Winning the Battle But Losing the War: EEO, Grievances and Shunning

by
Nevertheless, a certain amount of wariness does appear to be justified…

Background: I had been in my job as Regional Planning Director and Accumulator of Other Random Tasks for about six years when it was decided by someone above me that I should retire. My boss was the Deputy Regional Forester (a job that had a fair amount of turnover and actings) (DRF) and his boss was the Regional Forester (RF) and his boss was the Chief.

So one day I walked in and was asked if I would go on a detail. Silly me I thought of that as “you go and come back”. It took me awhile to realize they meant “you go and never come back and when you can’t abide this silly assignment anymore you can retire.” ]My first thought was, “hey I’ve taken all that training and they can’t do that!” So first I looked at an EEO complaint, and I called someone far away on a help line. They said I’d need to prove somehow that gender discrimination was behind it. Well, no one was going to go around saying that so I could write it down. And it could have been sort of what I call “second order”, when men are confident that’s good, if women are it’s abrasive, if employees complain about men supervisors they are whiners, if they complain about a female, she is a poor leader, and so on. Who knows? And how could you prove it?
The only thing I can say about this experience is that I don’t think having hotlines necessarily help. They are probably incentivized to close cases (or process them at a certain rate of speed). They don’t know the organizational and personality context. Finally, hearing someone’s story in person is very different than a disembodied voice.

Our own (HR Civil Rights) folks in the Region (fortunately I was lucky to have them in the same building) were the only people I could count on. They had a listening ear and good advice. My take-home: centralizing is not always good.

So I started a grievance, because, sure enough, you can’t just take someone out of their job without cause. Unfortunately, my grievance was denied by an Acting DRF (yes, working for the same person who had thought up the “let’s get rid of Sharon” scheme.) This particular Acting was a peer of mine in regular life (personally, this was the toughest part) and, of course, had no real rationale.

But then it went to the next level, and someone in Region 8 accepted my grievance and said I could have my job back. So ultimately the system “worked,” but you can see if the second level hadn’t been outside the Region, the outcome could have been different.

But my point is that the formal system can work, but the informal system can still shun you. As my first boss in the Forest Service told me (when I applied to have my position audited in 1980 against the will of the Forest Supervisor) “you may win the battle but you will lost the war.”
So I went back, and folks in the WO treated me like a ghost. My peers went back to treating me as they had before. Members of my staff who had participated in the drama were unhappy with me coming back. My boss wouldn’t give an employee a detail because the WO had told him she was not OK (the most loyal responsible non-bloggy person in the world) because she had a blog. This blog. He could have looked it up instead of believing the WO gossip. Oh well.

Bottom line, I would never judge a person for not reporting something, because shunning is a pretty awful thing to endure (as Melody Mobley also talked about here). If people want to get rid of employees they can- presumably the shunning system and career civil service regulations co-evolved. And there is literature on organizational shunning, also called ostracism, so perhaps management folks have ideas about how to deal with it.

Noelle Selin on Harassment and Science: Et Tu AAAS?

by

There are three reasons I think harassment and discrimination in the science biz is worthy of our attention:
(1) Our public lands/environment/forest community is full of land managers, interest groups and scientists. Whether we like it or not, and whether we like each other or not, we are all a part of the same policy community. And our professional lives go back and forth in terms of employment, as we shall see in a later post. So, in a sense, what hurts any of us, hurts all of us. It’s just plain wrong, anywhere and everywhere.

(2) The flip side of this is that if anyone in the community has figured out how to stop it, others could adopt those practices.

(3) Scientists claim privilege for their views, based on framing the problem a certain way, and writing papers based on data collection and analysis as legitimized by other scientists. If they are only another Good Ole Boy network that sets about studying problems that GOB’s think are important, using disciplinary approaches picked by GOBs, and so on, then they may not be addressing the problems of the day with the diversity of thinking and approaches that we would, and should, expect from publicly funded research.

Noelle Selin writes about good old boyism, harassment and diversity in Scientific American in this blog post “Why I Confronted the American Association for the Advancement of Science” (my italics):

When many people I consider mentors and scientific leaders recently spoke publicly to honor an accomplished academic who had engaged in harassing behavior, I felt as if they were speaking directly to me. I asked myself whether they knew that the collegiality they heralded on the part of the honoree was not open to all. Did they choose to overlook how he interacted with certain women, judging this insignificant compared with his contributions? Did they realize that their praise communicated not only to those whom his actions had most severely harmed, but also to many others, that his accomplishments were more important than their participation in science?

