 |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |  |
|||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1997
>
02/20/1997
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
***
BRIEFING ON EEO PROGRAM
***
PUBLIC MEETING
***
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Commission Hearing Room
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland
Thursday, February 20, 1997
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 2:06 p.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON,
Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission
GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission
EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
. 2
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary of the Commission
KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel
ROXANNE SUMMERS, FWPAC & Managing Diversity
Subcommittee
LAWRENCE VICK, Performance Monitoring Subcommittee
IRENE LITTLE, SBCR
PATRICIA NORRY, DEDO
PAUL BIRD, OP
SUBINOY MAZUMDAR, Selection Subcommittee
SUDHAMAY BASU, APAAC
REGINALD MITCHELL, ACAA
JOSE IBARRA, HEPAC
JACOB PHILIP, AAAC
MICHAEL WEBER, JLMEEOC
SHARON CONNELLY, CAD
PETER BLOCH, Managing Diversity Subcommittee
JAMES THOMAS, NTEU
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
[2:06 p.m.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen. Today, the Commission is meeting to discuss
the status of NRC's Equal Employment Opportunity Program for
fiscal year 1996.
The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended,
requires the executive director for Operations to report to
the Commission at semiannual public meetings on the status
of any problems and progress associated with EEO efforts.
The last EEO briefing was held on July 31, 1996.
Today's briefing will include highlights of the NRC's EEO
program, a report on the progress of the Performance
Monitoring, Selection, and Managing Diversity Subcommittees
of the EEO advisory committees, and a discussion of various
EEO issues.
I welcome the presenters and all employees in the
audience. Your attendance demonstrates your interest in and
commitment to the NRC EEO program. In fact, I must say,
this is probably the best-attended Commission meeting from
an employee point of view. So we are glad you are here.
Before the Staff begins its presentation, I would
like to share the following thoughts. This is our first EEO
briefing with our new deputy executive director for
Management Services and our new director of the Office of
. 4
Small Business and Civil Rights.
I understand that along with the Office of
Personnel, they are continuing the spirit of cooperative
dialogue with the advisory committees and subcommittees in
developing strategies for addressing EEO concerns at the
NRC.
As we face this period of government-wide
streamlining, performance orientation, and budget
constraints, we are then challenges to enhance
opportunities, nonetheless, for the development and
advancement of employees at all grade levels, regardless of
race, gender, national origin, age or disability.
As we together step up to that challenge, I
commend the Staff, the EEO advisory committees, and their
subcommittees for their dedication, and I look forward to
hearing about the improvements the NRC is making in the EEO
area so that all employees can demonstrate their unique
skills and talents in the fulfillment of the agency's
mission, and where we continue to have challenges, how we
are stepping up to meet those challenges.
If my fellow Commissioners have no comments at
this point, Ms. Norry, please proceed.
MS. NORRY: Thank you, Chairman Jackson,
Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Diaz, Commissioner
McGaffigan.
. 5
Joining me for today's briefing on the status of
the agency EEO program are Paul Bird, director of the Office
of Personnel, and Irene Little, director of the Office of
Small Business and Civil Rights.
Ms. Little will now introduce to you the
representatives of the EEO advisory committees who are with
us today.
MS. LITTLE: Thank you, Ms. Norry.
To my far left, we have Roxanne Summers, chair of
the Federal Women's Program Advisory Committee and
representing the Diversity Subcommittee.
To my immediate left is Mr. Lawrence Vick,
representing the Performance Monitoring Subcommittee.
To Mr. Bird's right is Mr. Subinoy Mazumdar,
representing the Selection Subcommittee.
These three representatives will be making
statements later in the briefing.
I will also introduce the committee reps that are
in the front row, and I would ask that each of you would
please stand as your name is called.
From my left, Mr. Sudhamay Basu, chairperson of
the Asian-Pacific-American Advisory Subcommittee; Mr.
Reginald Mitchell, chairperson of the Advisory Committee for
African-Americans; Mr. Jose Ibarra, chair of the Hispanic
Employment Program Advisory Committee; Mr. Jacob Philip,
. 6
chair, Affirmative Action Advisory Committee; Mr. Michael
Weber, chair, Joint Labor-Management EEO Committee; Ms.
Sharon Connelly, chair, Committee on Age Discrimination; and
Mr. Peter Block, representing the Subcommittee on Diversity.
These committee representatives are available to answer any
questions you have regarding their initiatives.
We also have in attendance today Mr. James Thomas,
president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
This concludes my introduction. Thank you, Ms.
Norry.
MS. NORRY: Thank you, Irene.
We are here to present the semiannual report on
the status of equal employment opportunity in the agency.
Over the next several months, we plan to conduct a review of
the agency's EEO program and, where appropriate, form new
strategies for developing opportunities for our employees.
Following the last Commission briefing on the EEO
program, the Staff was asked to keep the Commission informed
about seven specific items. I would like now to take a
minute to address the status of each of those specific
items.
The first two were closely related: to establish
a more structured procedure to provide feedback to
nonselected candidates in personnel selections, and provide
personnel specialists and supervisors with training that
. 7
will assist them in counseling nonselected candidates on
broadening their skills and knowledge so that they may have
their potential for future positions enhanced.
In response to this request, the Office of
Personnel has designed a two-day training course for
supervisors and personnel specialists entitled Effective
Management Participation in Merit Staffing. This course
provides a more proactive structured procedure for providing
feedback to nonselectees. When this course has been
completed, participants should have clear understanding of
their role and responsibilities in providing constructive
feedback to job applicants regarding the ratings they
received and how one might improve in those ratings.
We have given the first pilot session of this
course in January and got some good feedback which caused
the course to be modified. It has been offered again in
February, and March, it will be given again. Then,
thereafter, it will be on a monthly schedule.
After the March session, we will be ready to
formalize this feedback process, and the day this is
basically going to work is that Personnel will continue the
staged notifications to nonselected applicants that they do
now, and at the same time, they are going to notify
applicants of the availability of information regarding
their scores, the selectees' scores, and most importantly in
. 8
respect to this initiative, the opportunity for discussion
with the personnel specialist, with the rating panel chair
and/or with the selecting official. This discussion will
cover specific rating factors, rating criteria, the
applicant's application package, and constructive feedback
on how to develop one's self into being more competitive for
the kinds of the positions that a person may be interested
in.
We are very hopeful that this will address the
concern about additional feedback being needed for people
who are not successful candidates.
The third item asks that the Office of Small
Business and Civil Rights should formally participate on the
Executive Resources Board Review Group. That has been done.
The director of SBCR is now a member of that group.
The next item requested that the Staff adopt
additional measures to enhance the effectiveness of the
Office of Small Business and Civil Rights, and as we
reported in our memorandum of October 2, 1996, we committed
that this would be a first item of discussion with the new
director of SBCR. That has been done, and Ms. Little will
have a statement on her thoughts on that point.
