REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL E

REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL E. WALL

Joint Assembly Committees Hearing

July 28, 2005

Chairman Rivera, Chairwoman Destito, Chairman Abbate, Chairwoman John, Chairman Espaillat members of the Assembly committees, good morning. I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here today at your invitation to discuss the efforts undertaken by the Department of Civil Service relating to the diversification of the New York State government workforce.

Let me begin by saying that, as someone who has devoted his professional life to the field of human resource management, I believe that achieving a diverse and representative workforce is an important goal for any organization, public or private sector. I believe that this is an especially important objective in government.As such, I am hopeful that today’s hearing can provide us all with an opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue that will further this objective.

A diversified workforce is important for several major reasons. First, from the perspective of equality of opportunity, it is simply the right thing to do. Second, as I have previously testified before the joint legislative committees, New York State, like other large employers nationally, will face a host of workforce related challenges over the course of the next several years. These challenges are the result of a variety of factors including the aging out and impending retirement of members of the “Baby Boom” generation. In addition many experts are forecasting that nationally the demand for skilled workers will exceed the available skilled labor pool as soon as 2010 resulting in an ever increasingly competitive job market. Another consideration is the current population shift occurring within the state. The report recently issued by the Assembly’s Puerto Rican and Hispanic Task Force properly asks the question…”who will be the next wave of workers needed by the system as the aging of the State workforce accelerates?” During the 1990’s, the influx of new immigrants into New York State transformed what would have been a loss of population exceeding 500,000 into a population increase of over one million. This represents our future labor pool; it also represents the public that we serve. For all of these reasons and others, effective outreach to all segments of New York’s population is essential if we are to continue to have a talented and capable workforce. Aware of these challenges, staffs of the Department of Civil Service and many other state agencies are taking steps to effectively address this matter. However, before detailing our efforts I would like to take a moment to correct the record as presented in the report recently issued by the Puerto Rican and Hispanic Task Force.

This report, unfortunately titled, “Hispanics and African Americans Need Not Apply”, is light on fact but heavy on fiction. It contains inaccuracies, omissions of fact, misconceptions and outright falsehoods. No one – not these esteemed committees, not my Department, not State government in general and certainly not the valued members of the State workforce -- are well served by such a fatally flawed piece of research.

Let me highlight just a few of the reports many errors:

First, the report immediately and continually references the “alarming under representation” of African Americans in the state workforce. This is simply not true. According to the 2000 Census, African Americans comprise 13.1 % of New York’s total available labor pool. The available labor pool is a measure of the total number of individuals that are of working age, it is the measure by which every employer assesses the diversity of its workforce and properly excludes minors from these statistics. The only meaningful way to judge the diversity of a workforce is to compare the percentage of an ethnic group in the workforce with the percentage of that group in the available labor pool rather than the general population. In fact, this methodology is utilized by the EEOC, the Census Bureau, and every employer that I am aware of and it was used by then-Comptroller Carl McCall in his 1995 audit of the State’s prior affirmative action efforts. Presently, 14.9% of the State’s total workforce is comprised of African Americans. That means that the representation of African Americans in the State’s work force exceeds the percentage of African Americans in the available labor pool by nearly 2 percentage points (14.9% versus 13.1%). Consequently, while pockets of underutilization may exist, and we must be diligent in this regard, there is simply no severe under utilization as the report claims.

Having said this, the report properly notes that there is under utilization among Hispanics in the State’s work force. Again, according to the census figures, Hispanics comprise 12.8% of the State’s available labor pool but presently represent 4% of the State’s workers. I have heard a number of theories offered to explain this level of under representation. We know that the largest segment of recent immigrants to the State are Hispanic…We also know that during this period of significant population growth the State has had a hiring freeze. So there has been little opportunity for agencies to pursue new and more diverse workers. We also know, as a result of our work with hundreds of community-based organizations, that there is a common belief among new immigrants that one must be a U.S. citizen or even a natural born citizen, to work for New York State. The Department of Civil Service’s Outreach offices are a key component in our strategy to correct this misconception and to encourage greater interest and participation within the Hispanic community.

However, I believe that the most significant factor affecting this situation may be the current geographic disbursement of these workers. The report notes that “Old excuses, such as blaming the limited geographic distribution of minorities for their under representation in state government jobs, no longer holds any truth.” Well it may be something you have heard before, like when prior Civil Service Commissioners Broadnax and Gambino testified before the legislature in the 1980’s and early 1990’s respectively, but the census bears out what Civil Service Commissioners have been saying for decades…this is a reality.

