employees across the country.
Furthermore, the Deputy Secretary regularly engages with
our union partners, hearing their feedback and concerns.
Building the Department our employees deserve is also about
finding better ways to do business and building opportunities
for them to succeed.
We thank Congress and this committee, particularly Chairman
Chaffetz, for last year's passage of the Border Patrol Agent
Pay Reform Act. This legislation is an excellent example of
finding a better way to do business, as it replaces the
administratively uncontrollable overtime model with a new and
sound process for ensuring that our Border Patrol personnel are
properly paid for their work.
We are leaning forward to implement actions that we believe
will make a lasting and valuable difference to our employees.
In the words of Secretary Johnson, we must inject a new energy
into DHS, and we are working diligently to do just that.
Through our efforts, we hope to enhance the work experience and
honor the contributions of our hard-working and dedicated
workforce.
Thank you again for supporting our employees who are
protecting all of us each and every day. I look forward to your
questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Emerson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Ms. Emerson, thank you for your testimony.
And I will say thank you for the energy that I witnessed
just in the meeting prior to this. And I look forward to
working with you in the months and years to come.
Mr. Goldenkoff, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF
Mr. Goldenkoff. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to be here today to discuss strengthening Federal employee
engagement.
A growing body of research on both private and public
sector organizations has concluded that employee engagement,
which is defined as the heightened sense of purpose and
commitment employees feel towards their employer and its
mission, can generate such benefits as increased productivity,
higher customer service, and less absenteeism. Simply put,
engagement is not about happy employees. It's about effective,
high-quality, and responsive government.
However, as was noted here today, government-wide levels of
employee engagement have declined 4 percentage points, from 67
percent in 2011 to 63 percent in 2014, as measured by OPM's
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and a score OPM derives from
the survey called the Employee Engagement Index, or EEI.
Recognizing the connection between engagement levels and
organizational performance, the administration has called on
agencies to strengthen employee engagement. For example, agency
leaders are to be held accountable for making employee
engagement an integral part of their performance management
systems.
In addition, as part of their annual performance plans and
appraisals, each member of the senior executive service will be
responsible for improving employee engagement within their
organization and for creating inclusive work environments.
As requested, my remarks today will focus first on
government-wide trends in employee engagement from 2006 through
2014;second, various practices that can strengthen engagement;
and, third, certain limitations of the EEI that will be
important for agency managers and leaders to consider as they
use this metric to assess and improve engagement with their own
organizations.
Our work indicates that improving employee engagement,
especially during challenging fiscal times, is a difficult, but
doable, task. The key is to understand and act on the drivers
of engagement, both government-wide and agency-specific, and
weave those practices into the everyday fabric of agency
culture.
With respect to government-wide engagement trends, it's
important to note that the majority of Federal agencies
actually defied the recent government-wide downward trend in
engagement levels and sustained or increased their scores. As
one example, from 2013 to 2014, 3 of 47 agencies saw an
increase in their engagement scores, 31 held steady, and 13
declined.
The decrease in government-wide engagement is the result of
several large agencies, such as DHS and DOD, bringing down the
overall average. Employee perceptions of leadership are also
pulling down the government-wide average.
Of the three components that comprise the engagement
index--employees' perceptions of agency leaders, their
perceptions of supervisors, and employees' intrinsic work
experiences--agency leadership has consistently received the
lowest score and, at times, was about 20 percentage points
lower than the other two components.
Our analysis of the Employee Viewpoint Survey identified
six key practices that were consistent drivers of higher
engagement levels, namely, having constructive performance
conversations, providing opportunities for career development
and training, supporting a good work-life balance, creating an
inclusive work environment, employee involvement in work-
related decisions, and good communication from management.
These practices were associated with higher engagement
scores government-wide by agency and by selected employee
characteristics and, therefore, could be starting points for
agency efforts to improve engagement.
Although OPM provides a range of tools and guidance to help
agencies analyze their engagement scores, the EEI data itself
has limitations that agencies need to be aware of. For example,
OPM does not report whether changes to an agency's engagement
score is statistically significant, which could lead agencies
to misinterpret their results.
Moreover, the way in which OPM calculates the engagement
index does not enable agencies to analyze the drivers of
engagement for their organization.
Given these and other limitations, agencies will need to
supplement their engagement scores with other information such
as workforce analytics and facilitated discussions with
employees.
In conclusion, to improve performance, agencies must make
strengthening and sustaining employee engagement an integral
part of their organizational culture and not simply an isolated
set of practices.
Put another way, if a talented workforce is the engine of
productivity and mission accomplishment, then a workplace that
fosters high levels of employee engagement is the fuel that
powers that engine.
This concludes my prepared remarks. And I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you all. Thank you for your testimony.
And, Mr. Goldenkoff, I want to come to you first because,
obviously, your agency is--they are doing things right because
you get better scores. Some of the things that you just
highlighted there certainly are things that need to be
implemented.
In the analysis that you did, did you find a resistance,
perhaps, on the part of senior-level executives or mid-level
managers or the like or even as high as cabinet to implement
some of those additional recommendations or observations that
you have made?
Mr. Goldenkoff. No. We definitely did not find a
resistance. It seems like, at the top level, agencies seem to
be getting it. As you've heard here today,secretaries and other
heads of agencies at the senior level, they seem to be getting
it.
To the extent that there are any breakdowns, it seems to be
more in the implementation, either insufficient data analysis,
for example, doing root cause analyses, looking for the drivers
of engagement both at the enterprise level and by component
level. In some cases, there are issues with communication.
So it's not the case--you know, if you look at it sort of
as a maturity model, agencies are definitely recognizing the
need to take action. But it's more now in terms of--and where
the focus should be is on better implementation of key steps.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me ask one other question
before I go on to some of the other witnesses.
How much of this is a legislative fix that is needed with
regards to either the civil service, you know, performance
metrics or whatever? How much of that can we fix and how much
of that is where we have to put emphasis so the agencies can
fix, in your opinion?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, what's so important is I think there
needs to a partnership. And we've heard a lot of that today.
It's really very encouraging. Clearly, Congress gets the
message as well.And just being supportive of the Federal
workforce, but also holding them accountable for results, is so
important.
In terms of legislative fixes, most of what needs to be
done really starts with agencies and agency leaderships
creating that culture of engagement and then cascading that
down and creating almost like micro-levels of engagement.
So it can be done. It starts at the top level, at the C-
Suite, and then filters all the way down to the cubical and
then just focusing on these key ingredients and these key
drivers of engagement.
So in terms of a legislative fix, you know, I don't think
anything stands out. I mean, there are certainly things like
the shutdown, things that may not have been helpful. But at the
same time----
Mr. Meadows. My ranking member was just about to go crazy
that that softball was not hit out of the park.
But go ahead.
Mr. Goldenkoff. GAO is not completely inattentive.
And one thing is important to note. And this is what we
bring out in our testimony, in the written statement, but,
also, in the full report that will be coming out in a couple of
months.
During those difficult times, what was interesting was the
number of agencies that actually improved their scores and went
up. So, you know, it----
Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you: On the ones who improved
their scores, what kind of affirmation did they get to continue
that?
Because, you know, we all are in either a reward or risk-
averse society where punishment we hate, rewards we like.
But did any of that happen to any those that improved
scores other than that they got a good score on a report that
some would say most don't look at?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, there is that. But a lot of people do
read that. And, of course, it's in the Washington Post, and we
have hearings on it. So these things do get a lot of publicity.
I think that, you know, really what drives so much of this
is, one, better agency performance. You know, we are all public
servants and we really focus on agency mission.
So to the extent that better engagement and higher morale
leads to better accomplishments at the agency level and then at
the subcomponent, that's a big driver.
And then, also, holding individual leaders, from the
executives all the way down to those front-line supervisors--
everybody is responsible for improving engagement.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you so much.