The next item was to provide an opportunity for
advisory committees to work with the Office of Personnel and
with Small Business and Civil Rights to ensure that any new
. 9
database systems would have pertinent statistical
information for their future tracking needs, and what we
intend to do is, as part of our development of our human
resources information system, we are pursuing the
acquisition of some commercial off-the-shelf software that
will complement our payroll personnel system.
Since the EEO advisory committees are major
stakeholders in this information system, we will ask them to
select a representative for the project team that will be
identifying and procuring the software.
Item 6 asks that we provide information on the
number of women, minority, and total employees currently
certified as SES candidates or in the feeder groups for SES
or SLS positions.
There are 17 NRC employees currently certified as
SES candidates. This includes 12 graduates of the most
recent candidate development program, four graduates of
earlier candidate programs, and one from the Department of
Energy's candidate program. Among these 17 are two Asian
males, two white females, one African-American female, and
one African-American male.
For the feeder groups, we now have a total of
2,007 employees in the Grade 13 to 15 feeder groups.
Ninety-seven of these are minority women, 24
Asian-Pacific-Americans, 18 Hispanics, 65 African-Americans.
. 10
We failed to mention in the text of this reply that there
are 76 African-American men, 137 Asian men, 22 Hispanic men,
and 3 Native American men.
The final item requests that we provide
information on methods that could be used to enhance
advancement opportunities for minority women who wish to
move into SES/SLS programs. Of course, the avenues that are
available to all employees include obtaining the relevant
education and training and being given the opportunity to
participate in a wide variety of rotational and other
opportunities that will put them in a position to be
recognized and to be noticed.
We are pursuing some specific methods to help in
this initiative, including Office oif Small Business and
Civil Rights interviewing all Grade 14/15 minority women, to
discuss their career goals, to review the current status of
the IDP, and to develop an action plan, to help them to
develop an action plan, and that office also, along with
Personnel, will be canvassing offices in regions for
rotational opportunities that might be available.
We will be actively recruiting minority women for
FEI and other development programs, and we will be promoting
the consideration of minority women for so-called
high-exposure assignments, so that they will have an
opportunity to exercise their abilities in ways that might
. 11
be observed.
Of course, managers and supervisors should, as
appropriate, encourage employees to be proactive in seeking
out training opportunities and rotational assignments, and
we will continue to publicize these opportunities.
This concludes our response to the seven SRM
actions.
Finally, I would like to say that we are
encouraged by the spirit of cooperation among the EEO
advisory committees, the Office of Personnel, and the Office
of Small Business and Civil Rights. We will continue our
efforts to foster teamwork and to analyze and cooperatively
resolve all the EEO areas of concern.
Our accomplishments so far may be modest, but they
reflect, I believe, a continuing improvement and this new
spirit of cooperation that we referred to.
Now, at this time, I would like to ask Irene
Little to provide some additional comments regarding the
program. Irene?
MS. LITTLE: Thank you, Ms. Norry.
Chairman Jackson, Commissioner Rogers,
Commissioner Diaz, Commissioner McGaffigan, I am halfway
through my second month as director of the Office of Small
Business and Civil Rights, and I am very pleased to
participate in my first briefing on the status of the EEO
. 12
program. Of course, I didn't plan it this way, but it is
nice to be here to participate.
I have spent a good part of my time so far meeting
with several parties, representatives of all of the advisory
committees, with the chairperson of the Joint
Labor-Management EEO Committee. My goal was to meet with
each office director before this briefing. I fell short of
that by two office directors, but my plan is to continue
that, and to further build on the cooperative spirit and
efforts that the advisory committees, the Office of
Personnel, and the Small Business and Civil Rights Office
have started so far.
Following the EEO Commission briefing in July
1996, the Staff was asked to keep the Commission informed
about several aspects of the EEO program, including ways to
enhance the effectiveness of the Office of Small Business
and Civil Rights.
My assessment of the program, though not complete,
is well underway, and I have identified some initial focus
areas for my early activities. I plan to continue this
cooperative effort that has already been started by the
advisory committees, in conjunction with my office and the
Office of Personnel.
I will also continue to work with the Office of
Personnel and the advisory committees to improve and
. 13
simplify the presentation of data at the EEO briefings and
data that is used for analysis of issues by the advisory
committees and the subcommittees.
I plan to work with the committees and NTEU, as
appropriate, to support an informal forum to share
information with employees about programs designed to
facilitate equal opportunity within the NRC.
The paper for this briefing references six areas
of emphasis that the Staff has focused on for the past
several years. By our own assessment, we have made varying
degrees of process in these areas. One area of special
interest to me is improving communication, heightening
awareness, and evaluating program progress.
I believe that the critical challenge in this area
is always before us. Ongoing effective communication at all
levels of the organization is critical to the success of any
program. The EEO program in the NRC is no exception. We
must continuously work together to improve communications.
The various committees are making contributions to
this effort in several ways. The Joint Labor-Management EEO
Committee is teaming up with the Office of Personnel to
heighten awareness of sexual harassment prevention, a
specific effort to highlight the importance of maintaining
our workplace free of sexual harassment.
The Joint Labor-Management EEO Committee is also
. 14
seeking out ways to encourage employees to take advantage of
the extensive suite of courses offered by the agency to
enhance communication skills. I would like to extend this
effort to all supervisors as well.
The initiative by the six advisory committees to
team up and focus their efforts on three broad issues of
general concern to many employees is another effort to
communicate effectively.
A third example is the initiative by the Office of
Personnel to assist supervisors and panel members in
providing responsive feedback to employees who compete under
the merit selection process, but are not selected for a
specific position.
My plan is to work with these ongoing initiatives,
to provide leadership in modifying our current focus areas,
and formulate new areas, as appropriate, to work with
supervisors and managers to make sure that our recruitment
and promotion policies and practices are not creating
barriers to equal employment opportunity, and to ensure that
management approaches to provide a supportive working
environment to facilitate a level playing field for all NRC
employees and applicants, and finally, to monitor and
evaluate program results.
I look forward to a positive and productive
experience in the coming years. This is the end of my
. 15
presentation.
The three subcommittee reps will now each make a
presentation. We will start with Ms. Summers, followed by
Mr. Vick, and finally, Mr. Mazumbar.
Roxanne?
MS. SUMMERS: Thank you, Irene.
Chairman Jackson, Commissioners, thank you very
much for the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Managing Diversity Subcommittee was created
out of the perception and belief that the agency is
changing. I think, as Chairman Jackson mentioned, there are
a number of ways in which this is changing. For example,
our resources are shrinking, but our work has not
diminished. I think the tasks that we are called for, are
called to face, are still continuing to change. Some of
them are different from those tasks that we had a few years
ago, and the regulatory challenges also may continue to
change. Therefore, I think the skills that the work force
have will need to change as well. The skills we have today
will be different in the coming years.