It wasn’t any single case, though, that prompted me to initiate this public letter. Though I’ve never before spoken out publicly about sexual and gender harassment, and I rarely sign on to public letters—let alone write them—I took a leadership role in this effort for two main reasons.

First, the pervasiveness of harassment as a systemic problem in science means that efforts by all of us are needed to address it. Its impacts are not limited to the cases garnering the most public attention. Even for those who are not the direct target of the most severe harassment, our professional interactions, choices and career paths can be shaped by it. Personally, I feel these impacts when I modify my own behavior to try to avoid being the target of a known harasser; when I think about whom to sit with at meetings or social gatherings to avoid degrading or sexualized conversations; or when I hear comments suggesting my gender affects my competence and potential.

By remaining silent, all of us, especially those in positions of authority, contribute to perpetuating these harms. I contributed myself by not speaking up to tell my colleagues how I felt when hearing their accolades. Every time we fail to call out inappropriate behavior, we are tacitly accepting its systemic burdens. As a tenured faculty member, I do not want to have to teach the next generation how to evade or put up with harassment as a strategy for scientific survival.

The second reason is that I increasingly see a strong link between the inclusiveness of the scientific community and the academic issues I commit my career to and often speak publicly about: the need to engage with stakeholders to address large-scale societal challenges. Doing impactful science in my own work on air pollution, climate change and sustainability requires engaging with communities and decision makers as part of the process. Public engagement is our core mission as part of the Leshner Fellows program, and we are specifically asked to train and mentor other scientists and promote engagement within our institutions. As scientists, we are much better equipped to engage if our community actively welcomes diverse participants, ideas and perspectives.

You can support their effort here.

Heading off fires in west-side forests by ‘thinning’ every decade is a ‘fool’s exercise’ says Dr. Jerry Franklin

by

When most reporters cover wildfire and forest issues they seem to present an entirely false narrative (feed by the timber industry and pro-timber industry politicians, ad nauseam) that all forests in the U.S. are unnaturally over-crowded and dense and all forests used to burn frequently, but at a very low severity.

While that narrative might (generally) be true of a certain (but small) percentage of forests in the western U.S. (for example, such frequent fire, but low burn severity forests, make up only about 5% of the entire forested landscape in Montana and northern Idaho), the vast majority of forest ecosystem in the western U.S. have a much more complicated and mixed fire history. This includes huge forest ecosystems that were born of, and are maintained by, mixed- to high-severity fire regimes.

That’s why this piece in the Seattle Times by Hal Bernton is so important, and refreshing.

The article highlights a new study from a research team that included scientists from the University of Washington, Washington state Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Forest Service scientists. Better yet, the reporter got out into the forest with some of the leading forest and fire ecologists around.

One interesting tidbit of information in this article was the fact that early in Dr. Jerry Franklin’s career, he also dove into wildland fire issues. In fact, Dr. Franklin co-authored a 1982 study of Mount Rainier National Park, uncovered evidence of huge conflagrations 900 years ago that affected nearly 50 percent of the forested areas.

Apparently, if you believe Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke that wildfires are caused by “environmental terrorist groups,” that huge conflagration that burned nearly 50% of the forested areas around present-day Mount Rainier National Park in approximately is 1118 A.D. is a real eye-opener, proving that “environmental terrorist groups” have been living in our midst for almost 1000 years now. Tune in to Fox News, The Daily Caller and Breitbart “News” for more breaking coverage exposing this 1118 A.D. “environmental terrorist” sect. In the meantime, here’s some snips from Bernton’s latest article:

On a remote ridge, the hemlock, silver and noble firs stood for several centuries, nurtured by deep winter snow and drenching rains. Then last year, amid the searing August temperatures, the Norse Peak fire on the east side of the Cascades pushed over the range’s crest and engulfed this stand, killing most of these trees.

Now the charred trunks rise like ghostly sentinels in a forest littered with charcoal, which still gives off whiffs of the smoke that billowed from the 55,909-acre blaze. This austere burn zone is a typical aftermath to intense fires that, over the course of centuries, periodically feast upon the huge amounts of wood that grow in the west-side forests of our region.

The fire ecology of such forests, and how it may evolve amid climate change, is of increasing importance as wild-land smoke emerges as a regional concern. The polluted air that hung this summer over a vast stretch of the West Coast — from San Francisco to Vancouver, B.C. — has generated a fresh wave of support for more logging and cool-season burns to thin the forests and reduce the potential fuel.

