[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE PREVENTION AND RESPONSE OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, February 27, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC 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
40-379 PDF 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
Joe Cunningham, SC Daniel Webster, FL
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Liz Cheney, WY
Diana DeGette, CO Mike Johnson, LA
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Debbie Dingell, MI John R. Curtis, UT
Anthony G. Brown, MD Kevin Hern, OK
A. Donald McEachin, VA Russ Fulcher, ID
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL
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 Thursday, February 27, 2020...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cox, Hon. TJ, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California................................................. 1
Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in
Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico................. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Dale, Julie, Prevention and Education Manager, Standing
Together Against Rape, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska............. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Jacobs, Neil, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Environmental Observations and Prediction, performing the
duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, DC............................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Questions submitted for the record....................... 8
Seabrook, Linda, General Counsel and Director, Workplace
Safety and Equity, Futures Without Violence, Washington, DC 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Questions submitted for the record....................... 17
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Anonymous Submission, Written Testimony of an Anonymous NOAA
Scientist.................................................. 32
Association for Professional Observers, Written Testimony of
Elizabeth Mitchell......................................... 35
Cagilaba, Simione S.B., U.S. Multilateral Treaty Observer,
South Pacific, Written Testimony........................... 39
Carroll, Patrick, U.S. Fisheries Observer, Written Testimony. 42
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 43
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
----------
Thursday, February 27, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. TJ Cox
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cox and Gonzalez-Colon.
Also present: Representative Huffman.
Mr. Cox. 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 National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
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. TJ COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cox. Good afternoon, and thank you, everyone, for
joining us today, and to our witnesses for giving your time to
be here.
At a previous hearing on sexual harassment at the
Department of the Interior, we heard from witnesses that
employees who work in remote, isolated places like national
parks are at a higher risk of being sexually harassed. But
remote workplaces are not limited to our public lands. Men and
women who work in our fisheries and oceans, like those with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, are
also at risk. Today's hearing will look at how sexual
harassment and assault has affected NOAA employees, and how
NOAA is trying to address the issue.
Sexual assault and sexual harassment are not new problems
at NOAA. In 2014, whistleblowers spoke about how pervasive
these issues are, especially among female scientists and
contractors. Addressing sexual harassment at any organization
is challenging, but NOAA's complex, decentralized structure and
the nature of the duties many of its workers perform makes it
especially challenging for them.
Many of NOAA's 12,000 employees and approximate 7,700
contractors are stationed at sea or other remote locations and
workplaces that are frequently male-dominated, physical in
nature, and far away from the usual support services.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017,
Congress directed NOAA to take steps to address this issue,
including issuance of a comprehensive sexual assault and
harassment policy, and establishment of victims advocacy
program. NOAA has not only met most of its objectives, but, as
we will hear today, there is still room for improvement and the
need for additional authorities and resources.
For example, their Workplace Violence Prevention and
Response Program, which is responsible for coordinating all
harassment and assault reporting, implementing a holistic
training platform, and providing services to its victims across
the organization, is up and running. But it is severely under-
staffed, with only a single person. In a 2018 report to
Congress, NOAA detailed 22 allegations of sexual assault from
2015 to 2018. And the newest report that was just submitted to
us this week showed two additional allegations.
Most of these assaults are reported by fishery observers.
Fishery observers are employees who are often stationed aboard
private commercial fishing vessels or in processing plants,
where they collect samples and data to support NOAA's mission.
Many of these observers are young female college graduates who
are just starting their careers in the scientific field. And
Federal law requires their presence on fishing vessels, but
that doesn't mean crew members and captains appreciate them
being there and are enforcing regulations.
Observers have frequently reported hostility and general
harassment from crew members. And when aimed at female
observers, this hostility often takes the form of sexual
harassment or assault. Making matters worse, there is often
only one observer on a vessel, and sometimes the only woman
onboard, out in the ocean, far from port for weeks or even
months at a time. And despite these vulnerabilities, fishery
observers do not currently qualify for the same access to many
of the sexual assault and harassment prevention and response
services that NOAA offers.
These observers and other similarly positioned NOAA workers
need protection from further harm, and not just the most severe
instances like sexual assault. There also needs to be a
commitment to prevent those less obvious but still harmful
behaviors, like inappropriate jokes or comments that observers
have come to accept as simply part of the job. This behavior,
no matter the intention, degrades women's feelings of safety
and security on the job, which, undoubtedly, only further
widens the gender gap we see in science, technology,
engineering, and math, or the STEM fields.
A change is possible, but it will not come by simply
checking the boxes for policy updates or verbal commitments. A
real sustained shift in how NOAA workers are treated will
require a persistent time and financial commitment of resources
from the leadership to changing a culture that has existed for
years, or even decades.
NOAA has the responsibility to build a respectful culture
within the STEM maritime and aviation fields that is free of
sexual discrimination and harassment. As one oceanographer and
mariner, Dr. Julia O'Hern, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed,
``I want future female deckhands, technicians, captains, and
other professionals to expect without hesitation that they,
too, can embrace science and the sea.''
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses more about how
we can achieve exactly that.
With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Gonzalez-
Colon for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
I thank the Chairman and the witnesses for being here today to
discuss a very important topic, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's efforts to address sexual assault
and harassment in the workplace. And I think that is one of the
biggest issues for many of the Members of Congress that are
here today.
First, let me say that I think this issue of sexual assault
and sexual harassment is very serious. It cannot be tolerated
in a Federal workforce. And every employee deserves a workplace
free of sexual assault and harassment.
Understanding this, NOAA has begun to develop a new agency
initiative, a SASH prevention program. SASH stands for sexual
assault and sexual harassment. The SASH prevention program
mission is to establish a culture of professionalism and
respect through education, training, and, when needed, victim
response and support. NOAA has taken several important steps to
begin implementing the SASH preventive program.
For example, NOAA has opened a help line which provides
crisis intervention, referrals, and emotional support to
victims of sexual assault and harassment. This help line can be
accessed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Additionally, the
agencies have written and implemented a sexual assault and
sexual harassment prevention and response policy, and this zero
tolerance policy defines unacceptable behavior, encourages
employees to report such behavior, and outlines available
resources for victims.
These are all steps in the right direction, and I am
encouraged by NOAA's action. And to understand the bigger
picture, we must examine the data on sexual assault and
harassment at NOAA.
In 2017, NOAA published its first data on this topic. Last
year, the agency found that 4 instances of sexual assault and
21 instances of sexual harassment had taken place. The
following year, the number of reported cases of sexual assault
increased to 22, while the reported numbers of incidents of
sexual harassment increased to 52. While still nowhere near
perfect, these numbers declined to 2 allegations of sexual
assault and 34 sexual harassment allegations in 2019. This is
progress, but again, more work remains.
And Ms. Kelley Bonner, who serves as NOAA workplace
violence advocate and is the only career official working on
the SASH prevention program, is in the audience today. Thank
you, and welcome to this hearing.
When she met with our Committee staff prior to the release
of the 2019 report, she estimated that an increase in the
number of reported instances of sexual assault and harassment
will occur in the short term, but that NOAA's work will
eventually produce a downward trend. The latest numbers in the
2019 report indicate that the program may be seeing some
success.
In the 2019 report, however, it also indicates that it is
premature to speak to any trends or discuss improvement as a
result of these efforts. And I agree, given the limited data,
that trends are difficult to determine at this point. NOAA has
more work to do, and the agency should keep the Committee
apprised of the important developments and further statistics
on the SASH prevention program.
In the last hearing held by this Subcommittee in October,
we discussed sexual harassment in the Department of the
Interior. At this hearing, the Department reported that the
percentage of their employees who knew how to report harassment
jumped from 62 percent in 2017 to 94 percent in 2018. In turn,
the percentage of Department employees who experienced
inappropriate behavior dropped from 35 percent in 2017 to 18
percent in 2019.
Statistics like this confirm that as the knowledge of how
to report instances of sexual harassment increases, such
unacceptable behavior decreases, thanks to God. As we discuss
sexual assault and harassment today, please keep these
statistics in mind, and they will serve as a model for other
agencies, including NOAA.
I look forward to the hearing and to hearing more about
NOAA's SASH prevention program and the continued efforts to
eliminate sexual assault and harassment in our workforce.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Unfortunately, votes have been called and we will need to
recess and come right back. We appreciate everyone's patience.
So, the hearing is now in recess, subject to the call of
the Chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Cox. I want to thank the witnesses in the audience for
your patience and forbearance. The Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations will now come back to order.
I would like to introduce our witnesses today. Dr. Neil
Jacobs is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental
Observations and Prediction, performing the duties of Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ms. Julie Dale is the
Prevention and Education Manager at Standing Together Against
Rape, Inc. And Ms. Linda Seabrook is General Counsel and
Director of Workplace Safety and Equity at Futures Without
Violence.
Under 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 some questions.
With that, the Chair will now recognize Dr. Neil Jacobs.
STATEMENT OF NEIL JACOBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS AND PREDICTION, PERFORMING THE
DUTIES OF UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Jacobs. Thank you, Chairman Cox, Ranking Member
Gonzalez-Colon, and Representative Huffman, for inviting me
here to testify today before you on how NOAA is working to
prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment and to ensure a
safe environment for our workforce to carry out their critical
mission.
NOAA faces specific risk factors for SASH. We have a
decentralized workforce that spans over 600 locations in all
the U.S. states and territories. Some workers are in isolated
locations with limited access to resources.
NOAA is also in the midst of a generational shift within
the workforce, with an influx of younger employees highlighting
clashing generational attitudes toward appropriate behavior in
the workplace. Nothing typifies the convergence of these risk
factors better than fishery observers who are placed on
commercial fishing vessels to collect fisheries data.
The job of an observer is challenging, as they work
alongside fishermen in stressful and often hazardous
conditions. Because their job involves reporting observations
related to compliance with the fisheries regulations, they can
become the target of interference, intimidation, and
harassment, including sexual harassment and assault.
NOAA trains fishery observers to recognize and report
harassment. Satellite phones and other independent
communication devices, such as personal locator beacons, are
made available.
Regional observer programs in NOAA's law enforcement office
respond to and provide victim assistance resources to reported
incidents and observers of sexual assault and harassment.
While fishery observers remain one of the highest-risk
populations for sexual harassment and assault, these have also
occurred on NOAA's research vessels and in agency facilities.
For some employees, sexual harassment creates a daily struggle
that has profound impact on the victim's professional
development, performance, and overall well-being.
NOAA's Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Program
is the center of expertise for addressing SASH issues at NOAA.
The program is in its second year of operation and is focused
on three strategic goals: (1) embedding full-time victim
advocates in all major regional campuses; (2) providing
comprehensive prevention services; and (3) ensuring training to
increase competency around addressing harassment.
NOAA has several contracts with leaders in bystander
intervention, victim advocacy, computer-based training, and
prevention of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
workplace.
One contract with Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
allows NOAA employees, contractors, and affiliates in Alaska to
receive victim advocacy services, including crisis intervention
and emotional support.
To undertake the agency's prevention and assessment needs,
we contracted with Soteria Solutions, an international leader
in sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention, to develop
prevention products, including bystander intervention for
NOAA's highest-risk areas.
A third contract is with EverFi, a leading computer-based
training specializing in sexual harassment prevention that will
provide foundational training to the entire NOAA workforce.
Three weeks ago, I announced EverFi's computer-based training
via an all-hands message. A 1-hour version of this training is
mandatory for all NOAA employees, and a more comprehensive 2-
hour version is mandatory for all NOAA supervisors, myself
included.
The scope and complexity of the issues at NOAA demanded a
comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy that includes dedicated,
full-time staff to execute it successfully. To date, we only
have one full-time victim advocate at NOAA in the Workplace
Violence Prevention Program, but are working expeditiously to
provide additional staffing and resources.
NOAA has created a SASH council that meets monthly and
engages stakeholders on a topic to track data trends and
prevention initiatives.
NOAA continues to train its workforce and will be providing
cutting-edge education from leaders in the field of sexual
assault and sexual harassment prevention, diversity, inclusion,
and civility via an upcoming summit this fall.
I have only been at NOAA for 2 years, and I assumed the
role of Acting Agency Head a year ago. While we still have a
long way to go, I want to recognize the significant progress
that has taken place over the last 18 months. Kelley Bonner has
done an amazing job designing this program and setting a new
course.
While she is NOAA's subject matter expert, I am grateful to
have this opportunity to be here today so that I can tell you
myself that prevention of sexual harassment and assault is a
top priority. In fact, the Fiscal Year 2020 budget request of
$2.7 million is the highest percent increase of any new program
in the agency. This request not only reflects my commitment in
addressing SASH, but also my confidence in the plan that we
have set into motion to address these long-standing issues.
I thank you for your attention on this very important
topic, and I am happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Neil Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Environmental Observations and Prediction, performing the duties of
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
introduction
Thank you, Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Gohmert, and Committee
members for allowing me to testify before you today. I am here to
discuss NOAA's efforts to address and prevent sexual assault and sexual
harassment, or ``SASH,'' as well as NOAA's unique and ongoing
challenges in meeting this goal.
NOAA's Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Program is the
center of expertise with regard to sexual assault and sexual
harassment. The program is working to set up agency-wide prevention
services, and to establish victim advocacy for the agency. Victim
advocacy is a unique facet of legislation requiring NOAA to respond to
SASH issues, and NOAA will be the first civilian Federal agency to have
embedded victim advocates, providing a critical service to our entire
organization.
To understand SASH issues within NOAA, you must first understand
the specific risk factors NOAA faces. For one, NOAA has a decentralized
and a complex workforce. NOAA's workforce spans over 600 locations in
all U.S. states and territories, and is routinely deployed on ships and
planes in state, federal, and international waters. Moreover, within
these dispersed geographic locations are isolated workplaces with
limited resources. Finally, NOAA is in the midst of a generational
shift within its workforce.
Nothing typifies the convergence of all three of these risk factors
better than fisheries observers. These approximately 851 contractors
and privately employed biologists are placed on commercial fishing
vessels and tasked with collecting an independent fisheries catch and
bycatch data along with recording fishing activities. While fishery
observers are deployed in state, federal, and international waters
around the country, they spend the most time at sea in Alaska, where
they may be contracted to work on vessels for up to 90 days. The job of
a fisheries observer isn't easy as they work alongside fishermen in
stressful, strenuous, and hazardous conditions. Observers are often
viewed as outsiders with oversight responsibilities. Therefore, they
are at a high risk for bullying and intimidation, sexual and physical
harassment, and violence.
Regional Observer Programs (ROPs) coordinates with NOAA's Office of
Law Enforcement (OLE) to train fisheries observers to recognize and
report any type of harassment. ROPs also ensure satellite phones or
other independent communication devices such as In-Reach or Personal
Locator Beacons (PLBs) are available for observers seeking help. In the
unfortunate event of sexual assault or harassment, ROPs provide NOAA
SASH resources to observers.