Here are the facts.

A significant portion of the State workforce – nearly 27 percent -- is located in the Capital District. However, according to the Census Bureau, in the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area which comprises the Capital District, Blacks comprise 4.9 % of the available labor force and Hispanics 2.2 %, far less than their makeup in the overall State workforce. In the Buffalo/Niagara Falls region, which comprises 10% of the state work force, 2.1% of the available labor pool is Hispanic. Other than the New York City Metropolitan area, these regions are among the State’s most diverse. In fact, according to Census figures, 2/3rds of the State’s Counties have a Hispanic labor force of 2% or less, in 1/3^rd of the State’s counties that labor pool is less than 1%. It is obvious then, that geography does play a significant role in diversity management.

Further evidence of this fact can be seen in those State agencies that have a significant presence in New York City, where there is a much larger and more diverse labor pool. In practically every case these agencies have a far greater level of work force diversity, one that exceeds both the State’s available labor pool and population census. For instance, according to our 2003 Workforce Plan, (the very Plan cited in the Assembly’s report), minorities make up nearly 45 percent of the workforce at the Department of Banking, the Division of Human Rights enjoys a nearly 56% minority composition, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, a 47% minority workforce, the Insurance Department 39%, and the Department of Motor Vehicles more than 28 percent. At each of these agencies minority representation increased even further in the following year, as reflected in the 2004 Workforce Plan.

So again, the report is inaccurate; the facts are indisputable, geographic distribution does play a significant role in the overall diversity of the state’s work force.

I also wish to take issue with the figures relating to “job losses” as cited in the report. The report utilizes a bit of statistical sleight of hand to contrast the “loss of jobs” suffered by African American employees compared to that of White employees since 1991. First let me say that the notion of “job losses” as referred to in the report, which infers that these individuals were either fired or laid off is grossly misleading. As you are well aware, since the introduction of Governor Pataki’s Transfer legislation in March of 1996, reductions in the state’s workforce have occurred with practically no involuntary separations. So job losses in the state work force over this period are the product of natural attrition where individuals have left to pursue better job opportunities or retirement, in many cases a retirement with incentive bonuses. Thus, the suggestion that these individuals were somehow harmed is specious. In a similar vein, the report’s comparison of these cited job losses; a 26.7% decline among African American employees versus a 2.8% decline among White employees is outrageously misleading. When compared in a similar fashion the decline in the percentage of African American employees was actually 2.2% percentage points versus a 2.8% percentage point decline among White employees.

Once again, let me present you with the facts, as reflected in the 2003 workforce plan:

Since 1991, the entire State workforce has been reduced, with the reduction of whites by far the biggest component in that reduction. In that time frame, whites in the workforce decreased by more than 28,500 positions, compared to 8,800 reductions in the African American workforce and 900 in the Hispanic workforce.

Between 1995 and 2005, the number and relative percentage of White and African American employees was reduced at a comparable rate of about 20%. Meanwhile, the number and relative percentage of Hispanic employees dropped during this period by 13 percent.

Early on in the report, it cites “skewed statistics, lack of access to government data and a lack of administrative initiative” on the part of both Democratic and Republican Governors as creating major problems in providing Hispanics and African-Americans with jobs in State service. With respect to this administration I know this to be absolute fiction. Let me give you the facts.

Since 1995, the Department of Civil Service has gone to great lengths to provide access to accurate information pertaining to work force statistics and other government data. We have an impeccable record of addressing information requests in a timely and accurate fashion…whether those requests come from the media, the public or, of course, the Legislature. In fact, many of these records are available on the agency’s award winning website which will attract over 10 million hits this year alone.

When this report was issued I requested staff check our files for any correspondence we have received from you, Chairman Rivera or your Task Force seeking any such information. I wanted to know the cause for this particular criticism of the report. It should come as no surprise to you that we found no such requests. No FOILs, no phone calls, no letters. Nothing.

Correspondence that we did come across in our search however included several letters to the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus articulating the Department’s commitment to improve outreach and diversity and offering to meet with the committee at its convenience to discuss any ideas that it had for improvement. I found no response to any of these letters.

With respect to a lack of administrative initiative, the report consistently claims that the Department of Civil Service, “has done nothing”, in the area of outreach into minority communities. Once again, there is no factual basis for this assertion and it is complete fiction. Let me again give you the facts.

