[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-652 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
TJ COX, CA, Chair
LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Ranking Republican Member
Debbie Dingell, MI Paul A. Gosar, AZ
A. Donald McEachin, VA Mike Johnson, LA
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, October 30, 2019...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cox, Hon. TJ, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, prepared statement of.......................... 33
Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 1
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Combs, Susan, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and
Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.... 8
Prepared Statement of.................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record....................... 11
Feldblum, Chai, Partner and Director of Workplace Culture
Consulting, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC.... 13
Prepared Statement of.................................... 15
Questions submitted for the record....................... 18
Greenblatt, Mark, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector
General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC... 5
Prepared Statement of.................................... 6
Questions submitted for the record....................... 8
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
----------
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. TJ Cox
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cox, Dingell, San Nicolas, and
Gohmert.
Mrs. Dingell [presiding]. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations will now come to order.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is meeting
today to hear testimony on Sexual Harassment at the Department
of the Interior.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mrs. Dingell. The Department of the Interior has a sexual
harassment problem, and the problem isn't new. For decades
women and men in our national parks, refuges, and other public
lands and offices have not been given the protections they need
to do their work free from harm. As we sit here, mere weeks
after the second anniversary of #MeToo, addressing this problem
is more critical than ever.
In 2016, the Inspector General released a report that
documented approximately 15 years of systemic sexual harassment
and misconduct in the Grand Canyon National Park. After that
report was released, it was clear that this issue could no
longer fall to the wayside. Interior needed to take major
action.
The Obama administration sent an anonymous survey out to
all of its approximately 70,000 employees, an unprecedented
effort in the Federal Government. And I do want to point out
that this is 15 years. It is Republican and Democratic
administrations.
The survey was designed to get an idea of whether this was
a problem limited to Grand Canyon and the Park Service, or
whether it was more widespread.
The findings were alarming: over one-third of all Interior
employees had been harassed in some way in the past year, and
nearly 1 out of every 10 had been sexually harassed, including
both men and women.
These numbers are shocking on their own, but the survey dug
even deeper. It found that three-quarters of employees who had
been harassed chose not to file a complaint or report. They
gave several reasons, but one of the top reasons was that they
didn't think anything would be done about it. And this is
simply unacceptable.
Both men and women deserve a workplace in which they feel
safe, both physically and psychologically, and in which they
believe something will be done if they are put in harm's way.
Fortunately, this Administration has taken action, for
which you deserve credit. Since the survey was released,
Interior has revamped its policy, instituted new training, and
required each bureau to draft a regularly updated action plan,
among other efforts. And these were all steps in the right
direction.
But this summer, the Inspector General released a report
which highlights ways in which Interior can further strengthen
those efforts. We look forward to hearing more about those
needed changes, and how Interior will dedicate the resources
necessary to make those changes.
But we also need to have a frank conversation today. While
the right policies, procedures, and training are obviously
important, they are only one piece of the puzzle. As we have
heard from experts over and over again, addressing sexual
harassment begins, first and foremost, with effective
leadership.
Leadership must not only say they are committed; they must
show that they are. They need to cultivate a culture that
promotes diversity and inclusivity across all levels of the
workplace, but especially in top leadership and management.
They need to engage those who have been affected by harassment
in helping to craft the organization's solutions to the
problem.
And perhaps most importantly, leadership needs to earn the
trust of its workforce. Employees need to believe that their
leaders will support them, stand up for them, and hold
wrongdoers accountable. And, unfortunately, I fear that is not
the case at Interior.
This Administration has been marked by secrecy and
distrust. We have seen time and time again, both in the press
and in the testimony before this Committee, accounts of
employees being manipulated, intimidated, and ignored.
And I am going to say, as a woman herself, who was harassed
during her 30-year career at a large institution, because I
didn't think leadership did care or would step up, I thought I
would pay a price if I opened my mouth, and that is what we are
trying to change across the country. And Interior has that
responsibility.
Most recently, the Bureau of Land Management abruptly
announced it was moving its headquarters out West. Reports of a
closed-door meeting with affected employees shows that not one
of the employees supported this move. One employee even said,
``morale is as low as I have ever seen.''
At a Full Committee hearing this summer, a whistleblower
from Interior testified that this Administration has,
``sidelined scientists and experts, flattened the morale of
career staff, and, by all accounts, is bent on hollowing out
the agency.''
A mass reassignment of senior employees in 2017 created a
culture of fear for stepping out of line.
None of this sounds like leadership that is committed to
earning the trust of its workforce. And if workers do not trust
their leaders, how do they feel that they are valued?
How can we expect them to trust that their leaders will
protect them in their most vulnerable moments?
Making public statements is easy, but making real change in
addressing an issue is challenging. Such a difficult issue is
sexual harassment. It takes trust, engagement, and real
leadership. We hope Interior's leadership will take that
message to heart today.
With that, I now recognize my dear colleague, Ranking
Member Gohmert, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. And I thank my dear friend, Chair Dingell. I
thank the witnesses for being here today.
This is, obviously, a very important topic, and it
certainly is to you, or you wouldn't have taken the steps that
you did, and you wouldn't be here today. So, thank you for
that.
I know we all agree everyone deserves a place they can work
that is harassment free. Sexual harassment shouldn't be
tolerated. And we all want the Department of the Interior best
equipped to address allegations and address any misconduct.
For decades, workplace harassment at the Department was
permitted to fester far too long. In the past, when harassment
was reported, investigations into those allegations were
mismanaged and poorly addressed. And, as my friend, the Chair,
has indicated, this has gone across Republican and Democratic
administrations without being properly addressed.
I am encouraged that under the Trump administration, the
Department has finally taken concrete steps to implement
changes to address these long-standing issues. Their efforts
are making a positive difference for our Federal employees.
To begin, the Department implemented its first
comprehensive policy on how to prevent and eliminate harassing
conduct. This policy was developed to meet the criteria to be a
model anti-harassment program laid out by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
In addition to implementing new policies, each of the
Department's bureaus developed action plans on how to ensure a
harassment-free workplace. Each of these plans is uniquely
tailored to the needs of the individual bureau.
But the Department did not just update its policies. Under
Secretary David Bernhardt and Assistant Secretary Susan Combs'
leadership, the Department took action to ensure employees
understand the new policies, and know how to report workplace
harassment if they experience it or witness it.
And as the Chair mentioned, it is not enough to have those
policies. All employees must feel that they can report real
harassment, and something will be done, it won't just subject
them to further harassment.
So, anyway, individuals are finally being held accountable
for their inappropriate behavior. In December 2017, the
Department, under the Trump administration, announced the
termination of four senior department officials due to
workplace misconduct, including harassment. The following year
more than 1,500 employees were fired, suspended, or reprimanded
for harassment or misconduct.
What we have now is a Department where you can believe it
when they say harassment is not tolerated. Every employee
deserves to work in an environment that is harassment free, and
the Department has shown a steadfast commitment now to
continuing to address this issue that plagued it for so long in
the past.
I am especially glad we are joined today by Assistant
Secretary Susan Combs, a Texan, and also a friend, who did a
great job while she was working in the state government, and
who is now leading the efforts to combat harassment and
transform workplace cultures across the Department. I look
forward to hearing more about her plans to utilize the newly
established Workplace Culture Transformation Advisory Council
to achieve these goals.
I know Assistant Secretary Combs, and I know that she is
eminently qualified to lead these efforts. Her guidance is an
invaluable asset to the Department. The changes that have
already occurred under Secretary Combs' leadership are having a
real impact.
We can see the positive results of the Department's work.
After the Department's policy changes, the percentage of
employees who have experienced some form of inappropriate
behavior in the previous year dropped from 35 percent in 2017
to 18 percent in 2019. That is, obviously, still too high, but
at least it is moving in the right direction.
Work remains to be done, but we are pleased with the work
that you have done, we are pleased you are here, and we are
pleased the Department's commitment to a harassment-free
workplace has already resulted in improvements, and future
efforts will continue.
We look forward to hearing what you have to say here today.
Thank you.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, my friend. I don't see Mr. Bishop,
so I am going to introduce our witnesses.
Mr. Mark Greenblatt is the Inspector General in the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and has been doing good work on
this.
Ms. Susan Combs is the Senior Advisor exercising the
authority of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management,
and Budget at the U.S. Department of the Interior and, as we
have learned, is from Texas.
And Ms. Chai Feldblum is the Partner and Director of
Workplace Culture Consulting at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Under our Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5
minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing
record.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left, and then red when time has expired.
After the witnesses have testified, Members will be given
the opportunity to ask you questions.
With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Mark Greenblatt.
STATEMENT OF MARK GREENBLATT, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Greenblatt. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member
and Committee members for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
I stated throughout my confirmation process that helping to
eradicate the Department's ongoing sexual harassment problem
would be a priority for me as Inspector General. So, it is
fitting that my first testimony as the IG is about this
important challenge, and the role the IG can play in improving
the culture at the Department.
The IG's Office has taken a leadership role in identifying
these problems over the last 4 years. In 2016, the OIG
published a watershed investigative report about widespread
sexual harassment at the Grand Canyon. The investigation
revealed that Park Service personnel had engaged in a long-term
pattern of sexual harassment, and fostered a hostile work
environment. In all, we identified 35 individuals who endured
or witnessed mistreatment.
The report also highlighted a disturbing absence of strong
leadership, which allowed the harassment to continue unchecked
for 15 years.
The Grand Canyon report was a wake-up call, and that
investigation led to others. The IG's Office has opened 22
sexual harassment investigations since that case in 2016. We
have uncovered sexual misconduct in parks as large as
Yellowstone and as small as Canaveral National Seashore, in a
remote BIA office and at the DOI headquarters, in locations
stretching across the country, from Georgia to California, and
involving behavior ranging from disturbing, inappropriate
touching, to outright criminal sexual assault.
The Department, to its credit, has taken disciplinary
action against 35 subjects as a result of OIG investigations
and agency referrals.
The Department also took steps to change the culture. Just
months after we published our Grand Canyon investigation,
Secretary Jewell created the Employment and Labor Law Unit, and
released a new workplace conduct policy. DOI later conducted a
comprehensive work environment study, and Secretaries Zinke and
Bernhardt took a number of actions to further address the
problem, including issuing an anti-harassment policy.
We have recently released our evaluation of the DOI's
efforts to address sexual harassment. We found that the DOI has
taken meaningful steps to address sexual harassment by
investigating complaints, issuing policies, requiring training,
conducting surveys, establishing an advisory hotline, and
developing a tracking system.
We also found, however, that there is more work to be done.
With that in mind, we made 11 recommendations in this
evaluation; the Department has resolved and implemented 3 of
them, and has implementation plans for the remaining 8.
We are encouraged by their response. These improvements
should foster a safer working environment for all DOI
employees.