I think this presents us with both an opportunity
and a challenge. It is a challenge to be able to predict
the need for those skills in the future accurately and, I
guess, in time so that we could provide the courses that are
necessary in a timely fashion. At the same time, I think it
. 16
will provide an opportunity for us to motivate employees to
put forth the effort and the enthusiasm to actually acquire
those skills that we will be needing.
So, as a Management Diversity Committee, we feel
that our managers will be required to display exceptional
managerial talent in the coming years. I think, also, the
Commission has recognized this, for example, in the response
to the strategic planning options for the decision issue, 19
or 23, I guess, enhancing regulatory effectiveness. The
Commission called for measures to engage the work force at
the grass roots level and to stimulate management and
employee communications and problem-solving.
I am going to make a sort of leap here, but we
think that to engage the work force requires managing
diversity, which we have defined to mean that each employee
must be motivated and encouraged to contribute to his or her
maximum potential without regard to the list of things that
Chairman Jackson mentioned, including ethnicity, age,
gender, background, et cetera.
I think the words "encouraging each employee to
reach his or her maximum potential" are very important
words, and we wanted to emphasize that by saying we think
this means that employees would come to work challenged and
prepared to be challenged rather than, perhaps, expecting to
be held back or under-utilized in their jobs.
. 17
I think if are going to engage our work force, our
managers must be chosen and promoted based on their
managerial skills. I think that is very important. They
must be able to motivate their staff and communicate a
genuine interest in the career potential of their employees.
We think they must be required not only to provide
the opportunities, some of these that Ms. Norry and Ms.
Little have mentioned already, opportunities to develop by
varying work assignments and by encouraging rotations, but
we must also motivate the Staff to seize those
opportunities. It can't just a pro forma effort.
We know that new skills can be learned. We have
an intern program, and for example, training courses and
probabalistic risk assessment that show that we can teach
new skills when they are needed.
In its research to date, the subcommittee has
learned one very important lesson, and that is it is no easy
matter to manage diversity, to adapt well to a work force
where the managers and the employees do not all come from a
similar background. There is no question that that is a
difficult task, and it will be particularly difficult for an
agency like the NRC to place more importance on the
managerial skills than on the technical skills of its
executives.
I think it will require just the decision to do
. 18
this, but a real determination to carry this out. Yet, it
is a decision that is a business decision, really, that must
be made. We cannot excel as an agency if our employees are
not encouraged to reach their maximum potential. There are
no extra people on our payroll.
We think every person is a valuable resource in
achieving the agency's goals of regulatory excellence, and
in addition, we feel that people who feel valued do better
work and feel better about working. Members of the
subcommittee have, as one of their activities, read this
book, which I highly recommend to those who are interested
in the challenge presented by Managing Diversity. I am sure
that Barbara Williams can obtain a copy, or I will even give
you mine, but it really shows you that this is not an easy
task, and to do what we have to do, it will require a lot of
effort.
When we have completed our research, in addition
to this book we are looking at what other agencies are doing
and trying to come up with a list of recommendations which
we will present at a subsequent briefing, but those will
only be recommendations. This decision, this determination
to change, can only be made at the highest levels of the
agency, and it must be communicated forcefully to all
managers and all employees. We can only hope to achieve the
goal of regulatory excellence if we pursue managing
. 19
diversity together.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MS. SUMMERS: Larry?
MR. VICK: Thank you, Chairman Jackson,
Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak to you on the
issues being addressed by the Performance Monitoring
Subcommittee.
As you review and consider the agency's EEO
program, we believe that the important thing is not where we
were or where we are, but where we want to go.
Our subcommittee is tasked to address five
specific issues raised by the EEO advisory committees. Our
primary goal is to assist management in monitoring and
evaluating affirmative action initiatives, support strategic
planning, encourage stronger management accountability
systems into the EEO area, examine ways to enhance
representation of women and minorities in supervisory and
managerial positions, and lastly, examine root causes of
discrimination complaints.
We are happy to report that meaningful progress
has occurred to date. The subcommittee has held six month
meetings since being informed in July of 1996. The
subcommittee began its work by obtaining a focused
. 20
understanding of the terms, "affirmative action," "equal
employment opportunity," and "initiatives."
We then identified agency programs associated with
these terms, with the ultimate goal to determine the
effectiveness of each.
Thirty-four programs or initiatives that support
EEO and affirmative action initiatives have been identified
by this subcommittee for monitoring and evaluation. The
initiatives cover a wide range of developmental areas in the
administrative, technical, professional, clerical fields for
both supervisor and nonsupervisory staff members.
SPCR and OP are currently collecting specific data
associated with each. The data will include the number of
participants, demographics, how the program is evaluated,
and an overall recommendation regarding the effectiveness of
each.
Data analysis is expected to be completed during
FY '97. The resolution of these issues will aid all
employees to be knowledgeable of the ways and means to
achieve the objectives of inclusion and equal opportunity.
The data analysis of these initiatives will also provide the
basis for work on the issues of increased representation of
women and minorities.
The subcommittee is working with SBCR to close the
issue on examination and report on specific concerns of EEO
. 21
committees and their root causes, and this will be done when
the SBCR summary report is presented at the next briefing.
Because of the need for confidentiality, the
actions taken by the agency to prevent reoccurrence of
similar EEO complaints remain to be addressed. The
subcommittee plans to work toward resolution on the issues
of strategic planning and management accountability in the
second quarter of this year.
To summarize, the subcommittee recommends that a
better understanding of the terms and concepts associated
with EEO affirmative action initiatives be routinely
communicated and that a periodic review of the objectives in
management directives, 10.61 NRC Equal Employment
Opportunity Program, be undertaken by all employees,
especially those with management responsibilities.
The ultimate goal is to ensure that all employees
can share in the benefits derived from equal employment
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Repeat what you just said.
MR. VICK: The ultimate goal --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, the one before.
MR. VICK: Okay. To summarize, the subcommittee
recommends that a better understanding of the terms and
concepts associated with EEO affirmative action initiatives
be routinely communicated and that a periodic review of the
. 22
objectives in management directives, 10.61, titled NRC Equal
Employment Opportunity Program, be undertaken by all
employees, especially those with management
responsibilities.
In conclusion, the EEO advisory committees
appreciate the attention the Commission has given to our
concerns as we strive to bring about beneficial changes at
the workplace.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. MAZUMDAR: Chairman Jackson?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Could you pull the microphone
more closer?
MR. MAZUMDAR: Chairman Jackson, Commissioners
Rogers, Diaz, and McGaffigan, it is my pleasure today to
present the progress made by the Selection Subcommittee in
the last six months.
We have experienced that many at the NRC,
especially those with the experience in other Federal
organizations, believe that compared to other Federal
agencies, NRC is a much better managed organization,
especially in the selection and promotion policies.