Mr. Ferriero, I want to come to you. Yesterday you shared
with me how you worked in a very hot area picking books off and
that you understand some of the issues that some of your
workforce gets to engage in on a regular basis.
So I would ask you: With the scores being as low as they
are and the action plan that you have outlined, what are the
major impediments to providing--to getting the scores up?But,
more importantly, the scores would represent a change in
attitude among many of the people that you have working.What is
the major impediment that you might have?
Mr. Ferriero. I think it's clear that a tripling in the
size of the record collection and a decrease in the number of
total staff over a period of years has had tremendous impact on
the staff's ability to keep up with the work that needs to be
done.
What I was sharing with you yesterday was my own experience
about how routine the jobs get to be and no opportunities for
advancement or enhancement of job skills.
So we have an initiative underway that's addressing career
paths so that folks have an opportunity to join the National
Archives and see a career path that gives them a certain set of
skills and opportunities for advancement.
As I said, it's very personal to me because this is the
situation that I had when I first started my job in this
profession.
Mr. Meadows. So can we get from each one of you that are on
this list kind of a benchmark of where you would like to be 6
months from now and a year from now? I mean, are each one of
you willing to at least give me a goal that you are looking to
get in terms of increasing these numbers? I will start with
you.
Mr. Ferriero. Well, we've laid out--I'm encouraged because
the staff at large has taken this seriously and they've taken
ownership of the issue.
So we have employee engagement teams working across the
National Archives to identify in the local area what are the
most important issues that are--and they're basing this on the
scores--what can we do locally to address these issues. A
national-level team works with those individual teams to look
at patterns across the agency.
Mr. Meadows. I guess what I am asking for is, in order for
me to properly evaluate it and for the ranking member to
properly evaluate it, we at least need a goal that the three of
you are looking at. And that may be a modest goal in saying,
``We are looking at increasing the score and making it here or
here.''
And is it that something that you are willing to get with
your senior staff and provide to the committee in terms of some
clear objectives and where you want to be?
Then we have got a matrix to at least measure against so we
are not here next year saying, ``Well, we didn't make much
progress'' and all of you are saying, ``Oh, we did make
progress.'' I need something quantifiable, I guess is what I'm
saying.
Mr. Ferriero. I would like to be able to come back to you
and brag about the fact that we have improved scores in at
least three different areas that the staff has identified as
problem areas.
Mr. Meadows. Let me put it a different way for all three of
you. Here is what I am asking you to provide to this committee,
is a score, a quantitative number, in terms of where we are
today and where you would like to be a year from now.And then
you have already outlined some of the action plans that you are
doing, obviously, to get there.
But I want to make sure that we can measure against that
and say, ``Okay. Well, gosh, these things worked. These things
obviously didn't move the needle at all. So let's scrap them
and go on to something else.'' Would all three of you be
willing to work on that?
Mr. Ferriero. I can provide that for you.
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. I've gone way over my time.
So I am going to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ferriero, how many employees have you got?
Mr. Ferriero. Just under 3,000.
Mr. Connolly. Three thousand.
And would it be fair to say you are kind of focused on the
organizing principle of a core mission that is fairly clear,
employees understand what their mission is?
Mr. Ferriero. And they love it.
Mr. Connolly. And they love it.
Ms. Emerson, how many employees have you got?
Ms. Emerson. DHS is the third largest Federal agency. So we
have over 225,000 employees at DHS. We're very large.
Mr. Connolly. And how many agencies--subagencies were
amalgamated to create the Department of Homeland Security.
Ms. Emerson. Approximately 22 agencies.
Mr. Connolly. Twenty-two agencies.
And so would it be fair to say, unlike, say, Mr. Ferriero,
although you have got an overarching mission, the security of
the homeland, once you get below that--that amalgam of 22
agencies, you have got lots of different missions?
Ms. Emerson. We have lots of different missions underneath
that. Of course, we have our main mission, and this is----
Mr. Connolly. No. No. We got that.
Ms. Emerson. --protecting the homeland.
Mr. Connolly. We got that.
But when we look at Secret Service, it has got a specific
focus. Coast Guard has a very different focus. You know, Border
Patrol has a different--you know.
And would it be fair to say that it is a little misleading
to even give a grade to the Department of Homeland Security as
a whole because, actually, when you look at your constituent
parts, there is enormous variety in the scores of morale and
employee satisfaction?Is that correct?
Ms. Emerson. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, for example, Coast Guard has a very high
score.Is that correct?
Ms. Emerson. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. And perhaps Secret Service at the moment has
a fairly low score relative to that.
Ms. Emerson. They've been dropping in their score.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. They have been dropping.
So I think that is really important, that in the case of
the Archives, we have got a focused agency, clear core mission,
and the employees love that mission and are imbued with it, and
it is a fairly focused kind of set of activities we have got to
concentrate on because the numbers are manageable and small and
all that relative to you.
The Department of Homeland Security is, you know, a huge
enterprise, and it is really misleading in some ways to give
you one score because, implicitly, it suggests a homogeneity
that, in fact, is not correct, is not accurate.
Mr. Goldenkoff, I assume, as GAO is looking at this
process, it is taking cognizance of that difference.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yes. I mean, with DHS in particular, I mean
they've merged all these agencies, merging these very, very
different cultures, different missions, and it just takes time.
And DHS is still working through that process.
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
And I don't want to overstate it. And the chairman was kind
enough to note that I was a little agitated as you were
answering his question because I do think that Congress has to
take responsibility for some of this. We're not bystanders or
observers.
And sometimes, listening to ourselves, you know, we might
as well put up a sign, ``The flogging will continue until
morale improves.'' We're, in part, responsible for that. I gave
a litany of actions we have taken that have certainly not
contributed to improved morale.
And I would hope--and I know the chairman absolutely is
committed to trying to do what he can to turn that around. We
need to be speaking in respectful tones about our workforce. We
need to be motivating them and incentivizing them. We need to
be fair. We need to avoid the demagogic or the pandering, even
though the temptation politically may be great. Because back
home, you know, beating up on nameless bureaucrats, you know,
can help you.
Defending the Federal employee is of low political yield in
many districts, not mine, but many. And avoiding that, you
know, I think is really important. And I really respect the
chairman for the fact that he is committed to that, too. And he
is in a different kind of district than mine. And I really
appreciate that commitment.
Mr. Ehrlich, let's take a look at the ranking of the
Chemical Safety Board. The Partnership ranks your board 10th
out of 10, the lowest of the low of small agencies, with a
score of 33.7.
Now, that's almost half the average and well below the high
of 76 and well below the private sector. And that represents a
2.9-point fall from just the year before and a huge decline
from what it was just 2 years ago, when it was 54.2.
So you've seen a precipitous drop in morale in the Chemical
Safety Board.Is that correct?
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, sir. I have seen the numbers, and I
understand that. I've been there 5 months. I can tell you it's
getting better and we're going to continue to make it better. I
think we understand why some of those issues occurred, and I
think we're doing something to turn them around. Our work
product has not faltered during this period.
Mr. Connolly. You said ``we think we understand why.''
Perhaps you can elaborate. Why?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, for one thing, many years ago, a guy by
the name of Tom Peters wrote a book that was called Management
by Walking Around. Okay? I have not seen that until recently.
Okay?
We have people we're dealing with. They are not robots.
They're not automatons. They're human beings who want to know
that they're valued. And just going out and asking them, ``How
are you doing? How's your family?''--you are out on an incident
where four people got killed. We have got two teams deployed
right now, one in Texas where four people died at La Porte,
Texas, and a massive explosion in California. Those people need
to know that we care about them.
And once you start to let people know that you care about
them and you are willing to invest your time and your effort,
which is really what we all get paid for, and be part of the
solution instead of part of the problem, morale gets better.
Mr. Connolly. The CSB, of which you are a board member,
hired a consulting company called Vantage Human Resource. And
in September of last year, it found that 80 percent of staff
expressed ``much frustration with top leadership'' and further
felt ``conflict among board members is having a negative
impact.'' And 47 percent said there is a perception of a
climate where senior leaders discourage dissenting opinions.