While fisheries observers remain one of the highest-risk
populations for sexual harassment or assault, there are others who
experience harassment and assault in NOAA's fleet and research vessels,
offices and other Agency facilities. For these employees, sexual
harassment creates a daily struggle that interferes with their personal
and professional lives and costs the Agency in a myriad of ways. The
psychological effects of sexual assault and sexual harassment have a
profound impact on a victim's professional development, performance,
and overall physical and emotional well-being. Organizationally, these
incidents create a culture of low morale, have economic impacts, and
compromise the integrity of the Agency's mission and science.
To achieve a measureable reduction in sexual assault and
harassment, NOAA's Workplace Violence program has focused on three
strategic goals and has received additional resources. These goals are
in line with both the 2016 EEOC's Select Task Force on Harassment in
the Workforce and the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine study, Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and
Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The three goals developed for NOAA's Workplace Violence program
focused on a streamlined response, and include:
1. Full-time regional victim advocates embedded in all major
regional campuses across NOAA;
2. Comprehensive prevention services; and,
3. Leadership education and engagement to increase competency and
comfort around addressing harassment.
To achieve these goals while addressing NOAA's unique challenges,
we procured six contracts with the leading organizations in the field
for bystander intervention, victim advocacy, computer-based training,
and overall prevention in sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
workplace.
One contract, with STAR (Standing Together Against Rape),
specifically focuses on providing services for NOAA staff in Alaska.
The STAR contract allows any NOAA employee, contractor, or affiliate to
specifically reach out to STAR to receive victim advocacy services.
This includes the traditional services of crisis intervention,
emotional support, and connection to additional resources. It also
includes expanded services of hotel accommodations and follow-up
telephonic support.
To undertake the agency's prevention and assessment needs, we
contracted with Soteria Solutions. Soteria Solutions, known for its
``Bringing in the Bystander'' product, is an international leader in
sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention. They are working with
NOAA on a targeted assessment via focus groups. From this assessment,
Soteria will produce a suite of prevention products that will include
bystander intervention for the highest risk areas of the agency for
2020.
A third contract is with EverFi, a leading computer-based trainer,
specializing in sexual harassment prevention. This contractor will
provide foundational training to the entire NOAA workforce. I announced
EverFi's computer-based training this month via an all-hands message. A
1-hour version of this training is mandatory for all NOAA employees,
and a more comprehensive 2-hour version is mandatory for all NOAA
supervisors. This training incorporates the NOAA SASH policy,
interactive components, and video.
The scope of the issues at NOAA demands a comprehensive, multi-
pronged strategy that requires dedicated, full-time staff to execute it
successfully. To date, we have only full-time employee at NOAA in the
workplace violence prevention program. However, in January of this
year, two NOAA employees were assigned to work in the program on a 1-
year detail.
Additionally, two critical full staff positions have been
advertised, and interviews have been conducted and selections made,
although we do not yet have firm on-boarding dates. Along with an FY21
request of $1.7M over the base of $1.0M, this upcoming infusion of
staffing resources will allow NOAA's workplace violence prevention
program to continue to mature. NOAA also continues to develop
innovative ways to tackle sexual harassment and sexual assault. For
example, NOAA has created a Sexual Assault/Sexual Harassment Council
that is chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations and
includes senior NOAA leaders with equities in the SASH arena. The
Council meets monthly and engages stakeholders on the topic to track
data, trends, and prevention initiatives.
Moreover, NOAA continues to train its workforce and will be
providing cutting-edge education from leaders in the field of sexual
assault and sexual harassment prevention, diversity and inclusion, and
civility via an upcoming summit this fall. This summit will provide in-
person training to NOAA's leadership, general workforce, and
practitioners in the field of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and
diversity and inclusion. Live-streamed panels, workshops, and webinars
from the summit will be available to the entire NOAA workforce.
More remains to be done. Although we recently have made significant
strides, I commit that our Agency will continue to prioritize its
efforts in the prevention and response to sexual harassment and
assault. We will ensure the foundation we've started building remains
strong and lasting. The workforce deserves no less. I thank you for
your attention to this important topic and for the opportunity to
testify before you today. I am happy to answer any follow-up questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Neil Jacobs, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction,
performing the duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Questions Submitted by Rep. Cox
Question 1. In your testimony, you indicated that observers are
equipped with a beacon (presumably an emergency position-indicating
radiobeacon or EPIRB), which communicates with NOAA-operated satellites
to indicate distress and need of immediate rescue. These devices do not
provide for two-way communications, merely an indication that a person,
vessel, or aircraft is in distress at a specific location. We
understand that some observers, depending on their region and provider
employer do receive two-way communication devices that would allow for
a proportional response. Does NOAA have the authority to develop a
policy to provide a standard means of communication for observers
deployed at sea?
Answer. All observers are issued a unique personal locator beacon
(PLB), separate from the vessel's EPIRB, and are encouraged to notify
the United States Coast Guard (USCG), their employer, and NOAA (the
Agency) with this distress signaling device in any unsafe situation.
NOAA Fisheries also provides secure, two-way communication between an
observer, NOAA Fisheries staff, and the observer's employer (either
through InReach satellite communicators, Iridium satellite phones,
encrypted data transmission, or cell phones issued by their employers).
The type of device issued is dependent on the length and location of
deployment such as short, nearshore day trips vs. multi-week or month-
long deployments. Recognizing that cell phones only work in nearshore
operations, observers deployed in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific
Islands fisheries are issued Iridium satellite phones while observers
deployed in the Mid-Atlantic and West Coast regional fisheries deploy
with InReach Satellite communicators. North Pacific Groundfish and At-
Sea Hake fishery observers submit encrypted data and text messages
daily to regional observer program staff through the Agency provided,
encrypted data transmission system known as ATLAS.
Question 2. Fisheries observers are not the only workers in a
unique employer arrangement. There are also protected and endangered
species observers that are required by NOAA to be present on privately
owned geophysical survey vessels, dredges, and underwater construction
for the purposes of mitigating take of marine mammals, turtles, and
other species. What does NOAA consider its authority or responsibility
to provide resources and protection to protected and endangered species
observers?
Answer. NOAA prioritizes the safety of our observers. NOAA's Office
of Law Enforcement (OLE) has staff in each division who focus on
observer safety. Each year, OLE personnel participate in outreach and
education to ensure observer safety along with fishermen, observers,
stakeholders, and state and Federal partners. During observers
training, OLE provides a safety training module to show observers how
to report inappropriate activity and behavior and the importance of
doing so. The observers are shown examples of unacceptable behavior and
taught what steps they can take if something inappropriate happens
during a scheduled fishing trip. Throughout the year, OLE continues to
provide outreach to ensure that observers feel comfortable with
reporting issues to their supervisors and OLE. In addition, OLE meets
with fishing vessel crews, captains, and fishing company managers to
ensure that they clearly understand the type of behavior that
constitutes assault and harassment of observers. Finally, OLE informs
stakeholders and our industry partners of the potential penalties for
not providing a safe environment for observers, both at sea and at
shore-side processing facilities.
However, the protected resources observers required as part of
mitigation or terms and conditions of a Marine Mammal Protection Act
Incidental Take Authorization or Endangered Species Act Biological
Opinion are employed by companies that are contracted by entities
conducting the activities (e.g., action agencies, private sector
companies in construction, geophysical surveys, or other). The
contracting companies employing the protected species observers are
responsible for ensuring that any harassment or safety issues are
mitigated. Protected species observers are similar to fishery observers
as both are employed by private companies, however the Magnuson-Stevens
Act authorizes criminal, as well as civil administrative, penalties for
harassing, forcibly assaulting, opposing, or intimidating a fishery
observer or interfering with their duties. While those penalties are
not available under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered
Species Act, other local, state, and Federal laws regarding assault and
harassment may apply.
Question 3. NOAA has proposed incidental take regulations that
would authorize the take of nearly 200 percent of the Gulf of Mexico
Bryde's whale annually, or over 1,300 percent over 5 years, in addition
to nearly 9,000 percent of the sperm whale population and over 40,000
percent of the beaked whale population for seismic oil and gas surveys
(83 Fed. Reg. 29212). NOAA's analysis places significant weight on
mitigation by protected species observers. Considering that these
observers would be the final backstop to halt operations, how does NOAA
propose to protect these observers from harassment, intimidation, and
assault?
Answer. In February 2020, the Department of Interior revised the
scope of the requested incidental take regulations by removing the area
currently under a leasing moratorium--as established under the Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act--from consideration. NOAA issued a new
biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act in March 2020 based
on DOI's revised action. NOAA is also considering DOI's revised scope
of action as it develops the final rulemaking.
The protected resources observers required as part of mitigation or
terms and conditions of a Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Take
Authorization or Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion are employed
by companies that are contracted by entities conducting the activities
(e.g., action agencies, private sector companies in construction,
geophysical surveys, or other). The contracting companies employing the
protected species observers are responsible for ensuring that any
harassment or safety issues are mitigated. Protected species observers
are similar to fishery observers as both are employed by private
companies, however the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes criminal, as
well as civil administrative, penalties for harassing, forcibly
assaulting, opposing, or intimidating a fishery observer or interfering
with their duties. Those penalties are not available under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. However, other local,
state, and Federal laws regarding assault and harassment may apply.
Question 4. An important component of an anti-harassment program is
holding managers and supervisors accountable when they do not take
appropriate steps when an incident of harassment or assault is
reported. How does NOAA hold managers and supervisors accountable in
this regard?
Answer. NOAA's policy explicitly states in its Sexual Assault/
Sexual Harassment (SASH) policy (NAO 202-1106) that all managers are
responsible for reporting any incident of SASH and taking appropriate
actions to reduce SASH within the agency. In the past, NOAA has
disciplined and terminated supervisors/managers who have not adhered to
its policy. Currently, all SASH-related discipline and incidents are
tracked monthly through the SASH council, where higher-level leadership
and stakeholders search for trends and ensure that all employees,
including managers and supervisors, are held accountable.
Question 5. During last week's hearing, when asked if NOAA plans to
do a workplace environment survey, you said NOAA had included two
surveys in a new online training module. I ask that you please provide
those survey questions to this Committee. And I ask again: Does NOAA
intend to deploy an agency-wide survey? If so, how could you ensure
that contractors and affiliates, such as fisheries observers, protected
and endangered species observers, and fishery management council
members, executive and administrative staff would receive this survey?
Could you describe the challenges you anticipate from conducting a
comprehensive agency-wide workplace environment survey?
Answer. NOAA intends to complete an agency-wide targeted assessment
on SASH in calendar year 2021, including contractors and affiliates,
and we will share the survey questions with this Committee when they
are final. For entities with whom NOAA has a contractual relationship,
NOAA's contract agreements include the requirement that its contractors
and affiliates be made aware of and adhere to NOAA's SASH policy. We
are working on expanding SASH training requirements for our contractors
and affiliates as well. For entities with whom NOAA does not have a
contractual relationship (e.g., fisheries observers and protected
species observers) the contracting companies employing the protected
species observers are responsible for ensuring that any harassment or
safety issues are mitigated. Because contractors and affiliates are not
Federal employees, surveying them presents a challenge for any Federal
agency. NOAA will procure a contractor who specializes in culture
assessments to implement the survey.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Huffman
Question 1. What does NOAA consider its authority or responsibility
to provide resources and protection for harassment and prevention
response to fisheries observers?
Answer. NOAA prioritizes the safety of our observers. NOAA's Office
of Law Enforcement (OLE) has staff in each division who focus on
observer safety. Each year, OLE personnel participate in outreach and
education in regard to observer safety with fishermen, observers,
stakeholders, and both state and Federal partners. During observers
training, OLE provides safety training to show observers how to report
inappropriate activity and behavior and the importance of doing so. The
observers are shown examples of unacceptable behavior and taught what
steps they can take if something inappropriate happens during a
scheduled fishing trip. Throughout the year, OLE makes efforts so
observers feel comfortable with reporting issues to their supervisors
and OLE. OLE also talks to fishing vessel crews, captains, and fishing
company managers so they understand what constitutes assault and
harassment of observers. OLE also informs them of the potential
penalties for not providing a safe environment for observers, both at
sea and at shore-side processing facilities.
However, the protected resources observers required as part of
mitigation or terms and conditions of a Marine Mammal Protection Act
Incidental Take Authorization or Endangered Species Act Biological
Opinion are employed by companies that are contracted by entities
conducting the activities (e.g., action agencies, private sector
companies in construction, geophysical surveys, or other). The
contracting companies employing the protected species observers are
responsible for ensuring that any harassment or safety issues are
mitigated. Protected species observers are similar to fishery observers
as both are employed by private companies, however the Magnuson-Stevens
Act authorizes criminal, as well as civil administrative, penalties for
harassing, forcibly assaulting, opposing, or intimidating a fishery
observer or interfering with their duties. While those penalties are
not available under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered
Species Act, other local, state, and Federal laws regarding assault and
harassment may apply.
Question 2. NOAA's budget request for Fiscal Year 2021 requests
funds to develop and maintain a workplace violence database, which the
Committee fully supports. Please describe how you could use this
database to track data on disciplinary corrective actions and ongoing
investigations and how it could be used to identify trends in offenses.
Answer. A centralized workplace violence database enables
stakeholders to report their data in a timely manner. NOAA is looking
at various companies that specialize specifically in internal
investigations similar to NOAA's. This database would aggregate length
of time of cases, case outcome, discipline data including corrective
actions. Aggregating this data would allow accurate and timely trend
analysis. Reports generated from the centralized database would be
presented monthly at the NOAA SASH council.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Julie Dale for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JULIE DALE, PREVENTION AND EDUCATION MANAGER,
STANDING TOGETHER AGAINST RAPE, INC., ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Ms. Dale. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cox, Miss
Gonzalez-Colon, Representative Huffman, and other members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share with
you the issues facing NOAA observers, and how our organization,
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), supports them.
My name is Julie Dale. I have been working in the sexual
violence prevention field at STAR in Anchorage, Alaska for over
7 years, and I have been working closely with observers and
NOAA for over 4 years.
While the connection between the work a rape crisis center
in Alaska does and the work NOAA does might not be immediately
apparent, the reality is that Alaska has the highest rates of
sexual violence in the Nation. These incredibly high rates are
not confined to our landmass, but impact our offshore
environments, as well.
As a lifelong Alaskan, I greatly value the work observers
do to help preserve our fishing industry in my home state, as
well as across the Nation. And I am passionate about helping
our fishing industry be as safe and sustainable as possible.
As you may be aware, NOAA observers are professionally
trained biological scientists gathering firsthand data on what
is caught and thrown back, which supports science,
conservation, and management activities. This data is used to
monitor fisheries, assess fish populations, set fishing quotas,
and inform management. Observers also support compliance with
fishing and safety regulations. It is a necessary role for
scientists in our fishing industry if we hope to maintain a
fishing industry at all.
