|
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
|
|
Inside The Fishbowl
Official Newsletter of NTEU 280 July 1999 Editor's Note: With this issue, Bill Hirzy takes over as Editor of INSIDE THE FISHBOWL. You will note some transition from the Editorship of Dwight Welch. SENATOR MIKULSKI AND UNION FIGHTING FOR MORE MONEY FOR EPA On Wednesday, July 14, Drs. Freshteh Toghrol, Bill Hirzy and Jim Murphy visited the office of U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, accompanied by NTEU Legislative Liaison Kurt Vorndran, to talk about the EPA budget for FY2000. Senator Mikulski's legislative assistant Sandra Newman and her appropriations lead, Sean Smith, explained that the current budget caps that are now pinching EPA, and other independent agencies (VA, HUD and NASA) were set before the possibility of a budget surplus became known. Senator Mikulski is working to get those caps raised to prevent disruption of key EPA programs. In the Senate at least, the majority party is citing increases needed in VA appropriations as one basis for squeezing EPA under the present caps. A related concern is the Federal pay raise. NTEU has been pushing for at least 4.8%, but the union admits that it would be a pyrrhic victory if the pay raise makes it necessary to RIF other employees because the budget caps remain where they now are. NTEU Chapter 280 urges you and your neighbors to write to your Congressional Representative and your two U.S. Senators in support of a more adequate appropriation for EPA. You may use the following script when calling or writing to your Senators and Representative: "As an EPA federal employee, I am concerned that my agency have enough funding so that I can do my job, protecting human health and the environment. The Administration has requested $7.2 billion in funding for FY 2000. It is my understanding that Congress may cut the funding levels for my agency by $150 million. These cuts could be devastating to the EPA and the people we serve, and could result in federal employees (including me) losing jobs. Please oppose any funding cuts at the EPA. Thank you." Be cordial. Tell the Congressional staff person your name, home address, home phone number, EPA and NTEU affiliations. Ask to speak to the Senator or Representative, or ask to speak to the staff member who handles federal employee issues, especially those affecting EPA funding. Ask for a response giving the Senator's or Representative's position on EPA funding issues. Thank the staff for their time. When writing to a U.S. Senator, address the letter or fax to: "The Honorable [first and last name]/U.S. Senate/Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator [last name]:" When writing to a Representative, the address and ZIP change: "The Honorable [first and last name]/U.S. House of Representatives/Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative [last name]:" Come straight to the point in the first paragraph, and be brief (preferably all on one page). Discuss only one issue in each letter. Be courteous. Close with thanks and your name, and include your home address. HIRING FREEZE & RELATED MATTERS - by Bill Hirzy The June 3, 1999 memo of Administrator Browner announcing the latest budget crunch and hiring freeze issued just prior to the June meeting of EPA's National Partnership Council Executive Board in Denver. The NPC Executive Board is composed of five union and five senior management officials. The NPC EB hastily re-did its agenda for the meeting and spent a full day dealing with the memo's implications. Half a day was spent on identifying issues that the unions want to have addressed as the budget process unfolds in the coming weeks. These included explicitly stated protection of on-board staff (senior management has indicated that RIFs are not imminent, but in the longer term there could be some risk), reductions in money spent on contractors, defining what constitutes "good management", criteria for resource allocation across EPA, re-assessing and identifying core EPA functions, protection of transit subsidies, consistency across EPA in funding awards, QSIs and training, and actions to increase EPA's funding by Congress. On the meeting's second day, the first gathering (by conference call) of the "Freeze Team" took place - as a break-out from the NPC-EB session. Roger Yates (Engineers and Scientists of California), Ed Exum (National Association of Government Employees), Alan Hollis, (American Federation of Government Employees), Fred Smith (National federation of Federal Employees), and myself held the conference call with Sallyanne Harper (EPA's Chief Financial Officer), Dave O'Connor (Director of Personnel) and eight other senior management officials. This meeting and the three subsequent meetings so far held, dealt with the 30-day "hard freeze", the complexities of administering it, and plans for further action by September. We have dealt with requests for exemptions from the hard freeze on a generic basis, looking at implications for particular classes of new hires, and agreed that specific requests for exemptions from specific management units would come through the team for its recommendations. All the recommendations of the freeze team are subject to final approval and action by the Administrator. The freeze team will be setting up a communications process in the near future. If you have thoughts on this issue, please call me at 260-4683 or email me.