As the Department continues its anti-harassment efforts,
the OIG staff and I will remain committed to this issue. We
currently have eight active cases.
In fact, just last night, one of my special agents called
from an Oregon courthouse, reporting that a Fish and Wildlife
supervisor had pled guilty to five counts, including sex abuse,
harassment, and felony coercion. Due to our investigation, that
offender is now in jail. And when he is released on probation,
he will be a registered sex offender, banned from any contact
with the victim.
In addition to our ongoing investigative work, next month
we will release the Top Management Challenges Report, which
will include a section on workplace, culture, and human capital
that highlights how the negative effects of harassment are
widespread and sap productivity and trust out of an
organization.
The OIG is exploring additional ways to add value in the
future, and we are considering new inspections and evaluations
as we create our 2020 audit plan.
In closing, I commit to you that the OIG, under my watch,
will continue to aid the Department in its efforts to foster a
safe work environment, free of sexual harassment and assault.
And to all the survivors and witnesses listening today,
please come forward, either to the OIG hotline or to the
departmental avenues available to you. Our investigators take
this work to heart, and understand that this is a very personal
issue.
In fact, the supervisor of a survivor recently wrote to us,
``I cannot say enough positive things about the OIG agents or
the way they interacted with both myself and the supervisor.
Their professionalism, tact, and responsiveness were eclipsed
only by the gentle compassion and care with which they
interacted with the survivor.'' We strive to have that impact
on every case.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenblatt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Lee Greenblatt, Inspector General,
Department of the Interior
Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Gohmert, and Committee members, thank
you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I stated
throughout my confirmation process that helping to eradicate the
Department of the Interior's ongoing sexual harassment problem would be
a priority for me. Therefore, it is fitting that my first testimony as
Inspector General is about this important challenge, and the role the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) can play in improving the culture at
the Department of the Interior.
The OIG has taken a leadership role in identifying these problems
over the last 4 years. In 2016, the OIG published an investigative
report about widespread sexual misconduct at the Grand Canyon. That
investigation sounded the alarm: there was a deep problem here. The
investigation revealed that Park Service personnel had engaged in a
long-term pattern of sexual harassment and fostered a hostile work
environment in the Grand Canyon River District. In all, we identified
almost three dozen individuals who endured or observed mistreatment
ranging from verbal harassment to sexual assault at the Grand Canyon.
Our investigation also highlighted a disturbing absence of strong
leadership, which allowed the harassment to continue unchecked for 15
years.
The Grand Canyon investigation led to others. In total, the OIG has
opened 22 sexual harassment investigations since 2016. We have
uncovered sexual misconduct in parks as large as Yellowstone, and as
small as Canaveral National Seashore; in a remote Bureau of Indian
Affairs office and at the DOI headquarters; in locations stretching
across the country from Georgia to Oregon; and involving behavior
ranging from disturbing, inappropriate touching to outright sexual
assault.
The Department--to its credit--has taken disciplinary action
against 35 subjects as a result of OIG investigations and agency
referrals. Sixteen of those 35 employees are no longer in Government
service because they were removed, they resigned, or they retired while
under investigation. The Department also took steps to change the
culture. Just months after we published our Grand Canyon investigation,
Secretary Jewell created an Employment and Labor Law Unit and released
a new anti-harassment policy. DOI later conducted a Work Environment
Survey, and Secretary Bernhardt released a 2017 supplemental policy
establishing DOI training requirements.
As part of the OIG's ongoing mission to monitor the Department's
progress, we recently released our evaluation of the DOI's efforts to
address sexual harassment. We found that the DOI has taken meaningful
steps to address sexual harassment by investigating complaints, issuing
policies, requiring training, conducting surveys, establishing an
advisory hotline, as well as developing a tracking system. All these
measures aim to provide a safe work environment, encourage victims to
report incidents, and improve management's preparation to address and
investigate allegations brought to their attention.
We also found, however, there is more work to do. As we state in
our evaluation, the DOI has an opportunity to improve sexual harassment
investigations that it conducts or contracts:
1. Reports of investigation from the Department's investigators or
their contractors do not always contain the necessary
information for decision makers and advisors to make
comprehensive decisions about potential corrective action.
As a result, no action is taken, victims never see the
resolution they deserve, and those who should be held
accountable continue on without repercussions.
2. The DOI and its bureaus are not consistently tracking the
timeliness of investigations.
3. Investigation costs may prevent employees from reporting an
incident. The cost impact of an unforeseen, unbudgeted
investigation on smaller offices can impact their ability
to fund other activities such as training, travel, and
awards.
We made 11 recommendations in this evaluation, the Department has
resolved and implemented 3 of them, and has implementation plans for
the remaining 8.\1\ By making these improvements, the DOI could foster
a safer working environment that seeks to reduce incidents of sexual
harassment and improperly handled sexual harassment complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the 11 recommendations, we believe that the DOI
should consider (1) including strategies to specifically address the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's organizational risk
factors in bureau action plans; and (2) formalizing the sharing of
information about prior or pending allegations between bureaus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Department continues its anti-harassment efforts, the OIG
will remain committed to this issue. We currently have eight active
cases and we will report on those upon completion. In addition, next
month we will release our Top Management Challenges report, which will
include a ``Workplace Culture and Human Capital'' section that
highlights how the negative effects of harassment are widespread and
sap productivity and trust out of an organization.
The OIG is exploring additional ways to add value in the future.
For instance, the OIG is considering:
Verifying whether the Department completed and tracked the
mandatory training of supervisors--especially in its remote
locations.
Conducting bureau-level inspections or evaluations to
identify whether and to what extent bureaus have
implemented their formal action plans to address and
prevent sexual harassment. This could include focusing on
specific offices/locations that are at risk under EEOC-
identified risk factors for harassment.
Reviewing the misconduct tracking system (I-MART) to
determine its effectiveness regarding what data is
collected, its reporting features, the quality of the data,
and whether it is consistently being used (as required).
Tracking the continued expansion of the Employment and
Labor Law Unit and its dedicated specialists.
I commit to you that the OIG, under my watch, will continue to aid
the Department in its efforts to foster a safe work environment free of
sexual harassment and assault. And to all survivors and witnesses who
may be listening today, please come forward through the OIG hotline or
the departmental avenues available to you. OIG investigators take this
work to heart and understand that this is a very personal issue. In
fact, the supervisor of a survivor in one of our cases wrote:
I cannot say enough positive things about [OIG agents] or the
way they interacted with both myself and [the survivor]. Their
professionalism, tact, and responsiveness were eclipsed only by
the gentle compassion and care with which they interacted with
[the survivor].
We strive to have that impact on every case.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mark Greenblatt, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Rep Cox
Question 1. Of the 12 organizational risk factors laid out in the
Task Force report, which are most apparent--and most urgently in need
of redress--at DOI?
Answer. The scope of our evaluation's fieldwork did not include a
DOI-wide assessment of the 12 organizational risk factors. Past
investigative findings and anecdotal evidence collected during our
evaluation's fieldwork, however, suggest that the following
organizational risk factors, as defined in the EEOC report, have
contributed to cases of sexual harassment:
Geographically isolated workplaces
Decentralized workplaces
Workplaces with significant power disparities,
specifically, gendered power disparities
Workplaces where some employees do not conform to
workplace norms
Workplaces that tolerate or encourage alcohol consumption
______
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt. I am going to call
on Ms. Combs next.
But I am going to apologize that you have been confirmed as
Assistant Secretary. I just kind of got put in the chair here,
so congratulations. And you are up next.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN COMBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,
MANAGEMENT, AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Combs. Thank you, Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member
Gohmert. Good morning, and thank you for holding this hearing
on this important topic, and inviting me to update you on the
progress that the Department has made and continues to make on
the issue of sexual harassment.
The Department is committed to preventing and eliminating
all forms of harassing conduct, and to transforming our
workplace culture so our employees feel safe, respected, and
valued.
In early 2017, the Department administered a work
environment survey to all employees completed in March. The
survey was the first of its scope done across the Department,
and its goal was to assess workplace conditions that Interior
employees experience, including the prevalence and context of
all forms of harassment.
The results of that survey were sobering. Of those
employees who responded to the survey, 35 percent reported
experiencing some form of harassment and/or assault-related
behaviors in the 12 months preceding the survey.
Several facts stood out. Over 20 percent of employees
reported experiencing harassment based on their age; 6.5
percent of employees reported experiencing gender-based
harassment; another 8 percent reported experiencing sexual
harassment.
What was especially troubling was that 60.2 percent of
employees who reported that they had suffered from harassment
indicated that these events occurred more than once, and
oftentimes the victim had to continue working with the
harassing individual.
Furthermore, many stated that they felt making a complaint
did not produce any real result. Either no action was taken, or
they were encouraged to drop the issue.
The Secretary and the Department leadership took these
results very seriously, and instituted a number of actions
immediately.
The first was the Secretary's anti-harassment policy
statement. Then-Deputy Secretary Bernhardt directed bureau
heads to develop formal action plans to address their bureau's
survey results, which required quarterly reports. That same
month the Department issued its first comprehensive policy on
the prevention and elimination of harassing conduct to provide
a work environment free from harassing conduct, and to hold
employees accountable at the earliest possible stage.
In February 2019, we created the Workplace Culture
Transformation Advisory Council, and it is charged with
identifying specific Department-wide programming.
In April 2019, the Department launched an enhanced agency-
wide misconduct case tracking system, which allows Interior to
identify trends, and to ensure that managers take action when
harassing conduct has occurred.
In May 2019, six Department-specific harassment-related
questions were included for the first time in the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey, FEVS. I am pleased to report that
the recent FEVS results for 2019 showed that we are
unquestionably making progress. For example, the percentage of
Interior employees who reported experiencing some form of
harassing conduct within the preceding 12 months was reduced
from 35 percent in 2017, as reported in the Work Environment
Survey, to 18 percent in 2019.
In addition, the number of employees who know where to
report harassing conduct increased from 62.3 percent to 94
percent in 2019. Moreover, more than 80 percent of supervisors
and managers believe they have the tools needed to promptly
address allegations of harassing conduct, and to discipline
individuals who engage in it.
While this is all impressive, the July 2019 OIG evaluation
report of the Department's efforts to address sexual harassment
highlights that there is still work to be done.
Let me first acknowledge and compliment the extensive work
that the OIG undertook in this evaluation.
In its evaluation, the OIG identified three areas for DOI
to focus its efforts: improve sexual harassment investigations
in terms of quality, cost, and timeliness; use a misconduct
tracking system to monitor trends and track costs; and better
coordinate anti-harassment training. Within these areas the OIG
made 11 recommendations, and by the date of the final report,
they had already resolved 3 of those.