Commercial fishing is an inherently dangerous job. Slippery
decks, heavy equipment, isolation, and rough seas all
contribute to the perils observers and fish industry workers
face at sea.
In addition to the job being inherently dangerous,
observers are immediately placed in a vulnerable position the
moment they step onto a vessel, as fishing crews often view an
observer as an outsider or a snitch.
An observer's vulnerable position becomes even more
perilous as it is combined with being isolated far from shore
for extended periods of time without access to communication
with individuals off of the boat, and potentially witnessing
fishing violations that the vessel crew does not want to be
reported. This can, and does, result in observers being
pressured, harassed, threatened, and physically and/or sexually
assaulted to either interfere or prevent them from completing
their job.
While providing training, I have received firsthand
examples from observers of how this harassment starts. These
examples include, but are not limited to, being told to shuck
scallops, clean the slime line, measure crab, or even cook for
the crew. These duties are not part of the observer's job, and
the intent is to remove them from their assigned position so
they are not able to perform their job functions. Therein lies
the power and control. If an observer refuses to participate in
these behaviors, they are not part of the team; and if they do
participate, the crew then can hold over their heads that they
were not at their assigned job.
These harmful behaviors can escalate quickly and result in
the observers not having access to food, sleeping quarters,
bathroom facilities, or the captain's deck. All of these
tactics hold power and control over the observers, which
contributes to the sexual violence experienced by these
individuals.
There is good work being done, but it is not enough. There
are some real barriers to observers reporting and seeking help.
These can include gaining a reputation for being a narc, not
wanting to worry their friends and family, not sure if it is a
reportable offense, having to go back out on the same boat with
the same crew again, and being blacklisted from the industry,
not able to do the work for which they are so passionate.
The response observers receive when reporting these
behaviors is very disheartening, and ranges from, ``Well, it is
just hazing,'' ``What do you expect is going to happen on a
fishing boat,'' ``I bet they thought you were flirting with
them,'' ``We told you not to wear yoga pants,'' and, ``Well, it
happened to me too and I made it through just fine. You will
get over it.''
We need to create safe environments for our observers and
prevent further harm from happening by providing consistent
prevention training for industry personnel, enacting
enforceable legislation that holds individuals who harm
accountable, and changing the norms from those that are
tolerant of sexual violence to supporting and believing
survivors.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I will be
happy to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dale follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie Dale McNeese, Prevention and Education
Manager for Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
Chairman TJ Cox, Ranking Member Louie Gohmert, and the other
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share
with you the issues facing NOAA Observers and how our organization,
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), supports them.
My name is Julie Dale. I have been working in the sexual violence
prevention field at STAR in Anchorage, Alaska, for over 7 years and
have been working closely with Observers and NOAA for over 4 years.
While the connection between the work a rape crisis center in Alaska
does and the work NOAA does might not be immediately apparent, the
reality is that Alaska has the highest rates of sexual violence in the
Nation, these incredibly high rates are not confined to our landmass
but impact our offshore environments as well.
As a lifelong Alaskan, I greatly value the work observers do to
help preserve our fishing industry in my home state as well as across
the Nation and am passionate about helping our fishing industries be as
safe and sustainable as possible.
As you may be aware, NOAA Observers are professionally trained
biological scientists gathering firsthand data on what is caught and
thrown back, which supports science, conservation, and management
activities. This data is used to monitor fisheries, assess fish
populations, set fishing quotas, and inform management. Observers also
support compliance with fishing and safety regulations. It is a
necessary role for scientists in our fishing industry if we hope to
maintain a fishing industry at all.
Commercial fishing is an inherently dangerous job, slippery decks,
heavy equipment, isolation, and rough seas all contribute to the perils
observers, and fish industry workers face at sea.
In addition to the job being inherently dangerous, Observers are
immediately placed in a vulnerable position the moment they step onto a
vessel as fishing crews often view an Observer as an ``outsider'' or
``snitch.'' Observers vulnerable position becomes even more perilous as
it is combined with being isolated, far from shore, for extended
periods time, without access to communication with individuals off the
boat, and potentially witnessing fishing violations that the vessel
crew does not want to be reported. This can, and does, result in
observers being pressured, harassed, threatened, and physically and/or
sexually assaulted to either interfere or prevent them from completing
their job.
While providing training, I have received firsthand examples from
Observers of how this harassment starts. These examples include, but
are not limited to, being told to shuck scallops, clean the slime line,
measure crab, or cook for the crew. These duties are not part of the
Observers job, and the intent is to remove them from their assigned
position, so they are not able to perform their job functions. Therein
lies the power and control. If an Observer refuses to participate in
these behaviors, they are ``not part of the team,'' and if they do
participate, the crew then can hold over their heads that they were not
at their assigned job. These harmful behaviors can escalate quickly and
result in the Observers not having access to food, sleeping quarters,
bathroom facilities, or the captain's deck. These tactics hold power
and control over the Observers, which contributes to the sexual
violence experienced by these individuals.
There is good work being done, but it is just not enough, there are
some real barriers to Observers reporting and seeking help, and these
can include, gaining a reputation for being a narc, not wanting to
worry friends and family, not sure if it is a reportable offense,
having to go back out on the same boat with the same crew AGAIN, and
being blacklisted from the industry, not able to do the work for which
they are so passionate.
The response Observers receive when reporting these behaviors is
very disheartening and range from ``well its just hazing,'' ``what do
you expect is going to happen on a fishing boat,'' ``I bet they thought
you were flirting with them,'' ``I told you not to wear yoga pants,''
and ``Well it happened to me too, and I made it through just fine, you
will get over it.''
We need to create safe environments for our Observers and prevent
further harm from happening by providing consistent prevention training
for industry personnel, enacting enforceable legislation that holds
individuals who harm accountable, and changing the norms from those
that are tolerant of sexual violence to supporting and believing
survivors.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I would be
happy to respond to questions.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Ms. Dale.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Linda Seabrook for 5
minutes.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF LINDA SEABROOK, GENERAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR,
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND EQUITY, FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Seabrook. Thank you, Chairman Cox, Ranking Member
Gonzalez-Colon, and Representative Huffman. Good afternoon.
For more than 30 years, Futures Without Violence (FUTURES)
has led the way in creating innovative solutions to end
violence against women and children around the world, and to
help communities heal and thrive. On behalf of myself and
FUTURES, I would like to thank Chairman Cox and this
Subcommittee for inviting me to speak with you today.
At FUTURES, we are honored to lead the only national
resource center dedicated to addressing the impacts of gender-
based violence and harassment on workers and the workplace.
Authorized by the Violence Against Women Act and funded through
DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women, the National Resource
Center on Workplace Responses helps employers, employees,
workplace stakeholders, and others improve responses to
violence and harassment.
Most importantly for our time here today, the Resource
Center serves as the technical assistance provider to executive
branch agencies in crafting and implementing policies and
programs designed to prevent and respond to such harassment and
violence impacting the wide range of workplaces and workers who
serve the public good.
We also focus our efforts on the Nation's most vulnerable
workers, such as those in agriculture, hotel, and janitorial
industries. These workers, who often perform their work in
isolated environments, are women or members of otherwise
marginalized groups, are paid low wages, and often perform
their jobs through subcontracted work arrangements, experience
the highest rates of sexual violence in the workplace.
Sexual violence and harassment, no matter where it occurs,
is primarily about power. Thus, the process of creating
effective responses to and preventing this conduct must seek to
leverage the collective power of all in the workplace to bring
about necessary cultural change, and democratize responsibility
for creating an environment that promotes respect, equity,
dignity, and thereby greater safety and support.
Workers know how, where, to whom, by whom, and under what
circumstances sexual harassment occurs. Therefore, they must be
intimately involved in the policies, procedures, and processes
intended to protect them. At FUTURES, we engage in
collaboration to help build workplace-appropriate responses and
interventions that promote prevention and culture change.
One such collaboration was with the Coalition of Immokalee
Workers. With FUTURES' expertise in sexual violence prevention,
and using certified Sunripe Certified Brands as a pilot site
employer, we collectively developed a worker-engaged and
workplace-based education and response program as a companion
to CIW's Fair Food Program, a program which has effectively
addressed the long-standing scourge of sexual violence in the
nation's fields and farms.
Some of the working environments at NOAA have similar
factors that account for vulnerability to experiencing sexual
harassment on the job as the agricultural industry. For
example, fishery observers, who are often recent college
graduates without the gravitas of experience, working in
isolated, remote working environments on behalf of an agency
that is not necessarily their employer, are in a situation that
makes them vulnerable to experiencing sexual violence and
harassment.
I have been provided with and have reviewed NOAH's SASH
policy, which is thorough and an excellent first step. I am
happy to address specific concerns about this policy, but what
I would like to impress upon you today is how important it is
for the process of implementation to incorporate worker input
and participation. Doing so provides the means for creating
that shared responsibility and collective engagement for
changing culture that we know brings a policy to life.
What numerous studies have revealed, and what I can also
speak to as a survivor of sexual harassment, is that most
survivors do not want to report or avail themselves of the
legal or administrative remedies to address this conduct. They
just want it to stop, and not happen in the first place to them
or anyone else. So, while policies that provide greater
protections and ensure greater accountability are much needed
and most welcome, we must also seek to engage workers,
survivors, and management to work together to change the
culture that facilitates this conduct in the first place.
On the Resource Center website, on the sexual harassment
subpage, we have many resources that I am happy to discuss
later on. But I wanted to leave you with the premise that
workers, and especially survivors, should be front and center
in the implementation of these policies and practices.
Incorporating trauma-informed and survivor-centered approaches
in investigations, trainings, practices, and protocols provide
greater assurance that such policies will be engaged in the
first place, and engenders trust throughout the workplace to
promote collective responsibility for the kind of workplace
every worker deserves. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Seabrook follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda A. Seabrook, General Counsel and Director
of Workplace Safety & Equity, Futures Without Violence
Good afternoon, my name is Linda Seabrook and I am General Counsel
and Director of Workplace Safety & Equity for the national non-profit
organization, Futures Without Violence (FUTURES). For more than 30
years, FUTURES has led the way and set the pace in creating innovative
solutions to ending violence against women and children, and improving
responses to violence and abuse impacting individuals, families, and
communities.
On behalf of myself and FUTURES, I would like to thank the
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, for inviting me to speak at this hearing on Sexual
Harassment at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
scope of problem
Countless women and other vulnerable workers have shared their
stories of workplace sexual harassment and violence and continue to do
so. What we have seen from these stories bravely shared, is that sexual
harassment and violence is and continues to be a pervasive problem in
the world of work.
According to a 2016 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission study,
up to 85 percent of women report that they have experienced workplace
sexual harassment.\1\ A study detailed in an article in Gender and
Society entitled ``The Economic and Career Effects of Sexual Harassment
on Working Women,'' revealed that women who are sexually harassed are
six times more likely to change jobs,\2\ and a National Council for
Research on Women study found that women are nine times more likely to
quit, and three times more likely to lose their jobs because of
experiencing workplace sexual harassment and violence.\3\ And these
statistics are more acute for women of color. This should be of grave
concern as it leads to decreased employment opportunities, decreased
economic stability for women and their families, and impacts the
efficacy and mission of the organizations, businesses, and agencies in
which they work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Feldblum, Chai, and Victoria Lipnic. 2016. ``EEOC Select Task
Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, Report of Co-Chairs
Chai R. Feldblum and Victoria A. Lipnic.'' https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/
task_force/harassment/.
\2\ McLaughlin, Heather, Christopher Uggen, and Amy Blackstone.
2017. ``The Economic and Career Effects of Sexual Harassment on Working
Women.'' Gender & Society 31(3): 333-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243217704631.
\3\ National Council for Research on Women. 1994. ``The Webb
Report.'' The Webb Report, June.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national workplace resource center
At FUTURES, we are honored to lead the only national resource
center dedicated to addressing the impacts of sexual harassment and
violence, domestic violence, and stalking on workers and the workplace.
Authorized by the Violence Against Women Act, and funded through the
U.S. Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, the
National Resource Center on Workplace Responses (Workplace Resource
Center) helps employers, employees, Federal agencies, and other
workplace stakeholders by providing tools, resources, promising
practices, training and education to prevent, as well as improve
responses to, workplace sexual violence and harassment. Most
importantly for our time here today, the National Resource Center
serves as the technical assistance provider to executive branch
agencies in crafting and implementing policies and programs designed to
prevent and respond to domestic violence, sexual violence and
harassment, and stalking impacting the wide range of workplaces and
workers who serve the public good.
Through the Workplace Resource Center, we focus our efforts on the
Nation's most vulnerable workers, such as those in agriculture, hotel,
and the restaurant and janitorial services industries. These workers,
who often perform their work in isolated environments, are largely
women of color, LGBTQ or otherwise marginalized, are paid low wages,
and perform their jobs through subcontracted work arrangements (which
weakens the chain of accountability), experience the highest rates of
workplace sexual violence.
Sexual violence and harassment, no matter where it occurs, is
primarily about power and abuse of power, and not all that much about
sexual desire. Thus the process of creating effective responses to and
preventing sexual harassment in the workplace must seek to leverage the
collective power of all in the workplace to bring about necessary
cultural change, and democratize responsibility for creating a work
environment that promotes respect, dignity, equity, and thereby,
greater safety and support. Workers know how, where, to whom, by whom,
and under what circumstances sexual harassment occurs, therefore they
must be intimately involved in the policies, procedures, and processes
intended to protect them from such conduct.
At FUTURES, we partner with survivors, workers, employers, unions,
workers' rights and antiviolence advocates to build workplace-
appropriate responses and interventions that promote prevention and
culture change. One such collaboration centered around the work of our
partners and friends at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a human
rights organization based in Immokalee, Florida that created the Fair
Food Program, an innovative and effective partnership among farmers,
farmworkers, and retail food companies that ensures those who harvest
our food are able to do so without being exposed to sexual harassment
and violence in our Nation's fields and farms. With FUTURES' expertise
in sexual harassment and violence prevention, and using Sunripe
Certified Brands as a pilot site employer, we collectively developed a
survivor and worker-led workplace-based education, awareness, resource,
and response program as a companion to the consumer-powered and worker-
driven Fair Food Program, which has been called the ``best workplace
monitoring program'' by the New York Times and has effectively
addressed the long-standing scourge of sexual violence in the fields
that has long plagued our agricultural industry.
addressing sexual harassment at noaa
Some of the working environments at NOAA have similar factors that
account for vulnerability to experiencing sexual harassment on the job
as the agricultural industry. For example, fishery observers are young
professionals, often recent college graduates, who work pursuant to a
subcontract. They board private fishing boats and vessels as the only
NOAA-affiliated person on that vessel, which are at sea, many miles
from shore. A recent college graduate, new to such a workforce and
without the gravitas of experience, working in an isolated, remote
working environment, on behalf of an agency that is not their employer,
is in a situation that makes them extremely vulnerable to experiencing
sexual violence and harassment.