However, we have also experienced that many NRC
employees believe that in the past, some managers have
unfairly preselected employees in the merit selection
. 23
process. This is not only unfair. It adversely affects the
Staff morale.
The perception of preselection is so strong that
when the EEO advisory committees were asked to prioritize
their EEO concerns, preselection was identified as one of
the three more important issues, and in September 1996, the
Selection Subcommittee was formed to study the employees'
concerns.
The word "preselection" is not in the Webster's
Dictionary. However, most people at NRC have a pretty good
idea what preselection is. To carry out its mission, the
subcommittee has defined "preselection" as a selection that
is predetermined and not based on a fair and equitable
assessment of each candidate's qualification, experience,
and capability.
The perception of preselection applies to
positions that are advertised through the merit selection
process, as well as participation in special programs and
performance awards.
This subcommittee has 20 participants from
different EEO advisory committees, Office of Personnel, and
Office of Small Business and Civil Rights. The subcommittee
has formed several working groups, each consisting of four
to five members who study specific issues in depth and
report their finding at the monthly subcommittee meetings.
. 24
Thus far, this subcommittee has four monthly
meetings and has decided to pursue the following five action
items: action item one, develop criteria for examining and
identifying possible evidence of presentation; action item
two, review NRC policies, procedures, and practices related
to the vacancy announcements, selection process, training,
awards and other benefits; action item three, determine of
there is a reasonable basis for the perception of
preselection practices; action item four, learn from other
agencies on measures taken to minimize preselection; and
finally, present a report on the subcommittee's findings.
The subcommittee is aware that it has a difficult
task ahead, but we believe that with support from NRC
management, Office of Personnel, and Office of Small
Business Development and Civil Rights, we will be able to
present significant information on the perception of
preselection that has demoralized many NRC employees.
I also take this opportunity to tell all those who
have helped us to carry out our missions.
That is the end of my statement.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. First of
all, do you anticipate and have you gotten a commitment from
the Office of Personnel and SBCR that they will work with
you so, that in the next briefing, we won't be talking about
. 25
preselection as a perception, but we can actually have some
sense of what the situation really is?
I say that because I know that that has been a
concern for some time, and each time -- and I've been here
now -- this must be at least my fifth such briefing, and
there is always discussion of perception, and I think it is
important that the Commission finally have some data so that
we can have a real perception of what the situation is.
So I am, therefore, asking Mr. Bird and Ms. Little
and, by implication, Ms. Norry, have you given Mr. Mazumdar
your commitment that you are going to be working with this
committee so that we can really have some concrete data to
look at the next time the Commission is briefed or before?
MR. BIRD: I believe, and I know some of my staff
here have been working hand and hand with that committee,
and Irene's staff, also. I don't know that we have reached
a point where we have hard specific data examples of where
this has occurred. Certainly, the perception of
preselection is an age-old perception. I think that is the
goal, to eliminate the wrong as parts of preselection
altogether, if we can do that.
The process we have in merit selection certainly
intended to do that, and there are means of trying to
address that through looking at how things have worked in
that process.
. 26
I think in terms of getting specific examples,
that is something that we would have to work with the Office
of Civil Rights to develop in specific cases or instances
where we believe this is true.
Certainly, I think things are moving in that
direction. I know there has been a lot of effort, but with
the committee's support to try to get at this issue.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have you decided what questions
need to be ask to tyr to get at the issue?
MR. MAZUMDAR: So far, we have gotten good
response from the Office of Personnel and SBCR, but we
haven't progressed enough to ask some of the critical
questions, where we can establish whether there is
preselection or not.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have you decided what those
questions are?
MR. MAZUMDAR: We are looking into it. We haven't
developed the final questions yet, no.
MS. LITTLE: Yes. Dr. Jackson, I was in
attendance at the last subcommittee meeting, and yes, the
Subcommittee on Preselection certainly has our commitment to
work with them.
I think that we talked a little bit about the
focus being on what we can do to eliminate that perception
in the future. It is very difficult to get at that data in
. 27
the past because some of it is perception and some of it may
very well be real, but since we don't maintain any data
specifically addressing that, our focus, as we talked in the
last subcommittee meeting, was to look at ways that we can
present this kind of thing from happening in the future.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you don't know what you are
presenting if you don't know what exists.
MS. NORRY: You are saying the first thing we have
to do is define the problem and address the questions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Correct, right.
MS. NORRY: So we will work with the subcommittee
to do that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I know a little bit
about preselection because I once was on that side of the
table. I know how it is done in the Pentagon.
[Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I would suggest you look
for things like unusual announcements that have unusual
conditions in them that maybe -- I never was in the
Pentagon, but I know people who went from the Hill to the
Pentagon, and I think they were effectively preselected for
what were open positions by gearing it toward the particular
skills that that person had.
So I think if I were in your committee, I would be
. 28
looking for that sort of thing, announcements that happen to
have unusual --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Qualifications.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- qualifications in
them.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right, right. It is called
pick the person and then write the job description.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a few questions.
If we look at Table 1.1 on page 1.5 of your report, the
table indicates that there has been marginal progress in
hiring professional minorities, but the professional
minority women, as well as Native Americans, still lag
behind all other groups.
What kinds of efforts, particularly in the
recruitment area, are being planned or taken to improve in
these areas? We realize there is an issue of who is in the
market and how geography plays into that, and that may have
some impact on certain groups, but if you look across the
spectrum of various minority groups and you look at
professional minority women, it would seem that in this
particular area that there is some mitigation of the
geographic effect. So I am interested in what it is that
you have either planned or have already undertaken to do
something about that.
. 29
MR. BIRD: Well, certainly, from a recruitment
standpoint, the majority of our recruitment budget is now
focused on this issue and is particularly focused on
professional staff recruitment.
We have a rather ambitious schedule for going to
specific schools that are representative of the groups that
we believe could be improved, and I have a recruitment
schedule. I won't go through that item for item, but
certainly, there are some areas of the country and some
particular schools that have populations that are well
suited to enhance our populations in these areas.
We get, for example, from the Oak Ridge Institute
of Science and Technology a breakdown that they update for
us from year to year of where minorities and women are
specifically enrolled. We do try to focus on these schools
and keep current on where to go to find the right people,
the right candidates to fill these jobs. So I think from
the recruitment standpoint, that focus is there.
Certainly, more recently, as we have been
downsizing, the opportunities for intake here have been
less. That may change, of course, if some of the DOE
regulatory work comes our way and we are back in more of an
expansive recruitment mode. I think some of the payoff from
these sources will show up in these data tables.
In our inventory, our applicant's supply file, I
. 30
think, again, there is some good candidates. However, the
candidates that are in that supply file may not find their
way to specific jobs that we have currently. Again, the
lack of opportunities here is fairly significant over the
past three or four years.