The Department has developed an action plan for the
completion of the remaining recommendations. For example, we
are now 8 months in advance on scheduling training in response
to recommendation No. 5 regarding investigations. We have
already launched new data fields in our misconduct tracking
system that will provide greater transparency.
In November, next week, we will start delivering more than
70 sessions of bystander intervention, inter-generational
training in strategic locations across the country. They will
be 4 hours in duration, and be presented to in-person
audiences.
We continue to communicate with and train leaders at every
level, committed to preventing and eliminating harassing
conduct. This afternoon, in fact, I will be leaving here and
going to address about 1,000 employees at the U.S. Geological
Survey on actions to improve and transform the workplace
culture.
As an agency, we have made significant progress, but there
is more to be done, and we look forward to continuing our
positive progress.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Combs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Combs, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Gohmert, good morning, and thank you
for holding this hearing on this important topic and inviting me to
update you on the progress that the Department has made and continues
to make on the issue of sexual harassment. The Department is committed
to preventing and eliminating all forms of harassing conduct and to
transforming our workplace culture so our employees feel safe,
respected, and valued.
In early 2017, the Department administered a Work Environment
Survey to all employees, completed in March. The survey was the first
of its scope done across the Department and its goal was to assess
workplace conditions that Interior employees experience, including the
prevalence and context of all forms of harassment. The results of that
survey were sobering. Of those employees who responded to the survey,
35 percent reported experiencing some form of harassment and/or assault
related behaviors in the 12 months preceding the survey. Several facts
stood out: over 20 percent of employees reported experiencing
harassment based on their age; 16.5 percent of employees reported
experiencing gender-based harassment; and another 8 percent reported
experiencing sexual harassment. What was especially troubling was that
60.2 percent of employees who reported that they had suffered from
harassment indicated that these events occurred more than once, and
oftentimes the victim had to continue working with the harassing
individual. Furthermore, many stated that they felt that making a
complaint did not produce any real result--either no action was taken,
or they were encouraged to drop the issue. The Secretary and the
Department leadership team took these results very seriously and
instituted a number of actions immediately. The first was the
Secretary's Anti-Harassment Policy Statement.
Then Deputy Secretary Bernhardt directed Bureau Heads to develop
formal action plans to address their bureau survey results, with
required quarterly reports. That same month, the Department issued its
first comprehensive policy on the Prevention and Elimination of
Harassing Conduct to provide a work environment free from harassing
conduct and to hold employees accountable at the earliest possible
stage.
In February 2019, we created the Workplace Culture Transformation
Advisory Council, and it is charged with identifying specific
Department-wide programming.
In April 2019, the Department launched an enhanced agency-wide
misconduct case tracking system which allows Interior to identify
trends and to ensure that managers take action when harassing conduct
has occurred.
In May 2019, six Department-specific harassment-related questions
were included for the first time in the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS). I am pleased to report that the recent FEVS results for
2019 show that we are unquestionably making progress. For example, the
percentage of Interior employees who reported experiencing some form of
harassing conduct within the preceding 12 months was reduced from 35
percent in 2017 (as reported in the Work Environment Survey) to 18
percent in 2019. In addition, the number of employees who know where to
report harassing conduct increased from 62.3 percent in 2017 to 94
percent in 2019. Moreover, more than 80 percent of supervisors and
managers believe they have the tools needed to promptly address
allegations of harassing conduct and to discipline individuals who
engage in misconduct.
While this is all impressive, the July 2019 OIG Evaluation Report
of the Department's efforts to address sexual harassment highlights
that there is still work to be done. Let me first acknowledge and
compliment the extensive work that the OIG undertook in this
evaluation. In its evaluation, the OIG identified three areas for DOI
to focus its efforts: improve sexual harassment investigations in terms
of quality, cost, and timeliness; use misconduct tracking system to
monitor trends and track costs; and better coordinate anti-harassment
training. Within these areas, the OIG made 11 recommendations; and by
the date of publication of the final report, the Department had already
resolved and fully implemented three of those recommendations. The
Department has developed an action plan for the completion of the
remaining recommendations in advance of the original timeline given.
For example, we are implementing Recommendation #11 regarding the
coordination of anti-harassment training opportunities 8 months ahead
of schedule. In response to Recommendation #5 regarding investigations
of sexual harassment claims, we have already launched new data fields
in our misconduct tracking system that will provide greater
transparency regarding the timeliness of investigations which permit
Bureaus to remedy any investigative delays.
In December, we will start delivering more than 70 sessions of
bystander intervention and intergenerational training in strategic
locations across the country. Each session will be 4 hours in duration
and be presented to in-person audiences. We continue to communicate
with and train leaders and employees everywhere and at every level of
the organization about the Department's commitment to preventing and
eliminating harassing conduct and cultivating work environments that
are respectful, collaborative, fair, and honest. As recently as August
2019, we delivered a briefing to senior leaders within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Following today's hearing, I
will be taking part in a town hall meeting in Reston, VA with
approximately 1,000 employees from the U.S. Geological Survey on DOI
actions to improve and transform the workplace culture.
Secretary Bernhardt and the Department of the Interior are fully
committed to building upon the critical activities accomplished in the
last 2 years to fundamentally transform the way that employees interact
with each other in the Department. As an agency, we have made
significant progress in acknowledging and understanding and eliminating
harassing conduct, holding employees and their managers accountable,
and setting clear, enforceable standards of behavior.
Our efforts are both widespread and determined to change the
culture here at the Department. There is more to be done, and we look
forward to continuing our positive progress. Thank you and I am happy
to answer any questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Susan Combs, Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Rep. Cox
Question 1. Of the 12 organizational risk factors laid out in the
Task Force report, which are most apparent--and most urgently in need
of redress--at DOI?
Answer. As a large organization, the Department faces many of the
challenges and confronts many of the risk factors that were discussed
at the hearing and in the Task Force report, including decentralized
workplaces; significant grade differences within units; and, due to the
widespread locations of our offices, cultural and language differences
in the workplace. At the Department we are addressing the cultural
problem from the bottom up and the top down, through civil training for
our employees; creating and improving avenues for communication; and
increasing diversity in the workforce.
Question 2. The final report of the Workplace Environment Survey
was dated September 29, 2017. The NPS results were released on October
13. But the rest of the DOI results came out 2 months later, on
December 14, in the media shadow of the upcoming holiday season. Why
were they released separately and why was there a 2-month delay?
Answer. After several damning Office of the Inspector General
reports that confirmed the prevalence of sexual harassment at the Grand
Canyon National Park and other National Park Service worksites, the
Department of the Interior made it a priority to analyze and release
the National Park Service Work Environment Survey (WES) results prior
to the release of the Department-wide results. Thereafter, the
Department-wide WES results were analyzed and posted December 14, 2017
on a new external website that included resources on harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation and bureau leaders were tasked with
developing formal action plans within 45 days to specify the actions
they plan to take to address their organizational WES results, the
schedule for accomplishing those actions, and a description of how they
will assess the success of those actions.
Question 3. How does a pervasive sexual harassment problem affect
DOI's ability to achieve its mission?
Answer. The Department is committed to preventing and eliminating
all forms of harassing conduct and to transforming our workplace
culture so our employees feel safe, respected, and valued. The EEOC
Task Force report generally discussed the costs of such harassment--
direct and indirect--on the workforce, including costs associated with
investigations, legal engagement, and potential damage awards, as well
as less direct costs, such as reduced employee morale and productivity.
Departmental employees have sent a clear message that respect,
teamwork, honesty, and fairness are values that they expect to
experience in their workplace. We have made significant progress in
acknowledging, understanding, and eliminating harassing conduct,
holding employees and their managers accountable, and setting clear,
enforceable standards of behavior, though we recognize there is more to
be done.
Question 4. Many experts suggest organizations should
``democratize'' efforts to address harassment. In other words,
employees from all levels of the workplace should have input in
crafting ways to address harassment. This should also include victims
and survivors, if they so choose. Have there been efforts to engage
field-level employees in anti-harassment efforts? Have there been
efforts to engage victims in anti-harassment efforts? For example, are
field level employees being included on the Workforce Culture
Transformation Advisory Council?
Answer. Every bureau and many offices within the Office of the
Secretary have a career, field-level, anti-harassment point of contact
who attends monthly meetings to learn about progress the Department is
making and share best practices at the field level. These employees
also transmit information from these meetings to employees in their
bureaus. Employees, including victims of harassment, also have the
opportunity to become involved in various ways to improve the workplace
culture, such as joining an employee resource group, becoming an
employee Ambassador, or a diversity change agent. In recognition that
employees may not want to be or feel singled out, or that they might
fear retaliation or retribution, we do not specifically target victims
to join different groups. In addition to the various methods for
engagement, DOI has multiple resources available for employees who have
experienced harassment such as the Employee Assistance Program, the
Victim Assistance Program, and a cadre of dedicated ombuds
professionals for each of the bureaus. While the Workplace Culture
Transformation Advisory Council comprises the highest level of bureau
and Departmental leadership so that it can direct policies and allocate
resources, many field level employees opt to join one of the
Department's many Employee Resource Groups where they can network and
collaborate with like-minded employees who share similar backgrounds or
interests. We have also launched an extensive Bystander training
program so that field level employees feel empowered to intervene when
they witness inappropriate behavior.
Questions Submitted by Rep. McEachin
Question 1. Please provide the following:
1a. Current roster of the Workforce Culture Transformation Advisory
Council.
1b. Website for the Workforce Culture Transformation Advisory
Council.
1c. The wording of the six questions about harassment that were
included in the 2019 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
1d. The results for the six questions about harassment that were
included in the 2019 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
1e. The wording of the four-question survey to which you referred
during the hearing that was administered to all DOI
employees in April 2019.
1f. The results of the four-question survey to which you referred
during the hearing that was administered to all DOI
employees in April 2019.
Answer. The Advisory Council was created in February 2019 and is
chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget.
It comprises the Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Secretaries,
and bureau directors (question a). More specific information about the
Council and its activities can be found at the Advisory Council's
website (question b): https://edit.doi.gov/employees/
culturetransformation/advisory-council.
The requested information (questions c-f) about the employee
surveys can be found here: https://edit.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
uploads/wpctac-index-handouts-19august-complete.pdf.
Question 2. During the hearing, Ms. Chai Feldblum acknowledged that
while the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is a good way to annually
survey employees about harassment, re-administering the Workplace
Environment Survey and conducting focus groups and/or interviews would
be ideal. She also strongly cautioned against comparing the results
from the two different surveys and said that you must conduct the
Workplace Environment Survey again to truly measure progress since
2017. Will you commit to conducting the Workplace Environment Survey
again this fiscal year?
Answer. The Department must balance a number of factors as we work
to provide an environment free of discrimination and harassment. As I
said in my statement for this hearing, the Department has had a good
response rate to the Federal Viewpoint Survey, but we also recognize
that there is much more to be done. We look forward to continuing this
positive progress in the future.