Now, you are part of that leadership.Maybe not a long-
termer.You are part of that board. Your observations about the
findings of your own consulting firm that you retained--the
board retained to look at these issues.
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, there's some issues with that Vantage
study in terms of how it was handled and how it was managed,
and as well I'm sure you know. Because of our concerns about
that, the whole process has been turned over to the IG for
examination and we're awaiting the outcome of that examination
now.
I think that the data was clearly taken. I don't have a
whole lot of confidence in it right now. I have not reviewed it
in absolute detail because I want to go down and talk to the
people myself and I want to find out what's really on their
minds.
And I think that's much better derived by face-to-face
intervention and interaction than by having somebody fill out a
piece of paper and talk to somebody else.
Mr. Connolly. If the chair will indulge just one follow-up
question, did it surprise you, Mr. Ehrlich, or your colleagues
that the actions or statements, or both, of the board actually
had an impact in terms--a fairly dramatic impact in the morale
of the workforce itself.
Mr. Ehrlich. No. It really didn't surprise me because, in
talking to the staff members, they want something from their
board members. They want to know ``We're part of the team.''
They want to know we're there to support them, not to achieve
our own agendas and objectives, whatever they may be.
One of my pet peeves about being a board member is I don't
have a job description. Well, we're working on a job
description. I want to know what people hold me accountable
for. I hold myself accountable for very high standards. And I
think and I believe sincerely that, once that message gets out
to the staff, that you're going to see a dramatic change.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Ehrlich, let me follow up. I'm confused. I mean, you've
been there 5 months. You've been here before this committee on
another issue just a few weeks ago.
Mr. Ehrlich. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. And there was disagreement among the board
members during that hearing. Would you----
Mr. Ehrlich. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. So, what the ranking member just brought up in
his questioning doesn't seem like you've fixed that, or are you
saying that, shazam, it's been fixed.
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, no, I didn't say that at all, Mr.
Chairman. Those things takes time to fix----
Mr. Meadows. Well, I guess here's my concern. You've one of
the smallest agencies.
Mr. Ehrlich. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. So knowing what they're thinking is certainly
a whole lot easier than what Ms. Emerson has to deal with.
Mr. Ehrlich. Understand that.
Mr. Meadows. How many employees do you have?
Mr. Ehrlich. 40.
Mr. Meadows. Forty. At the time of this survey you had 34
employees, and 32 of them responded, which is an incredible
response rate.
Mr. Ehrlich. Yep.
Mr. Meadows. I mean, I've never seen that ever. And yet
that incredible response rate gave you an F, a failing grade.
And you're sitting here saying that there was a problem with
the study that the ranking member highlighted? How could that
be? I mean, what basis do you say that there was a problem
with? Do you base that on the fact that Mr. Horowitz, who is
still working with you, punished the point of contact for
actually doing the survey? Do you base that on that?
Mr. Ehrlich. Sir, I'm not sure I accept that terminology.
Mr. Meadows. Well, he did punish the point of contact. Is
that your testimony that he did not?
Mr. Ehrlich. There were mitigating circumstances to how
that information was handled. Dr. Horowitz is a very valuable
asset to the agency.
Mr. Meadows. I agree with that, and why would Dr. Horowitz
not be here today, Mr. Ehrlich? We asked him to testify because
he probably knows it better than you since you've only been
there 5 months. Why would he not have come today, Mr. Ehrlich?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, first of all, he is not in a policy
making decision, and general counsel advised that the person
that represents the agency should be in a policy making
decision or a pass. There--there--first of all----
Mr. Meadows. So did he punish him or not?
Mr. Ehrlich. Not in my opinion. No, sir----
Mr. Meadows. All right. How about the other board members
who are not here? In their opinion did he punish him? I mean,
I've got reliable information that would suggest that he did.
Let me tell you why you're here today is because the
employees that work for you have given you an F consistently.
And the other thing is what we are not going to put up with is
a whole lot of it isn't as bad as it seems. Your particular
agency is troubling in that we get the best analysis, you know,
I think--I think the ranking member said it was 80 percent of
the people didn't have confidence in the leadership. You know,
80 percent of 40 people or 34, depending on which you want to
look at, is a significant number, and that's very troubling to
me, because it should be very easy to address their concerns.
Wouldn't you agree with that, Mr. Ehrlich?
Mr. Ehrlich. I would. And----
Mr. Meadows. So how are you specifically, other than
walking around, which I used to be a consultant. I could--I
taught on that particular book, and so--but other than just
walking around, specifically how are you addressing these
concerns?
Mr. Ehrlich. We have a work improvement committee in place
where we've detailed six major topics that we're working on.
We're going to put metrics in place relative to them. They're
not--totally unlike what other witnesses here have talked about
in terms of onboarding and statistics and the like, those
things take time. And they are getting better. All right.
Mr. Meadows. Based--okay. You just talked about metrics,
and I am going to come to the delegate from D.C., and she's
been gracious to not complain, but let me--under what metrics
are you saying that they've gotten better? Because I don't--I
don't see any. I mean, you just talked about metrics that the
GAO--you're going to implement some of those. Under what
metrics are they getting better?
Mr. Ehrlich. The fact that we're continually finishing
reports. The fact that we've got our backlog down.
Mr. Meadows. Backlog and reports is not employee
satisfaction, guy. I'm just telling you it's----
Mr. Ehrlich. I'm sorry, sir, but I believe when people take
pride in turning out reports and turning out videos as they
do----
Mr. Meadows. But that's not a metrics, Mr.----
Mr. Ehrlich.--that is employee satisfaction.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Ehrlich, let me just tell you. I was in
the private sector for long time. I did consulting. I did this
kind of work on employee satisfaction. And so, you know, when
you--I've run into managers like you who said everything's
fine. The metrics you have can't be accurate. I've run into it
a number of times, and let me just tell you, I'm asking you
specifically: What metrics are you referring to that they've
gotten better? Not--not stories, not anecdotal references. What
metrics? Are there any? Yes or no. Are there any metrics? Yes
or no.
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. What are they?
Mr. Ehrlich. I just told you what they were, sir.
Mr. Meadows. That's not a metrics, sir.
Mr. Ehrlich. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. So what metrics?
Mr. Ehrlich. I believe that when you go out and you ask
people questions about how they feel about their workplace, how
they feel about senior management, what is it they want, that,
to me, can be resolved and reduced to writing and put into some
kind of metrics.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I am going to--well, we will have a
second round of questions. We'll come back and address that.
I appreciate the patience of the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia, and I'll recognize her for a round of
questioning. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can always count
on me to be patient.
Mr. Chairman, actually, I very much appreciate this
hearing. And just to put in hearing--sorry. To put in context
my appreciation for the hearing, no matter how you look at it,
employees of the Federal Government have felt under special
criticism, particularly from the Congress. I mean, there's no
gain saying this. In fact, yesterday some of us were on the
floor as there was a--by the way, there was some good bills on
the floor during tax day, and then there were some bills that
were very demoralizing. I went to the floor to speak to one on
tax filings where the Federal Government workers have the best
tax filings in the country, and, sure, they're being paid by
the Federal Government, but they took a lashing even though
they are in place, absolutely in place, very--very good and
effective ways to deal with those tiny numbers who have not
fully paid their Federal taxes.
So, to be lashed when you are the best, I don't know what
you have to do. And we are seeing a generation which may be the
golden generation of Federal employees. These employees who
came in after JFK. These people who were the best and the
brightest who decided to give it all to the Federal Government
when they could have been everywhere, and if you want to see
just good they are, there are annual prizes. And these people
have invented things that if they'd invented them in the
private sector, they would be millionaires by now. Discovered
all kinds of health benefits. It's quite amazing. I go to this
ceremony every year.