We are certainly focussing on this internally as
well in developmental opportunities. I think to some
extent, there are already people in the agency who have the
potential to move in the professional categories. Some are
undertaking advanced education, and we should continue to
support that as well, but from a recruitment standpoint, I
think we know where to go to look.
One thing that came up in the past couple of weeks
was a Native American recruitment. I know we have gone back
to refocus our efforts there to make sure that we are
getting to the right schools that have these populations and
that we put ourselves in the position to be able to compete
favorable.
In many cases, minority candidates get multiple
job offers. We feel we have, to some extent, have been
competitive. Our accepted service status allows us to be
somewhat competitive, but there is always room for
improvement, and I hope that we can continue that focus and
continue to have a recruitment budget that permits us to do
that.
. 31
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If we look at Table 1.5 on page
110, it seems to suggest -- in fact, that is what the
statistics strongly suggest -- that minorities have not
fared well in joining the ranks of the SLS.
The two questions that actually come to my mind
are have minorities been applying and what steps are being
done -- there are actually three questions -- to prepare
individuals for it, and if you take away the Commission
offices, what would the numbers look like.
MR. BIRD: Well, you know, again, the Commission
has done very well in this regard. This particular
Commission, I think, has been exceptional in that effort of
trying to focus on minority women candidates and bring them
into --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, just minorities in
general, if you look at it. I think I count up five.
MR. BIRD: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So, if you took away the
Commission offices, what would the numbers be?
MR. BIRD: Well, it has gone up since this chart
because this was last fiscal year --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. BIRD: -- but the number is now eight, but
six, if you -- I think if I did my math right. There is one
additional that is not a Commission office staffperson that
. 32
is in the SLS, an additional woman who is in the SL ranks
now.
So, again, there has been some progress there.
There has been one additional woman. The numbers,
currently, would be, in column 1, under women, 8, and the
other numbers, the end number total would be 41, and that
is, again, the difference between the last fiscal year and
where we are today.
Again, the majority of those have been, as we
know, Commissioner selections.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So, in our regular professional
ranks, we have essentially zero. Is that what you are
saying?
MR. BIRD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So what is the story?
MR. BIRD: Well, you know, I don't know what to
exactly say.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Should I not ask you, but have
the office directors here --
MR. BIRD: Well, certainly, the office directors
are the ones that make the selection, and I think there have
been candidates that have been in competition for those
jobs, minority candidates.
There is a review group that Pat has chaired that
looks at those selections, particularly with regard to this
. 33
issue, and I think that committee has made some suggestions
to specific managers, and perhaps, Pat, you would like to
comment on that.
MS. NORRY: Yes. We have had, perhaps, not as
many as in the SES, but there have been cases that my group
looked at where there were candidates who we judged to be
highly qualified, and ultimately, then, someone else was
selected. That does happen, but I think the candidate pool,
though, has not been as large as perhaps we would have
liked. So I think it is a two-pronged thing. We have to
get more people in the candidate pool for these jobs and
also do a better job of looking at them once they are in
there.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think that perhaps in the
next Commission briefing in this area, we will have two
panels, one, the group of you who are here, and the other, a
group of office managers, of office directors, to have them
talk with the Commission relative to the same issues that we
talked with you about because it's a hand-in-glove
situation. The real hiring is going on in those offices,
and that is where we need to understand where the logjam
seems to be, and I think the only reasonable way to get at
it is to chat with some of those office directors, but let
me ask you a couple of questions.
The SECY paper indicates that the supervisory
. 34
development program and the SES candidate development
program will be offered again when there is a demonstrated
need to prepare additional employees for supervisory and SES
positions.
In light of the mandated downsizing and the
supervisor reductions, do you have any projection of when
there might be such a demonstrated need? And how often have
these programs been offered in the past?
MR. BIRD: Yes. The SES candidate development
program has been offered three times, one time recently. In
the recent instance, there were 23 graduates of that
program. Of the 23 in fiscal '96, seven were selected out
of the program and are now in SES jobs.
I might go on to say that four have been selected,
some by the Commissioners to go to senior-level positions.
Now, that is not SES. So don't let me confuse you because I
am adding and subtracting here simultaneously.
Since the end of the fiscal year, there has been
one additional candidate selected for an SL position,
another selected for an SES position. That would mean if
you could both SES and SL here, there would be 10 left in
the candidate pool. However, since five of those are in
senior level positions and not SES position, I think they
would have to be considered still candidates for SES jobs.
So right now, of the 23, I would consider that
. 35
there are 15 that would need to be placed. Our rule of
thumb when we started that program was that when we hit a
level of about 50 percent that we would reexamine, one, how
long it has taken since we ran the program, which was '94,
how long did it take to get to the halfway point, and then,
if you could extrapolate from that or decide that it might
take about the same amount of time to deplete it, we would
start another program when we were down to about a third of
those candidates left.
We are moving in that direction and certainly need
to begin to be thinking about starting that program again.
As you will recall, it is a one-year-long program. So, if
you want to have people trained and ready, you have to start
in advance of that year, or you would have a shortfall.
But at this time, we are at a stage where it is
time to begin looking at that and consider whether or not we
want to start another round of that.
With the supervisory development program, there
were 27 selected, and actually, this past program, which is
a two-year training program, there were 27 selected. Out of
the 27, seven have become new supervisors. Now, of course,
that is in an environment where we have been reducing the
number of supervisors, trying to reduce that number as the
agency is drawing down in an equivalent percentage fashion.
That would mean that 20 of those candidates left.
. 36
However, in fiscal '97, one of those candidates has been
selected for a senior-level position, but again, I would
continue to have that person in the count.
So I think we are a little farther away, there,
considering starting another program that we are with the
candidate development program, but the whole idea is that
when we reach a point where we think it is time to redraw
and restart those programs, we would certainly recommend
doing that.
I think these are excellent. Both of these
programs have been an excellent preparation for people that
have gone into these jobs, even including the SES training
for those that have gone into SL positions.
Is that responsive?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think we need to on a
more systematic basis understand how and when these
development programs are offered and expect to be offered
relative to our work force needs. Since we are coming out
of a strategic assessment, we are looking forward to doing a
multiyear plan, so that we can understand where the need is,
to give some particular emphasis.
Let me ask you a few more questions. If we look
at Chart 2.1, the numbers are small, but there does seem to
have been a slight decrease in the number of Hispanic males
as well as African-American females in the professional
. 37
career fields, with the streamlining.
Are Hispanic males and African-American females
particularly in positions where we expect that they may be
more vulnerable to the streamlining, if that is the
direction things continue to go?
MR. BIRD: I don't think -- again, I guess I'm --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: These are fluctuations of the
numbers?