These tactics are standard practice east of the Cascades. But in a peer-reviewed paper published this year, a research team of University of Washington, state Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Forest Service scientists caution that such tactics won’t do much to tame or head off west-side fires, which are forecast to happen more often — and burn more acreage — as climate change spurred by the combustion of fossil fuels reduces winter snowpack and increases summer temperatures.

But wetter forests, such as the stand torched in the Norse Peak blaze, have a very different relationship with fire. They burn infrequently but the toll on the trees often is severe. Trying to head off these fires would require thinning these public lands every decade or so, and that would change the natural character of these lands in what Franklin calls a “fool’s exercise.”

There also are benefits to these west-side fires, which Franklin says can act as powerful sources of forest renewal.

Why Seattle Had The Worst Air Quality In The World At Some Points This Summer

by

NPR interview, August 31: “Why Seattle Had The Worst Air Quality In The World At Some Points This Summer.” A professor of atmospheric sciences talks about wildfire smoke and air quality, but also forests (which, of course, he’s less qualified to comment on). Still, it is interesting that he says “only a small proportion of this is climate change.” Excerpts:

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
At some points this summer, the big city with the worst air quality anywhere in the world was not Beijing or New Delhi. It was Seattle, Wash. To talk about why and what this means for the future, professor Cliff Mass joins us now. He’s a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Welcome.

…

MASS: Well, the big problem is our forests. We’ve suppressed fire now for almost a century. A lot of the forests surrounding Seattle are in very bad condition. They’re overgrown. They have a lot of slash, a lot of low bushes and trees. And they’re completely unlike the forests that were here 150 years ago. And the problem is when they burn, they burn catastrophically.

SHAPIRO: And I’m sure climate change doesn’t help.

MASS: That’s right. The question is how much of this is climate change. I suspect that only a small proportion of this is climate change. I think that the main problem is the forests, which are ready to burn. We have invasive grasses that have moved in that burn very easily. And human beings are increasingly starting fires with this huge number of people going in for recreation, other uses of the forested areas.

Now, on the long term, as the planet warms up, we certainly would expect more fires. So climate change, global warming probably contributed a small amount to it, but probably the key thing is what we’ve done to the surface of the planet.

SHAPIRO: Are there things that the government or citizens could do to try to prevent this from happening more?
MASS: Well, the key thing is to fix our forests. People know what to do. I mean, if you talk to the people in the Forest Service, it’s clear. We have to thin the forests and then let fire come back regularly but at a much lower intensity.

NBC Interviewees’ Suggestions for Improving Sexual Harassment…and Yours!

by

A kind reader provided a list of the suggestions of the interviewees in the NBC show (see post here), and we can use this thread to discuss them and provide our own. I also believe in the power of openly sharing stories and ideas, so if you would like to do that in a post format, please email me.

The below two paragraphs are just about assault, not the many other bullying things people do.
**************************
On Sunday, Father Bob gave a homily about the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis. He went into some detail about whom he thought should be on the review team..laypeople, women and so on, including law enforcement, inside and outside the Church. Later I was reading a story in the Forward here from 1913 in Poland, in which girls were abused in the woods and at Hebrew school and the teacher was arrested, apparently the rabbi reported it. Over one hundred years ago, people knew what to do, so the question continues to be “why aren’t people doing it.
When I think of assault, as some of the people (and Melody) described, I wonder why women don’t report it to the police. If the FS way is “that’s not the way we do it here, we do our own internal investigations” well, I can see an easily solved problem right there. Stop recriminations against people who report and discourage supervisors from not reporting what happens to their employees. And by reporting, I mean local law enforcement.

I also think that we can think about the bishops that are now in trouble for not reporting and passing abusers around. I know that has happened in the FS, at least in the 80’s, with women and children. The RC’s are going back in time to figure that out. I’m not recommending that (going back in time and firing people), but just drawing some similarities. Large organizations, (mostly) run by men, people are stuck with each other for their lives when it’s not easy to move away, and so have a variety of probably similar passive-aggressive power and gossip games they play. It strikes me that universities and the military probably have some of the same issues. I don’t say that to be negative, but just to say that there is a large body of organizations that need to figure this out, not just the Forest Service, or other fire agencies, so there’s a lot of horsepower that could be tapped.
********************************
Anyway, here are the suggestions from the show to address the broader problems:

*Recruiting the right women – giving them the opportunities – not about the numbers – that won’t work
*No woman alone on crews – especially young women – needs to be more support
*all woman crews
*peer to peer – how we support one another – we make up the culture – how to make a difference – (have the uncomfortable conversation)

And some other suggestions from readers:

short term

*immediately get any woman out of any location for any reason – no questions asked – placed in a safe location

*certify locations as safe for women

*no men and woman alone – always a third person – (youth protection training in Catholic Church – Boy Scouts)

*don’t follow the rules to get rid of the problems – pay them off to leave if rules broken

long term

*check out who we are hiring before we hire them – interviews – reference checks – then check them out in the first year probationary period – get rid of those with even minor violations

I don’t exactly how fire crews work anymore, but if individuals have a bad group dynamic going on (such as the insubordination discussed in the interviews) can they be broken up and individuals sent to other crews? In my experience, if people are inclined to bully, and sneaky enough, and knowledgeable about the rules enough, they can be a negative force together, even with the best new supervisor.. keeping just at the edge of the reportable line, but not a good workplace for anyone. I would call this the “pack of jackals” policy. Remove jackals from the pack (individuals to different packs) until the behavior returns to acceptable.

Finally, I think for churches and the Forest Service part of the problem is that so many (90%?) employees are good folks, most people don’t (need to) develop the array of skills needed to deal with this kind of people/bullying until it’s too late. That’s why there should be a “Jackal Force” on call to help.

Choose Your Battles, Have a Thick Skin, and Stand Up for Each Other: Guest Post from Melody Mobley

by
Melody Mobley and her “angel pup,” RainaMelody Mobley and her “angel pup,” Raina

Melody was one of the early pioneers in the Forest Service. As a black woman, she had the worst of both worlds and still she persevered. Here are some of her experiences and lessons she learned. Thanks for posting this, Melody, and for your work with the Forest Service! Here are links to a Mountain Journal piece, and a blog post.

In 1977, I was hired by the USDA Forest Service and became the first Black female professional forester in the nation. In 1979, I was the first Black American woman to graduate in forest management from the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Throughout my 28 year career with the Forest Service I was typically the first Black woman to do this or that because there were so few of us. I would like to share with you a few things I learned along the way.

First and foremost, having a strong faith in God allowed me to never give up even though there were so many times when I felt like doing just that. When I was only 20 years old, I was sexually assaulted by a colleague while in a Forest Service bunkhouse. Townspeople were already accusing me of doing inappropriate things with their husbands while I was in the woods doing my work so I chose not to confide in anyone. I knew they would not believe me. I heard many times that “black women are only good for one thing”, and they were not talking about forestry work.

In my last position with the Agency, my director said she felt physically threatened by me during our many contentious discussions. It was so similar to the story we have all heard about a woman clutching her purse on an elevator when she is alone and a Black male enters. I remember administering a timber sale contract and having the contractor say they were “working like niggers” when I casually asked how things were going, and having my colleagues, whom I supervised, laugh. It was during these times, when I was at my lowest, that my relationship with God kept me going. I sincerely believed that “God does not make junk,” that I would never truly be alone, and “if God is with us, who can succeed against us.”

Another thing I learned that truly served me well was choosing my battles and having “thick skin.” I made sure that I was the best and the brightest. I was hired because I was a Black female. I was retained and promoted because my work was exemplary. I knew my science and was articulate. I did not like wearing uncomfortable, unattractive uniforms every day but I did it to gain some level of credibility. I did not like moving around the nation about every 1 ½ years and being isolated in towns with populations as low as 100 people, but I knew that being knowledgeable about a wide range of ecoregions would give me knowledge that many of my colleagues did not possess. I knew that as a lower level, entry level employee I had little power or influence within the Agency; but years later national program manager, I knew that I could successfully file credible formal complaints. It took many years but along the way I developed patience, another one of God’s virtues.

In what we may consider the worst situations there is always good. I had to spend a lot of my career living in tiny towns but they were in some of the most beautiful places on Earth. And, in communities where everyone knew and depended on everyone else, I made some of the strongest imaginable friendships: Kathee Kiefer in Skykomish, Washington; Wilda Vanderboegh in Mt. Hebron, California; James Hart in Eustis, Florida. These are the things that truly matter.

I learned that skin color does not always determine like-mindedness or friendships. In 1996, when I had finally reached my limit in tolerating discrimination based on my race, gender, and age and filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, it was my Black brothers and sisters who were afraid to be seen with or associate with me in public because of the stigma associated with filing complaints and the retaliation and reprisal that comes with it. I understood, but it taught me a valuable lesson I have never forgotten. My real friends stood with me, and they were predominantly White. One could say that they could afford to stand with me because they generally had higher grade levels within the Agency and more power and authority. They could withstand most retribution. But, they chose to support me and even helped protect me from some of the punishment that would come my way for speaking out against discrimination.

After filing my complaint, I was passed over for promotion opportunities, my daily work assignments were whittled down to nothing leaving me struggling to find ways to contribute to the mission, the Deputy Chief responsible for International programs and other Agency leaders publicly chastised me for filing a complaint and “wasting the Agency’s money,” I was physically assaulted by two colleagues on separate occasions while those employees were rewarded with promotions and commendations, and on and on and on. These were the things I endured from 1996, when I first filed a complaint, until I retired on disability in 2005. My doctors certified that 80 percent of my disability is directly attributable to the discrimination, reprisal and stress I was subjected to in my work environment.

I learned a painful lesson through this, too. The Associate Deputy Chief who supervised me during a complaint received a substantial cash award that included as a criteria his performance in “civil rights.” Although I was the one who filed the complaint about discrimination and reprisal I endured, this manager was rewarded by the Agency for his accomplishments in civil rights. As I said previously, choose your battles.

I love the Forest Service and many of the people who work there. The majority are good people. And, I am grateful for the life lessons my career afforded me.
My hope in telling my story is that my actions and words will set an example for people of color and other minorities to always work at being a well-prepared professional. And, choose your battles (which are inevitable) wisely.

I hope, too, that the Whites I worked with learned from me that their prejudices against Blacks and women were unfounded.
To those who are employers or managers, I hope my story reminds them that they should never tolerate retaliation and reprisal against employees who choose to speak out about discrimination. Those employees need your protection and support in making the hard decisions to file a complaint.
And I hope that you, reading this, understand a little better that the history of the US is changing bit by bit: a story woven together with stories like mine, if we’ll only listen to them.

NBC Story on Sexual Harassment in Fire

by

Update: Below are the correct links for the NBC story.
Here’s the Dateline story that aired on Friday night
https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/under-fire-1311215683836?v=raila

and here’s additional online content
https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/stories-from-the-forest-1310933571573?v=raila
https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/change-in-the-forest-1310587459615?v=raila
https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/trailblazers-1310561347906?v=raila
https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/dateline-friday-preview-1309893187611?v=raila

Here’s the note on it from the interim Chief

“To All Forest Service Employees,

Tonight, Dateline NBC is expected to air a segment about the Forest Service that addresses alleged incidents of sexual harassment in this agency. I want you to know that these stories are important. We should continue to learn from employees’ perspectives and reflect on our individual roles in continuing to maintain a work environment where these experiences are not possible, because who we aspire to be shows up in all of our interactions with each other.

I’ve said before, but I can’t say it enough: every single one of you, every single employee in the Forest Service, is our most valued asset in this agency. Everywhere I go, I see employees with a deep appreciation for the higher purpose that unites all of us.

As I shared with you during the recent all-hands call, my experience early in my career motivates me to be personally committed to continue to build the skills we need to succeed together in this agency. I hope you will each join me in that ongoing commitment.

We can fulfill our mission only if we have a work environment that is safe, respectful, rewarding and free from harassment and retaliation of any kind. We need to continue to find ways to bring our agency core values and our commitments to life in our workplace every day.

Our efforts have been notable. We’re learning to get better every day. We updated our anti-harassment policy, engaged an employee advisory group, and we are rolling out bystander intervention training. We have also just dedicated a senior executive, Leslie Weldon, to focus exclusively on improving our work environment. I provided a more thorough update on the status of this work during the recent employee call. If you missed it, you can read a summary and listen to the call in last week’s Leadership Corner.

I can’t thank you enough for what you do and your commitment to the mission of this agency in serving the American people. We have lots of opportunities and only together can we continue to propel this agency forward.”

Thank you,

Vicki

NFS Litigation Weekly August 24, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly Aug 24

The Ninth Circuit found that claims against hunting derbies on the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho were moot with regard to past derbies and not yet ripe with respect to future derbies.  (9th Cir.)  (This case was previously discussed here.)

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held that the Forest Service violated NFMA for the Lost Creek Project on the Payette National Forest in Idaho by utilizing desired conditions and standards that were inconsistent with the forest plan.  (9th Cir.)  (This holding was discussed in detail here.)

(New case.)  Plaintiffs allege violations of NFMA and ESA for failing to close most of the Los Padres National Forest in California to target shooting as required by the forest plan to protect threatened and endangered species, including the California condor.  (C.D. Cal.)  (This case was discussed when the Notice of Intent to Sue was filed here.)

NFS Litigation Weekly August 3, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly Aug 3

The district court upheld the Beaver Creek Landscape Restoration Project on the Flathead National Forest in Montana against NEPA, NFMA consistency and ESA (Canada lynx) claims.  (D. Mont.)

The Fourth Circuit upheld a decision by the Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina to authorize development of a 3-5 acre shooting range against landowners’ claims of NEPA and state law violations.  (4th Cir.)

The Fourth Circuit found that the Forest Service violated NEPA and NFMA when it amended its forest plan and approved construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline on the Jefferson National Forest in West Virginia and Virginia.  The BLM also violated the Mineral Leasing Act.  (4th Cir.)  (The NFMA issues were discussed here.)

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision, and held that the Kootenai National Forest in Montana violated NFMA for the East Reservoir Project by failing to properly determine compliance with motorized access standards in the forest plan.  (The summary incorrectly refers to this part of the forest plan as the Lynx Amendment; it was originally developed for grizzly bears.)  (9th Cir.)  (This case was also discussed here.)

(Update.)  The Supreme Court denied a request by the government to stay proceedings in this case, which is the constitutional climate change lawsuit filed by 21 youths.  (D. Or.)  (The history of this case is provided here.)

(New case.)  This complaint alleges that the Forest Service has violated the Freedom of Information Act for failing to meet legal deadlines for providing records associated with the Four Forest Restoration Initiative in Arizona, including the Rim County EIS Project.  (D. Az.)

The district upheld the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation decision to construct a dam and bypass channel on the Lower Yellowstone River in Montana as the preferred means of providing passage for endangered pallid sturgeons.  (D. Mont.)

Outside Magazine’s “The Forest Service is Silencing Women” and Some Reflections

by

Here’s an interesting and sad story from Outside Magazine. You pretty much have to read the whole thing. The headline is about the Forest Service and much of the story is about that, but part is also about how complaints are handled at USDA.

Rumor has it that NBC Dateline is running a 10 minute segment on the Forest Service – tomorrow (Fri, 8/31)

I’ve got two comments to add to this story from my own experiences.

(1) the story says..”The Forest Service responded by flooding the region with women it had done little to train, and a backlash ensued, as many men felt they were passed over for jobs.” Where I was, on the Eldorado National Forest in timber management working for Rex Baumback, he was able to hire many women simply by getting us from other Regions and the private sector. My attempt to hire the most qualified person in the country from North Central Station (woman) was made difficult because she came with a husband who needed to be employed (!). Rex and others managed to work it through. I think people like Rex proved it was possible to meet the Decree and also have highly qualified employees, but the way the Region went about it was alternating incompetence with (disproportional, IMHO) pushback, and shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly (incompetence? malevolence? who can know?).

Region 6, where I had come from, had a more pragmatic “well, we have to hire women I guess we have to figure out how to do it” attitude. Men, and non-diverse people, and diverse people are being, and have been, passed over for jobs for a variety of reasons. There tends to be resentment, but it seemed to me that resentment had almost a place of honor in (some places in) R-5 that it did not in other places I worked before and after.

(2) A person can get the impression from this story that these (EEO and grievance) processes and the people involved are incompetent and/or corrupt. I will share my own most recent story of filing a grievance in a later post, but the long and short of it is, the people were uniformly helpful and it worked out for me. With one exception, like these folks experienced, once you’ve done it you tend to be a persona non grata because you are not “taking one for the team” (yes, the same team that decided to mistreat you). The idea seems to be that if you stumble into one of these organizational grievance swamps, you should sink gracefully out of sight rather than fight.

If others would like to share their experiences with these processes, positive or negative, please do so below, or you can email me and I will keep your identity private. This is truly stressful and heartbreaking work for those folks, and I think the ones who are doing it right need to be noted and honored (I would also put the Employee Relations folks in this group). They are the only folks standing between employees and really, really bad situations. When they screw up, it is terrible. But many times they do not. Honestly, I can’t say enough good things about the people I worked with, and their help during a stressful and difficult time.