______
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you very much.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Feldblum.
STATEMENT OF CHAI FELDBLUM, PARTNER AND DIRECTOR OF WORKPLACE
CULTURE CONSULTING, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Feldblum. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Chai
Feldblum. I am a partner in the law firm of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius. From 2010 to 2019, I was a Commissioner at the EEOC,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
My testimony and the answers to questions you may have
reflect my views, and not necessarily those of Morgan, Lewis or
its clients.
During my time as a Commissioner of the EEOC, I worked with
my fellow colleague, Commissioner Victoria Lipnic, to study how
employers might prevent harassment. Although Commissioner
Lipnic and I came from different political parties, we were
joined in our commitment to stopping and preventing harassment,
which is truly a bipartisan issue.
In June 2016, Commissioner Lipnic and I published a
comprehensive report on how to respond to harassment when it
happens, and how to prevent it from happening in the first
place. I have submitted that report as part of my written
testimony.
Here are five key take-aways from the report:
(1) Leadership. The best way to stop harassment in the
workplace is to have a culture of safety and respect in which
harassment is not tolerated. Leaders have the ability to create
such a workplace. They need to do three things. First, leaders
have to believe that harassment should not occur in their
workplaces. Second, they have to articulate that belief and the
expectations that follow. And third, they have to act in a
manner that makes their employees believe they are authentic.
(2) Accountability. Let's be real. The most important steps
that leaders can take to establish that they are authentic when
they say they don't want to have harassment occur is to hold
people accountable. First, individuals who have been found,
after a full and fair investigation, to have engaged in
harassment must be disciplined, and corrective action must
always be proportionate to the misconduct. Second, managers who
see or receive reports of harassment must be held accountable.
Those who ignore complaints or who blame the person coming
forward must be disciplined. Those who respond appropriately
should be rewarded. And, finally, anyone who retaliates against
someone who has reported harassment, or participated in an
investigation must be disciplined. If individuals are allowed
to retaliate, people will not come forward.
(3) Risk Factors. I was pleased to see that the IG's report
encourages the Department to look at the risk factors we had
delineated in the EEOC report. Let me just mention three here.
First, decentralized or isolated workplaces. An agency can have
the best policy or procedures at headquarters, but in
decentralized workplaces, individual supervisors often reign
supreme. And in isolated and remote workplaces with only a few
employees, that is an additional risk factor. Second, a young
workforce. Young workers may not even know what is unacceptable
in a workplace. Young workers who are themselves managers may
not know how to respond to harassment. And third, high-value
employees. Allowing a toxic employee to act with impunity,
regardless of how valued the employee is otherwise considered,
has significant costs to an agency.
(4) Reporting, Investigations, and Training. Sort of pretty
basic here. An agency must make it easy and safe for those who
experience harassment or who observe harassment to report those
incidents. This includes having multiple reporting avenues,
responding in a manner that make employees feel it is worth
reporting, and keeping employees safe from retaliation. And in
terms of training, one needs both the basic anti-harassment
training and respect for workplaces and bystander intervention
training.
And, finally (5) Culture. Ultimately, stopping harassment
depends on having a workplace culture that doesn't tolerate it.
The Work Environment Survey undertaken by the Department is an
exemplar of an effort to assess one's culture. And if it
continues to be done, that will provide important trend data
for the agency.
I find in my practice at Morgan, Lewis that it is
particularly effective to pair surveys with focus groups and
interviews of randomly selected employees. That can provide
greater and more nuanced insights into the culture of an
organization.
In conclusion, I hope the ideas I have presented here will
assist you in your important oversight of the Department of the
Interior's efforts to stop harassment in its diverse locations.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Feldblum follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chai R. Feldblum, Partner and Director, Workplace
Culture Consulting, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify in this
important oversight hearing. My name is Chai Feldblum. I am a partner
at the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and the Director of
Workplace Culture Consulting at the firm. My practice consists of
advising clients how to create safe and respectful workplaces in which
harassment of any kind is not tolerated and in which employees will
perform to their fullest potential.
I am pleased to offer ideas and insights for your consideration as
you engage in your important oversight of the Department of the
Interior with regard to its efforts to stop and remedy sexual
harassment. This testimony and any answers I may provide in response to
questions reflect solely my views and not necessarily those of Morgan
Lewis or its clients.
I served as a Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission from 2010 to 2019. During that time, I worked closely with
Commissioner Victoria Lipnic to study how employers might prevent
harassment before it happened. Although Commissioner Lipnic and I come
from two different political parties, we were joined in our commitment
to find ways to stop harassment. Prevention helps everyone--employers
and employees.
Commissioner Lipnic and I convened a Select Task Force on the Study
of Harassment in the Workplace from 2015 to 2016. The Select Task Force
included management attorneys who counseled and defended employers with
regard to harassment claims; plaintiff attorneys who brought claims of
harassment on behalf of individual employees and classes of employees;
representatives from both employee and employer associations, and
academics who had been studying the phenomenon of harassment for
decades.
The Select Task Force hosted a series of public and private
meetings. The testimony received by the Select Task Force ran the gamut
from data on the prevalence of harassment to promising practices on
reporting and investigations to big picture ideas for changing
workplace culture to minimize the risk of harassment.
In June 2016, Commissioner Lipnic and I, together with our
dedicated staff, wrote and issued a comprehensive report drawing on the
insights we had learned during our work with the Select Task Force. I
am attaching a copy of this report, the Co-Chairs Report on the Study
of Harassment in the Workplace, as part of my written testimony. In
addition, all of the testimony that the Select Task Force received can
be accessed here. [Add url.]
It is obviously of key importance to ensure that illegal
harassment, including illegal sexual harassment, does not take place in
any workplace. However, the best way to prevent illegal harassment is
to have systems in place that stop low-level misconduct that might not
yet rise to the level of illegal conduct. Hence, the recommendations in
our Co-Chairs' report are designed to stop unwelcome behavior based on
any characteristic protected under Federal or state laws (such as race,
sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or
gender identity), even if such conduct does not yet violate those laws.
The report, and my testimony, refer to these behaviors as
``harassment.'' In addition, some employees engage in bad behavior
toward others, even though the behavior is not based on any protected
characteristic. Those individuals are equal opportunity harassers. The
report, and my testimony, refer to such behavior as ``bullying.''
Finally, even low-level disrespectful and rude behavior can be a
``gateway drug'' to harassment or bullying. Hence, employers should
have in place systems that stop all forms of these behaviors.
Together with Sharon Masling, my lead counsel at the EEOC, I
recently joined the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP to take the
recommendations we had set forth in the Co-Chairs Report on the Study
of Harassment in the Workplace about harassment prevention and advise
businesses and organizations on how to stop harassment before it
happens. Here are five key takeaways from the report, as supplemented
by the work Sharon Masling and I have been doing as advisors to
clients.
Leadership
The best way to stop harassment in the workplace is to have a
culture of safety and respect in which harassment or bullying are
understood to be unacceptable and are not tolerated.
Leaders, including leaders of a large government agency, have the
ability to create such a workplace.
First, leaders must believe that harassment or bullying is
unacceptable in any workplace that they lead. Everything flows from
this first basic belief and value.
Second, leaders must articulate their values and expectations.
Never under-estimate the power of the written and spoken word. If
leaders begin an all-staff meeting talking about their commitment to a
workplace free of harassment and bullying, that will send a message.
Third, leaders must act in a manner that make their employees
believe these leaders are authentic. The leaders' values and
expectations cannot simply remain words printed on paper or delivered
at meetings.
Accountability
The most important step leaders can take to establish their
authenticity is to hold those who undermine the stated values and
expectations accountable for those actions.
There are three groups of individuals that leaders must hold
accountable.
First, individuals who have been found, after a fair and thorough
investigation, to have engaged in harassment or bullying must be held
accountable. It is particularly important that any corrective action is
proportionate. While some forms of harassment, including sexual
harassment, will be grounds for termination, not every act of
harassment (particularly low-level harassment that is not yet illegal)
will justify termination. In a fair and effective system, the
corrective action is proportionate to the misconduct.
Second, supervisors who see or receive reports of misconduct must
be held accountable for responding appropriately to such information. A
supervisor who trivializes such behavior or sweeps complaints under the
rug, and does not follow the procedures set up the employer to address
such misconduct, should receive corrective action. Conversely,
supervisors that respond well should receive positive reinforcement.
The best way to hold supervisors accountable is to include in a
supervisor's performance evaluation an assessment of how the supervisor
responded upon seeing or receiving reports of harassment or bullying.
Third, anyone who retaliates against an individual who reported
harassment or bullying or who participated in an investigation of such
misconduct, must be held accountable. If individuals are permitted to
retaliate with impunity, few people will want to come forward with
complaints and give the employer an opportunity to fix the problem.
Risk Factors
The EEOC report included information on 12 risk factors that can
lead to harassment. The presence of one or more of these risk factors
does not mean that harassment will be happening in the workplace. They
are simply factors that leaders who are interested in being proactive
in stopping harassment would do well to study. For example, if a
government agency knows that one or more risk factors exist in the
varied workplaces that make up the agency, the leaders of that agency
can analyze those risk factors and take preventive measures in
response.
Here are four risk factors that might be relevant to the Department
of the Interior:
Homogenous workplaces. In workplaces where women, people
of color, religious minorities or people with disabilities
are not well-represented, the risk of harassment increases.
The best long-term response to this risk factor is to
increase the diversity of the workplace. In the short-term,
it is particularly important that individuals in such
workplaces understand that harassment will not be tolerated
and that people who report misconduct will be protected
from retaliation.
Decentralized and isolated workplaces. A government agency
may have the best policy and procedures at its
headquarters. But in decentralized and isolated workplaces,
individual managers or supervisors often have much greater
control over the culture of that workplace. Having
mechanisms to assess how supervisors have dealt with
complaints of harassment in those workplaces, and holding
such supervisors accountable through performance
evaluations, are essential in dealing with this risk
factor.
Mundane tasks/boredom. When employees are engaged in
repetitive or mundane tasks, they may engage in
inappropriate behavior--including inappropriate jokes and
various forms of sexual harassment--as a way to pass the
time. If such behavior has been the norm in the workplace
for a length of time, it may be particularly hard to change
that culture. However, if proportionate corrective action
is taken, a change in behavior will usually follow.
Reporting and Investigations
An agency cannot take corrective actions against those who engage
in harassment, or hold supervisors accountable in performance
evaluations for not responding appropriately to reports or observations
of harassment, if they don't know about those incidents of harassment.
Agencies must therefore have mechanisms that make it easy and safe for
those who experience harassment, or those who observe harassment, to
report those incidents.