MR. BIRD: Right. Yes. I am optimistic that in
the case of this particular agency -- and I know this is an
optimistic statement given the backdrop to where the
Government is continuing to go, but I am hoping that, to
some extent, these reductions have sort of bottomed out for
us, and again, particularly with regard to some of the DOE
work; that the opportunities to flatten out or even maybe
have an increase in staff would certainly give us more
opportunity to increase the numbers.
Again, when we have been in an upward hiring mode,
we have done much better with regard -- particularly since
we have a good focus in recruitment -- of getting people
through the door and making these numbers go up as a general
rule, and I believe if the data we get from outside is
correct, there are certainly more women and minority
candidates in the fields that we recruit heavily for than
there have been in the past.
. 38
So, almost in my mind, by definition, if we are in
a growth mode or even if we are in a replacement mode, we
are going to see these numbers improve, and I certainly
would hope that is true.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are tracking these feeder
groups in terms of what happens in those groups, in terms of
the entry-level professional positions?
MR. BIRD: Yes, particularly with regard to entry
levels.
Certainly, I would hope that we would be
entertaining more entry-level hiring. I am certainly an
advocate for that, and I would encourage the Commission to
--
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: To encourage you to do that.
MR. BIRD: To encourage me to do that.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, we take advice.
I note that the Asian-Pacific-American Advisory
Committee's briefing statement indicates that they are
concerned about a perception of a longer time in grade for
Asian-Pacific-American employees at the 15 to 13 grade
levels in comparison with other groups.
Do we have statistics relative to time in grade at
these levels, categorized by groups, and what can we say
about that?
. 39
MR. BIRD: We did a short analysis of that issue,
and if I can find my data sheet, what we found was,
particularly with regard to Asian-Pacific-Americans, was
that that did not seem to hold up at the 13 and 15 levels,
but it certainly did hold up at the Grade 14 level.
Now, again, this was a very short analysis, but I
believe it is true. It was an average time in the current
grade, which did reflect that at the Grade 14 level, there
was a longer time for that particular group than others.
The same was not true at the Grade 13 level, nor
was it true at the Grade 15 level, and I would be happy to
provide that. We certainly will continue to look at this
issue because it is one where I can certainly understand the
concern that is raised in that regard.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No, I don't have any special
questions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I really feel like I am at a
disadvantage. All of these numbers seem to be always in a
relative senses, but I would like to say something that I
think is from my previous experience in this area. As we
work in using terms to describe what we want to do, I found
that there was a term that was very, very appropriate, and
that was the term "to enable," rather than just encourage or
. 40
motivate. The system must be able to enable the person to
function and progress to their level of potential
achievement.
I think it is a very descriptive term. To enable
a person means the person is trying. I always feel like I
need to try a little harder. I was maybe a little slower
than most people. So I always tried a little harder or
tried to run a little faster.
I think as the programs are set, the word "enable"
is an integrating word in which it actually looks at the
person. It allows the person to realize that they need to
go a step farther, and it also puts the program in the
position of saying I must provide these steps to enable
that.
I think that is all I want to say. The next time,
I will have a few more questions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I would first like to
ask Ms. Summers a question.
You made the distinction between technical skills
versus managerial skills and said it would be hard in a
technical agency to value one over the other. Why does that
have to be versus? Why can't we be looking for senior
managers with the appropriate technical skills who can also
manage well? Why do you see it as a versus as opposed to we
. 41
need to find the people with the technical skills who can
also manage well?
MS. SUMMERS: It doesn't have to be a versus, but
I think, particularly with the kind of technical work we do
here, it doesn't give the technical people much of a
background in dealing with people when they have chosen to
spend most of their life dealing with figures and dealing
with metallurgy or various other technical issues. Their
backgrounds are not necessarily -- have not necessarily
thrown them together in a situation where they have had to
deal with people in the past, even in the agency at the
lower grades in the work that they have done.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: One thing I might just
ask the people around the personnel system, what sort of
opportunities are there for the technical folks at fairly
senior levels? I mean, there are all these courses. You
could take a year at a public administration school and get
a master's in public administration or you could take a
summer -- you know, the Kennedy School has a summer program
for senior managers and Government. How often do we have
people take advantage of those sorts of programs to try to
broaden them out of the metallurgist to the manager?
MS. NORRY: We make good use of those programs,
perhaps some of them, like the one at the Kennedy School,
which I agree is a tremendous program.
. 42
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Did you go to it?
MS. NORRY: Oh, yes. It was terrific.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I see.
MS. NORRY: But it is very expensive, and it does
get to be almost pricing itself out of the market, but
things like the Federal Executive Institute and other
programs -- I think, 10 years ago, I would have said, and
many would have said that we did not do a good job of
emphasizing management skills; that in fact, it was true
that technical skills totally predominated in terms of how
people got ahead.
I really don't think that is true --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is anybody able to be promoted
today without having gone through some kind of managerial
training or program?
MS. NORRY: We get them at the earlier stage where
we have required courses. When you are going into a
managerial, you have to have passed certain levels of
required courses.
MR. BIRD: But I don't think that is
all-inclusive.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It is not a systematic program,
and it is not a built-in requirement at this point?
MR. BIRD: Not yet.
MS. NORRY: But we make you play catch-up if you
. 43
get in a job and you haven't been through the managerial
courses.
MR. BIRD: It is mandatory training, but maybe a
little too late.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Excuse me, Commissioner
McGaffigan.
Over what time window are people required to catch
up, so to speak?
MR. BIRD: I don't remember exactly. Perhaps
someone on my staff might remember.
MS. HAMILL: Eighteen months.
MR. BIRD: Is it 18 months? It is an 18-month
time frame for the required training elements to be
complete.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: We are basically
resource-constrained to some degree.
I had a friend who is a Pentagon manager who had a
really critical stage in his career. He was a white male.
So he wouldn't meet an EEO target, but he got a whole year
at the Kennedy School, plus his salary, and got himself a
master's degree, which clearly enhanced his career
thereafter. That was in the mid-'70s Pentagon when they
were on one of their down slopes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, but their down slopes are
our up slopes.
. 44
[Laughter.]
MS. NORRY: One of the things, though, that we
have here, which perhaps some other agencies don't, we have
a very strong internal training program, and Paul and his
staff have developed many, many courses which are offered
in-house.
The ones outside are perhaps available not to
everyone, but we still do take advantage of those,
particularly FEI, which I believe still runs a good program.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Let Ms. Summers get a
word in.
MS. SUMMERS: I don't think it is so much a
question of the training courses that are offered as the
importance that is placed on the choosing and promotion of
people, depending on their people skills more than their
technical skills.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Or as much.
MS. SUMMERS: Or as much. Well, I guess I would
hope that as they got higher, it would become more people
skills than technical skills, on the assumption that their
technical skills were what got them the job in the first
place and that they spent many years at the lower levels
honing those skills, but I would just like to read two lines
here from the book because this speaks of another technical
agency where it says, "There is a tremendous preoccupation
. 45
in getting the job done." This is true for managers. They
get so caught up that they fail to see the importance of
people. I don't think anybody believes they will get by on
people development alone.