I have been provided with and reviewed NOAA's Sexual Assault and
Sexual Harassment Prevention and Response Policy, which is a thoughtful
and thorough policy, and excellent first step. I am happy to address
specific questions about the policy when appropriate, but what I would
like to impress upon you today is how important it is for the process
of implementation to incorporate worker input and participation. Doing
so provides the means for creating that shared responsibility and
collective engagement for changing culture that we know brings a policy
to life and moves a workplace toward prevention and culture change.
What numerous studies have revealed, and what I can also speak to
anecdotally as someone who has experienced sexual harassment in my work
life, is that most targets of sexual harassment do not want to report,
complain, or avail themselves of the legal or administrative processes
to address their experiences of sexual harassment and violence--they
just want this behavior to stop, and not happen again, to themselves or
anyone else. So while policies that provide greater protections and
ensure greater accountability are much needed and most welcome, we must
also engage employees, bystanders, survivors, and supervisors to work
together to change the culture that facilitates workplace sexual
harassment and violence in the first place.
Available on the Sexual Harassment and Violence subpage of the
Workplace Resource Center website, www.workplacesrespond.org/
harassment, you will find a number of resources that can guide any
agency or organization through the process of collective engagement in
changing workplace culture to one that promotes greater dignity,
respect, collective responsibility, and safety, to include a model
climate survey and code of conduct, a workplace ``culture walk,''
sample education and awareness materials, as well as myriad other
resources and tools to effect necessary culture change.
conclusion
Most importantly, the voices and experiences of survivors of
workplace sexual harassment and violence need to be front-and-center in
any solutions and in the implementation of any policies and practices
to address this problem. Trauma-informed and survivor-centered
approaches in investigations, trainings, practices and protocols
provide greater assurance that such policies will be engaged in the
first place, and engenders trust throughout the workplace to promote
collective responsibility for the kind of workplace every worker
deserves.
I thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to be with you
today, and am happy to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Linda Seabrook, General Council
and Director of Workplace Safety & Equity, Futures Without Violence
Questions Submitted by Representative McEachin
Question 1. Could you provide your analysis of NOAA's current SASH
policy, as well as suggested improvements?
Answer. As stated in my testimony, the SASH policy is an excellent
first step, and thoughtful and thorough policy. It integrates many best
practices recommended by the FUTURES-led National Resource Center on
Workplace Responses (Workplace Resource Center), including:
A clear purpose statement that articulates the workplace
culture that NOAA seeks to create and that establishes
broad goals for the policy;
The scope of who, where, and what types of conduct are
covered by the policy;
Legally-sufficient definitions and examples of sexual
harassment and sexual assault, using accessible
terminology;
Prioritizing and centering prevention, training, and
awareness over discipline, which is a meaningful indication
of NOAA's values;
Multiple channels for reporting potential prohibited
conduct;
Clear distinctions between the SASH policy and EEO
processes;
Centering the immediate safety and resource referral needs
of an employee who makes a report;
A clear statement of the limitations of qualified
confidentiality;
The creation of advocacy and liaison positions, as well as
a list of additional resources, for the benefit of
employees who may need assistance;
A prerogative to avoid transferring employees who make a
report if it is not their wish to be transferred;
Clear and enforceable protections against retaliation; and
Regular incident reporting procedures to track the impact
of the policy and promote accountability.
Suggested improvements include the following:
As stated in my testimony before the Subcommittee, the provision
``swift reporting allows law enforcement authorities and the Agency to
take measures . . .'' as detailed in Section 6.01 might discourage a
target of sexual harassment or assault from reporting conduct because
they may not want law enforcement to become involved. For many
survivors, the criminal justice system does not instill confidence, and
the fear of being responsible for a coworker or supervisor's potential
interaction with the criminal justice system may also inhibit a target
from reporting. Instead, we suggest removing ``law enforcement
authorities'' and leaving the remaining language. ``Appropriate
measures'' may indeed include law enforcement, but the policy details
in subsequent sections what circumstances might require the involvement
of law enforcement. We would recommend, however, that the policy
provide for a conversation with the target of the harassment when law
enforcement must be called, or if discretionary, if they want law
enforcement to be involved.
With respect to Section 9.04 ``Reassignment of an Alleged
Perpetrator,'' we are concerned by the lack of guidance on when or how
this might occur or be appropriate and would recommend revisiting and
expanding on this provision to provide clearer guidance on when such a
reassignment may be justified as well as the process for doing so. The
victim's safety should be prioritized in any determination of whether
reassignment is appropriate and if appropriate, where the perpetrator
is reassigned.
Finally, the policy does not appear to contain a provision for
keeping a target/victim who makes a report abreast of the status of
their report at regular intervals, where feasible and appropriate. We
would recommend the incorporation of practices that provide the most
information as the law and agency regulations allow.
Question 2. In your testimony, you mentioned that an important
strategy to addressing sexual harassment in an organization is to
involve workers, including former victims and survivors of harassment,
in the solutions. In other words, organizations should `democratize'
the process for addressing sexual harassment and changing the culture
in an organization. What are some of the most effective ways an
organization can involve workers in addressing sexual harassment? How
can organizations keep employees engaged in the process to ensure that
positive progress is continuing to be made?
Answer. Policies created from the top down without a robust plan
for implementation that involves the participation of representatives
of workers at all levels, including former or current targets of sexual
harassment, may drive compliance, but it will be temporary. Workers
need to feel a stake in the process in order to have trust in policies
and a collective responsibility for outcomes. Involving workers in the
development of education and practices that promote compliance with the
policy creates buy-in and fosters culture change and values alignment.
Our first recommendation would be for NOAA to conduct an agency-
wide climate survey, which, in addition to including all full- and
part-time employees, should include contractors, interns, and others
who perform consistent work on behalf of NOAA. Each organization has
its own culture, gaps, and needs. A well-executed workplace climate
survey process lays the foundation for a tailored response and
prevention program by identifying the following: the organizational
risk factors that underlie sexual harassment and violence; the needs of
employees experiencing workplace sexual harassment on the job; the
obstacles to worker participation in accountability measures; current
gaps in response to such conduct; and, the level of worker confidence
in leadership and current policies and procedures.
To encourage candor, the climate survey should be conducted by an
outside entity, and respondents should be assured that their responses
cannot be traced back to them and will be incorporated into a
comprehensive report, rather than individualized. The survey can
include a call for volunteers to serve as employee members of a
``Workplace Values Team,'' that will be responsible for review and
analysis of the final comprehensive report and serve as an advisory
group to offer suggestions for necessary policy changes and closing
gaps in response, as well as engage in an ongoing collaborative process
for developing shared and representative workplace expectations and
values.
The Workplace Values Team can advise and direct the process for
implementation of the SASH policy, including any recommended
improvements, and help with the creation of an educational program by
providing realistic training scenarios, strategies for bystander
intervention, and a plan for continued worker engagement. Finally, the
Workplace Values Team, if trained appropriately, can serve as peer
counselors and educators to provide worker-to-worker support.
We hope that the foregoing proves helpful to NOAA as they continue
to improve their response to sexual harassment and violence. Please
know the Workplace Resource Center is available for any technical
assistance or guidance needed to assist NOAA in this process. We
appreciate the thoughtful questions provided by Representative
McEachin, and thank you and the Subcommittee once again for your
commitment to ensuring that NOAA workers can work free from sexual
harassment and violence on the job.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you. Now we can entertain some questions.
Kind of the first thing is, Ms. Seabrook, when you are
describing this culture of intimidation, harassment, and that
sometimes the observers are essentially made to believe that it
is just part of the job, you have described some of the things
that were being done to or should be done to shift that
culture. I would like you to provide a little more elaboration
or color on how NOAA has a role in changing that culture.
And, certainly, Dr. Jacobs, a little bit more color on some
of the things that you had mentioned that you are doing to
bring about that shift.
Ms. Seabrook. Yes. It is interesting, there was a study
that was done by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United,
where they surveyed restaurant workers about sexual harassment.
When they just asked the workers, ``Have you ever been sexually
harassed,'' the rates weren't actually that high. But then,
once they started to describe what sexual harassment actually
was, they saw significant rates of sexual harassment as
identified.
So, when you say that it is just part of the job, that is
often the experience of many workers today, whether it is in
the agricultural industry, the retail industry, the restaurant
industry, or at NOAA.
I think what is most important is to have, again, that kind
of collective responsibility for building the type of workplace
in which everyone can thrive. So, it is democratizing that type
of responsibility among the workforce and empowering bystanders
to stand up, turning co-workers from bystanders to up-standers.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. And Dr. Jacobs?
Dr. Jacobs. We have been spending a lot of time, obviously,
with this for the last 18 months. I have been spending a
tremendous amount of time with Kelley Bonner. We have set up
contracts for nine additional investigators. We originally only
had one. Those were started in July 2019.
The response time has gone from weeks down to 48 hours.
We have a mandatory online training module that we released
on February 5. Right now, about 40 percent of the agency has
already completed it.
We have stood up a SASH council in 2019 with
representatives from around the agency.
Hiring, obviously, as you have heard, is an issue. I have
personally called Enterprise Services myself to get them to
speed up on some of the hiring processes so we can get this
staffed out.
Obviously, training is very, very important.
Another thing that we are working on is centralizing the
reporting structure of the data, getting a database set up.
That is going to help streamline how the reports are uploaded,
and the format of them, because there is a lot of uncertainty
and confusion around the agency about different reporting
formats of the data, and how it is collected. So, streamlining
that process is very important.
We have six external contracts to help provide a foundation
of training and education in victim services.
These are a lot of things that we have done. Some next
steps will be bystander intervention training, that is another
computer module that we are going to do later this year. We
have a SASH summit coming up this fall. We are working on
developing and rolling out a prevention plan. I mean,
obviously, we have a plan in place now, but we are forming it
as we go based on what we are learning. And then really, really
working on increasing victim advocacy services. We do plan to
hire internal investigators. Not just having investigators as
contractors, but having internal hires on this, I think, is
really going to help us a lot.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you. And certainly these are all
very, very positive steps. Have we seen a shift or positive
results really out there on the water yet?
Any feedback from some of the observers that the culture
has changed on this boat, or people are actually more mindful
about what they are doing?
Dr. Jacobs. I would say it is probably too early to tell,
really. I mean, I have a lot of positive e-mails and feedback
from the all-hands message I sent out with the link to the
training module.
In 2017, we had some numbers that came in, the law
enforcement part of NOAA, they were collecting data, but they
didn't know where to send it. So, those numbers didn't get
included until 2018, so there appears to be a spike in 2018. A
lot of those are previous years' numbers that they didn't know
where to report. And then also, the Alaska incident got
reported that showed up in 2018.
So, I would say 2018 is probably anomalously high, 2019 is
maybe too early to tell. We would expect, as we develop and
roll out this prevention program, that the numbers may go up
before they come down, because a lot of these victims don't
exactly know where to report or what the proper process to take
is. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase before a
decrease. But once the program is fully rolled out, I would
expect to see the numbers decreasing, particularly over the
next year or two.
Mr. Cox. Great, fair enough. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Member for 5
minutes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, again, all the witnesses, for waiting. I know sometimes
when votes are called, everything gets disrupted. So, thank you
again, and sorry about that.
Hearing the testimonies of Dr. Jacobs and Ms. Dale, there
is one issue that concerns me, and that is the decentralized
system of NOAA. Having personnel in more than 600 locations, as
you already specified, including the territories, and how
difficult it is to work and have that kind of situation, to
work with sexual assault and harassment. Can you elaborate
more, Dr. Jacobs, in terms of what policies the agency pursued
or explored today to address the risk posed by this
decentralized system?
And later on I am going to follow back with Ms. Dale in
terms of the experience in Alaska and the vessels, planes, and
ships, because coming from a territory, I know how difficult it
is when you have employees all over without anyone there in a
vessel to help out.
Dr. Jacobs?
Dr. Jacobs. Thank you for the question. Obviously, Alaska,
being a remote region, is a challenge to get outreach, so we
have contracted with STAR to provide victim advocacy services.
In the Lower 48, when I was referring to centralized, it is
more of a centralized data management and reporting structure.
The actual victim advocates we want out in the field.
We have six different line offices that break their
coverage down into different regions. For compliance with the
law, we are actually looking at dividing into north, south,
east, and west, and then OMAO, we would have folks there, as
well. So, the victim advocates will be in the different
regions, but the centralized aspect is mostly going to be the
data reporting.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I mean, I think the partnership is
great. My question to you, Dr. Jacobs, is what kind of
information, guidelines, or policies may be brought after
having that experience with a partnership in order to address
these kind of issues in isolated areas?
If we are not there yet, fine. If you are working on this,
please keep us posted.
Dr. Jacobs. There are a couple of things that could be very
helpful, particularly in the Alaska region, when it comes to
vessels. When it pertains to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, there is
language in there that specifically references issues when they
only occur on vessels. So, this would apply only to an observer
on a vessel. And it would be tremendously helpful for us if the
solution was to just remove reference to ``on a vessel,''
because a lot of times these issues happen at port, or at
hotels when the ship is not actually--I mean, it even happens
on the dock.
There is another part in there that discusses forcibly
intimidate, and there is a series of intimidate, assault, and
so on after the word ``forcibly.'' And ``forcibly'' is kind of
a hard word to define. It would be very helpful if it just said
``intimidate'' and ``assault.''
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Ms. Dale?
Ms. Dale. As an agency that is responding to victims of
sexual violence, one of the most important things that we are
focusing on at STAR in this partnership is the appropriate
response when somebody discloses they have been harmed. And
that appropriate response goes beyond legislation and beyond
prosecution. We want to make sure that observers, regardless of
the incident that has happened to them, are supported in being
believed and continuing to be able to do their jobs as safely
as possible.
So, at our agency, we are looking at that victim support as
our role in that partnership.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
Dr. Jacobs, going back to you with the goals of the
workplace program, you said that you were looking to have a
full-time regional victim advocate embedded in all major
regional campuses. What is the status of this effort, and if
you need more help?
Dr. Jacobs. We absolutely do need more help. Right now we
have one certified and trained victim advocate. She is sitting
right behind me. We have three others who are trained, but they
are not certified or credentialed yet. They are in the process
of that.
It is kind of a two-pronged approach of staffing out and
also bringing some investigators as FTEs. I would really love
to hire investigators internally, rather than to have to
contract it out, so we actually have more oversight of the
investigators' work.
And then, once we get the victim advocates credentialed,
then it is really a matter of outreach and awareness, and
making sure that the employees in the field know who to access,
how to access them, and building that type of communication and
understanding.
The prevention side of it is largely the modules and the
training. But it is how we handle these--we went from weeks
down to 48 hours by just bringing on nine additional
contractors for the investigation, and shortened the
investigation time from months down to around 100 to 120 days.
But we have a long way to go still.