I'm particularly interested in the Department of Homeland
Security, Ms. Emerson, because the last agency in the country
perhaps we need to have last--rated last is this high security
agency within this--which in this very room we created in order
to secure the homeland. Now, some of the reasons are quite
obvious. I mean, we just finished having a late budget fight
when everybody else in the Federal Government was funded except
your security agency. Imagine how that would make you feel if
you work for one of those agencies. And over nothing. Had to
give up in the end. So why do such a fight. I don't even want
to go into the sequestration, and to not having--and to the
continuing cuts on--in pay. So I think everybody ought to
understand that there's a wonder that there's anything
approaching good morale.
But when you look at the Department of Homeland Security,
which ranks near the bottom and is so important to every
American, how would you explain, Ms. Emerson, its low ranking?
Ms. Emerson. Thank you. And thank you for mentioning those
challenges that DHS employees have had, as well as the rest of
the Federal employee workforce.
Sequestration, budget cuts, freezes, furloughs, they all
have an effect on employee morale. And as you mentioned, just
recently DHS went through a potential lapse in budget again. So
that--that does have an effect, but what I'd like to bring
forward is that we have top leadership support through our
Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In fact, before we even started
this hearing, Secretary Johnson was here giving his support,
showing how important employee morale is to him. He has----
Ms. Norton. I know that--I appreciate and I'm very sorry. I
had a breakfast of my own. I could not go to this meeting that
he has come forward personally to try to explain what he's
doing, but I was concerned that the senior leadership of all
places is where you've seen so much turnover at the Department
of Homeland Security. Why is that?
Ms. Emerson. In fact, our attrition rate is better than the
rest of the government in terms of senior leadership and in the
rest of the Federal workforce, and that's been confirmed by OPM
as well as our own internal folks who----
Ms. Norton. Secretary Johnson has characterized it as a
leadership vacuum of alarming proportions.
Ms. Emerson. Well, he has been very busy filling senior
leadership vacancies. In fact, he's filled 16 of them. We have
three more left, but he's done a very good job, and he's
worked----
Ms. Norton. You do have some--some acting officials in a
fair number of your top jobs. Is that because of difficulty in
getting people to come to the agency because of the
difficulties it's preceded, or is there some--it's incumbent--
it's gotten or is there some other reason?
Ms. Emerson. Well, Secretary Johnson has worked very hard
to get those positions filled. From day one he came in
promising that he was going to fill those top leadership
positions. We do have three acting positions now that he's
still working. He's working hard every day to get those
positions filled, and anything that you all can do to help him
out on that we would appreciate because I think that when you
have someone in an acting position at a very high leadership
role, that does tend to----
Ms. Norton. Well, I can't help but notice that the one
agency within the Department of Homeland Security that stands
out is the United States Coast Guard, and it is the one agency
that already has its new headquarters. You are building a new
headquarters here in the District of Columbia. The Congress has
slowed you up, and as a result has cost the taxpayers billions
more because the only agency to be completely built is the
Homeland--is the United States Coast Guard, and yet it has
strong scores among the best places. Do you think that has
something to do with the fact that at least they have a decent
place to work?
Ms. Emerson. I think it very well could, and when Secretary
Johnson was here this morning, he was talking about the
headquarters building we call the NAC, the Nebraska Avenue
Complex, and invite all of you to come see that.
Ms. Norton. No. I'm talking about the Coast Guard building.
Ms. Emerson. Oh, the Coast Guard building is the new
building, and, yes, it's very nice. And that could have an
effect on their morale. They're together and it is a state-of-
the-art building, and we appreciate that building.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you so much.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ferriero, could you tell me, what is the mission
statement for your agency?
Mr. Ferriero. To collect, protect and encourage the use of
the records of the U.S. Government.
Mr. Buck. Okay. And Mr. Ehrlich.
Mr. Ehrlich. Our mission is to--our mission is to respond
to major chemical incidents and supply that information to the
American public to make the chemical industry a safer place to
work.
Mr. Buck. Okay. And if I looked it up, that would be the
mission statement that you have on your Web site that your
employees get?
Mr. Ehrlich. It's a little more involved than that, but I
think everybody works towards that mission, yes.
Mr. Buck. Okay. And Ms. Emerson?
Ms. Emerson. At Department of Homeland Security, we have a
very important mission, and that's to protect the homeland.
Mr. Buck. Okay. And that's the mission statement that's
written?
Ms. Emerson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. And is one of those areas, I take it,
immigration?
Ms. Emerson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. And do you think that the immigration policies of
the administration that have encouraged hundreds of thousands
of people to cross the border illegally, does that have an
effect on morale at your agency?
Ms. Emerson. I know that our Secretary and Deputy Secretary
have met with employees and their union representative to
discuss that issue.
Mr. Buck. Is that a yes or a no?
Ms. Emerson. I'm unsure. When you look at the FEVS scores,
it's hard to tell what, you know, affects the scores, and
oftentimes you have to do a deeper drive. So that would be hard
for me to speculate on. But I know it is something that our
Secretary and Deputy Secretary work with the union partners and
employees on.
Mr. Buck. So I just want to make sure I understand. It's
hard for you to speculate about the fact that the immigration
service is trying to regulate immigration in this country, and
it has gotten to the point where it's completely unregulated
and it's hard for you to speculate whether that is causing a
morale issue?
Ms. Emerson. Yeah. I'm not--I'm not sure, and I'm not an
expert on immigration, but I do know that it is an issue that
our Secretary and Deputy Secretary work with our employees on.
Mr. Buck. Do you think we have an immigration problem in
this country with the number of illegal immigrants that have
come into this country?
Ms. Emerson. Sir, I'm not an immigration expert, and I
really don't feel I should give an opinion on that.
Mr. Buck. Do you read the newspapers?
Ms. Emerson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. And watch TV?
Ms. Emerson. No. Not much.
Mr. Buck. Not much.
Ms. Emerson. There is a lot of sporting event on in my
house. We have two teenage boys.
Mr. Buck. That's a good thing.
So in your daily experience, you haven't noticed whether we
have an immigration challenge in this country?
Ms. Emerson. I know that Department of Homeland Security is
abiding by the law, rule, and regulations, and our Federal
employees do that as well.
Mr. Buck. And the fact that--I have worked with a number of
immigration agents, and they feel like they are a race horse
that is being kept in the stable. They never get out to the
gate to be able to run. And that is the morale issue that I
hear from the people that are on the ground and in my prior
life in law enforcement.
And I think if people have a mission and a mission
statement and they are frustrated--they're obviously attracted
to the agency because they wanted to work on that mission, and
that they're frustrated in that sense, it seems to me that
would be part of the morale problem. Any opinion on that?
Ms. Emerson. It certainly could be. As Federal employees,
you know, we have different policies and laws that we have to
follow, and sometimes they come with different administrations,
but that's our job, is to follow the laws, rules, and
regulations that are in place at the time.
Mr. Buck. And in some cases not follow the law. Not that
you're breaking the law, but not enforcing the law because a
President has issued executive orders and other direction and
used the terms prosecutorial misconduct or has decided in other
ways that he is going to frustrate the mission statement of an
agency.
No further questions.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. First of all, I want to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing. I
think it's very important because we have the finest workforce
in the world. Our Federal Government is superb, and that morale
is low is very, very troubling to me from the reports that the
chairman was able to review personally on it.
I have worked on the city and state level in New York in
the bureaucracy, and everyone I worked with were very
dedicated, very hard working, as are our Federal employees, and
I was amazed when I came to the Federal Government to see how
very professional this government is in their work. There's
always room for improvement, but it's extremely professional.
And I believe some of the problems is that people attack
Federal employees all the time, and it seems like every time we
need to find some money, we take it out of Federal employees.