I think that is the kind of thinking that is very
prevalent here because we do have such an important
technical mission that even the highest-level managers are
more concerned with the technical job to be done than
necessarily the people skills of themselves or their
managers.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I would like to ask just
a couple more questions. The Tables 1.2 and 1.3, it looks
like the intern program, and both of these are tiny
programs, but it looks like the intern program is a
relatively effective mechanism for meeting EEO goals,
compared to the graduate fellowship program where it is more
a matter of -- that it is really Table 1.4 that shows who is
in it, but given the applicant pool, the result of who is in
it is determined.
I don't know much about a graduate fellowship
program. I didn't know actually until I saw this paper last
night that we had one. Why do we have one as opposed to
just relying on the NSF and other -- you know, there is a
myriad of fellowship programs -- some run -- the Hertz
Foundation, whatever -- especially if it isn't helping us in
. 46
this area.
MR. BIRD: That program, if I remember correctly,
started about three or four years ago in the interest of
trying to develop a specific skill that we had a lack of
abundance of in the agency.
I guess I can think of an example, a digital
instrumentation. The whole notion was that we would --
again, working with Oak Ridge Institute of Science and
Engineering -- go out with a large network of people, get a
candidate base developed, find someone who was motivated to
go to graduate school in an area that we defined.
We then would bring them in. They would serve
nine months in-house, and then they would go off to graduate
school, hopefully to come back with that skill and then be a
long-term asset to the agency.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: What is the requirement
for years of service per year of graduate school?
MR. BIRD: I believe it is two to one.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Two t one.
MR. BIRD: So, if you are away for a year, then we
have got you.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Do we have any
evaluation as to whether the graduate fellowship program --
I guess if it is that young, we probably don't have the
people back yet.
. 47
MR. BIRD: Well, there are some that have gone
through the program now. I believe there are a couple that
have returned to the staff, and at least my initial feedback
-- and I didn't look at it specifically for this meeting,
but it was that, certainly, they accomplished what they set
out to accomplish in those programs, and they are going to
be looked at valuable assets in the agency.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: And the rationale is
trying to find that equivalent person just graduating from
one of the graduate schools and recruiting them, we are not
competitive doing that? People in digital instrumentation
-- I mean, you know --
MR. BIRD: Yes. That was the notion, again, that
this would be an enhanced recruitment tool. We would be
offering them not just an internship within NRC, but an
option to go and have graduate school paid for at our
expense, and then --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Do they get their salary
while they are in graduate school?
MR. BIRD: They get a stipend.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Get a stipend.
MR. BIRD: So there is a very attractive feature
to that program in that regard for those students who do
wish to get an advanced education, and again, that was the
design. The program is a little different than the intern
. 48
program.
Certainly, someone in the intern program could go
on to graduate school at our expense. So it doesn't accept
those people, but the design was a little different to
attract, again, a little bit of a different person, not
planning to come to work, but planning to go to graduate
school and to allow us to at least have an opportunity to
recruit them.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I just suggest to Ms.
Little that this is one of the programs you need to keep an
eye on.
MR. BIRD: It has been very small so far. The
program offices do this out of their hides, if you will, in
FTE. So it is the goodwill of the office directors that we
have been able to do this at all, and again, some of the
office directors might be able to --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Maybe that is another
reason.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Another reason to have them
there.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I want to put my university
hat on for a minute.
In some of the things from the graduate fellowship
program, it really has been a very dry and hard time out
. 49
there in the universities for fellowships, for people that
are going to be involved in the nuclear engineering,
sciences, or anything. So practically any of these programs
are seen as life savers.
As far as I am concerned, and I have several of
these programs going, any time you have somebody in a
fellowship or even an assistant-ship -- I have some
Department of Defense assistant-ships that went through
programs -- you actually plug the individual to the
organization in a certain way, and it does give you a
recruiting advantage.
From the standpoint of the NRC, I always found
that we graduate an enormous amount of engineers in this
country, and many of them went to work in the nuclear
industry, one way or another, that know very little about
regulation, and that went out there and actually don't
realize there is a tremendous interface that they have to
work with.
No matter how good their technical skills are,
they are actually handicapped by the lack of knowledge of
the regulation. So I would encourage us to really try to
put this program there and force the fellows to come here
and learn what nuclear regulations are.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioners Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, my observation of the
. 50
graduate fellowship program here is that it has really been
very targeted, and while there aren't many participants, it
has been very useful.
The one or two cases that I have had an
opportunity to look at, I don't think you have gotten those
people out of the NSF and other graduate fellowship
programs. The fact that they have to come here first and
become part of our work force before they get into it, I
think, is a very big difference, and when they go to
graduate school, it is very targeted towards things that we
are most interested in.
So, while the numbers are small and I think that
there is probably all kinds of reasons for that, I do think
that the program itself has been very effective, at least in
the opportunities that I have had to look at it.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: From time to time, the
Commission receives comments that there is a bias in our
hiring and promotion relative to those who come from the
Nuclear Navy. Have we looked at that?
I know we have made the argument that it is a good
source of highly qualified people, but presumably, it is not
the only source. So are you looking at that when you speak
about recruitment, not just for minorities and women,, but
more broadly?
MR. BIRD: Yes. Again, we have never had a rating
. 51
criteria that says you have to have been in the Navy or gone
to the Naval Academy in order to come to work, and
certainly, that is something that many feel that there are
certain advantages from having been through the Nuclear Navy
Training Program, certainly in hiring inspectors,
particularly. I think there is a value that does show up to
some extent in the criteria in operating experience.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But in the end, if you are
looking at pumps and valves and gages and so on, there are
any number of programs that presumably prepare people for
that.
MR. BIRD: I believe so, and I certainly think
that many of those get into our candidates base and should
be looked at there, despite the fact that they have not been
through the Nuclear Navy power school, nor have they had
commercial experience, but they are very viable candidates,
and certainly, some of the training, the Chattanooga
Training Center, are options of ways to get that experience.
I know Ed Jordan and I have talked from time to
time, and the Commission has been involved in the question
of perhaps even having some people having experience at a
utility. The Congress got into that at one point and
admonished us and said that that wasn't a good idea, but we
were looking for ways to get at the problem that you are
describing of how to get people, valued and experienced,
. 52
without having to go to particular sources.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I mean, presumably, if we are
dealing with issues, particularly as the nuclear plants
mature, with things such as digital instrumentation and
control systems and power systems, looking at aging issues
which involve not just mechanical engineering, but
metallurgy and other issues, that even at the bachelor's and
master's levels, there are ranges of institutions, including
ones represented by any number in the area and within a
certain radius, that prepare individuals who can add great
value to our regulatory program. Is that correct?