So, definitely, I would love to work with everyone here on
trying to push this further.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. I know my time
has expired. We have a lot of questions, but we can submit them
for the record.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Ranking Member.
I am going to ask unanimous consent that the gentleperson
from California, Representative Huffman, be allowed to sit on
the dais and participate in today's proceedings.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
say, as the Chair of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Subcommittee, where we spend a lot of time talking about the
NOAA programs, I am really grateful to you and your staff and
your leadership in choosing to do a deeper dive into this
subject. It is really important, and it is the human side of
these programs that we talk about so much.
Dr. Jacobs, I also want to thank you for being here,
because the Commerce Department has, obviously, sent someone
with the right scope of authority and a base of knowledge, and
you are here answering questions.
That is a far cry from the non-responsiveness that we get
from the Department of the Interior, to be perfectly candid.
They have given up sending witnesses with the right position
and with actual knowledge to answer our questions. And it is
good to just be having a serious conversation about a serious
subject. This is the way real non-partisan oversight of a
serious subject ought to go. So, I thank you for that.
It seems to me that we all agree that the safety and well-
being of employees and those who are employed on behalf of NOAA
should be the highest priority at the agency. And resources and
services should be readily available and accessible to them.
Dr. Jacobs, you have talked a bit about the Fiscal Year
2020 budget, and some programs and some dollar figures where it
seems to suggest a greater emphasis. But I want to focus in on
the number of personnel, starting with how many employees and
contractors actually work for NOAA. Do you know, off the top of
your head, the number of employees and contractors?
Dr. Jacobs. We have just under 12,000 FTEs, and I think
roughly about twice that in contractors.
Mr. Huffman. Oh, so that is even more contractors than I
had assumed. I had thought 7,700 contractors and affiliates, so
I think you have given an even higher number than I had.
And I think I understood you to say that you currently have
one full-time employee and two detailees in the Workplace
Violence Prevention and Response Program, with two more FTEs in
the process of being hired. Did I get that right?
Dr. Jacobs. We have two more in the process of being hired.
These are for the victim advocates. We also have one full-time.
We have three more that are trained, but not credentialed. And
then we have other contractors doing investigations.
Mr. Huffman. OK.
Dr. Jacobs. And then there are a lot of other people in HR
and the like doing work on this issue.
Mr. Huffman. Why is it taking so long to fill those
positions?
Dr. Jacobs. Some of it is just hiring. I mean, I am sure
you are probably aware that we have had hiring challenges in
the weather service and elsewhere. It is the same hiring
process. That is a slow process. This is why I said I called
Enterprise Services myself to try to expedite one of these
individuals.
The hiring process takes a while. I wasn't fully aware of
how deep the problems were until probably a year-and-a-half
ago. So, really focusing in on last year's budget, when we had
about $1 million in the program, and then adding an additional
$1.7 million this year.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. But in terms of the number
of personnel, wouldn't you agree that the numbers we are
talking about are not a lot to stand up a prevention and
response program for over 12,000 employees, plus all those
affiliates that we mentioned?
Dr. Jacobs. Oh, yes----
Mr. Huffman. Do you feel like that is an adequate number?
Dr. Jacobs. No, not at all. I completely agree with you. We
definitely need more people.
Mr. Huffman. What would be the right number?
Dr. Jacobs. I think we would probably have to scale up. I
would like at least one victim advocate in the various regions.
We also have contracts with agencies like STAR to help us
out, as well. We have six different contracts, so we actually
have, under contract, a lot of individuals working on this. But
I would like to see actual hires in the agency, FTEs, working
on this.
Mr. Huffman. Does your Fiscal Year 2020 budget request
reflect the staffing that would get you the number you would
like to see?
Dr. Jacobs. The additional $1.7--some of that would go to
staffing, yes.
Mr. Huffman. OK, moving on, we all know that female
employees are disproportionately harmed by sexual harassment
and assault, especially working in remote locations such as
some of these fisheries assignments for observers and monitors.
They are often the sole NOAA-affiliated employee on these
vessels, but they are a very important part of our fishery
management framework. It troubles me that so many observers
have reported sexual harassment, and surely there are a lot
more who have experienced it and not bothered to report it.
Last question--I know I am out of time, I hope there might
be another round--Dr. Jacobs, do you think that the resources
and services that are available to NOAA employees are also
available to affiliates and contractors, such as the observers
in so many cases?
Dr. Jacobs. They are available, but a lot of the things,
for example, the module, are not--the training is not
necessarily mandatory.
So, when some of the fisheries--the observer program, when
they do go through training, it is a couple-week-long course,
and there are a couple hours on SASH. But when it comes to
these modules and other things, we don't necessarily have the
same authorities with our contractors that we do the FTEs----
Mr. Huffman. Do you think they know those resources are
available to them?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, probably not. We are in the process of
trying to make them more aware of this, so this is part of the
awareness and outreach that we are doing.
Mr. Huffman. I am out of time, Mr. Chair, but thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. And we will have subsequent rounds, as
well.
Dr. Jacobs, as I mentioned in my earlier statement, sexual
harassment is certainly not a problem that is just limited to
NOAA, and in a previous hearing we invited the Department of
the Interior to visit to discuss their issues with sexual
harassment and how they were addressing that.
One of the things that helped Interior better understand
how to best address their problem was a department-wide climate
survey that the Obama administration had administered in early
2017. And the survey gave the Department really invaluable
insight into the different kinds of harassment that was
occurring, whether or not the victims had reported that
harassment, and why they chose to report it or not.
The survey also showed that while harassment was an issue
across the Department, there were nuances that differentiated
the individual bureaus within the Department. Having that
information helped each bureau draft and implement their own
tailored action plans. And given the information of that
survey, does NOAA have plans in place to conduct an agency-wide
workplace environment survey?
And if they did or didn't, what are the challenges in doing
that?
Dr. Jacobs. I am sure we will do additional surveys. But,
as part of the training module that I released on February 7,
the beginning of the module has a survey in it asking a lot of
questions about not just your perception of your workplace
environment, but do you feel like you know where to go, do you
know what to do? And then, at the end of the training session,
there is an additional survey.
I would expect that the results of those surveys, after the
training module is completed, will give us a lot of
information, and we will use that to go forward to see when and
where we need to do additional surveys.
Mr. Cox. Great, and thank you. And back to you, in your
latest report to Congress--which we thank you so much for
delivering this week--it shows up that the fisheries observer
program is in dire need of support to prevent and respond to
assault and harassment of observers, in general.
As we have heard today, observers are in charge of making
sure that fishing vessels and crews are in compliance with
fishing regulations. And, in that sense, their work can
directly impact how profitable a given fishing trip is for the
crew. For example, observers are responsible for making sure
certain fishing quotas aren't exceeded. And, as you can
imagine, this can put them in a potentially precarious,
unwelcome position on the boat.
We have received written statements from observers, and
they describe some of these harassments and threats. In fact,
in one instance, a fellow was on a fishing vessel in the South
Pacific. After refusing to lie about how much tuna the crew
caught, he was harassed and put in an environment of hostility
and fear for his life. And, certainly, after he reported this
and experiences of reporting other violations, including
illegal dumping, there is no question that these observers need
resources and support to help them navigate these potentially
dangerous situations.
I think in your testimony you stated that the regional
observer programs are responsible for providing these
resources. Does this mean that observers in every region
receive identical training services and communication devices,
and that all of those are identical to what was forwarded to
NOAA employees?
Dr. Jacobs. They would have access to the same thing that
the NOAA employees have. In addition to that, the Office of Law
Enforcement provides a tremendous amount of outreach,
education, and compliance assistance.
That said, because of these vessels, sometimes they are in
waters that are under Coast Guard jurisdiction or even beyond.
Really, the only leverage we have is whether or not we allow an
observer on the boat. If the observer is not on the boat, the
boat can't go fish, because of the quotas. So, we do have some
leverage with respect to actual observers on boats. But beyond
that, what happens on the boat is up to the Coast Guard.
Or, in international waters----
Mr. Cox. Well, thanks--so let's say, for example, you have
an observer on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico who is assaulted.
And he wishes to report this immediately, and he is going to
disembark the vessel. Walk me through what they can do, what
communication device you are certain that they have on their
person, and what NOAA's immediate follow-up responses would be.
Dr. Jacobs. They would be equipped with a beacon. It is a
transponder device that relays a signal to a satellite. It
notifies the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard wouldn't know the
type of alert. I mean, you could alert or signal this beacon
whether the ship was sinking or the observer feels threatened.
The Coast Guard will respond as fast as possible.
In that case, then we are alerted. And depending on where
they are, we get services and victim advocates in contact with
them to figure out what the next steps would be.
Mr. Cox. Great, thank you. I am going to recognize the
gentleman from California once again for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the extra
time to continue this conversation.
Ms. Dale, I wonder if you could talk a little more about
STAR's relationship with NOAA, and how that works.
Ms. Dale. Thank you for the question. Absolutely.
STAR has been responding to observers being harmed on boats
for many, many, many years as one of the leading victim
advocacy services through Alaska. We have been providing
training to certain portions of NOAA observers, their
supporters. So, that looks like prevention and response
training, making sure that they know how to respond
appropriately if an observer is harmed, but also providing a
multi-disciplinary, centralized response throughout Alaska if
an observer is harmed.
We have our marine highway system that is, literally,
nonexistent right now. Ferries are not running. People are not
able to get in or out of many, many hub communities. And
Anchorage being the easiest to access, and the largest, we are
able to provide those services to observers that are harmed as
soon as possible. So, with us having that relationship with
NOAA, we are able to provide the best response services.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And since you began that
partnership with NOAA--two years, did you say?
Ms. Dale. Well, we have just gone into contract very
recently, it just started this year.
Mr. Huffman. OK.
Ms. Dale. We have been providing non-contracted services,
but we haven't tracked that since there was no contract in
place.
Mr. Huffman. All right, let's say--going back to when you
first started working with NOAA, how many calls have you
actually received from NOAA employees or contractors?
Ms. Dale. Since we have been keeping track of that
information, one.
Mr. Huffman. Only one?
Ms. Dale. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Huffman. That strikes me as a pretty low number. Do you
have any idea why that number would be so low?
Ms. Dale. I have some speculations on that. The one phone
call that we received was from the Eastern Seaboard, where I
have been providing trainings for the last 2 years to their
staff on how to respond appropriately. Those observers who are
in that program know that if they report, they are going to be
responded to appropriately, and not just looking for a law
enforcement response.
So, the information that is being relayed in Alaska
currently is coming from a law enforcement individual, and they
are very well intentioned, and very well-meaning. But the
messenger matters whenever we are talking to observers and how
they are going to be responded to.
Mr. Huffman. So, no calls at all from Alaska, where you are
actually performing this direct service work.
Ms. Dale. Not yet.
Mr. Huffman. Dr. Jacobs, how does NOAA communicate the
availability of these types of services and resources to its
observers?
Dr. Jacobs. So, agency-wide--I send out all-hands e-mails,
we have training. When it comes to communicating to the
observers, the contractors that the observers work for are made
aware of these. We also rely heavily on the Office of Law
Enforcement, who have relationships with the fishermen, the
contractors for the observers, and such.
This is why I said earlier, it is a two-pronged approach.
We have to set up the victim advocacy and how we process the
data and deal with this issue. But we also have to set up a
system of outreach so that the victims actually know where to
go and what process to follow.
Mr. Huffman. All right. And you are describing a lot of
resources that are set up for your personnel, but are these
resources available directly for victims, in the same way that
STAR is?
Dr. Jacobs. STAR is our victim advocacy in Alaska.
Mr. Huffman. So, STAR is the answer, basically. Do you have
plans or contracts in other regions that are like the services
that you have contracted with for STAR?
Dr. Jacobs. We have six different contracts. They differ,
depending on what they do. Some are more for outreach, some are
more for victim advocacy.
When we are dealing with issues in the CONUS, we have one
victim advocate, and then others that are trained that are
awaiting certification. So, this is an ongoing process that we
are trying to staff out.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate the conversation with
all of you. Clearly, NOAA is starting to make some positive
changes. I hope this conversation and some of the information
we have brought forward and you have shared with us underscores
the fact that there is certainly a lot of room for improvement,
and we look forward to working with you in that regard.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Representative Huffman.
And Ms. Dale, it is clear here that fishery observers are
in this very unique and vulnerable position by being out on
fishing boats and vessels alone for days, weeks, and months. In
your testimony, you mentioned some examples of tactics
fishermen may use to intimidate and manipulate fishery
observers early on in the fishing trip, like telling them to
shuck scallops or clean the slime line. And, as you note, these
behaviors sometimes escalate into sexual assault or harassment.
Could you provide just a little bit more elaboration or
color on these behaviors, and how they can lead to harassment
and assault?
Ms. Dale. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. We know
that, ultimately, sexual harassment and sexual violence is done
out of power and control. Those are the components that are
always present whenever we have individuals that are
experiencing harm. The things that we talked about, shucking
scallops or cleaning the slime line, is often identified as
hazing. It is an initiation that almost always happens to
individuals whenever they step foot onto a boat.
And like I mentioned, all of those components are meant to
maintain power and control. That way, the observer, they are
immediately with a lesser hand than any of the individuals, the
fisher people on the boats. They are utilizing all of these
various tactics to maintain leverage over those individuals so
they are not able to report the potentially illegal fishing
activities that are happening.
Also, like you mentioned, that is how the individuals on
the boats are making their money. And if they feel like they
are not going to be bringing in the funding for themselves that
they potentially would be with the catch, the individuals are
experiencing severe amounts of sexual harassment and sexual
violence.
Mr. Cox. Thanks for that. Ms. Seabrook, Ms. Dale, and Dr.
Jacobs, the basic question is whether or not the fishing
community recognizes that a culture of intimidation and
harassment isn't OK. And is there a culture shift that is
happening at all that you see? Or is there still this culture
of acceptance for that?
Ms. Seabrook. I don't really know about the fishing
industry, per se. But I know that it has happened, and there
have been transformations in other industries.
For example, the agricultural industry, when I was speaking
about the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, the program that they
put in place, that was very worker-centered and survivor-
centered, reduced the incidents of sexual harassment and
violence in the field and farms in Immokalee, Florida from
rampant down to zero. There has not been a single allegation of
serious sexual harassment after implementation of the program.
Mr. Cox. Ms. Dale?
Ms. Dale. I have not seen a reduction in the culture of
harm in the fishing industry. I know that it can happen. I know
that work can be done, and it needs to be impacted not just by
NOAA, but we need to start impacting that culture change within
the fishing industry, as well as the providers, the
contractors, and the captains of these boats.
This is pervasive in the fishing industry, and we haven't
seen a change in culture yet, a change in the norms. It can
happen, I do believe that the work can be done. I don't believe
that all of the fishing industry people want to harm
individuals and continue this pervasive culture. So, with the
work being done, and the information that is being put out, and
the partnerships that are happening, we absolutely can see a
change in cultural norms on the fishing boats. But it is not
happening yet.