And instead of leading the country with work/family
balance, which the President has spoken about and which one of
your reports showed from GAO that work/family balance is a very
important part, you are dragging behind the private sector
tremendously, and I will give you two examples, and I think
that, Chairman Meadows, these are things we can work on
together that don't cost money. I know that's the first thing
with the Republican party. I can't spend a dime, but can make
things work better, and I'll give you two bills that the
President actually--and I was very thrilled that he mentioned
them in his State of the Union address.
One is paid leave for the birth of a child. I've had this
bill in for a number of years. It passed the House once. Never
passed the Senate. The President has endorsed it. GAO did a
report, as did OMB, that it would not cost any money. And in
the report that I did, and actually even wrote about it in a
book, Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, we
are the only country in the world, save two, that does not
provide paid leave for the birth of a child. The two that do
not provide it is Lesotho and Papua, New Guinea. And in the
report they said the birth of a child for 2 weeks paid leave
would be--the work would be picked up by other fellow employees
helping out. Granted it would be more work for them, but you're
not going to hire another person for it, but it's something
that we can work together and make happen in a positive way.
I will tell you, I have had Federal employees call me on is
this bill passing. I want to time the birth of my child around
the passage of it because in our family I cannot afford to lose
workweeks and pay for the birth of a child. I think that's a
concrete step that we can take to show Federal employees we
value their work. Most--all Fortune 500s, most companies have
this, but the Federal Government does not.
Another--and I want Trey Gowdy to hear this, because he's
from a conservative state and I'm from a liberal one. If we
ever teamed up, we might be able to get some of these things
done.
That bill should pass. Issa said he's for it. Let's take a
look at it. Let's see if we can pass that bill.
Secondly is work/family balance. And as a mother who raised
two children, I can't tell you how distressing it is if you
have a doctor's appointment or your child's home sick and you
have to be at the office.
Now, what the Work/Family Balance Bill does, which was
supported by Labor, and it was authored by myself and former
Senator Kennedy, and based on policies that were put in place
in England, it merely allows an employee to go to their HR
advisor, human resources advisor, and ask about work/family
balance items. And with the guarantee that you will not be
fired for asking about it. And many people are very terrified
of being fired. They need their jobs.
I've been in the same position in my own life, and I can
tell you when I had a child, I went to my HR and asked about
family leave, and they said: There is no leave policy. Women
just leave. When are you leaving? I said: I have no intention
to leave. I'm coming back. But I was terrified that I would be
fired because I was going to become a mother.
And as a country that talks about family values as the most
important thing in our country, if you look at our policies,
they're really not there. We could pass paid leave easily, and
we could pass--we could pass work/family balance very easily.
Does not cost any money. You work it out with your HR advisor,
and if it works within the timeframe and you can get the work
done, then it can work out.
Now, if have you a highly motivated worker, which I think
the Federal employee--employees are, they make a choice to
serve this great country. What an honor to serve in the
Archives. On the archives on this greatest democracy. This
great country. To preserve them.
We in New York have digitized our main libraries so that
everyone in the country can access our books. Everyone in the
country should be accessing what we have in our great archives.
To see the original Declaration of Independence. The original
things that are part of our country. And I read that that
hasn't happened. You should go back to your office, work with
your team, make it happen, and report back to this committee
every month on how fast you're working to digitize this system
so that every American--believe me. Your workforce will be so
motivated over the great goal of having this trove of
information.
To protect the greatest defender of democracy and human
rights in the world, what a privilege to work at the Homeland
Security Department. What a privilege. And if you have clear
guidelines, you should make them go to the 9/11 Museum and hear
the stories of the devastation. Hear the stories from the SEALS
that risked their lives. They thought they were going to die
when they went out to kill Osama bin Laden, but they did that
to protect this country, to make sure if anyone did this--
killed an innocent American, that we aren't going to forget,
we're going to get them. What a story to tell.
I'm telling you, you take a day. Take them down to that
museum. Have them study it. They will come back so motivated on
the goal that they have to protect Americans and this great
country. We have such an opportunity.
Now my time is expired, unfortunately. I'm just warming up.
Mr. Meadows. You may be running for President. We're ready.
Mrs. Maloney. Now, I have some more ideas, but I'll wait
for my turn. But I think that there's things that we can do
that will not cost money. I know my marching orders. We will
not cost a dime. That we can do to help this workforce and help
them catch up to the private sector, and most people look to
the Federal Government for best practices, and we should be
implementing all the best practices that Mr. Goldenkoff put out
in his report, and work/family balance. I happen to have some
bills in it, I've worked in it, I've lived it. So I----
Mr. Meadows. I will----
Mrs. Maloney. But we should implement those recommendations
that the GAO gave.
Mr. Meadows. I will endeavor to work with the gentlewoman
from New York, and we'll get that.
I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you
for your hard work on this issue and so many other issues on
the Oversight Committee, and I do want to say that I not only
have great personal affection for the gentlelady from New York,
but I also have great respect for her, and I would welcome
every opportunity to work with her on whatever issue she is
working on.
Ms. Emerson, with--I want to follow up on what District
Attorney Buck brought up with respect to--to your place of
employment. Do you want to hazard a guess why women and men go
into law enforcement?
Ms. Emerson. To serve their country.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes. More specifically, what would you say? What
draws women and men to law enforcement?
Ms. Emerson. At DHS?
Mr. Gowdy. Just in law enforcement in general.
Ms. Emerson. My thought is to protect the homeland, to
follow--to enforce the laws.
Mr. Gowdy. Right.
Ms. Emerson. Do the right thing.
Mr. Gowdy, Respect for the rule of law?
Ms. Emerson. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Because the law is the greatest unifying force
that we have in our culture. It's the greatest equalizing force
that we have in our culture, and it really is what separates us
from lots of other societies. It provides order. It provides
structure. It provides predictability.
And I realize that your job may or may not afford you the
opportunity to go out into the field and talk to the women and
men who work. I don't want to judge your job. I don't pretend
to know how many opportunities you have, but I can tell you
District Attorney Buck in a previous life worked with law
enforcement every day, and so did I. And I have a lot of
friends that are still in Federal law enforcement.
And it breaks my heart to see that any law enforcement
entity ranks itself 314 out of 315 in terms of places to work.
And I would just ask you to encourage--or I would encourage you
to ask yourself whether asking men and women who went into a
job to enforce the law not to enforce the law might possibly be
responsible for that low rating.
Because I can tell you every time I go home and I talk to
the women and men who are still in law enforcement, nothing
would diminish their morale quite like being asked to do the
opposite of what they signed up to do.
Mr. Archivist, as you know, I am biased towards you. So I--
my questions or lack thereof will reflect that bias. I worked
with you in the past. You were gracious enough to come to my
district where you were warmly received and wildly popular.
They want you to come back and they want me to leave. They
actually do. So I will say this. I am confident that you are
going to identify whatever issues exist, and I am confident
that you are going to work on those issues. I know you will.
And I would also encourage you, because there's not a more
fair minded, conscientious, hard working member of Congress
than Mark Meadows, our chairman, and to the extent that you
could privately meet with him. He was wildly successful in a
former life, and he's wildly successful in this life. I know
that you want that ranking to improve, and I know that he wants
that ranking to improve, and to the extent that you all could
work together to remedy that situation, I think it would be in
all of our best interests.
And with that I would yield whatever remaining time I do
have to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for his kind words, and
I would debate one particular point in that, the tenacious
spirit of the gentleman from South Carolina and the diligence
of which he performs his actions are unmatched and unrivaled,
and so I thank him.
And I would concur, archivist, you have a near and dear
place in our--in many of our hearts, and part of that is
because of what is seen, you know, at the place that most of us
visit. But it's just as important on the places that very few
people visit, that backbone of what is imperative, is key, and
so I thank you for being willing to work on that.
Mr. Ehrlich, let me come to you. And I've got a couple of
questions.
Mr. Horowitz, is he currently listed as the managing
director of CSB on your Web site?
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. So he is the managing director?
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Why was his title changed to--from
managing director, to lead investigator of Deepwater Horizon
just before our last hearing and now it's been changed back? I
don't understand that.