Since 1995, the administration at the Department of Civil Service, under the tenure of both my immediate predecessor George Sinnott and myself, has undertaken what I consider bold initiatives in the areas of outreach and recruitment. For instance:

For the last several years, we have operated outreach and recruitment offices in Harlem and Buffalo to target potential jobseekers in the minority community. Each of these offices interfaces with thousands of potential jobseekers as well as hundreds of community based organizations on an annual basis. Services range from providing job announcements and application forms, assistance in resume preparation, participation in job fairs and community forums on employment and bilingual services. Incidentally, these offices had been closed by the prior administration, but were immediately reopened and expanded under this Governor.

In June, the Department, working in a non-partisan fashion with State Senator Carl Andrews, opened a third outreach and recruitment office in Brooklyn. We expect that office to be as successful as its two predecessors. I’d suggest you ask the Senator what he thinks of our outreach efforts.

Our Division of Diversity Planning and Management, which administers the Governor’s Program to Hire Persons with Disabilities and Veterans with Disabilities, regularly reaches out to State legislators seeking resumes for persons potentially eligible for the program. Over the past few years this program area has broken all of its earlier records for appointment activity, garnering recognition and the 2003 Commander’s Award from the Vietnam Veterans of America for proactive recruitment efforts.

Since 1995 we have been aggressive in seeking to inject more diversity into the hiring and promotional processes. For instance, we have dramatically increased the use of “band scoring” as a way to give appointing authorities increased hiring flexibility. We have also offered more innovative testing techniques including the use of Training and Experience evaluations and the award-winning Promotion Test Battery. We have reinstituted the Public Management Institute, a nationally known program to groom the next generation of public sector leaders. As a result of national recruitment efforts, including visits to many historically Black Colleges, the PMI class of 2004 comprised 31 percent minorities and 50 percent women.

Our efforts in the area of outreach and recruitment have garnered national awards and the prestigious Benjamin Potoker Award, also known as the Brotherhood Award, from the NYS Brotherhood Committee, a committee comprised of branches of the NAACP, Blacks in Government, PEF’s Black Caucus, and CSEA’s Minorities in Corrections unit.

And I was delighted to read in this month’s issue of the PA Times, the national publication of the American Society for Public Administration, that New York State was recognized as one of only eight states that stood out among its peers in the area of web-based Diversity Recruitment efforts. The article highlighted the results of a research project by two prominent college professors, which commends New York’s commitment to diversity as reflected in the Department of Civil Service’s web presence, where we highlight our goal of providing equal opportunity and increased diversity in our agency’s core mission statement and present a strong visual image of diversity./li>

I have highlighted only a few of New York’s extensive and award winning efforts in the area of outreach and diversity management, and I will be happy to provide additional proof of our efforts should you desire. But I hope that you will agree that the suggestion that the Department of Civil Service has done “nothing” in this regard is wrong and it serves as a slap in the face to the State’s career professionals who have worked so hard and so well in this regard.

The report also claims that “it is unclear if Governor Pataki has ever convened” the Governor’s Committee on Affirmative Action as required by Executive Order #6. It would be my pleasure to clarify this point. In his 1995 audit on oversight of the State’s affirmative action program, then-Comptroller Carl McCall noted that this Committee had not met even once between 1987 and 1994 under the previous administration.

Under the current administration, the Committee has held quarterly meetings, for the past ten years, most recently on April 27. (Coincidentally, the Committee is holding its regularly scheduled quarterly meeting today, notice for this meeting was given immediately following the April meeting). A simple telephone call to my office could have confirmed the quarterly status of the meetings. Unfortunately, I never received such a call. Those meetings are open to the public, Chairman Rivera. I would personally like to extend to you an invitation to attend the next meeting.

The report also asserts that Affirmative Action Officers employed by State agencies are ”extremely vulnerable to retaliation when they try to perform their duties and responsibilities,” because they are in non-tenured positions in the exempt or non-competitive-phi designated jurisdictional class or merely appointed on a provisional basis. First of all let me state that I have personally worked with many of the state’s Affirmative Action Officers and I have found them to be capable and dedicated. I have also found them to be quite willing to offer their thoughts and criticisms. In fact, Gloria Robinson, the Council’s current Chair was recently my guest at the ribbon cutting for our Brooklyn Outreach Office. Gloria had been at the event for mere minutes when she approached me with a number of suggestions including recommendations for improving the office’s signage. This was no anomaly, I encourage constructive input and I am pleased that I often receive it from the Affirmative Action community. By the way, Gloria was right and the situation is being corrected.

In addition, the claim that Affirmative Action Officers are extremely vulnerable because they lack tenure is incorrect. Of the 123 individuals in state Affirmative Action Officer positions, 75 are either permanent competitive or non-competitive class employees, with full Civil Service protection.