Mr. Cox. OK. Dr. Jacobs?
Dr. Jacobs. I would completely agree with that. It is a
culture shift. It is going to be a long challenge. And I really
hope that what we can do, as an agency, is to move in the
direction of changing.
I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to come here
today. I know that the subject matter experts are sitting
behind me, but this was such a top priority for NOAA. So, thank
you for having me here.
I did want to mention that, even though we are really
trying to face this culture change head on, and drive it in the
direction that we want to, we also are focused on electronic
monitoring and artificial intelligence, because I would
envision one day that we may not need observers if we could do
this through electronic monitoring.
Mr. Cox. Great, thank you for that. And we do recognize the
positive steps that NOAA has been taking with regard to this.
And if I could follow up, it is that, as we discussed, NOAA
is required to provide an annual report to Congress on sexual
harassment and sexual assault incidents that are reported each
year. And a couple of questions there.
Are the regions submitting this data in any type of
standardized way?
Two, are you able to track ongoing investigations through
the data that is submitted?
For example, would you be able to see whether or not an
investigation is taking an unnecessarily long time?
And, finally, are you able to crack down on disciplinary
corrective actions that are being taken when allegations are
substantiated?
Dr. Jacobs. This is the reason why we stood up the SASH
council. I get regular tag-ups with them. I get quarterly
reports.
There are two things that we put in place to address this
problem. The short answer is, historically, that data exists,
but it is not centralized, it is not in a common format. If we
need the information, we have to go dig it up. In some cases,
depending on where it is collected, they may not necessarily
know exactly where to report it.
Over the last 12 months, we have done a much better job of
aggregating these data sets, but this is the one reason why we
need to stand up a database. We need to have a centralized
database. The centralized database will force everyone to come
up with a common format, thereby allowing us to sort through
the numbers and get a better analysis, and keep track of the
data in better real time.
But the short answer is the data does exist, it is not
centrally located, and we need a common format. Hence, the
database.
Mr. Cox. Great, thank you for that.
Ms. Seabrook, it would be great if you could weigh in on
that--is it important to have standardized data tracking across
an organization?
And how does that help the organization better address a
sexual harassment problem?
Ms. Seabrook. Yes, absolutely. Transparency is key. If
survivors don't see that the system is working, then they will
not have confidence in the system, and they won't engage the
policies of the organization.
I would also make a recommendation that in the annual
report, if possible, there could be an annual climate survey,
because I think what is really important--it is not just
tracking when reports are made, but you really want to track
who hasn't made a report and why. That is really critical and
valuable information for the agency to gather.
And then, also, what is critical about a climate survey is
that it is anonymous. If employees or contractors feel that
there is any way that that information can be tracked back to
them, we have seen that that kind of reduces the confidence
that they have in that climate survey.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. And I want to touch on this, as well--
the one thing I know and have learned is an important component
of any anti-harassment program is a way to hold managers and
supervisors accountable when they don't take the steps they
need to to report or follow up on incidents of harassment. Can
you provide a little bit more--once again, elaborate on that.
Why is it important? What are some of the ways that the agency
can help with that regard?
Ms. Seabrook. Sure. We have helped other Federal agencies
with implementing their policies and practices. One
recommendation that we have made to agencies and to other
organizations outside of the Federal Government is to have
adherence to the policy, as part of the annual performance
evaluation.
So, if the manager has a track record of ignoring reports,
not following through with investigations, or minimizing
reports, then that is actually reflected on the performance
evaluation and taken into account, in terms of ratings going
forward.
Mr. Cox. That is a great point. Thank you very much.
I want to thank you all again for answering the questions
and for being here today. I think it has been very informative.
I would like to give each of you an opportunity to describe
whatever else you think needs to be done, and how we can ensure
that happens.
We can start with you, Ms. Seabrook, then Ms. Dale, then
Dr. Jacobs.
Ms. Seabrook. You mentioned before--or, actually, no, I
think maybe it was Ms. Dale that mentioned before--about the
law enforcement response. There is something within the policy
that I noticed that may inhibit a survivor from coming forward.
If you look at Section 6.01, it talks about employees who
observe, or the object of sexual harassment, da da da da da,
should report. Swift reporting allows appropriate law
enforcement authorities and the agency to take measures to
ensure that offensive behavior stops.
There is always a concern to me, because we know that the
criminal justice system is not as trauma-informed and
responsive to the needs of survivors. It can be a very
inhibiting factor, especially if you put that first within the
policy.
So, my recommendation would be to take out ``law
enforcement'' entirely, and just leave it as ``the agency,''
because the agency may conclude that law enforcement is
necessary to be reported to, but at least that gives the
survivor some confidence in the fact that there is going to be
a process, and it is not just going to go directly to a law
enforcement report. That is one thing I definitely saw.
Mr. Cox. All right, thank you.
Ms. Dale?
Ms. Dale. Best practices, whenever responding to an
individual that has been harmed, is a multi-disciplinary
approach. And to make sure that individuals and observers that
are reporting are only having to relay their information or
their story one time to as few people as possible, to help make
sure that they are not re-traumatized continually, I think, is
very, very important, and key, and can really be a part of this
response to observers.
Making sure that those best practices are in place, and
supporting NOAA as an agency in the work that is being done, to
make sure that our observers are safe.
Mr. Cox. Great point. Thank you so much for that.
Ms. Dale. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. And we will conclude with Dr. Jacobs.
Dr. Jacobs. I think I actually had the chance to cover most
of the things, but I would like to highlight one thing that I
haven't talked about, and that is OMAO. And I really have to
give a tremendous amount of credit to Admiral Silah and Admiral
Hann for really cracking down on what was going on in OMAO. And
that really sent a message, particularly through the vessels
and the fleet, that there is a zero tolerance with this.
I would also look forward to working with you on how we can
look at the language in the MSA, because this complicates the
job of the law enforcement agency. They have a really good
working relationship with a lot of the local observer
community. But if they are in a situation with observers that,
depending on where an incident happened, the observer may have
to report it either to us or to local law enforcement
officials, it really complicates the situation. And it also
erodes the trust in the observers, with whether or not they
actually think that the NOAA law enforcement is going to have
complete control, and have their back, and be able to defend
them, whether the incident actually happened on a vessel or in
port.
Basically, my job is to clear the deck, to make sure that
everyone in NOAA feels safe and has the ability to do their
job. This is why this is such a high priority for me. And I
really, really appreciate your support.
Mr. Cox. Great. Thank you, once again, to all the
witnesses.
Before we close, I ask for unanimous consent to enter the
following documents into the record: a statement from the
Association for Professional Observers; an anonymous statement
from a NOAA scientist; a statement from fishery observer,
Simione Cagilaba; and a statement from fishery observer,
Patrick Carroll.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
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 4:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
An Anonymous NOAA Scientist
Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Gohmert, and members of the Committee:
thank you for inviting me to submit my testimony.
I have been a sea-going scientist for the NOAA National Marine
Fisheries Service for almost 20 years and have experienced sexual
harassment at sea on multiple occasions. I've also been involved in
other instances where my female colleagues reported being sexually
harassed and disrespected at sea.
In my experience, sexual harassment at sea happens in different
ways. Young female scientists are targeted by offensive men and are
made to feel very uncomfortable. These men target young women because
they prey on the women's desire to perform well in the early parts of
their career. This happened to me many times when I was in my twenties
(about 20 years ago), to several of my coworkers in the same age range,
and this continues to happen to my young female staff.
Now that I am a supervisor, I have a separate meeting with my young
female staff to review the cruise staff list, so we can discuss who can
be seen as an ally if harassment takes place and who to never be alone
with. The reason we work together to identify allies is because not
everyone will stand up and provide vocal support in these situations.
In this testimony, I would like to share my personal experience of
at-sea harassment on a NOAA vessel, both as a survivor and as the
supervisor of a survivor.
I participated on my first NOAA/NMFS cruise in 2003. My job as part
of the science team was to assist in recording net-tow information
while our nets were in the water collecting small invertebrates and
fishes. Each time I was on deck, I was accompanied by a deck department
crew member who was there to operate the ship's machinery (e.g. crane
or winch) to which our nets were attached.
Unfortunately, this accompaniment required me to stand in a very
small space with the deck staff person. There were many times during
that first cruise when the two deck staff that had alternating
schedules, would make grotesquely inappropriate comments to me about
the types of sexual activities they liked engaging in with women my
age. One of them in particular would lean on me and breathe down my
neck.
To say that I was uncomfortable would be an understatement, but I
didn't know what to do. This was my first cruise and I wanted to do
well because I really liked the work. Unbeknownst to me, a crew person
in the engineering department witnessed this behavior multiple times
and submitted a formal harassment complaint. I was made aware of this
complaint after the cruise when I received an email from the Executive
Officer (XO) on the ship saying a sexual harassment complaint had been
submitted, that the two accused deck staff had been informed that the
complaint had been submitted regarding their behavior toward me, and
that the XO and Commanding Officer (CO) were planning a visit to the
NOAA science center where I worked to meet with me and retrieve my
statement on the matter.
I was shocked by this email and scared that this would affect what
my supervisor and coworkers thought of me. I was also afraid of the
potential retaliation from these crew members because the XO's email
clearly stated that the two accused staff were told they were being
accused of harassing me, using my name and implying that I had been the
one to submit the complaint. I informed my supervisor of the situation
and he encouraged me to write my statement and agreed to be present for
the meeting with the XO and CO.
During that meeting I told the XO and CO that I reviewed the NOAA
Sexual Harassment Policy and brought highlighted copies to the meeting
to show them that they were not supposed to divulge my name to the
accused. They mostly brushed over that point. When they asked if I
wrote my statement, I slid it across the table. The CO used his folder
to catch the document mid-slide, he then told me that if he took my
statement then this matter was ``out of his hands'', but if I took my
statement back, then he could handle this matter ``in-house.'' I had no
idea what that meant and needed guidance on how to make a choice. The
CO said if he took my statement he would have to report it above him
which would initiate a formal investigation, likely involving NOAA
lawyers from headquarters. My supervisor then said that situation could
get very ugly and complicated. I then asked what the CO meant by the
``in-house'' option. He said he would personally make sure the two
accused staff would not engage in this bad behavior again.
I interpreted the CO's explanation of what it would mean to
formally submit my statement as the option that would severely tarnish
my reputation and potentially jeopardize my career path. I then took my
statement back because I was young, inexperienced, and afraid. I had
graduated from college only six months prior to this situation, was a
contract employee, and wanted to excel at my job and please my
supervisor.
Right after that meeting, I went back to the lab where I worked to
tell my coworkers about the meeting. None of them were surprised about
the harassment I experienced with the two deck staff. They all
confirmed that those two (and others) on the ship routinely targeted
the new young women that joined the science party at sea. My coworkers
told me I made the right decision to not submit my statement because
during the likely formal investigation, the lawyers would probably turn
it around to make it seem like I was inviting the sexual behavior by
scrutinizing what I wore on the ship and for not telling these much
older men to stop talking to me. I found all of this confusing,
frustrating, and disappointing.
Over the subsequent years, I would sail on that same ship with
those same two deck staff. In fact, I was back on that ship just a few
months later. One of the two accused, came to me immediately to
apologize for his behavior. I happily accepted his apology and never
had an issue with him again. We continued to work together for the next
15 years until he retired.
My interactions with the other accused person did not go well. I
suffered retaliation from him for many years. To my face, he pretended
I was not there, and refused to talk to me even when we had to work
together. However, I found out later that he was saying horrible things
about me to other science staff, such as claiming that I was
unprofessional, sexually inappropriate, and a liar. He also directly
threatened my safety at a port in Mexico, by telling at-sea supervisor
that I should be careful because he could make me disappear while the
ship was docked at this foreign port. My at-sea supervisor's response
was to tell this person to stop saying things like that. I know this
because he (my at-sea supervisor) reported this to me. He also warned
me to steer clear of this person for the several days we were in port.
Clearly this direct threat should have been handled differently, and I
did not for one second feel safe while we were in that port.
This same deck person would go on to harass young women until he
retired. I know because many years later I was on a cruise where one of
my young female staff came to me in tears to say she was sexually
harassed by this same person. I immediately called a safety meeting
with the deck department chief, the XO, and CO and told them of the
matter. The immediate result was that the offensive deck person could
no longer work alone with female science staff, which meant he had to
change his work schedule for the remainder of the cruise. I wrote a
formal statement to submit to my supervisor regarding the incident that
would be included in the final cruise report, which is submitted to the
CO and Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO), but I never
received a response, and no action of which I am aware was taken.
In 2015, I participated on a NOAA cruise as a watch leader with my
coworker as the chief scientist. We both witnessed the chief
engineering electronics technician (EET; in charge of all electronic
systems on the ship) being visibly drunk the first day we set sail. My
coworker and I both told him that he should get some coffee and sober
up. He laughed it off and said he was fine as he staggered away.
Shortly after that, this crew person started following me around
which lasted for the next three days. He was drunk each time I saw him.
There was one interaction I was able to avoid because my coworker/chief
scientist saw the EET coming so I hid in a small room adjacent to the
lab. When he saw that I wasn't in there, he left. The EET once followed
me into my stateroom. I had my door open and only went in to retrieve a
sweatshirt. He was saying many inappropriate things to me, very loudly.
I told him that he needed to stop following me and should get sober so
he could do his job properly.
I told one of the NOAA Corps Officers that the chief scientist and
I had interacted with the chief EET who appeared to be drunk and we
felt concerned that our safety would be jeopardized if he didn't sober
up. I also told the officer that the chief EET was inappropriately
following me around and professing love. The officer told me he was
aware of the situation and would take care of it. The next time I saw
the chief EET, several days later, he was sober and avoiding eye
contact.
When I got back to land, I discussed the situation with my coworker
who had been the chief scientist and told him that after thinking more
about what we observed and experienced, I was not satisfied with how
things were handled. I went to our supervisors and explained the
situation. They were not sure how to proceed, so I said I would go to
the deputy director of our science center.
During the meeting with the center deputy director, he asked the
chief scientist if he had been aware that the chief EET was drunk and
harassing me. I was extremely disappointed that the chief scientist,
who had witnessed the harassment and discussed it with me, chose to
deny that it had occurred. However, the safety issues were a concern,
and the center deputy director said she would bring this up at her next
OMAO meeting. That prompted a phone meeting with the ship's CO, my
division deputy director, the center deputy director, and myself, where
the CO denied that he had been aware of the situation. I find that
impossible to believe, since the entire ship talked about the chief
EET's drunken state for three days. There was little else discussed
during that phone call, and I have not received any follow-up since.
Women on NOAA ships also experience disrespect to which our male
colleagues are not subjected. A few years ago, I was a supervisor on a
NOAA ship, and in charge of science operations for part of the day.