Mr. Ehrlich. I don't think it was changed before the last
meeting, sir. It was my understanding that he was given that
title relative to a functional responsibility and that specific
project. And his title of managing director hasn't changed
since 2010.
Mr. Meadows. So, you changing it--so it never changed from
managing director to that particular title and then back. Is
that your testimony here today?
Mr. Ehrlich. I believe one is a functional title and the
other one is the organizational title.
Mr. Meadows. So he carries both of those titles.
Mr. Ehrlich. I'm not sure how much longer he's going to
carry the title relative to Deepwater because that project is
nearing close.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So was that the reason he was moved from
SES to GS-15--why was he moved? Why was his status changed?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, he was a temporary SES as I understand
it. And when the chair stepped down, he went back to a GS-15.
Mr. Meadows. Why?
Mr. Ehrlich. I think that was his wishes.
Mr. Meadows. Oh. So we're letting him decide what he gets
to do?
Mr. Ehrlich. I didn't say that, sir.
Mr. Meadows. What about the other 40 employees? Do we let
them do that too?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, I with think with the SES issue it's a
very special issue and----
Mr. Meadows. So you're telling me an SES can say: I want to
be a GS-15 tomorrow, and that's--the board just says: That's
fine.
Mr. Ehrlich. I think what happened was when--and I don't
know all the government issues related to SESs, but I think
when the chair stepped down, I don't believe that applied to
him anymore.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So what is the status of the search
for a new managing director?
Mr. Ehrlich. Dr. Horowitz is the managing director.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So he's going to be it from here on
out?
Mr. Ehrlich. To the best of my knowledge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. And so as a managing director, would he not
have understanding of the employee morale issues?
Mr. Ehrlich. I think he does have an understanding.
Mr. Meadows. So why would he not be here today, then, if he
has an understanding? Wouldn't he be in a better position than
you, Mr. Ehrlich, that you've been a board member for 5 months?
Wouldn't he know better than you would know?
Mr. Ehrlich. We've talked about the issues, I think I can
express the issues, and as I indicated, I am in a policy making
position.
Mr. Meadows. So what policies do you believe that are
necessary in order to improve performance?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, we've looked at this work improvement
thing, and we've got six particular items that we're putting
policies and procedures in place for.
Mr. Meadows. When did you start working on those policies
and procedures?
Mr. Ehrlich. And we're going to develop metrics against
them to satisfy your initial request of an hour ago.
Mr. Meadows. Right. So when did you start working on that?
You say you've been working on that. So when did you start
working on----
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, I've been working on it with the
committee, and they've been working on it for about a year now
as I understand it.
Mr. Meadows. So who specifically's been working on it?
Mr. Ehrlich. One of our----
Mr. Meadows. Who heads it up? What's their name?
Mr. Ehrlich. Kara, you head that up. Don't you? Kara heads
that up. She's one of our----
Mr. Meadows. So should we swear her in for testimony and
let her give testimony?
Mr. Ehrlich. I think you'll have to take that up with her.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I'm go to----
Mr. Ehrlich. It is fine with me.
Mr. Meadows. It is fine with you? Okay. Well, good. We may
come back there.
I'll go to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms.
Plaskett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes. Good morning, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
You know, I'm interested in the impact that these reports
have and show. Well, rather what they show about the low morale
among employees. And specifically, low morale to me is an
outcome of leadership and an outcome of mechanisms that have
been put in place for employees to feel that the workplace is a
great place to work.
Mr. Ehrlich, I wanted to ask you about employees repeatedly
expressing concern that the leaders aren't responsible stewards
of their positions, and that they don't listen to employees'
concerns. That's something that's been in the report.
How do you think employees can expect to best fulfill their
work requirements when they don't feel that their leaders are
not steering them in the right direction or don't understand
the jobs that they themselves have?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, I think that attitude has to be changed,
and it is changing. We've obviously lost a chair. That takes
its share of trauma on the organization. We made it known that
we're going to change issues, and those--those attitudes have
to be changed, and they will change over time, but they're not
going to change overnight.
Ms. Plaskett. So do you think that just changing--putting
another individual in place does that, or what mechanisms and
what programs have been done?
Mr. Ehrlich. It's not a matter of putting one more person
in place. It's a matter of changing the culture.
Ms. Plaskett. And what specifically have you done to do
that?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, first of all, we recognize and let our
folks know that we appreciate, we value, and we understand the
risks to which they put themselves every time they go out on an
incident. We care about them. We care about their families. We
care about their family values. That is very important.
Ms. Plaskett. But how is that different than--I'm sure you
expressed that to them in prior years as well. I can't imagine
that you wouldn't have done that. So how are you doing it
incrementally different now than previously?
Mr. Ehrlich. I can't speak to prior years. I've been there
basically since the first week of January, but I know that--and
I expressed this to the chairman. I have sat down with every
employee of the agency, both in Washington and in Colorado, and
talked about issues, and tell them what's important to me and
tell them the directions we're going in. All right? And it's
going to take time to change some of those attitudes around.
But I truly believe we're going to change them.
The chairman asked for measurable metrics down the road.
We're going to get them for him.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
Mr. Ehrlich. And I assure you that you're going to see a
change in the way people feel about the job.
Ms. Plaskett. But you have metrics in place which you
believe are going to be driving the change of the culture?
Mr. Ehrlich. We have a list of issues that are being worked
on from which we can derive a dashboard and metrics.
Ms. Plaskett. Great. I--because I believe that if you can't
measure it you can't change it.
Mr. Ehrlich. I have no argument with that, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. Great.
Ms. Emerson, you of course are here with one of the largest
agencies which, in my mind, started off in a difficult position
because it was so many different components from so many
different places being put together very quickly. I actually
was in part of the leadership team at the Department of Justice
when Homeland Security was put together, and I understand how
this has been--this is a very young agency that is doing one of
the most critical works that our country needs right now.
So one of the things, you know--and when we talk about the
low morale that's present in Homeland Security, and my
colleagues, of course, have talked to immigration and illegal
immigration and the policies that may be with regard to
immigration, and I don't think that it's the policies of the
administration or the policies of this Congress which drive
people to necessarily like or do not like their job. I think
that things like sequestration and us not being able to pass a
bill that would allow individuals to continue working at
Homeland Security are the things that cause people to feel at
risk about their job and have additional stress in being on one
of the front lines.
We had the director--Secretary Saldana here at a previous--
several weeks ago talking about the enforcement priorities.
That there are 7,300 personnel of ICE that identify and
apprehend convicted criminals, remove aliens, detain aliens,
supervise alternatives. This is a large job that they're
working on.
My district, the Virgin Islands, is considered now the
third border in terms of illegal guns, drugs, as well as
immigrants, undocumented immigrants, coming into this country.
And so I wanted to ask you that how you are combating the
issues of personnel and having enough individuals to be able to
do the job.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you. Our employees have difficult jobs,
as you were describing them. Those are very challenging
positions, and actually we do a very good job recruiting high-
quality diverse workforce at DHS, and then I was saying earlier
our attrition rates are low. So our employees are extremely
dedicated to their jobs. They do what it takes to get the job
done. So in terms of recruiting, hiring, retaining, DHS does a
good job there.
Do we have more work to do in employee engagement? You bet.
And our Secretary who was here today and the Deputy Secretary
have made this a number one priority, starting out with
themselves. Increasing communication. Getting out with the rank
and file. Holding all employee meetings. Meeting directly with
the senior executive service. They've done that on two
occasions.
Ms. Plaskett. And do you believe that you've coalesced to a
real agency from one that has come from disparate and different
agencies coming together?
Ms. Emerson. Yes. And, actually, I was at Department of
Justice during that time too when--when we were putting
together Homeland Security, and it was a very big event, but it
is coming together. We have--employees are extremely dedicated
to the mission of protecting the homeland.