An effective reporting system has multiple avenues through which
employees can report. It is best if employees can report to their own
supervisor, to another supervisor, or to the agency's human resources
office. The EEOC recommends that government agencies designate an
individual as a Harassment Prevention Coordinator who can deal with
complaints of harassment.
Agencies must also ensure that individuals who report harassment
are protected from retaliation. Obviously, individuals should be told
that if they experience retaliation, they should report that as well.
But there is no reason for the onus to be solely on the individual. An
agency can put in place mechanisms to oversee what happens after a
report of harassment is made--particularly in a decentralized or
isolated workplace.
Training
Training to stop harassment is an essential component of a
comprehensive effort to create a safe and respectful workplace. But
that training will be most effective if it is integrated into an
overall campaign to stop harassment that includes the components
described above.
The EEOC Co-Chairs report lays out the variables that are important
for a foundational anti-harassment training. Those variables are set
forth in a user-friendly checklist that can be used by any government
agency, including the Department of the Interior.
But agencies can go beyond that basic anti-harassment training. The
EEOC Co-Chairs report recommended that employers provide respectful
workplaces training that is not focused on unwelcome behavior based on
legally protected characteristics (such as sex or race), but rather is
focused on giving employees the skills to affirmatively create a safe
and respectful workplace for everyone. Several years ago, the EEOC
developed and has been providing a Respectful Workplaces training to
government agencies and private employers.
Sharon Masling and I have developed similar training at Morgan
Lewis that we now offer to our clients. The training teaches employees
how to give feedback when they experience unwelcome behavior and how to
receive such feedback. If misconduct can be stopped early through such
feedback, that is the best outcome. The training also educates
employees have to be active bystanders in helping to stop harassment.
For supervisors, the training provides skills in responding to
complaints of harassment in a constructive manner and in coaching
employees who are engaging in problematic behavior.
Cultural Assessments
A significant proactive step that leaders can take to create a safe
and respectful workplace is to assess the existing culture in their
workplaces.
The EEOC's Co-Chairs' report recommended that businesses and
organizations perform climate surveys to assess the state of their
workplace culture. Over the past year, we have refined that
recommendation in various ways.
First, employers often deploy general employee engagement surveys
that ask questions about a range of workplace issues. The Federal
Government's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is an example of
such a survey. OPM could modify the FEVS to include questions about
feeling safe, respected and valued in the workplace, as well as
questions regarding harassment and bullying. Even before OPM undertakes
such a change, agencies are permitted to ask OPM for two questions
specific to the agency. The Department of the Interior could ask to
include specific questions as to whether employees would know what to
do if they experienced harassment, including sexual harassment, and if
they would feel comfortable reporting harassment that they have
experienced or observed.
There are also more sophisticated assessments that can be done in a
targeted fashion. For example, we have developed at Morgan Lewis a
short 20-question survey focused on safety and respect. The survey can
also include an open-ended question seeking narrative input. We offer
that survey to clients who wish to do a short, targeted assessment. The
best assessment, however, also includes focus groups and/or interviews
of randomly selected employees. Then qualitative data collected from
these efforts offer even greater insights into the culture of the
organization.
Conclusion
Stopping harassment depends on having a workplace culture that
simply does not tolerate harassment. Everyone from the top to the
bottom of an organization can play a role in creating a workplace in
which not only harassment, but also bullying and even rude behavior, is
not countenanced. In such a workplace, everyone benefits and everyone
thrives.
But ultimately, leadership is key to achieving a safe and
respectful workplace in which harassment is simply not tolerated. I
hope the ideas I have presented in this testimony will assist the
Committee in its oversight of the Department of the Interior's efforts
to stop harassment throughout its diverse locations.
*****
The following document was submitted as a supplement to Ms. Feldblum's
testimony. This document is part of the hearing record and is being
retained in the Committee's official files:
-- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Select Task Force
on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, Report dated
June 2016.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Chai Feldblum, Partner,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Questions Submitted by Rep Cox
Question 1. Of the 12 organizational risk factors laid out in the
Task Force report, which are most apparent--and most urgently in need
of redress--at DOI?
Answer. I am not well-versed in the specific worksites of the
Department of the Interior. Based on my general knowledge, however, the
following seven risk factors identified in the 2016 EEOC report may be
relevant: (1) homogenous workplaces; (2) a young workforce; (3)
workplaces with ``high value'' employees; (4) workplaces with
significant power disparities; (5) workplaces with monotonous work or
tasks of low-intensity; (6) isolated workplaces; and (7) decentralized
workplaces. Depending on a particular worksite, the following
additional four risk factors might come into play: (1) workplaces with
some employees who do not conform to workplace norms; (2) workplaces
with cultural and/or language differences; (3) workplaces that rely on
customer service or client satisfaction; and (4) workplaces that
tolerate or encourage alcohol consumption. Coarsened social discourse,
the twelfth risk factor identified in the 2016 EEOC report, can apply
to any workplace.
Question 2. What is the best way to know whether an organization's
efforts to change the culture are working?
Answer. The best way to know whether an organization's efforts to
change its culture are working is to collect quantitative and
qualitative data about the organization's culture, both prior to and
following the efforts that are undertaken. Quantitative data can be
collected through targeted survey questions that focus on safety,
respect, diversity and inclusion. Qualitative data can be collected
through focus groups and interviews of randomly selected employees. To
get the best information, the same survey questions and interview
questions should be used over time.
The success of culture change efforts should not based on the
number of complaints of misconduct that are filed after such efforts
have been undertaken. If a workplace in which it previously felt unsafe
to report misconduct becomes a safe workplace to report because of
culture change efforts, one should expect and welcome an increased
number of complaints as an initial matter. Over time, however, that
number should decrease. If it does not, that becomes cause for concern.
Question 3. Would it be redundant for the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey to ask questions about sexual harassment while
Interior also conducts a full Work Environment Survey every 2 years?
Answer. It would not be redundant if the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS) asked questions about harassment (of all forms) of all
agency employees. Indeed, if OPM did so, the Department of the Interior
could benchmark itself against other agencies. However, to determine
changes in the experiences and views of Department of the Interior
employees, one must compare answers to the same questions over time.
For that reason, one cannot compare answers to a question in the FEVS
that is similar to a question in the Work Environment Survey. The
difference in the answers may result from how the question is asked or
the context in which it is asked.
Question 4. How does a pervasive sexual harassment problem affect
DOI's ability to do achieve its mission?
Answer. I am not versed in the intricacies of DOI's many
obligations. However, as the 2016 EEOC Report made clear, when
harassment of any kind is left unchecked, it will adversely affect job
satisfaction, productivity and retention. These are all elements that
are key to achieving the mission of any job.
______
Mr. Cox [presiding]. Once again, we thank the witnesses so
much for being here.
I understand the gentlelady from Michigan has a scheduling
consideration, so we would like to recognize her for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Feldblum, this Committee put out a report on sexual
harassment issues in Interior in early 2018. The Committee
relied heavily on the Task Force on Sexual Harassment, for
which you were the co-author. We want to personally thank you
for all of your hard work on the report, because it was
invaluable.
But in your testimony, you mentioned that there are certain
risk factors that may put an organization at a heightened risk
for sexual harassment to occur. The Committee's report examined
data that showed that several of these risk factors do exist at
Interior, including non-diverse workforces, significant power
disparities between men and women, geographically isolated
workplaces, and decentralized workplaces.
Although the Committee didn't have access to data sources
that could help determine whether the other risk factors exist
as well, it is possible that they do. Do any of the other risk
factors come to mind when you think about Interior?
For example, the Grand Canyon case features a high-value
employee, and the Park Service has had a lot of young, seasonal
employees. So, I would be interested in your feedback.
Ms. Feldblum. Sure. One of the key things Commissioner
Lipnic and I did with the task force--there was a select task
force on the study of workplace harassment--was thinking about
how to be proactive to stop harassment before the EEOC showed
up at the doors of the employer.
And one thing was to consider risk factors. And just
because there is a risk factor doesn't mean harassment will
occur, it just means leaders need to think proactively. And we
had 12 risk factors, and you noted a number of them.
I do think the young workforce is a real key risk factor.
And the training needs to be customized to that young
workforce. I think what we called in the report the Superstar
Harasser, which is simply the harasser that is considered of
high value, a top performer--which, of course, is a logical
fallacy in that. You can't be a top performer if you are
causing harassment and people are leaving.
So, I think power disparities, diversity, homogenous
workplaces with just a few women, people of color, that is a
problem. I commend the Department for what it is doing already,
and urge you to look at that report.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Mr. Greenblatt, your report highlighted the risk factors as
an area for Interior's bureaus to explore in their action
plans. Can you tell us more about that?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. As we were going through our analysis,
we recognized that the subject matter experts had done their
presentation. And we thought that would be helpful for the
various bureaus. Some of them did include that in their
individual action plans.
And what we were recommending is that the remaining bureaus
that hadn't considered the EEOC's risk factors, to look at
those. And there is no reason for them to recreate the wheel,
when you have the subject matter experts laying out the risk
factors that they should consider.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Ms. Combs, given the importance of these risk factors in
planning an organization's effort to address harassment, how is
Interior planning to implement the Inspector General's
recommendations?
Ms. Combs. Well, I have a timeline and we are, obviously,
on track with all of those.
But I want to sort of address it at a higher level, which
is really about culture, civil training for leaders. We
launched that in April 2017, and we demanded within a 2-year
period that all supervisors be given that training in person,
around the globe. And that has been done. As of February, 9,000
supervisors had been trained.
Second, it was made part of their individual performance
standards. There are 13,114 supervisors, and they all now have
that embedded in their performance standards.
Third, training. We have a contract with a third-party
vendor who is going to do online training for all 70,000
employees, and that will be customized to the various bureaus.
That will be customized across the Department. And we, of
course, welcome input on that. And that will probably happen
late summer. It is going to take us some time to do that.
Starting next week, there will be 72 4-hour segments. As I
mentioned, we will be training about 2,160 people.
So, we are trying to do this from sort of bottoms up, as
well as top down. And the Workplace Culture Advisory Council,
which I chair, has all of the assistant secretaries on it, all
the deputy assistant secretaries, the bureau leadership, and we
make it a point to say that this is very, very important
throughout the Department.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am down to 7 seconds. I am going
to take a point of a personal moment, which is to say that at
the top, people have to protect people who come forward. They
can't be viewed as troublemakers. So, even when people go
through the motion of addressing the problem, but they are
still totally ostracized in the workplace, nobody hires them,
nobody promotes them because they are labeled as troublemakers,
that is still too real in workplaces not just at Interior, but
across the country, in corporations, et cetera.
So, leaders have to lead on making sure that doesn't
happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. The Chair will now recognize
the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And personally, I can't
imagine anybody considering Congresswoman Dingell a
troublemaker.
But anyway, I am curious. And we do appreciate your work,
Inspector General. You mentioned that somebody is in jail
today. Could you tell us a little more about the facts of the
case? I think it is helpful for people out there that may be
tempted to act similarly.
Mr. Greenblatt. This was a situation of a supervisor who
was making untoward advances, physical advances on another
employee while they were in a remote location. And that
included laying on top of her at one point. And this was
totally inappropriate in every way.
Mr. Gohmert. I would say, and hopefully people will get the
message. That is just unbelievable to me, that that could even
happen.
I am hopeful that having superiors closer to the people
that are out there doing the work may also help stem the tide
of those type of activities. And we have noted previously 99
percent of all the land that the BLM controls is west of the
Mississippi. And I am sure there are a lot of people that are
quite comfortable here in Washington that are not looking
forward to going to Grand Junction. I think it is great. And my
understanding is there will actually be supervisors closer to
the people with whom they are working. Is that correct,
Secretary Combs?
Ms. Combs. Yes, sir. And in fact, two things are important.
When the new policy bulletin was issued in 2018 it said a
person can complain to any supervisor anywhere. Because of the
remoteness issue, you can't be trying to address your
supervisor who may or may not be the bad person. So, that was
an important change.
And I would say, second, with the move west of the Bureau
of Land Management staff, getting decision makers out in the
field where they can take hold of things immediately is,
obviously, desirable, and it does make a difference.
And from that perspective, I work with the field special
assistants. There are 12 of those. I had a conversation with
them just last night, and they are appointed by the Secretary,
and they are in all the regions, and they understand their role
in this particular matter. And they were talking with the human
resources people yesterday from 3 to 4, and I talked to them
from 4 to 5. I thanked them for all of their work, and I said,
``You are leaders in your region, and you represent all the
bureaus.'' And I said, ``I expect you all to help continue
making this effort to go forward.''
So, they shared with me that they have been having--they
have executive councils in the region made up of all the
leadership of all of the bureaus in the particular region, and
they meet regularly. And I said that I would be sending them
some of the materials that we have.
I think this group of individuals--except for two, they are
all career individuals, and they truly embrace and understand
their role as collaborating between bureaus. They are not
representing a bureau, they are representing the Department of
the Interior. And it is their job, absolutely, to effectuate
these policies that are so important.
I would say, on a personal basis, this makes a big
difference to me. I launched a women's empowerment group in
2015 after I left state service. I have a 4-year-old
granddaughter. And I am not letting anybody get in my
granddaughter's way. I will just give fair warning.
But this is important. Chairing this council has been both
a privilege and a pleasure. So, I welcome input, I welcome
advice, because there is nothing more important that we can do
to create a respectful workplace where people feel valued and
that they are heard. If they speak, we listen.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I appreciate that. And you have looked
at Ms. Feldblum a few times as you spoke. So, I am sure you
have a great deal from her study, her report.
And one of those things in her report was that strong
leadership is identified as a key factor in effectively
addressing harassment in the workplace. How are current leaders
at the Department of the Interior demonstrating their
commitment toward strong leadership?
Ms. Combs. Well, Secretary Bernhardt also has a daughter,
and he and I have chatted about women, and he has given me all
the budget that I have needed for this effort. He has given me
the resources. He has issued messages. And when he goes around
the country, he talks about these efforts and how he wants to
transform the Department of the Interior.
And he is a longtime hand at the Department, and I think
people know that he is a sort of WYSIWYG, what you see is what
you get. He is very, very linear.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Ranking Member. And I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Feldblum--and thank you to Mrs. Dingell for reading my
opening statement--but in that testimony we have seen example
after example of low morale and distrust in current leadership
among Interior employees.
One of the most egregious examples is the very recent
abrupt announcement that the BLM, the Bureau of Land
Management, is going to be moving its headquarters out west to
Grand Junction, a place that is relatively isolated, a small
town in Colorado. This Committee did a hearing exposing the
sham that is that relocation. A predictable effect is that
employees who are going to be made to uproot their lives with
very little notice are upset.
In a recent article, employees were said to be questioning
the wisdom and the ``moral courage of leadership.'' Early in
this Administration, over two dozen senior employees were
suddenly reassigned to different duties and locations. When the
OIG asked them about who was chosen to be reassigned and why,
DOI tried to cover it up. And these reassignments sent a clear
message to all Interior employees: Step out of line, and you
will suffer.
Ms. Feldblum, in your experience, is it possible to fully
address an organization's systematic culture problems with
sexual harassment if the workforce doesn't trust its top
officials?
Ms. Combs. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cox. Oh, sorry, Ms. Feldblum. And then I will have you
speak to that as well, Ms. Combs.
Ms. Feldblum. Yes. So, obviously, I don't know the
information about the Department of the Interior, itself. I
will say that it is important to have a culture of respect all
the way across in an organization, and that is respect in terms
of encouraging people to come forward with their opinions, in
being able to raise their concerns. Because if you have that
overall culture of respect, then it will be easier for people
to come forward with their complaints about harassment, as
well.
So, again, I don't know specifics of the Department of the
Interior. I can say the social science is clear that people
need to feel respected and valued in order to feel comfortable
coming forward with complaints.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you. And Ms. Combs, it is the
Committee's understanding that the BLM plans to proceed with
the transfer, despite the opposition of the affected employees.
And, in fact, some have speculated that this move is just a
tool to get employees unhappy enough to quit.
How is Interior going to regain the trust of these
employees after this move takes place?
Ms. Combs. Well, I am not in charge of the move from the
Bureau of Land Management, but I will say at the overall
Interior level I would echo the comments made about we do have
to have sort of an open society. We do have to have open
conversations. We do have to have a culture of respect.
And we issued four questions last April, to which we got
about 11,000 responses. The folks at the Department said they
wanted to be heard, they wanted to feel respected, and that
they liked the Department, but that they wanted to be engaged.
So, what we believe is that our bystander intervention, our
inter-generational training, all of these things which we are
engaging with these employees, and then the online harassment
training is going to be helpful.
With respect to the move, as I say, I support the move
because I think, from a policy perspective, when all of the
land is in the West, I think it is important that you have the
decision makers at the local area.
So, again, I am not in charge of the BLM move, but I would
agree with your comment that, yes, it is important to have an
open conversation with the people that you are supervising.
Mr. Cox. Do you think moves like these, that are really
made without consultation with the employees that are unhappy
about that move, it doesn't lead to much buy-in from them. Do
you think that creates a culture of distrust amongst senior
leadership with the employees?
Ms. Combs. Well, again, I don't know the particulars about
who is or is not happy with the move. I do know that this was a
thought-out process, from what I have been told from BLM, for
about 2 years, and they evaluated and they took a look at
selecting Grand Junction--and I have actually been to Grand
Junction, and I kind of like the city.
Mr. Cox. Have you ever seen the rationale for that move?
Ms. Combs. Have I ever seen the business case for the move?
Mr. Cox. The business case and the rationale for that move.
Ms. Combs. Well, I believe there is a business case for the
move, absolutely.
Mr. Cox. Have you ever seen it?
Ms. Combs. I have seen a draft business case for the move.
Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. Cox. Well, this Committee would like to see it, as
well, some time.
That brings me to the balance of my time for this round of
questions, and I recognize the Ranking Member once again.
I beg your pardon, and thank you. Beg your pardon. I will
recognize Mr. San Nicolas.
Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Combs, just some observations in your testimony. The
awareness of employees, in terms of where to report harassing
conduct was at 62.3 percent in 2017, and it went up to 94
percent in 2019. What was done to increase that awareness for
the employees?
Ms. Combs. Policy Bulletin 1801 was issued in April, and it
was very prescriptive, and it went to all employees, and it
held all of the human capital employees responsible. And, as I
say, it was followed up with the training performance standard
that came in the fall.
I would say that the timeline that is in place right now,
within 1 day, within 24 hours, if there is a complaint made,
there are several steps that have to be taken within that 24
hours, and people understand they will be held accountable for
that.
I would also add that the I-MART tracking system, people
understand that there are timelines in place, and those will be
followed.
What I think was actually another reason for this, I think
the report that came out in 2016 was so horrible, it was such
an eye opener, and I think people were just astonished and
shocked at what had happened to those folks in Grand Canyon and
elsewhere. And I think it prompted the kind of soul searching
that, obviously, should have taken place earlier. And I am very
sorry to hear about the event that Mr. Greenblatt has referred
to last night, recurring last night. I just think it is a
constant repetition that has to take place, and people have to
be held accountable, which is why there is this training, the
civil training for leaders, that covered 9,000 people. And that
was face-to-face, and that was around the globe. Then we went
to Guam and Hawaii to meet people face to face, to impress upon
them this is serious. We are taking this seriously. And I think
that has an effect.
So, the new trainings that are coming on, I think those are
important, and people want them. We are getting great response.
People say, ``Yes, we want to be trained, and we look forward
to being heard.''
Mr. San Nicolas. I just wanted to observe--I think that it
is a really good thing that the awareness thresholds have gone
up that dramatically.
And I also think it is a really good sign that the
instances dropped, while the awareness increased. I think that
that shows that the agency has been doing a very good job of
targeting the high-risk areas and addressing those high-risk
concerns, because when awareness is only at 62.3, and you have
a 35 percent reporting rate, and then it goes up to 94 percent
and you have an 18 percent reporting rate, then that shows that
the problems are really being tackled.
So, I just wanted to kind of highlight that, and get an
idea of why the thresholds were so low to begin with. Do we
know why there was such a lack of awareness back in 2017?
Ms. Combs. I think there was an unfortunate culture that
didn't encourage people to feel heard. I mean, the data from
the Workplace Environment Survey made that clear. You read the
statistics and it is very troubling. I think you have to do a
major course correction. And I think that is what they have
done.
But it is never over. And I would sort of give, as an
example, who would have thought 20 years ago, or 15, that
online bullying would be the kind of problem that it is today?
We weren't ready for it. So, online misbehavior is a threat
anyplace, and person-to-person is a threat.
What I also found interesting in the workplace report was
that the peer-to-peer was about 54 percent in an office, face
to face, one on one. So, it wasn't outside, it wasn't at a
party, but a lot of it was just peer to peer. It wasn't even
supervisors, which that struck me as it wasn't so much power
disparity as it was people just saying things.
And that is why the bystander intervention is so important.
We had a very high number of people saying stop. And even if
the victim didn't say it, the bystander did. So, we are working
on enhancing the bystander intervention training, and that is
going to be 2 hours of all these sessions across 72 sessions.
We think that is going to be helpful.
Mr. San Nicolas. Well, I thank you very much. And I hope
the trend continues. And once the awareness is already at this
kind of a level, of course, getting it to 100 percent is always
ideal. But bringing these trends further down is, of course,
the target. And I am hopeful that we are going to be able to
see more implementation of the IG report in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. San Nicolas. And the Chair will now
recognize our Ranking Member.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it is nice when we
have bipartisan goals that align with each other.
I am curious, Inspector General. How do you intend, going
forward, to get the word out to people? And I realize it may
not be fully your responsibility, but you can certainly have an
effect by getting the word out to people about somebody going
to jail and having serious consequences as a result of these
inappropriate actions.
Mr. Greenblatt. Sure. Well, moments like this are certainly
helpful in that regard.
One thing that is critical is that the victim reported the
issue right away, and then the supervisors reported it to the
OIG, and we took it all the way to the----
Mr. Gohmert. There was no hesitance in reporting it?
Mr. Greenblatt. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Gohmert. There was no hesitance in reporting it
forward. Sometimes we have a delay, and that contributes to the
problem, when there is any delay at all in reporting.
Mr. Greenblatt. Certainly, but we will----
Mr. Gohmert. By a supervisor going upward.
Mr. Greenblatt. Certainly. We will take all the cases. That
is certainly helpful, when they come as fast as possible. In
this case, it went right away. She went the next day to her
supervisors, and they came straight to the OIG, and we pounced.
So, this is one way that we can sort of spread the word, as you
said.
We also want to stay on top of it, in terms of conducting
investigations. As I said, we have eight active cases. We are
going to continue. We are also going to work with the
Department and help oversee their efforts in terms of training,
and ensure that folks know that they can come to the OIG or the
departmental avenues that they have made available. And we can
help evaluate the nature of the training that is going out to
all the employees, as Ms. Combs mentioned. That is a way that
we can stay involved, going forward.
Monitoring the investigations, the quality of the reports
that are coming forward in the investigations--that is one
thing we found in this report, is that there is a sufficiency
problem with the investigations that the Department was doing,
or it was contracting for, they weren't legally sufficient. So,
then the agency, the Department, couldn't take action because
the underlying investigation, the report wasn't of a good
enough quality to take action on. That is one thing where we
can add value, as well.
So, I think there are a number of different routes that we
can add value. But spreading the word is certainly something
that we are engaged on, and trying to do as much as possible.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. Secretary Combs, having been a felony
judge, we have seen times when there was instant outcry by a
victim, and then not always immediate action. And it seems to
go hand in hand with what Ms. Feldblum was talking about,
strong leadership. How do you intend to get the word out to
supervisors that they cannot delay, they must move forward if
there is a report of inappropriate action?
Ms. Combs. The policy is they shall turn it around in 1
day. They shall report up to their supervisor. They shall
contact the lawyers, and they shall contact law enforcement, if
necessary, or OIG. That is a 24-hour period. And that is not
flexible. It is 24 hours, period.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, that is excellent.
Ms. Combs. And I would say, also, I used to be a
prosecutor, and I used to handle child abuse cases, and I am
well aware that you have to have legally sufficient evidence.
Mr. Gohmert. And I understand that. We also heard the
report that the previous administration, the Department of the
Interior had not been meeting the EEOC requirements. Is
Interior now meeting the EEOC requirements?
Ms. Combs. Well, we are in, obviously, good consultation
with the EEOC, and our policy has met all of their
requirements, and meets their model policy. And our training,
we run those by the EEOC, and they approved them, our latest
round of training, to be Department-wide within 24 hours. So,
yes, we are in constant touch with them.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. Again, thank you all for being here
today. I appreciate not just your being here, but the work you
have been doing on this important issue.
I yield back.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Ms. Combs, in your testimony, you referred to some of the
findings from the Federal Viewpoint Survey that showed positive
results and Interior's progress in rooting out harassment in
the Department. And that is, obviously, great news.
But I do want us to be cautious about declaring victory
prematurely. And I am sure, as you well know, comparing results
from two different surveys could be problematic. And from what
I understand, the Federal Viewpoint Survey that was conducted
earlier this year and the Work Environment Study that Interior
conducted in 2017 are two completely different survey
instruments, and that small changes in wording, and how the
survey is conducted, or when the survey is conducted, can have
significant effects on the findings of that survey.
That is why members of this Committee have repeatedly asked
Interior to repeat the Work Environment Study that was
conducted in 2017. I think we feel that that will be the only
truly accurate way to determine whether or not progress has
been made since then.
That being said, I certainly want to commend Interior's
efforts to include questions about harassment in that Federal
Viewpoint Survey. And I am very interested to see the exact
wording of the questions that were added. Would you be willing
to provide those questions and the findings from those
questions to us?
Ms. Combs. Yes. And let me also add that I think I am going
to try to ask OPM to put these questions in everybody's survey.
I think if we have hundreds of thousands of Federal employees,
I think we need to get the baseline established with the FVS.
We have a very good participation rate. We had the second-
highest participation rate on these FVS of any department over
50,000. We had about 58 percent participation, which means they
wanted to be heard. So, that was quite good.
So, I think, if we could get OPM to include these questions
on all surveys, all FVS, I think that would be a good step
forward for the entire Federal Government.
Mr. Cox. Yes, that would be a fantastic step forward. I
commend you for that. I would be a little concerned that it is
already not coming down from the top, and no disrespect there.
Ms. Feldblum, in your testimony, you talked about the
importance of using climate surveys to assess the culture of an
organization. And, again, adding questions to the Federal
Viewpoint Survey is a great start, but could we address sexual
harassment more thoroughly and quickly with the recurring Work
Environment Survey?
Ms. Feldblum. Absolutely. I mean, I was just struck by how
good this Workplace Environment Survey was that the Department
of the Interior did. I have seen many surveys. I have created
some myself. Very good survey.
And that is why I think one has to be careful to say 35
percent said they experienced harassment based on that survey,
and then using the 18 percent from another survey. You really
have to be careful about that. But I think the best, obviously,
would be to have that Workplace Environment Survey repeated at
the Department of the Interior.
But from my perspective, this hearing could end up being a
phenomenal success, right from the fact that if Assistant
Secretary Combs does get to OPM and ask for those questions--
when I was a commissioner at the EEOC, I went to them
constantly, asking for those questions to be added to the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. From the EEOC we were told
we could have two for the EEOC, so we put in two about
harassment and culture. I am amazed that Interior got six. I
guess they were bigger than EEOC.
But what would be amazing is if the leadership of OPM put
these questions in for all the agencies. And then, what would
be even better is if the Department of the Interior did its
Workplace Environment Survey again, and so did other agencies.
Mr. Cox. Yes, to a certain extent, that is what I was
mentioning before.
We have about a minute left here. Ms. Combs, I am very
interested about the Workplace Culture Transformation Advisory
Council that you had mentioned. Can you give us a little bit
more color on that?
Ms. Combs. Yes. This is something that I created because I
was worried about sort of the culture. And I wanted to have
this thing be very granular, so we have all of the bureaus
participate. And Tammy Duchesne, who is a former National Park
Service person, she was very involved in some issues there at
the National Park Service. She is leading that, and she is
right now on her way out to USGS. She has already been to
Albuquerque, she is traveling around to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and she is sort of talking about this.
And we had done a four-question survey last April, which
was--let's see, we got over 10,200 responses, which I thought
was pretty wonderful, in about a week and a half. We will do
one again this spring, and that will be assessing how we are
doing. So, we think we are making progress.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you so much. The Chair will now
recognize Mr. San Nicolas once again.
Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will go ahead and
yield the balance of my time to yourself.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. I will recognize myself again,
and to follow up a little bit more about the Workplace Culture
Transformation Advisory Council.
And if you would continue on that, I would love to hear
more about that.
Ms. Combs. Yes. We have a website and that was launched
this morning. We had it already, but it is up for the public
now. You go to DOI.gov/employees/transformation, I think. And
it is a way for us to sort of talk to everybody across the
Department.
And what we are doing is we are having points of, what I
call the points of contact. We are meeting all the time. We are
sending out messaging. We are sending out slide decks that can
be used all across the Department. And what Ms. Duchesne is
doing is she is putting together teams from all of the various
bureaus, and giving them guidance on communication, et cetera.
We have a communications individual working on this.
Obviously, the chief human capital officer is very supportive,
and she is spearheading all of the training, the 72 4-hour
sessions on bystander intervention and inter-generational, that
is her baby, which starts next week. We are trying to do this
from a variety of areas. And she is also the one that has put
together the team to go ahead and do the all-Department
training.
So, we are pushing this at various levels. Some people like
in-person training, some people prefer online. They may not
want to be face to face with you, but we are trying to push all
of those. And that is just for the next few steps.
Mr. Cox. Great. And how are you measuring baseline, and
then the progress toward your goals?
Ms. Combs. The baseline?
Mr. Cox. Baseline of your culture and progress toward the
transformation to improve the workplace culture.
Ms. Combs. The baseline that we are using right now, the
one we just got, is the FVS. That is a baseline which because
it will be the same survey, it will continue forward.
We are also getting input, people that have the ability to
e-mail us. But the main thing is you do have to get the input
in from the individual employees on how things are doing. So,
we think that the FVS is a great tool. And, obviously, it is a
tool, it is not the only tool, but it is a tool. And it will be
repeated, and it is free, which we like.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you so much.
Inspector General Greenblatt, in your report, one of the
main findings had to do with the cost of harassment
investigations. And at Interior, individual officers are
currently responsible for bearing the cost of those
investigations. Unfortunately, that means some of the smaller
offices and bureaus may be hit especially hard by a
particularly costly investigation. The report mentioned that
this could have a ``chilling effect'' on offices when it comes
to investigations.
One of the report's recommendations was to implement a
system for bureaus and offices to share costs, so that no one
office is unreasonably burdened. Can you tell us a little bit
more about that finding?
Mr. Greenblatt. One of the concerns we heard--and we don't
have any data on this, this is more of a theoretical issue at
this point, but it is a ripe issue that could arise--is if you
are in a smaller office, and there is a complaint that comes
forward, and that office then has to bear the cost, that could
impact their training, that could impact their ability to carry
out their mission. So, therefore, there is a concern that if
there are employees in a smaller office, they may be less
willing to come forward and incur that cost on their own
office, be it the survivor, the victims themselves, or a
witness may be reluctant to come forward.
At the same time, we understand, from the Department's
response, that some of the bureaus want to hold those local
managers accountable by making them pay for investigating that
misconduct.
So, there is a balance there that the agency has to weigh.
But one of the things we wanted to identify is that chilling
effect is a real concern, especially for the more remote
locations that may have a smaller budget, which an
investigation could then impact in a significant way.
Mr. Cox. Ms. Combs, in your response to the Inspector
General, this is one recommendation that you only partially
agreed with. You concluded that keeping investigation costs
local may serve as a way to keep the managers, supervisors in
those offices, accountable for not creating the right
environment to prevent harassment.
