SES Diversity Bill Passes House
The House voted today to approve the Senior Executive Service Diversity Act (H.R. 3774), which would create a new executive diversity office within the Office of Personnel Management.
The bill passed on a voice vote.
The measure would create a Senior Executive Service Resource Office in OPM to promote efforts to diversify the SES. The legislation also would require agencies to develop their own SES diversity plans.
The group Federally Employed Women praised the House action. “We have been working on this issue for many years,” said the organization's president, Rhonda Trent. “We are so happy to see it come to fruition and urge the Senate to follow suit and approve the measure."
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Rhonda really meant to say white men no longer need apply. All future SES appointments will no longer be merit based but quota driven
dan ketter Posted Tuesday, June 3, 2008 8:30 PMI don't get it. Whatever happened to just hiring the most qualified individuals? Acts like this are what gave us the terrible management, now they want to make it worse.
Andys Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 6:58 AMI'd like to propose a new legislative diversity office to accompany this much needed reform. The 110th Congress is 94% white and 84% male. This is unsatisfactory. Several third world countries actually mandate quotas to set aside legislative seats for those who can't win races on their own merits, and this would be an excellent time to institute such changes in our own country. In terms of simple nose counting, Congress has a long way to go in catching up to the SES, which is closer to 87% white and only 75% male.
Happy Fed Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 7:29 AMWe can pass all the legislation we want but you can't legislate a person's views. This will create a backlash where competent white, males will be passed over for a less qualified candidate who meets the diversity requirement. As a women with 30 years in government service, don't hand me something if I don't deserve it. Judge me equally with my peers and select the candidate with the best qualifications. What we need is a better pipeline of candidates for the SES. For all the talk of management competency, agencies are still hiring people with specific technical skills not good management skills and experience.
Monica Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 9:21 AMThe government has NEVER hired only the best qualified. That is why it is currently so lopsided. White men have ruled America, the government agencies, corporations, etc. for over two hundred years. Enough. White women are under represented in the Fed govt, as are Hispanics and people with severe disabilities. (Some other groups are also under represented, depending on the individual agency). I have SEEN the data - even when applicants from these groups make the BQ list, they are not hired. Time and time again.
Don't even get me started on the SES level positions. Maybe now the agencies will get serious about creating a worforce that is better balanced in terms of race and gender.
I do agree with the comment about COngress, but the blame lies with the political system and voters. Contribute to places like Emily's List and you will see more changes.
Charleen Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:41 AM"The government has NEVER hired only the best qualified" Did they make an exception in your case?
Chris Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:56 AMWhen will Congress wake up? New laws, new positions, new, added costs. Why not couple the creation of this new position with the elimination of positions in the Departmental SES management offices that juggle allocations, announcements and selections, through which they do in fact control the outcomes. After all, they allowed the problem to arise in the first place. The cost of government is driven upwards by this practice of layering "wishful new" on top of "ineffective old". Perhaps Congress should consider a replacement strategy?
M Onger Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 11:26 AMCongress and the Federal government have been singing this same old song for years. So, what’s wrong with that picture? It’s not the program; it’s the PEOPLE responsible for managing it! It appears that the SES program is tailored and re-tailored to systematically exclude lots of interested and qualified people. First, one has to be above the GS-13 or equivalent grade level before they can even apply for the SES Candidate Development Program. This eliminates a lot of interested candidates that are at the 13 level who have the leadership abilities and qualifications that the program is seeking. Second, one must be able to respond effectively to the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs). In order to do this, one has to be exposed to opportunities where he/she can gain knowledge or perform the type of work that corresponds to the ECQs. Third, supervisors and managers have to work with employees to help develop skills required for SES. Unfortunately, there are lots of supervisors and managers who lack skills themselves and don't have a clue on how to develop employees. To add to this, OPM themselves has added to this problem (I know this for a fact because a former co-worker inquired about a rotation in SES personnel management and was told, 1) they’re selective about who works in that arena and; 2) they’ve changed the grade requirements). Before GS-14s were eligible to apply; now you have to be a GS-15 making the glass ceiling higher to reach. What’s up with that Congress???
Then there’s the “who you know" or "favored person” syndrome (let’s not pretend it doesn’t exist). Putting more minorities, women or people with disabilities on these boards won’t make any difference. Go back to who’s minding the store. It’s like Einstein said "you can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it!" Who determines the qualifications for this program? It can change depending on who’s in charge that year and suttle biases. A person could have all the required qualifications but, if management doesn’t want you, not only will you NOT get such opportunities for development; you’ll have obstacles getting into the program. One thing must be kept in mind; the politicians who pass these type Bills don’t have a clue. They entrust others to carryout their initiatives and that’s where the problems occur. Management consists of people and people will always figure out a method not to do something (they don’t want to occur) by ignoring it or when all else fails, blame it on a lack of funding!
If Congress wants more qualified diverse people in this program, they need to put in legislation that “qualified applicants at the GS-13/14 or equivalent grades may apply.” Do not give the program managers the authority to decide that part. If they’re not going to do that, then they need to give this song a rest. This Bill has decent intentions but, it’s all a facade.
Concerned Citizen Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 11:47 AMYou don't make any organization better by using quotas. The end result is elimination of teamwork and second guessing every decision.
dan ketter Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 6:31 PMPrivate industry had to go thru this waste of time and resources to prove a point and reduce litigation. Now all these quotas are being replaced by competent individuals.
Besides the Supremes have already ruled quotas are illegal
Shouldn't Congress start with eliminating as many SES positions as possible. The big problem seems to start with over-management which complicates the system and leads to waste and good old boy groups which prevent diversity. Why invest time and effort to diversify a problem system of management?
Robert M. Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008 11:06 PM