One factor that I believe is significant that is not addressed in the report involves the growing number of so-called “unknowns” in the State workforce – those people who do not declare their race on the voluntary reporting form. Since 1991, the percentage of unknowns has increased significantly from 1.9 percent of the State workforce to 4.6 percent in 2004. While there is no way of knowing how much of that increase may involve minority workers, if a number of unknowns are minorities, it could have a significant effect on the State’s diversity statistics. This reporting trend is not unique to New York State and it appears to be a larger issue nationally. Many believe it reflects a desire on the part of people to be identified as individuals rather than as part of an ethnic group. However, I have just learned of another possible explanation that was identified in the recent US Census. Historically, the EEOC has not recognized that a percentage of the population is of mixed ethnicity and consequently, employers have not been permitted to collect any form of “multi-cultural” data. As a result, when a state employee identifies herself as both white and black or black and Hispanic, our electronic system rejects this data and reflects them as having an unknown ethnicity. This is particularly unfortunate since, according to the 2000 Census, over 3% of New York’s total labor pool is multi-cultural. It is my understanding that the EEOC has just recently indicated that it will be issuing guidelines shortly authorizing the collection and recognition of this segment of the workforce.

Finally, I wish to point out that the authors of the report were clearly confused relative to the Department of Civil Service’s role in the hiring process. That confusion is reflected in instances where the report refers to the Department’s “cutting of thousands of minority jobs” or its failure to immediately hire “17,224 Hispanics”. Each agency within New York State constitutes a separate hiring authority. Civil Service has fewer than 600 employees so it has never been in the position to either cut or add thousands of jobs. Further, I have no authority to direct another agency to hire any particular person or persons. The Department of Civil Service has only limited powers – mainly administrative in nature – over the merit system in New York State, a system that is more than 120 years old that was designed to ensure open access to government jobs and selection based upon merit and fitness.

The constraints I operate under as part of that merit system are the product of both Constitutional and legislative directives that I cannot simply change by Commissioner’s fiat. We can and do however continually work to improve various aspects of that system.

In his 1994 audit of the Department of Civil Service, then-Comptroller McCall noted that the Department had potential opportunities to reform the civil service system to improve administration of the State’s diversity program. He specifically pointed to three recommendations. First, increased use of non-traditional examinations such as a review of a candidate’s training and experience. Second, increased decentralization of the testing process. Third, the reduction of job titles to streamline administration and enhance employee mobility. None of those recommendations were acted upon by the prior administration. Since 1995, however, all three have been implemented. Today we administer a growing number of training and experience examinations for state and local governments (well over 1000 last year alone), we have largely decentralized the testing process and have eliminated over 2400 job titles. Demonstrating once again that the Department is willing to implement positive suggestions for change.

In addition, as one of my first actions after being named Civil Service Commissioner last year, I had the Department undertake an agency-wide review, a comprehensive effort, in effect, to detail what we are doing as an agency, how we might do some things better, and where we are headed for the future.

As part of that initiative, we reached out to the Affirmative Action Advisory Council to make it part of our effort. In fact, I personally appeared before the Council and requested their input into the process. I asked them to identify what we were doing well and what we needed to do better. I also asked for their suggestions in identifying specific steps to improve the State’s administration of its diversity program. Each of the top priorities identified by the Affirmative Action Officers has been reflected in a report entitled Strategic Directions. The report calls for initiatives to further improve access to information regarding government jobs and promotional opportunities, access to “power desktops” to provide greater and quicker access to workforce data, a more coordinated approach to recruitment, better training for the State’s entire professional Human Resources team, including the Affirmative Action Officers, and much more. The response thus far has been exceptional and I have assured the Council that I would keep it involved in the future and consider it a very valuable resource.

I hope, now having heard the facts that you agree that the Department of Civil Service has done its job, consistent with its mission and legal mandates. But you are the lawmakers of the State. If you have legislative initiatives to propose, you may put them on the table for consideration. I remain ready, willing and able to sit down with any of you to discuss any such potential legislation to offer my thoughts and suggestions. I realize that my comments today were a bit long and at times critical but please do not take them as an indication of hostility towards this process or hearing. I found the report offensive and damaging to the cause of diversifying the State’s workforce but recognize that it was fueled in part by a desire to call attention to an important matter. I am prepared to work with you, to share thoughts and ideas, and to welcome your suggestions for change and improvement.

So in conclusion, I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. I would hope that in the future, we can all work together to implement constructive changes as necessary to meet the needs of all New Yorkers.

Now, I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.