MR. BIRD: Yes. I totally agree with that, and I
think it takes me back to something that I said earlier
about entry level, hiring an intern, hiring.
In a tight FTE environment, it is tough to make a
commitment to a long training process. If it is a year or
two, training involved with getting people up to have that
operating experience, for example -
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But I repeat, the operating
experience is one part of it.
MR. BIRD: That is right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But there are a lot of other
systems in a plant that have to be understood, evaluated. I
mean, in the end, I always draw the analogy of driving a
car. I can be a good driver and I can look at the road and
. 53
obey the speed limit, and I don't talk this way when I am
driving on the road, et cetera, but in the end, I am driving
a piece of machinery, right? Somebody has to be able to
look at and make some statement about it.
Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes, just two comments.
First, you keep saying the word "operating," and I have many
people from the Nuclear Navy who work for me.
The majority of them have no operating experience.
We have the misconception that people that come from the
Nuclear Navy were operators or had operating experience, and
a significant majority does not have operating experience.
Only electronic mates, you know, had really operating
experience or their supervising officers. The rest of them
do ont.
But something crossing my mind is that we were
talking a while ago about preselection, and now we are
talking about the Navy and things. Maybe there will be a
good cross-correlation, a good point to start.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That is what I am getting at.
That is what I am getting at.
[Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I might just ask,
though, from a personnel system perspective, what is the
value of veterans preference for an entry-level position?
. 54
Because the veterans preference and our skill needs are
going to lead to the Nuclear Navy, and that is a matter of
law, right?
MR. BIRD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: If you have two equally
qualified candidates and one is a veteran, you are supposed
to hire the veteran?
MR. BIRD: Yes, if they actually have the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But it doesn't say there is a
Nuclear Navy --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: No, but my brother drove
tanks, and I don't think he would be particularly good as a
candidate for most of our jobs.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
Would the National Treasury Employees Union
representative like to make any comment?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You can go to the podium. That
may be the easiest thing to do. Why don't you just talk
into the microphone.
MR. THOMAS: I didn't have any prepared statement
here, but I jotted down a few points I would like to make.
We have initiated a program through the National
Performance Review to eventually downsize or reduce the
level of management, particularly middle management.
. 55
We are in a situation in this agency where for
every two employees that are in the bargaining unit, there
is one employee who is excluded. There is a rational reason
for excluding managers and supervisors. The big area of
exclusion is for confidential employees. A large number of
those confidential employees are women and minorities, deny
the representation by the union. That is something I
believe that particularly in the partnership arena. When a
large number of managers and supervisors are no longer
involved in any way, shape or form in day-to-day labor
policy, a lot of these folks are being discriminated
against, and I think the Commission should take a look at
that as far as the representational rights.
With regard to some of the data that is here, I
have been to quite a few of these present, and the data
always seem the same to me and always seem to be missing
some very, very key factors.
We typically take a look at the profile of the
agency, the EEO profiles. We ignore information about the
profile of our applicants and the profile of the best
qualified list. What the supervisor is looking at is
particular best qualified list, and if you have a situation
of highly qualified individuals where, let's say, 50 percent
of that group are women and minorities and 10 percent are
the selectees, women and minorities, we have got a problem,
. 56
but if the data is just presented as far as what we looked
like last year and what we look like this year without
knowing the profile of the folks that were being considered
for those positions, we don't know what we are doing. We
are just looking from day to day and hoping that the
situation will improve itself.
I would hope that somewhere in the process, since
we have the system computerized, that we can actually
generate that sort of data, so that you can see at
subsequent briefings the profile of the candidates, the
profile of the best qualified list, and the profile of the
final selection list to see if there is something that is
unusual going on here.
The other thing that to me is a very serious flaw
in the data that is being presented on EEO is the issue of
equal pay for equal work.
I have sent one or two e-mails to some of the
Commission regarding our classification system. Our
classification system is so old, it is beyond belief. We
are using classification standards for computer experts that
were developed before the IBM PC was marketed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You have about --
MR. THOMAS: Two minutes. Okay.
If we are going to work the system properly, we
need to be able to classify the jobs to where, instead of
. 57
rating the job relative to the grade level of the person
performing it, that a particular job function carries a
grade level. That way, the people are being compensated for
what they are doing, not just because they are a particular
grade.
Preselection was an issue that was raised earlier.
That has been a long issue. It has been here since they
hung up the sign, and I guess there were arguments about the
sign hanger being preselected.
One of the things that you need to do is to
standardize the vacancy system. You are hiring a Grade 14
nuclear engineer. If that is standardized where it is very
easy for the person to use that standardized announcement
and very difficult to deviate from the standard, it makes it
difficult to rig the system, and the other factor in
preselection is to bar communications between the rating
panel and the selecting official, to try to rate one
candidate getting on or off the best qualified list.
Nuclear Navy issue. I would dispute one point
made by Mr. Bird. We have had rating factors that reference
the Nuclear Navy. It is rare, but they have occurred. One
way of getting an A on this is being in a Nuclear Navy
program or something of that type.
I think it is an issue. I am not aware of
management trying to dictate that as a policy, but I think
. 58
we have had prior commissioners and EDO that is from the
Nuclear Navy, and there is a perception that goes all the
way down through management that those are the people we
want to hire. I think something does need to be done with
that as far as doing a profile.
The last thing I would like to mention is a job
crediting plan. We have agreed to that, and I think that
will help preselection.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are there any further comments
from any of the presenters?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Any further comments from the
Commissioners?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In closing, let me thank all of
the employees in attendance for your interest and to thank
all of the participants for your views, comments, and
suggestions.
This was a briefing on a complex subject that is
designed to ensure that all of our employees are provided an
equal opportunity to display their talents and to contribute
to the agency's mission, and as we approach the year 2000
and face the various challenges and opportunities, I
encourage the managers and supervisors to the best of their
. 59
abilities to evaluate all employees fairly and objectively
and to recognize those employees who demonstrate superior
performance and to provide opportunities for training and
development for all employees.
I think that in order to hear more about what you
are doing in that regard, as I indicated, I think that in
addition to hearing from the panel that is here, we will
hear from a number of our office directors at the next
briefing. We particularly, then, would like to hear
relative to the issues related to preselection to
recruitment and to this issue of the development of true
managerial skills and the evaluation of them as part of job
performance.
I would also like to urge all employees to, again
-- and you have heard this from me before -- to avail
yourselves of various training opportunities, rotational
assignments, and developmental opportunities in order to
maximize your potential for excellence and for advancement
at the NRC.
I think the final comment is the whole point of
this briefing is that we do not discriminate. We are
looking to maximize the potential of all of our employees
and to manage diversity in its complete sense.
So I look forward to hearing about the progress we
have made in this area, in the EEO area, at the next
. 60
briefing.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the briefing was
concluded.]
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |