A Superfluous Federal Agency Is Caught Discriminating — Again!
Rep. Greg Harper (R-Miss.) has introduced a bill to eliminate one of the least known and most useless agencies in Washington: the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The fact that this supposedly temporary $18 million-a-year agency is apparently on the hook to pay damages for refusing to hire a military veteran provides another sound reason for shutting it down. This is the second time in less than two years that the EAC has discriminated in hiring a job applicant — and for the very same position no less.
The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is the independent agency that investigates prohibited political activity by federal employees. On December 2, 2009, it announced that two EAC commissioners had discriminated against a job-seeker applying for the position of General Counsel, a career civil service post. Although OSC did not identify the discriminators, the two commissioners were Gracia Hillman and Rosemary Rodriguez.
After interviewing the applicant, Hillman and Rodriguez, both Democrats, had voted along with the two Republican commissioners to hire him. He was sent an offer letter. However, according to OSC, when Hillman and Rodriguez discovered the lawyer was a Republican, they refused to approve his appointment as General Counsel. The OSC concluded that Hillman and Rodriguez had engaged in a “prohibited personnel practice” — specifically, they discriminated against the prospective EAC employee “because of his political affiliation, in violation of civil service laws.”
The lawyer received a six-figure settlement from the EAC — all of it paid by taxpayers, not those who violated the law. Now the Labor Department has found that the EAC discriminated again. And it’s the behavior of one of the same commissioners, Gracia Hillman, that was the problem. Neither Hillman nor Rodriguez is on the Commission now, but Hillman was still a commissioner last August when the EAC tried again to fill the still-open General Counsel slot. One of the applicants was a lawyer with extensive experience in voting and election law, as well as election administration. He had perfect qualifications for the job with one exception, at least according to Hillman’s point of view — he is a reserve naval officer.
During the interview, Hillman started asking detailed questions about his military service. According to the attorney, Hillman’s questioning showed that she believed “that no military reservist could ever be ‘objectively’ involved with voting issues due to some imaginary legal conflict under attorney bar requirements,” an absurd (and offensive) notion. Hillman’s questions showed that the lawyer’s military service was “a negative in her eyes and [she] sought to convey these negative ramifications to the other Commissioners and staff present.” She even discussed “the potential burdens on the Commission in the event [the lawyer] was out of the office on reserve duty,” despite the fact that his ordinary schedule involves only one weekend a month (when he would not be working at the EAC) and two weeks a year of active duty training. The lawyer said it was clear to him that Hillman believed his military service “was a valid reason not to hire [him] as General Counsel.”
Hillman’s (and the EAC’s) problem is that this kind of discrimination against a military service member is illegal under federal law. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4311, prohibits denying employment to any individual on the basis of membership in the uniformed services. When he wasn’t hired, the lawyer complained to the Department of Labor (DOL), which has responsibility for investigating this type of discrimination against members of the military.
On March 14, 2011, DOL informed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that the lawyer’s claim of discrimination was “meritorious and that the claimant is entitled to the position of General Counsel and compensation for lost wages and other benefits.” The DOL letter stated that Hillman asked the lawyer “inappropriate questions regarding his military obligations” during his interview. Even worse, she apparently lied to DOL investigators when she “denied making any comments about [the lawyer’s] military commitments.” Witnesses present during the interview confirmed that Hillman had asked these inappropriate questions.
DOL even has a recording of the closed session at the EAC where the commissioners discussed the two finalists for the General Counsel job, which included the reserve officer. To her credit, Republican Commissioner Gineen Bresso confronted Hillman over her inappropriate questions and the fact that they violated USERRA. In that recording, according to DOL’s letter, “Hillman admitted that she asked questions about [the lawyer’s] reserve duties” — something she later denied to DOL investigators.
DOL’s letter tells OPM that if this is not resolved, the claim will be referred to the Office of Special Counsel, the same office that investigated Hillman and Rodriguez in the earlier case. Once again, it looks like the taxpayers will be saddled with large expenses thanks to the misbehavior of an EAC commissioner.
Rep. Harper has the right idea. He wants to get rid of an agency that has outlived its purpose. After all, its work is done. The Help America Vote Act created the EAC in 2002. Its only purpose: To help implement that law and distribute funds to update voting equipment around the country. These tasks have all been accomplished.
In a recent PJ Media article, Richard Pollock noted that the EAC is an agency without a mission, yet half of its staff earn six-figure incomes. Only one of every three employees works on real programs, and its internal finances are such a mess that it could not be audited. It can’t account for half a million dollars in travel vouchers and wasted $7,000 in taxpayer funds on t-shirts for its employees. The National Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan organization that represents the chief election officials of all the states, has twice passed resolutions calling for the EAC to be phased out.
While I was at the Justice Department, I served on the first Board of Advisors of the EAC. I had many interactions with the EAC and its personnel and it was one of the most dysfunctional federal agencies it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. This latest scandal involving ugly discrimination against a dedicated member of the military is just another outrageous example of why Congress should follow the advice of the states’ chief election officials and shut down this unneeded, inept, and discriminatory federal agency.
Just curious … how did Gracia Hillman retain her job as a Commissioner after the first lawsuit? Did she not commit a firable offense?
Fired? You’re kidding, right? First, let’s get one thing straight: voting “rights” & anything that concerns elections are Democrat “territory”. Keeping Republicans or anyone w/a military background off their turf is the primary objective. Hillman didn’t get a PROMOTION, the usual Democrat reward for getting caught. By Obama & Holder standards, she “suffered enough”.
“According to the attorney, Hillman’s questioning showed that she believed “that no military reservist could ever be ‘objectively’ involved with voting issues due to some imaginary legal conflict under attorney bar requirements,” an absurd (and offensive) notion. ”
To the contrary, such a notion is objectively true in the progressive universe, where guns are evil and soldiers are all rapists and baby-killers. Hillman is governing by the brightest light of her intellect in accord with the one, true morality, as she understands it. And she is no different than thousands of teachers, academics, politicians and millions of Democrats.
“To the contrary, such a notion is objectively true in the progressive universe, where guns are evil and soldiers are all rapists and baby-killers.”
Oops, you forgot “village-burners.”
Aw, it’s only the law… lawyers, especially Democrats, can’t be bothered to learn it.
Don’t worry yourself about that “law” thing. Democrat Rep Alcee Hastings of Florida has got ya covered: “When the deal goes down…all this talk about “rules”…we make ‘em up as we go along.” Feel better?
A dysfunctional and wholly useless Federal Agency, to be sure, and a drain on the health of the Republic. But it is merely one of hundreds, if not more. For those who might have missed it, the following is instructive.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html
How do we get rid of these useless agencies? There are so many of them and they just keep adding government workers and doing nothing. The Dept of Energy was founded in the thirties, designed to explore better energy sources. Here we are 80 years and a couple thousand employees ahead with still no new energy ideas. What on earth does the Dept of Education do? And NOW we also are so fortunate to have Obama who doesn’t agree with the people’s right to elect government in DC, so he has 30 something Czars. I’m pretty sure ‘we the people’ get to pay them.
Loral, My intent in this reply is not to cast stones at you; I share your blame and guilt. Thomas Jefferson forewarned us, but we ignored his message: (paraphrasing)
“When you send your senator to Washington, D.C., he will soon become more a citizen of that city, than of your state” You and I sent him/her, give them a blank check, based on trust that they would spend our tax money as if it were family, or their own. You son is drafted into an NFL football team’ He is maybe 21-23-23 years old. Suddenly he is looking at a signing bonus – more money than he has ever seen – And a contract for $8 or $9 Million annually. This is a poor analogy of what our congressmen must see, when they first see “that city”
View how your Senator voted on the non-Patriot Act renewal.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists…
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington
As Thomas Sowell points out, govt agencies are the most likely to discriminate, and do so most often, because there is no economic cost to them. If women really do earn two-thirds of what men do for the same work, a business could hire three women for the cost of two men and get 50% more production for the same cost. They’d be insane not to do so. If they didn’t, the competitors would do so and eat their lunch. Not so in govt, as we see here. If everybody has prejudices, only govt can indulge those prejudices without cost.
Reading Ms. Hillman’s wikipedia information, the,
‘..areas of expertise(?) include nonprofit management (code for ‘tax dollars for go-nowhere empathy boondoggles)
‘.. interests and rights of women and minorities (why not ‘American’s rights’?)..’
‘..nonpartisan (riiight) political training in Haiti and Kenya..’
‘..a member of the official U.S. delegation to the United Nation’s Fourth World Conference on Women (quite the grandiose name for a partisan/pointless venture)..’
‘..served as Executive Director of the.. Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the National Coalition on Black Voter Participation, which sponsored the popular nonpartisan (mmm hmmm..) grassroots program, Operation Big Vote.. (wow, sounds A LOT like ‘Get out the Vote’, eh?)’
‘..served as a Senior Advisor with responsibility for Congressional and constituent relations for the 1988 Dukakis for President Campaign (hahahahaha)’.
And the creme de la resistance: ‘..began her long time commitment to public service and the nonprofit sector in 1970, when she worked for a community action program (An underling for which Massachusetts community organizer? – Is what I want to know).
Yep, SO GLAD we have these ‘nonpartisan’ ‘upward mobility for all’ government employees ‘earning’, like TENS of THOUSANDS of other ‘essential’ 6 figure salaried ‘humanitarians’ for ‘the common man and woman’ – ):
Another illustrious example of affirmative action. When will white Americans fianlly tell the dems and blacks enough is enough? Will it take a race war to decide who gets to play in the future America? My guess is yes.
You can bet if there is a race war Obama will choose to be on the side of the Whites ( his white half ) as the Blacks will be outnumbered and he always wants to be on the side of the winner. He really doesn’t care what color he chooses when the chips are down and he is about to lose.