I'd like to mention that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
also together held the first awards ceremony for our DHS
employees. Over 300 of our employees were recognized. I think
that goes a long way. In addition to that, they have required
component heads and executives to recognize and say thank you
to our employees for those very difficult jobs that they do.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I'll ask a couple questions here, Mr.
Ferriero. About how many employees do you have at the National
Archives?
Mr. Ferriero. Just under 3,000.
Mr. Grothman. Wow.
Mr. Ferriero. In 44 facilities--46 facilities across the
country.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Do you have ever keep track like
compared to other agencies how many employees, I guess, leave
prematurely? You know, turn over not normal retirement age.
Mr. Ferriero. Our attrition rate is comparable to other
Federal agencies except in the area of student employees where
we have been in the past heavily reliant on student help, and
that turns over faster than--than regular employees.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah. Among regular employees, like out of
every, whatever 100, how many leave every year? Do you know?
Mr. Ferriero. Between 7 and 8 percent.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Do you ever do followup and find out
why they're leaving?
Mr. Ferriero. Our--we do exit interview, yes. Very often
it's better opportunities. We have tremendous placement of
our--especially of our archivists in other Federal jobs. So we
do a lot of training, and people take those skills and go to be
records managers in other agencies, for instance.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thanks. Maybe we'll ask this same
question of Mr. Goldenkoff. You know, how many--first of all,
how many employees do you have?
Mr. Goldenkoff. About 3,000 in about a dozen different
installations across the country.
Mr. Grothman. Same thing. And we'll give you the same
question. What's your turnover among--turnover by, you know,
not retiring but non-retirement age.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Resignations. Offhand I don't know. I do
know that it's very low, and those people that do leave, it's
typically, though, for more personal reasons. It's not
dissatisfaction with the agency. It's more because the spouse
got a job in a different location or they just decided to
change careers.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So neither of you feel that there's a--
if your employees are unhappy, it's not unhappy--so unhappy
that they're leaving.
Mr. Goldenkoff. That's correct. It's not forcing them to
leave. We really go to great lengths to keep our employees
happy and motivated, and it is something that we also track
very closely.
We also do exit interviews, and we also talk about
engagement. It really is part of our culture, as a matter of
fact. We try and bring in all employees, no matter what level,
and make them feel really part of the team. Actually have a--
she's still here--one of our--an intern who feels so motivated
that helped out with this report and has come back to see the
hearing.
Mr. Grothman. I see she's got a nice smile on her face. So
she certainly looks satisfied. There she is. Very good.
And Mr. Ferriero was shaking his head. As I unfairly asked
two people a question simultaneously, he was shaking his head,
but now I'll yield the rest of my time to the--Congressman
Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Grothman.
Ms. Emerson, I want to come back to you on one issue, and
because of the volume of employees that you have and--would it
be possible or are you willing, let me put it this way. It's
possible. Are you willing to look at exploring of taking maybe
a smaller snapshot within the umbrella of DHS to look at
performance on perhaps lumping two or three agencies together.
I think your testimony was you had 22 different areas of
responsibility. Is that correct?
Ms. Emerson. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. And so would you be willing to look at maybe
putting those and bundling those together where we can start to
see the worst of the worst under the DHS umbrella, and I think
the GAO can help you on that. Is that correct, Mr. Goldenkoff?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, that is correct.
Ms. Emerson. Well, we have been working very closely
together, and I would like to thank GAO because they've come.
They've helped us with best practices. We worked hand in hand--
in fact, employees----
Mr. Goldenkoff. We made several recommendations to DHS, and
they've been making progress on at least some of the
recommendations.
Ms. Emerson. In fact our leadership, the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary and I myself have been over to GAO to meet
with their leadership. So, we are working very closely
together.
Mr. Meadows. Well, in terms of that benchmark that I asked
you for earlier, perhaps let's break that down so that we can
look at--you know, give you credit for the good stuff you're
doing and maybe focus more emphasis on those other areas
because, as you--you know, over 200,000 employees, it gets very
difficult. You know, it's like turning a ship. It would be very
difficult than what Mr. Ehrlich has to deal with with 40
employees, and so I'm about to go to the gentleman from
Missouri, but, Mr. Ehrlich, I want to ask you, who decided that
you should be the one to testify here today? Because obviously
you were not the one we requested. We requested Mr. Horowitz.
So who decided that?
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, general counsel felt that there should
be a pass from the organization, and I volunteered to be here,
sir.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So were--was that in consultation--so
your counsel. Was that in consultation with the other board
members?
Mr. Ehrlich. I let them know that I was doing it, and they
were welcome to come. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So they were willing to come and
declined to come? So is that what you're saying is, is that you
drew the short straw?
Mr. Ehrlich. No. I volunteered. They chose not to come.
Mr. Meadows. So if we called them----
Mr. Ehrlich. I can't speak to their----
Mr. Meadows. If we called them, they will say that they
were given the opportunity to come and declined. Is that
correct? Is that your testimony?
Mr. Ehrlich. They were given the opportunity to come.
Mr. Meadows. And they declined. Is that your testimony?
Mr. Ehrlich. They're not here, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Is that your testimony?
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ehrlich. And I'm here.
Mr. Meadows. I will recognize the gentleman from Missouri,
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank all the
witnesses for being here today.
Agency leaders can and must use the resources at their
disposal to build inclusive, motivating, and productive work
environments. However, we must recognize that Congress has
repeatedly asked these agencies to do more with less. This is a
problem within itself and no doubt prevents agencies from
operating at their full potential.
Mr. Ferriero, according to a recent NARA staffing report,
NARA's Federal Record Center Holdings have grown from 14.4
million cubic Federal--feet of records in 1985 to 29.5 million
cubic feet in 2013. Despite a doubling in the workload, you
have about half the employees you had in 1985.
Has NARA received sufficient funding to keep pace with the
rapidly increasing volume of documents under it's management?
Mr. Ferriero. The ability for us to do more with less has
reached the--its--we're at the point where we can't do more
with less. We have not--the appropriate level of staffing to do
the job that we need to do.
Mr. Clay. And how has that affected employee morale?
Mr. Ferriero. It certainly contributes to--we have a--we
have a staff who ranks their passion for the job at something
like--98 percent of the staff love what they're doing and feel
that they're doing important work, and the fact that they can't
do the quality of work that they've done in the past really
hurts.
Mr. Clay. And so, Mr. Chairman, this raises a valid point.
When we think about the ratings of these agencies, if we as the
legislature don't give the proper resources to adequately pay
employees, to adequately fund these agencies, who happen to be,
for the most part, domestic agencies, even DHS, then we are
doing a disservice to the agencies also. And I just want to
bring that up, not to debate that issue here. This isn't the
place for it, but it also raises a real issue, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Meadows. I would agree.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Ms. Emerson, DHS was created through a merger of 22
agencies following the 9/11 attacks. Today DHS is tasked with
securing our airports and patrolling our waterways and borders,
among other vital responsibilities, yet my colleagues across
the aisle have made DHS funding the object of political
gamesmanship. What are the inherent challenges or managing a
department tasked with such a diverse array of
responsibilities? What are some of your challenges?
Ms. Emerson. Well, you mentioned one of the big ones, the
budget uncertainty. That is a challenge that our employees had
to deal with just recently, and that, quite honestly, can have
an effect on morale. So anything you all can do to help us in
that area, we'd really appreciate. It wasn't just--you know, it
wasn't the entire government this time going through that. It
was DHS. And that's hard for our employees who work hard every
day to protect this country. As you were pointing out, our
employees do an amazing job.
Mr. Clay. Sure.
Ms. Emerson. They have a lot of work that they deal with
and those jobs are difficult. But they come to work every day
and give 110 percent.
Mr. Clay. Yeah. And hopefully our colleagues are listening
to you all's concern and the points that you raise today.
Mr. Goldenkoff, government-wide Federal employee engagement
has declined 4 percentage points from 2011 to 2014. However,
the majority of Federal agencies have either sustained or
increased employee engagement levels during this time. NASA,
FIDIC, Service Transportation Board and U.S. Trade and
Development Agency all topped at 2014 PPS best places to work
rankings.
Additionally, the Department of Education's engagement
levels increased at an estimated 56 percent.
Based on your research, what are theses agencies doing
right?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, we found several commonalities. One
starts with leadership. That's critical. But in terms of some
specific drivers, we found things like having constructive
performance conversations with your staff. That was very
important. Career development and training. Having effective
work and being very supportive of work/life balance programs.
An inclusive work environment. Showing respect and support for
diversity and inclusiveness. Employee involvement. And then
communication from management.
You know, and I just would like to kind of link this to
something that Ms. Maloney said a little while back is that so
many of these drivers of engagement, they don't cost anything,
or they cost so little. You know, it's being supportive. It's
listening to your people, valuing what they have to say. It's
not everything. There are--you know, there's more to be been
done. But at lease it's such a very good starting point.
One of the things that, you know, I'm reminded of at GAO,
when we came back to work after the shutdown, the head of our
agency, Mr. Dodaro, he was out in front of the building
welcoming people back. People are still talking about that to
this day. So it's--sometimes it's very little things like that.
It many cases it's things that we learned in kindergarten that
we just sometimes forget about them in just the busyness of
day-to-day operations, fighting the fires that we all have to
face every day. We sometimes forget those little personal
touches that can go a long way. Just saying thank you in a
very--don't send it out in an email. Show up in someone's
office and say, you know, you did a great job with----
Mr. Clay. Thank you, and my time is up, but apparently
respect goes a long way, so appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
I recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney, for
a closing statement.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I want to thank the chairman for
calling this hearing. Quite frankly, at first I thought it was
ridiculous. I mean, what do you mean the first--worst agencies.
But coming to it, I think it's really very important, and I
think it's extremely important that there is a big disconnect
in the--that many of you are testifying that everybody's happy
and they're all giving 100 percent, but when they're filling
out their forms, they're telling a very different story, and I
think that we have a lot of work to do because we really set
the leadership for the country.
Many people look to the Federal Government for leadership.
And I think that the GAO is a wonderful resource. And in your
testimony, he identified six factors that correlated with
higher employee engagement levels, and I'm going to read them
to you, and I would like to ask all of you to go back to your
agencies, and in the next month try to implement them, and
write us back on what happened. Or maybe the chairman will call
you back in a month or two on that you took these five--six
recommendations and put them to work.
I would add a seventh one, and that would be to look to
promote from within so that people know they have a career
path, that they have a future at these wonderful agencies, that
they--that they're going to have a--be looked at on their
merits and if they understand their material and produce a good
work product that they have a shot of heading this agency. I
would get that message out.
And they're very simple. It says, ``Having constructive
performance conversations. Career development and training.
Work/family balance. Inclusive work environment. Employee
involvement and communication from management.'' And I would
say if you took those guidelines, that they put a lot of
research in putting together and implemented it for a month or
two, I think you'd see some differences, and I'd like to hear
the response if you get back to the chairman. Try it for a
month. Try it for two months. And see what the difference is.
And I want to say to Homeland Security, to Ms. Emerson, I
helped write the legislation that created the Department of
Homeland Security. It grew out of the biggest disaster in the
history of our country. Three thousand people were killed
because they were Americans. Woke up and went to work one day,
and thousands and thousands more are dying and sick because of
their exposure to the deadly toxins at the work site.
But out of that I think came the best work I've ever seen
in Congress. A commission was set up that was Republican and
Democrat, headed by two outstanding people, former Governor
Kean from New Jersey, a former member of Congress Hamilton, and
they made an agreement they would not do anything unless they
involved their counterpart. They issued a report called the 9/
11 Commission Report that sold more copies than Harry Potter.
Literally. Sold more copies than Harry Potter. Most read
document in the history of our country.
I nominated them for the National Book Award. They didn't
win. They should have, though. And it gave an outline of what
was wrong. And the first outline was we were way behind in our
intelligence in homeland security. We had 22 different
agencies, and we took that recommendation and created the
Department of Homeland Security. You're the most important
department in our entire government. If we can't protect our
President, our workers, our people, then we can't do anything.
Your department's the most important department in the entire
government. And you took 22 different agencies that weren't
talking to each other on intelligence and other areas and are
forcing them to talk, share information, and protect this
country, and bottom line, you're doing a great job. We haven't
been attacked again. But people are trying.
In the great State of New York, they've tried 14 different
times, but because of the work of your agency and the locals,
we prevented it. We prevented it. We are preventing the attacks
on our great country.
And I mean what I said. I'd like you to take your workers
down to 9/11. When they see what happened that day and hear the
stories of the families of the people that were killed, and
hear the stories of the SEALS and Governor Kean and Hamilton
and others that worked to put these pieces back together again,
and to make our country even stronger, they should have the
best morale in the whole--whole government.
So I think the chairman is telling me he's serious about
this. He's going to be reading these reviews, and he wants to
see some changes, but I think we have a responsibility in
Congress because the way we treat people nominated for
positions and people that are working in government, I think is
tremendously disgraceful.
And I want to mention a gentleman I called in my office,
Anthony Weis. He was recommended for a department--a job in
Treasury. I never met him. I don't know him. But he was
vilified. He was vilified that somehow he caused the 2008
economic meltdown on Wall Street. He was basically in research
and analysis and advice. He wasn't trading. He wasn't part of
any mistakes that were made, but they said because he was from
a firm--this firm wasn't even involved in Wall Street or the
trades or that, but he was in a firm, in this case, doing reach
and advice. He wasn't fit to serve.
And every now and then I think we're a strong country
because we have a strong private sector. We have a public
sector, and if we vilify people who understand how they can
volunteer and help the public sector, we're making a big
mistake in this country.
You know, he told me there were demonstrations in front of
his house, petitions against him. His children are saying: Why
are they saying you're a horrible person that caused the
financial crisis and you can't serve your government? You know,
it might be good to have somebody who understands finance to
serve in finance.
I use that as one example. We could also talk about Loretta
Lynch, a distinguished, accomplished leader in the Justice
Department her entire life. Her appointment being held up. No
one says anything bad about her, but her appointment's held up.
But often people are vilified if they want to serve in
government. If we continue that, no one is going to want to
serve. It's absolutely wrong. And I think it's very unfair how
we vilify Federal employees oftentimes. There's a problem, it's
the Federal employees fault, and instead of trying to work
together to find the solutions.
Mrs. Maloney. I think you're great. We need to improve. But
you have a great job to do. And I think you ought to go back to
your agencies, turn this around and help us move forward in a
positive way. Because we have the greatest country and we don't
have the greatest country without the greatest workforce. And
you're part of it.
I think part of the problem, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly,
is that we in Congress and the public and other people vilify
public servants, and they don't deserve it.
Mr. Meadows. Well, today is the start of trying to get at
the root of that problem, Ms. Maloney. And that's why I felt
like it was important that we held this hearing.
I will say to each one of you I am a tenacious and
unforgetting individual. I make notes and I remember things--
well, I reread my notes.I don't remember. And I can forget the
trash if my wife asks me to take it out.
But I will say this, that I do want you to report back. I
do want to see progress. I do want us to not make this a
hearing that goes away. Each and every year we will have this.
I'm hopeful that the three of you won't be on this list next
year and it will be somebody else that we bring in.
But, in the meantime, we will be checking with you.We will
be asking--the committee will be asking you for additional
information to provide. I thank each of you for your testimony.
But I would be remiss in not thanking the committee staff
on both sides, but the committee staff that works so incredibly
hard. You know, this goes off like clockwork not because of my
preparation, but because of theirs. And so I want to thank
them.
And for those that are streaming and that are watching here
today, thank you for your service. Thank you truly for being
willing to be public servants.
And if there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]