During one of these occasions, one of the officers did not want to go
to the location I requested and said instead that where we were headed
was close enough. I told him it was not close enough and since the
weather was permissible, I wanted to head to the new location. He then
told me that my opinion didn't matter. The other officers heard him and
said nothing. I told him that I was in charge of the science operations
and needed him to change our bearing to get to the new location. He
again told me my opinion didn't matter. I then told him that he should
wake up the chief scientist and the CO to tell them his thoughts about
my opinion. He didn't respond, and then changed the ship's bearing so
we could get to the new location.
On a NOAA cruise just two months ago, my two female staff were in
charge, one as the chief scientist and the other as the watch leader
(in charge when the chief scientist is off watch). The two female
scientists noticed the ship's winch, which tows the scientific
equipment, was not behaving properly. This is a severe safety issue, as
a broken winch can maim or kill anyone standing on the ship's deck.
These women both reported the potential winch malfunction to the
officers on watch as well as the XO and CO during the safety meeting.
Their warning was ignored, and the wire broke a few days later,
resulting in lost equipment, but fortunately no injuries.
During the post cruise meeting, the female watch leader told the CO
that the winch was a major problem and needed to be investigated and
tested. His response to her was, ``we can't make everything here warm
and fuzzy for you.'' The CO then turned to our male colleague, and
asked if he had anything to add. This male colleague was not on the
cruise, had no leadership position, and was only present to help pack
up our gear.
Conditions for women's safety on NOAA vessels have improved in the
time that I've been with NOAA/NMFS, but much more needs to be done to
make the at-sea workplace an environment that protects the mental and
physical health of women. I ask that the Committee explore ways to
improve the culture on NOAA vessels, particularly the interplay between
the science crew and ship's crew. If complaints are not taken seriously
and junior staff are intimidated and abused, NOAA's ability to carry
out its critical missions in an ever-changing ocean will be severely
compromised.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience and story.
______
Statement for the Record
Elizabeth Mitchell
Association for Professional Observers
Dear Chairman Cox and members of the Oversight and Investigations
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to share our organization's
perspective on preventing harassment and needed response at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). My name is
Elizabeth Mitchell and I've been a fisheries observer for 25 years
(1983-2008). I've worked in several programs, but mostly in the North
Pacific Observer Program out of NOAA's Alaska Fisheries Science Center.
I've been volunteering for the Association for Professional Observers
(APO) since 1996 and became its president in 2000. Our organization's
expertise is focused on advocacy for the health and welfare of
fisheries observers, both in fish plants on shore and at sea and
protected species/endangered species observers.
The APO organized in 1995, due to a lack ofand contractor support.
Observers were stranded at sea without pay because their contractor had
gone bankrupt while they were out at sea. Observers attempted to get
NOAA to intervene but they refused, demanding of the observers, under
threat of lawsuit, the data they had already collected, claiming no
authority over the contractor to demand their payment. Despite the fact
that observers provide critical data to one of NOAA's primary
functions, NOAA refused to help the observers. It remains so to this
day, where outsourced observers are falling through legal cracks with
little protections.
Observers in the North Pacific were forced to unionize due to
NOAA's hands-off approach to our welfare but, with the exception of
Hawaii observers, the rest of the programs in the country are not
unionized and remain vulnerable to abuses. This isn't to say the union
is working or is a legitimate replacement for NOAA's responsibility. It
is a desperate measure in absence ofoversight of worker protections.
Harassment, both sexual and non-sexual, assault, bribery attempts,
interference and even murder has plagued fisheries observers for
decades and we believe it is more pervasive in the population of
observers than of NOAA federal employees. Moreover, I believe we will
see a rise in this harassment as ocean resources dwindle, requiring
urgent action, implementation and monitoring of anti-harassment/
interference policies at all levels--NOAA (including NOAA Contracting
Offices), monitored entities (fishing vessels, dredging or oil
companies), observer providers and observers. Further, because
observers are not federal employees, they frequently fall through legal
cracks that increase their vulnerability both in personal safety and
job security. This is why, if nothing else, we desperately need for
those protections and worker rights afforded to NOAA federal employees
to legally be extended to the's observers and those in programs that
NOAA mandates observer coverage (such as the dredge programs).
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO OBSERVER HARASSMENT
Workplace harassment is a result of bad company management. Since
these are publicly funded programs, public accountability must be the
cornerstone of NOAA's responsibly managed observer programs. From start
to finish, there should be accountability measures for the factors
influencing employee protections:
Hiring practices--NOAA has established hiring standards
through the NOAA National Observer Program (NOP) but has
not implemented them at the program level. In some
programs, they have lowered the requirements, specifically
because most people are not willing to put up with the
hardships, except those who have little opportunities
elsewhere. The pamphlet below used to be the Hawaii
program's promotional pamphlet, training done through a
local non-profit, the Alu Like program. They accepted
workers without formal education, trained them, and then
placed them in NMFS observer training reserved for those
who met the educational requirements. While meant in jest,
the flyer reveals a more serious flaw--that a hostile
environment, intimidation and harassment, including sexual
harassment, was part of the job. Observers must know from
the onset that harassment is NOT an acceptable condition of
employment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.001
.eps Firing practices--Most work places practice a
`progressive disciplinary approach' toward holding
employees accountable for professional performance. In
Hawaii, a long-time observer was fired without any evidence
of wrongdoing by either his employer or NMFS. This is after
he reported sexual harassment from a captain. The union
agreement required a progressive disciplinary approach to
termination. Because the company, who was bound by the
union agreement, couldn't fire him, they turned to the NOAA
Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to circumvent the
Union Agreement and declare him `ineligible' for the
program. NOAA admitted that this is a standard method of
getting rid of observers and they are able to do it because
NOAA is not the observer's employer. He said: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
``As COR I don't have to give a reason why an observer is no
longer allwed to collect data for our program. Although I
always do. Basically I do not terminate a contractors
employee. I am just saying they can no longer work for our
program. If the contractor has other work for them in other
areas they can still work for the contractor. But the case
usually is they are specifically trained for our program
and the contractor does not have work for them in other
areas. This is one of the BIG advantages of having contract
observers. In the past whenever we needed to disquality an
observer's eligibility from our program, this is how we did
it. We meaning I work together with the contractor so we
both agree and I send an email to the contractor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disqualifying the observer.''
In this way, NOAA is able to fire an observer without the
observer having any legal recourse or appeal process
normally afforded NOAA's own employees. Each time anuses a
shady practice and gets away with it, it sends a message to
others to ``put up and shut up'' or this will happen to
you. This contributes to an under-reporting of harassment.
NOAA needs legislation to close this loophole.
Removal of conflicts of interest--Observer providers
having direct contract with the fishing company with no
obligation of public transparency, rather than with NOAA; A
port coordinator marrying a prominent local captain whose
multiple vessels she is in charge of providing an observer;
Hiring a fisherman to monitor his own fishery--these are
just some examples of unresolved conflicts of interest in
NOAA observer programs and demonstrates a lack of oversight
and confidence that NOAA will have the observers' back.
Adequate training--Training, especially in adequate
documentation of violations and one's own harassment, is
extremely vital--especially for observers because they
often don't have a cooperating witness, so their
documentation of events must be stellar. Observers need a
clear pathway toward reporting violations, addressing an
emergency at sea, their worker rights, and how to appeal a
decision.
Lack of appeal process--Most programs do not have an
appeal pathway to follow if they disagree with an agency
decision.
Trauma resources and policies--At the International
Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference (IFOMC),
observer mental health was highlighted as a significant
threat due to the stresses of the job. NOAA should
coordinate the NOP with each program to develop local
resources and have this be a part of each program's
Emergency Action Plan. Observers must be informed of who,
what, where and how they will be rescued if their well-
being is threatened.
Effective communication with the vessel--Observers are
working on vessels where English is not the first language.
Often stresses develop when the crew is not aware of the
observers' duties and their responsibilities. NOAA should
translate and distribute to vessels critical documents that
clearly express observer rights and stakeholder
responsibilities toward each other.
Enforcement follow-up. Many observers have complained that
they never hear from OLE regarding updates on the
investigation of their complaints. In Fiji, an observer
reported several violations on board a US purse seine
vessel. OLE took 6 months to reach out to him and
interview, a delay that likely compromised the
investigation. To date, he hasn't heard about the results
of his report or the investigation of the US vessel.
Public transparency and analysis of observer harassment--
Public oversight of fisheries monitoring programs is
necessary to make sure that observers receive adequate
support to effectively and safely carry out their duties,
free from violence and interference. Transparency imparts
the necessary confidence to the observer community and the
public that the agency is monitoring the observers' safety
to ensure that they may continue to successfully report on
this critical information. If observers lack confidence in
the system that is supposed to represent and protect them,
they cannot be expected to do their job appropriately or
effectively. Likewise, without transparency, the public
will not have confidence in the veracity of the fisheries
monitoring program. Securing the confidence of the public,
and of the observers reporting the information, can only be
achieved through an open and transparent reporting system.
Yet, most observer programs do not report on observer harassment
or compliance information in a systematic or transparent
way. Many observer programs also require observers to be
sworn to secrecy, but with vague parameters so that you
never really know what your rights are, and with threats of
punishment should they violate rules of engagement with the
public. This secrecy surrounding what observers experience
and witness misleads the general public about the true
challenges in attaining sustainable fisheries. It also
stifles observers from discussing harassment openly.
APO has been attempting to receive observer harassment statistics
through FOIA since 2006 but it is obvious that NOAA does
not track observer harassment, either nationally or
regionally, because each year, the statistics released are
plagued with delays and incompatible formats from year to
year, making it impossible to follow trends. Only one
program in the country reports annually on observer
harassment and interference (North Pacific) but the
outcomes are impossible to follow. NOAA should analyze
observer harassment in all programs separately and do this
annually (with a report that is publicly available) in such
a way that allows following each case to outcome to gauge
effectiveness of enforcement and influence of other
factors.
Lack of adjudication processes--In the United States,
there are only three Administrative Judges, under the
Environmental Protection Agency, in the entire country to
adjudicate cases of observer harassment. In one harassment
case by a repeat offender in the Hawaii longline fishery,
NOAA brought this case for prosecution. Despite the
observer clearly getting harassed for over a month and
having to lock himself into his room as he called the coast
guard to be rescued, the EPA Administrative Judge claimed
it never turned physical and dismissed the case because the
observer was deemed to be able to conduct his assigned
duties. I think you'll find that when someone is being
abused and they have no control over it, it's common to
concentrate on what you do have control over, which, in
this case, was carrying out his duties. While he was able
to complete his duties, I don't know of any workplace where
someone is expected to tolerate a repeatedly hostile
environment. Indeed, NOAA has a warning poster (intended
for fishermen) that states, ``It is unlawful to . . .
harass an observer . . . orcreate an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive environment (my emphasis)''. So why did NOAA
not appeal? The Magnuson-Stevens Act actually doesn't
forbid harassment, offensiveness or a hostile environment.
It says, ``. . . it is illegal to . . . forcibly assault,
resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, sexually harass, bribe,
or interfere with any observer on a vessel . . .''. NOAA
needs to analyze observer complaints and figure out exactly
all the many ways observers are prevented from doing their
job and entering into a hostile environment. The MS
language needs to reflect a prohibition of these acts. NOAA
should adjust the language in the MSA and other Acts
governing US-flagged vessels by removing the word
``forcibly'' (because all assault is forcible); add
``harass'' (no qualifiers); and add, ``. . . orcreate an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.''
Lack of National Strategy--There have been many reviews
dating back decades to address these vulnerabilities but we
have seen little changes at the program level despite
efforts by the National Observer Program (NOP) to bring
about standardized best practices. NOAA should implement
best practices and standards developed by the NOP to all
programs for every aspect of the observer program
management and implement these throughout the nation.
Types of Observer Employment under NOAA's jurisdiction
National--Observer provider contracted directly with the
fishing company--portion of the North Pacific (unionized)
and Northeast observer programs: This competitive
arrangement with multiple observer providers for the
vessels to choose from, has long been recognized as a
conflict of interest and a bad arrangement for observers
because fishing companies have more influence over the
observer. Despite unionizing in the North Pacific program,
harassment persists. Because of this, in 2004, NOAA's
Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended that NOAA
scrap this model but NOAA ignored the recommendation and
brought it to the Northeast. These observer providers are
only ``certified'' by NOAA, further removing NOAA from
responsibility.
Observer provider contracted directly with NOAA--portion
of the North Pacific; Southeast observer programs). NOAA
has potential to have greater control over the contractor's
performance by inserting requirements for observer welfare
in the observer provider contracts with NOAA. This is
currently lacking.
Observer provider contracted directly with NOAA but the
observers are unionized (Hawaii). This ideally would be the
best model of all employment arrangements for observer
protections for contracted observers if NOAA inserted
observer protections into its contract and the union
covered any gaps. Unfortunately, not only are there gaps in
the contract for observer protections but NOAA deliberately
and openly admits it regularly circumvents Union
protections and are able to do it because they are not the
observers' employer.
Observer provider hires the observer as an Independent
Contractor (Protected Species/Endangered Species
Observers)--These observers are some of the most vulnerable
to abuses because NOAA mandates oil and dredge platforms to
carry observers but has nothing to do with them or the
oversight of these programs. They're not even a program.
There's no training, professional standards, debriefing,
injury insurance or information on their worker rights or
emergency plans. Some observers have to volunteer to be
``trained'' on the platform by another observer prior to
working alone.
Non-US Observers are hired by their Regional Observer
Program to monitor a US-flagged vessel. Here NOAA must
ensure US-flagged vessels are abiding by US law, including
anti-harassment laws.
Thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony and I hope
you'll consider the suggestions.
______
Statement for the Record
Simione S.B Cagilaba
US Multilateral Treaty Observer, South Pacific (1997-2015)
Thank you for the opportunity to express myself before this
subcommittee. In light of recent fisheries observer disappearances that
shook the Scientific Observer tight knit family worldwide, I believe
that all those who survived harassment at sea, sexual or nonsexual,
should be entitled to share their story. They deserve to be heard since
they were the fortunate ones, while others will not be coming home at
all. Indeed, observers, who provide critical fisheries data to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have more
threats against them than most NOAA employees.
I served on numerous US-flagged Tuna Purse Seine fishing vessels
that operate out of Pago Pago, American Samoa under the US Multilateral
Treaty from as far back as 1997 until 2015, in my capacity as Observer
from the South Pacific. I intend to highlight certain weak areas which
can be improved upon within NOAA when it comes to Observers that
operate under their jurisdiction[s].
The majority of my working career revolved around the fisheries
sector, where I served under various roles. However, they all dealt
with Tuna Fisheries in the South Pacific. As for my professional
training and experience, I have worked as a Regional Scientific
Observer, Fisheries Enforcement Officer, Fisheries Monitoring and
Surveillance Officer, and as a Criminal Investigator at the Fiji Police
Academy Detective School. Last, I studied Law at the University of the
South Pacific and have remaining 2 more years before receiving a
Bachelor of Art of Marine Affairs and Bachelor of Law.