Doesn't making local offices bear the burden of the
investigation costs create a disincentive to investigating
these cases?
Ms. Combs. Well, I think the Inspector General is correct.
See, we are approaching this from two perspectives. We are
going to be looking at the working capital fund being used as a
vehicle which spreads the cost across the Department, as well
as December 1, our new third-party vendor comes in with a fixed
cost plan. That third-party vendor, that award will be given on
December 1. So, we will have sort of two approaches.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you so much. The Chair will now
recognize Congressman San Nicolas once again. He waives. And
the Chair will recognize myself once again.
Thanks so much, Ms. Combs.
Ms. Feldblum, do you agree? Is it a good idea to use
investigation costs as a way to, essentially, punish managers
and supervisors for not flushing out all the instances of
harassment?
And could this strategy actually disincentivize managers
and supervisors from conducting investigations?
Could this discourage employees from reporting incidents of
harassment?
Ms. Feldblum. Yes. I think it is very important to
incentivize managers to not have harassment in their
workplaces.
It is not a good idea to do the incentives by, for example,
saying we are going to see how many harassment complaints are
coming out of your division, because then the managers can
subtly and not so subtly tell people, ``I don't want to hear,
and then I don't have to show that I have complaints coming
out.''
Same thing is to say you are going to have to bear the
cost, and you are worrying about what that might do to your
other mission goals. That is not a good idea.
So, I am encouraged by what Ms. Combs just said, move the
cost to some central fund, get a good outside company that is
doing the investigations at a set cost that, hopefully, will
not come out of their budget. But then hold them accountable on
how safe they have made the environment, how many complaints
are coming forward, have they been dealt with, and put that in
their performance evaluation. That is going to be the best
approach.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you so much.
And back to the EEOC task force report, which you co-
authored. Other expert resources contend that a lack of
diversity in an organization and harassment often go hand in
hand. Can you give us a little bit more information, color on
that?
Ms. Feldblum. Well, I think some of this is probably common
sense, right? If you have 10 men in a workplace, and then 1
woman comes in, or 10 white people in a workplace and 1 black
person comes in, and you have just even 1 or 2 of those people
starting to harass that new person, and no one else intervenes,
that is a problem, right?
I mean, it is almost common sense. It is just that the data
shows that it is actually true. So, obviously, you have to
change the diversity of that workplace setting, and you have to
change the diversity up at the top, so people know that there
are leaders who are people of color and are women, and that
makes a difference.
I will say I am thrilled to hear about these 70 bystander
intervention trainings that you all are doing. I actually feel
one of the contributions we made in the EEOC report was to
bring this concept of bystander intervention to the workplace.
People were not talking about that. But in our research we saw
that universities and campuses were using bystander
intervention to train students how to intervene to stop sexual
assault before it happened by distracting someone, pulling them
away, by directly intervening, by telling someone about it
afterwards.
And we said maybe we could apply this to the workplace.
Obviously, the power dynamics are different in the workplace
than student-to-student, so the intervention training--and we
offer that from Morgan Lewis, as well--has to take into account
the power dynamics, and what is a reasonable option for
intervening.
But if you do that, and if the leadership on the top tells
people, ``We want you to intervene,'' that is huge. And paying
for bystander intervention training is one way of communicating
that, and then supporting bystanders who do intervene, like
acknowledging them, recognizing them--let's make the Department
of the Interior a model for the other departments by the work
of your Subcommittee, and IG. That would be nice.
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you so much for that, because that
does bring rise to, really, kind of my next question.
The Western Values Project found that, among the 104
political appointees at DOI, women only represent 28 percent.
And among the 221 board appointees, women make up only 25
percent. The rest of the workforce at Interior is pretty male-
dominated, women generally making up about 40 percent of all
Interior employees.
So, is that an issue at all that women are making up such a
small proportion of leadership?
And, certainly, if you have the time, I would like you to
comment on the racial and ethnic diversity. Is it similarly
important to have people of color represented in positions of
leadership when it comes to combating harassment?
Ms. Feldblum. Certainly. It is essential to have women,
people of color, and people with disabilities in positions of
leadership. Again, that takes intentional strategic plans.
At Morgan and Lewis, I ran a whole diversity inclusion
practice, helping employers to get from here to there. It is
not easy, but it is absolutely doable.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much.
And Ms. Combs, I certainly would love your input and
thoughts on that, because former Secretary Zinke didn't seem to
agree, frankly, with Ms. Feldblum. He made several comments,
``Diversity isn't important, I don't care about diversity. I
don't really think that is important anymore.''
And, certainly, as Acting Secretary that oversees the
Office of Human Capital, Office of Civil Rights, do you agree
with these statements?
And what is Interior going to do to recruit more people of
color and women into positions of leadership?
Ms. Combs. This is a great conversation. I am glad to have
it, because I think, certainly, my shop at the Policy,
Management and Budget is very, very diverse. But it is hard
sometimes to get people into a Department which is perceived as
maybe not so diverse.
So, we have just launched on October 1 something called the
Career Path. And it is novel. We had a woman from the National
Science Foundation come up, and what we are trying to say to
people is please come to the Department, there are all kinds of
things to do. If you are here, you are not going to be stuck in
your job. There are career opportunities.
We are approaching this from two ways. One is you can plug
your name in, and you can talk about the kind of background you
already have. And it will say, well, gosh, Myrtle or Bob, you
might be eligible for these. Or you can say, would you like to
be--you plug in the job and say, how would I get there?
And the response from the Department of the Interior
employees has been fantastic. They want more opportunities.
They want more jobs. And I think we are going to be adding 95
more positions to be talked about, so people will want to come.
And, obviously, STEM is a problem all across the country.
And you have girls who code, et cetera. We want to be sure that
we give the employees the opportunity to take learning--DOI
University, the DOI Learn, is very, very useful.
But we are reaching out, and we are talking across
government. In fact, the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management, and Budget is leading an inter-
governmental issue on career path and getting people to want to
stay and make a permanent career out of Federal service, which
we think is a noble calling, and understand that there are
opportunities.
So, there is diversity in jobs, there is diversity in
people, there is diversity in opportunity. And we want people
to walk in the door--by the way, their initial training when
they come in now, they are given all of the anti-harassment
training, they are told from Day 1 on the job that this is the
culture here, and you are going to have to subscribe to it.
So, we are trying it across a bunch of fronts, and we will
keep on working.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. And once again, thank you all,
the witnesses, for coming in today.
One final question for all of you. Very simply, is there
anything else you would like to say today that you haven't
already had the opportunity, the chance to say?
Mr. Greenblatt?
Mr. Greenblatt. Just reiterating that we stand ready to
help survivors and witnesses of misconduct. We encourage them
to come forward, either to the OIG or to the Department. And to
the extent we can add value going forward, we look forward to
the opportunity to do so. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Combs?
Ms. Combs. Well, I am delighted to be here, and I am very
pleased that this is such a bipartisan effort and approach.
And, as I said earlier, we much appreciated Mr. Greenblatt and
his team's report.
But there is much to be done, we look forward to doing it,
and we will not rest.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much.
And Ms. Feldblum?
Ms. Feldblum. Well, I highly commend you for putting
together this hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to see how
some of the EEOC report recommendations have been carried out.
And I truly hope that it can go from this room out to many
other agencies, and that you can encourage your colleagues to
look at other Federal agencies, as well.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. That is a sentiment and a goal
for all of us.
Once again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here today.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. TJ Cox, Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations
The Department of the Interior has a sexual harassment problem. And
the problem isn't new. For decades, women--and men--in our national
parks, refuges, and other public lands and offices have not been given
the protections they need to do their work free from harm. As we sit
here, mere weeks after the second anniversary of #MeToo, addressing
this problem is as critical as ever.
In 2016, the Inspector General released a report that documented
approximately 15 years of systemic sexual harassment and misconduct in
Grand Canyon National Park. After that report was released, it was
clear that this issue could no longer fall to the wayside. Interior
needed to take major action.
The Obama administration sent an anonymous survey out to all of
Interior's approximately 70,000 employees--an unprecedented effort in
the Federal Government. The survey was designed to get an idea of
whether this was a problem limited to Grand Canyon and the Park
Service, or whether it was more widespread.
The findings were alarming--over one-third of all Interior
employees had been harassed in some way in the past year. And nearly 1
out of every 10 had been sexually harassed, including both men and
women.
These numbers are shocking on their own, but the survey dug even
deeper. It found that three-quarters of employees who had been harassed
chose NOT to file a report or complaint. They gave several reasons, but
one of the top reasons was that they didn't think anything would be
done about it.
This is unacceptable. Both women and men deserve a workplace in
which they feel safe, both physically and psychologically--and in which
they believe something will be done if they are put in harm's way.
Fortunately, this Administration has taken action--for which they
deserve credit. Since the survey was released, Interior has revamped
its policy, instituted new training, and required each bureau to draft
a regularly updated action plan, among other efforts. These are all
steps in the right direction.
But this summer, the Inspector General released a report which
highlights ways in which Interior can further strengthen those efforts.
I look forward to hearing more about those needed changes and how
Interior will dedicate the resources necessary to make those changes.
But I also want to have a frank conversation today. While the right
polices, procedures, and training are obviously important, they are
only one piece of the puzzle. As we have heard from experts over and
over again, addressing sexual harassment begins, first and foremost,
with effective leadership.
Leadership must not only SAY they are committed; they must SHOW
that they are. They need to cultivate a culture that promotes diversity
and inclusivity across all levels of the workplace, but especially in
top leadership and management. They need to engage those who have been
affected by harassment in helping to craft the organization's solutions
to the problem.
And perhaps most importantly, leadership needs to earn the trust of
its workforce. Employees need to believe that their leaders will
support them, stand up for them, and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case at Interior. This Administration
has been marked by secrecy and distrust. We have seen, time and again,
both in the press and in testimony before this Committee, accounts of
employees being manipulated, intimidated, and ignored.
Most recently, the Bureau of Land Management abruptly announced it
was moving its headquarters out West. Reports of a closed-door meeting
with affected employees show that not one of the employees supported
this move. One employee even said, ``morale is as low as I've ever
seen.''
At a Full Committee hearing this summer, a whistleblower from
Interior testified that this Administration has, ``sidelined scientists
and experts, flattened the morale of career staff, and by all accounts,
is bent on hollowing out the agency.''
A mass reassignment of senior employees in 2017 created a culture
of fear for stepping out of line.
None of this sounds like leadership that is committed to earning
the trust of its workforce. And if workers do not trust that their
leaders even value them, how can we expect them to trust that their
leaders will protect them in their most vulnerable moments?
Making public statements is easy. But making real change in
addressing an issue as challenging as sexual harassment takes trust,
engagement, and genuine leadership. We hope Interior's leadership will
take that message to heart today.