The challenges faced, is not only at sea but sometimes it occurs
right on land with the very officials that we rely on for guidance and
assistance. I shall break down the problem areas that contribute to the
danger of fisheries observers, as follows:
1. Placement Officer(s) colluding with fishing personnel
2. Lack of oversight of NMFS field staff
3. Captain harassment
4. US-flagged vessels owned by foreign entities under a ``Flag of
Convenience''
5. Lack of training of crew on observer duties
6. Subpar investigative techniques from NOAA/NMFS following
complaints.
Before I go into detail, I must take a bit of my time to commend
some of the fully owned and operated US Purse Seiners operating in the
South Pacific for having been some of the most compliant vessels that I
have ever worked on. However, it is almost the total opposite when it
comes to US-flagged purse seine vessels (under flag of convenience--
FOC) when they are run by non-US citizens, with a ``paper captain''
(i.e. the captain has no real authority)--something that should be
transparent to the world. These vessels carry the most risk for
observers, when it comes to compliance requirements.
In regards to the realities of observing whilst out at sea, the
challenges normally come through from various levels, that make
observing work really difficult. One of the things that I quickly note
was that some FOC vessels do harass and interfere regularly with
observers.
My ordeal unfolded when I boarded the rrrrr, a US registered/
flagged, Taiwanese-owned Purse Seine Vessel, who's fishing port was
Majuro, Marshall Islands. The vessel had a Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
fishing license which granted them fishing access to all the FFA member
countries fishing grounds under the US Multilateral Treaty.
This brings me to one point that I believe needs to be addressed by
the US Congress. Foreign nations are accessing fishing grounds of other
sovereign nations, using US flag registry, yet they are not bound, as a
nation, to the treaty. They can do this because currently US law only
requires that there be a US citizen serving as captain on board in
order to have the vessel flagged under the United States. On this
vessel, there was one US citizen, the US captain who harassed me. All
the other officers--another Captain, the Fish Master, Navigator and the
Interpreter were Taiwanese. The rest of the crew were Chinese,
Taiwanese, Indonesian and South Vietnamese.
This blanket coverage covers all of the FFA member countries and
the reporting protocols are more or less the same for each. In our case
the Captain made a set within Marshallese waters (Exclusive Economic
Zone--EEZ) where we caught fish but the Captain recorded it as
``skunk'' (meaning they did not catch any fish) because he didn't want
to be charged for it when he offloaded in the Marshall Islands. The
Captain asked me to falsify my data to look like they didn't catch
anything, so that it would match his records, but I refused. He looked
at me angrily and went away. Later on, he again asked me this time more
sternly to adjust my records. When I again refused, he became angry.
The second incident occurred within US waters close to Howland and
Baker Islands whereby 2 Asian crews, whom I believe were Vietnamese,
dumped 10 large bales of plastics and strappings into the sea. Ocean
pollution from fishing gear is recognized as a major threat to marine
life and is a breach of the International Convention for the Prevention
for Pollution from Ships regulations (MARPOL). The captain again
attempted to coerce me into ignoring the violation, which I again
refused. He became furious and the next day he approached me again and
asked me again to falsify my report, which I again refused.
Later in the trip, a third instance emerged where the US captain
again attempted to get me to falsify my record regarding fish discards,
which I again refused. This time, he then threatened me and said that
he will call his ``friend in American Samoa'', a NMFS officer, namely
rrrrr, to ``deal with me''.
Keep in mind, while this vessel's home port was Marshall Islands,
rrrrr was in Pago Pago, American Samoa, so it is curious why the
captain would seek assistance from rrrrr rather than NOAA staff in
Majuro, Marshall Islands, where it was fishing. This indicated to me
that the Captain knew rrrrr would offer him protection from violations
which I refused to hide. Indeed, it appears a conflict of interest that
a US captain should exercise such familiarity with a federal agency
staff that not only has no authority over the observers, but is the
very agency who is in charge of investigating the observer reports in
US fisheries monitoring under the Multilateral Treaty.
I knew I did nothing wrong and later in the evening, whilst
conducting my duties in the wheelhouse, I heard the Captain talking on
the phone disparagingly about me. I was not swayed and I continued on
back to my room and updated my workbook. However, the next day, I
received a printout of an email from my supervisors to the Captain,
that was cc'd to rrrrr. My supervisors in Fiji wrote to me the
following, through the captain, cc-ing rrrrr:
``Bula Captain
Appreciate that the following information is given to Observer,
Simione Cagilaba, currently on your vessel. Simi, we have
received information from NOAA (my emphasis) and FFA on your
performance on board the vessel. Just to remind you that you
are an observer and therefore is to confine yourself to duties
of an observer and that is to observe and record what you see.
You are never to direct or make threats to anybody on board the
vessel.
Thank you, Captain.''
I knew that the Captain would do this in order that the authorities
would sympathise with him in his attempt to brand me as the offender or
aggressor for simply doing my work as any other Observer would. I sent
in an explanation to one of my supervisors back in Suva, Fiji Islands,
and included the information about rrrrr. However, I knew that they
have already leaned towards rrrrr, a long-serving NMFS officer at least
since the 1990s.
I later learned that this vessel was a repeat offender, having just
prior been fined a large sum for a violation by US courts, which
explains why the Captain was so hostile toward me doing my job. Instead
of investigating the situation to find out what happened and hear my
version of events, the e-mail emboldened the Captain. In doing so, my
supervisors and NOAA exposed me to further danger.
From that point on, the atmosphere became very volatile whereby the
cook allowed the Vietnamese crews (2 of whom were implicated in the
MARPOL incidents) to drink using the vessels rice wine supply, which
always ended up with fighting occurring and in some instance heavy
chopping knives were used just outside our door. In one instance, my
other roommate who was a Chinese national and also the Deck Boss, had
to jump for the door to lock it and push against it since the shouting
and fighting was getting closer and closer. Now when I sit down and
reflect, I realised that was a close call for me since I have
identified them previously and thereby threatened their careers. And
that led to my unease that I stayed up for most of the time during the
night and slept whenever there was a lull in our fishing operation
during the day.
At the conclusion of the trip it was noted that the vessel breached
the regulations with the following actions;
Operator or any crew member assault, obstruct, resist,
delay, refuse boarding to, intimidate or interfere with
observers in the performance of their duties.
Request that an event not be reported by the observer.
Fail to comply with any Commission Conservation and
Management Measures (CMM's)
Inaccurately record retained ``Target Species'' in the
vessel log for weekly reports
Inaccurately record ``Target Species'' Discards
Land on deck Species of Special Interest (SSI's)
Dispose of any metal, plastic, chemicals or old fishing
gear
Carry out of date safety equipment.
After attempting several times to disembark, we finally arrived in
the Marshall Islands. I immediately relayed my experience to the
Marshallese Observer Coordinator, who down played my account of events
and told me to get back on the vessel, thereby placing me in further
danger. I told the Coordinator that I did not feel safe going again to
the same vessel however he was persistent. I later learned that he had
a very close relationship between him and the vessel's agent on land,
so I was worried my report would be buried. I knew that I had to make
this report known since that will be my only chance of getting out of
Marshall Islands safely.
My only option was to notify the US Embassy in Majuro, Marshall
Islands who acted swiftly and relayed the message to NOAA to keep me
from going back on the vessel. It also secured my report from being
buried by Fijian officials. NOAA then influenced program officials to
release me from my assignment.
I was later fired upon my return to Fiji and it made me realise
that some government officials from some Pacific island countries are
overly familiar with the fishing company personnel and their boat
agents and have been compromised, making our jobs as fisheries
observers impossible and dangerous. As a result of getting fired, this
further sent ripples throughout the observer community in the Pacific
Islands, that:
1. NOAA has unofficial control over our employment and the reports
of witnessed violations that we submit, which, in my view,
is a conflict of interest since NOAA is also charged with
protecting the commercial interests of US-flagged fishing
vessels.
2. There is a perception of collusion between NOAA and the fishing
industry in the region;
3. Observers cannot go against the captain to report what they
witness, even if it is illegal.
4. Observers will not feel safe to report openly to their home
programs.
The only reason my report of US fishing vessel violations did not
get buried by my supervisors is because I reported it to the US
Embassy, fearing my life was in danger. However, what followed was a
debacle with regard to the investigation of the vessel that followed by
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) in Hawaii. It took six (6) months
for NOAA OLE in Honolulu to interview me. Then they went to American
Samoa to interview more people, though I'm not certain who. However,
given the fact that the captain reported directly to NOAA's rrrrr, and
rrrrr pressured my supervisors, I imagine he had to provide his account
in the investigation. Instead of being held accountable for this, the
investigation was buried by NOAA and rrrrr retired from NOAA a month
later. I have yet to hear any result from my ordeal or the reports I
submitted regarding even my harassment.
This experience prompted me to come out openly and share my
experience so that it will hopefully help colleagues or the relevant
agencies into formulating Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or Laws
to protect against the reoccurrence of such incidents.
To conclude I wish to point out a few areas where NOAA, NMFS, and
OLE could look into in future to avoid such incidents from ever
happening again in any US flagged vessel irrespective if it is US owned
or not.
1. The mandatory implementation of SOPs and other accountability
measures to cover all stakeholders, with regard to the
treatment of Observers (irrespective of nationality) who
serve under the US Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries
programme, and on any US fishing vessel operating in non-US
waters. This might require that NOAA renegotiate the
Treaty.
2. Mandatory SOP for ensuing NOAA OLE investigations so that proper
standardized investigatory procedures are followed that
allow immediate gathering of evidence, including
statements.
3. That there be a mandatory conclusion of every investigation that
is publicly accessible. This would stifle any attempts to
cover up wrong doing.
4. Clear protocols regarding observer duties be conveyed through a
placement meeting between the Captains, crew and Pacific
Island observer coordinator, and the observer in multiple
languages according to crew nationalities. This should
conclude with a legal document describing each
stakeholder's responsibilities, translated in multiple
languages according to vessel personnel nationalities, that
are signed by all and a copy received by all.
5. Since under the treaty, NOAA is responsible for investigating
infractions by US-flagged vessels the investigations should
be prioritized and followed up within 1 month. A six-month
delay will likely render any investigation lost. Since the
offences were very clear all that was left to do was to
collect the evidence, record the statements to adduce the
evidence that will prove the elements of the offence and
forward them to Prosecution Office for further sanctions
and actions.
6. NMFS officers posted to US outer islands should be rotated with
no more than 5 years in the field, so as to maintain their
integrity and impartiality.
7. Finally, Observers could be administered Go-Pro cameras to film
interactions as a means of evidence gathering and self-
protection.
And I pray that this humble testimony of a survivor would be heard
and taken heed of. And at the same time acknowledge all my fellow
colleague[s] who have been deployed and never came home.
Thank you for reading my testimony and for holding this hearing.
______
Statement for the Record
Patrick Carroll
U.S. Fisheries Observer, Florida
My name is Patrick Carroll. I started observing in 2000 with the
North Pacific Observer Program where I worked for 5 years on a seasonal
basis, completing some 550 days of deployment at sea. In 2006, I went
to work for the Southeast Observer program at the Galveston Laboratory.
I stayed with the latter until my unfair termination in 2018, after
completing over 1000 days at sea.
The difference between these programs were significant. I found the
North Pacific program to be efficiently run with consideration and
thanks given to observers for their work, they also used technology to
incorporate observer data rapidly into their database as well as check
the raw submitted observer data for errors and discrepancies. Observer
provider subcontractors supplied observers to this program but not
coordinators or other office personnel. I was extremely satisfied with
my experience with the North Pacific Observer program, both in the way
I was treated, with respect and thanks, and trained. I was also
impressed with the efficiency of the program itself, both in how raw
data was handled and how we were trained.
My experience with the North Pacific Observer Program stands in
extreme contrast to what I experienced in the Southeast Reef and Shrimp
Observer program. My initial training with this program occurred in
June 2006. The safety portion of the training was very similar to what
I experienced in The Northwest program, but the similarity ended with
the protocol training which left much basic information unexplained, as
well as their use of paper documents and total lack of digital
interface between the raw data and ensuing corrections. What was also
interesting in this initial training was a statement by a rrrrr, who
was subcontracted then and later hired as a federal coordinator in the
Galveston office, that ``we could be fired at any time and for any
reason'' because ``Texas was a right to work state''. At the time of my
initial training in 2006, both of the observer coordinators in the
Galveston office were subcontracted employees of rrrrr. Approximately 4
years later this was determined to be a conflict of interest, and they
were hired as federal employees, with another subcontracted coordinator
who had been hired in the interim. Approximately 3 years later more
coordinators were found to be needed in the office, and were hired as
subcontractors, in direct opposition to the determination that this was
a conflict of interest.
I unfortunately ran into a problem with one of the subcontracted
coordinators, who felt that he could ``do whatever he wanted'' as to
the grading of our submitted trip reports. I complained to my
subcontractor manager who spoke to this employee as well as the other
subcontracted coordinators, and told them that they could not do
whatever they wanted. Soon after this minor complaint against a
specific individual, I began to be harassed by both the subcontracted
as well as the federal coordinators, in retaliation for my complaint
against a single individual. This harassment included increased
scrutiny of my performance, arbitrary decisions against me, ostracized
at social function, and ultimately violation of my civil rights, based
on my age, which apparently they were entirely unaware of, as they in
their ardor to punish the squeaky wheel never investigated or
considered.
I made my subcontracted manager aware of this situation, to which
she was initially commiserate, but then became accusatory to me. This
change in her demeanor I can only attribute to her unwillingness to
censure coordinators, thereby making the contracting company look
irresponsible by placing these people in positions of power which they
abused. I cannot tell you how bad it feels to be fired by a manager for
insubordination, when 2 weeks before the same manager told you that you
were a good employee who produced good work, after 12 years of
dedicated service in more than trying circumstances. I and all
observers deserve better than this treatment. Observers risk their
lives to collect this data which is vital to fisheries management in
the United States, yet they are subcontracted and subjected to the
whims and circumstances of competitive bidding, non standardized
programs and personnel management practices of the lowest bidders. This
does not happen with the armed forces, with whom observers are similar
in that they risk their lives to a certain degree in the best interest
of the nations resources. Commercial fishing is consistently ranked the
most dangerous job in the country, the observers who risk their lives
providing the data for fisheries management should be treated with
respect and program continuity and integrity which is beyond the self
interest of subcontracted observer provider companies. Please remember
that no one has considered subcontracting the US Coast Guard, Navy or
Marines, observers deserve the same respect and guarantees.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submissions for the Record by Witness Julie Dale
-- Department of Public Safety--2018 Felony Level Sex Offenses,
Crime in Alaska Supplemental Report
-- STAR Community Prevention & Education Manager Qualifications
-- Contract Purchase Order dated September 18, 2019
[all]