(hirzy.john) AWARDS BOARDS PROGRESS - by Bill Hirzy On June 16, we held a training session for NTEU, AFGE and management "points-of-contact" who are responsible for setting up awards boards in each of their respective Offices. Awards boards are creatures of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) among the two Headquarters unions and management, pursuant to the PERFORMS performance management system now with us. About twelve NTEU, four AFGE and twenty management representatives were present for the hour-and-a-half session at which the agreement creating the Boards, a draft Awards Board charter and a draft awards prioritizing process were explained and discussed. Subsequent to this meeting, another was held for the staff of the Special Review and Registration Division of the Pesticides Office. An agreement among the unions and management will allow Boards to function in Offices where one of the two unions does not have a representative; otherwise, Boards are composed of equal numbers of representatives of each union and management. NTEU has taken the stance that for an employee to represent the union on a Board, that employee must be a union member. Because the CBA requires that Board members must work in the Office served by an Awards Board, in those shops where we have no member volunteering to serve there will be no NTEU representative on the Board. If a member subsequently steps forward, then NTEU will have representation on that Board. Some elements of management have tried to block operation of Boards within an AA-ship if not all Boards within that AA-ship are fully up and running. That is a violation of the CBA, however, and other elements of management seem to be working toward compliance with the CBA. Following the June 16 meeting, NTEU Board representatives were briefed in the union office on how to set up their Boards and overall union interests to be looked after in the establishment and operation of the Boards. Several Boards are now in the process of getting their charter in place, and we expect that several Boards will be able to function before the end of September. GRIEVANCES - by Dwight Welch Flexiplace Grieved While we are still waiting for the official distribution of the Flexiplace Agreement, there are copies out there and both employees and managers know what's what. But in Office of Pesticides Program/Environmental Fate and Effects Division, prior to employees' applying for the program, there has already been a predetermination that EFED work is mostly not portable. EFED management is trying to cut in half the number of work-at-home days that the Agreement says is permissible. The union grievance, prepared by Chief Steward Rosezella Canty-Letsome and signed by then-President Jim Murphy, challenges this obvious contract violation. We urge all employees who want to take advantage of this benefit that the union has negotiated on your behalf to file the necessary application with your supervisor. If you have any difficulty or question after you file, please call the union office for help. Some shops may not yet fully understand that the agreement is for all Headquarters professionals, and that various Offices cannot unilaterally decide not to participate or impose some special, arbitrary criteria for that Office. Each application for Flexiplace must be evaluated on its individual merits using only the criteria in the Flexiplace Agreement. The union is here to help implement the agreement on behalf of employees. We will keep you informed of progress on this very important issue. NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL IN ACTION - by Bill Hirzy Last December, EPA's National Partnership Council (NPC), consisting of representatives of each local union representing EPA employees along with a corresponding set of management officials, set an operating agenda for the newly created NPC Executive Board to handle for calendar 1999. Among the items the NPC EB was tasked with were establishment of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for EPA and study of the possibility of setting up a code of professional ethics for EPA. I am on the two work groups created to work these issues. Mike Shapiro (DAA-OSWER) is my management partner on ADR, and Norine Noonan (AA-ORD) along with Will Davis (NAGE-Gulf Breeze Lab) are on the ethics work group with me. Regarding ADR, we agreed that a pilot program at Headquarters would be a good place to start, A working group that includes NTEU officers, Jim Murphy, Rosezella Canty-Letsome, Bill Garetz and Julie Simpson, along with AFGE and management appointees, has made great progress toward having a draft program to present to the NPC EB in September. Our optimistic target for kicking off the program is before the end of calendar 1999. Progress on a code of ethics has not been nearly as impressive. We have found it virtually impossible to get a meeting set among the two union people (Will Davis and I) and Norine Noonan. She has asked her Deputy, Henry Longest to sit in for her in this project. I suspect that another reason for the delay is that a code of ethics is a union initiative - not a management initiative - and thus management officials have a hard time finding room in their calendars for it. However, the union is proceeding with refining a draft code, sending it out for comments, working with outside organizations interested in EPA operating in an ethical way (such as Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - PEER, and several other outside groups working on professional ethics), including Congress. Our hope is that this Administration will see the advantage to long-term environmental protection in establishing enforceable safe guards for ethical workers, and will eventually invest the invaluable time of its political leadership in putting those safe guards in place. The sun rises and the sun sets. Make hay while the sun shines. FROM THE OUTGOING CHAPTER PRESIDENT by Jim Murphy I thank you for the privilege of serving as President of Chapter 280 for the past year. Under our local constitution, the office of President is the one office that cannot be held by the same person in successive years, so I turned the reins over to Dwight Welch on June 16 and began my term as Executive Vice-President. Dwight is a "factory-trained" officer, having held the office of President (and other full-time offices) in NFFE and NTEU. I wish him well and look forward to further growth and success under his leadership. Thanks also to the Election Committee, chaired by Jack Diskin, assisted by Becky Jones, Cindy Fraleigh and Pepi Lacayo for their usual good offices. [Cindy helped mail out the initial announcement of the election, then left the committee when she became a candidate herself.] My only complaint is a general one, which the election committee cannot and must not remedy -- that fewer members cast votes in this year's election than in some years past. Not a lot fewer, but a bigger slice of nonparticipation than I expected, given the announcements in the mail and in a special issue of the Fishbowl, the stamped, self-addressed envelope provided for returning the ballot, the plain envelope for keeping the vote secret, and the impressive campaigning (on their own time) by those offering their services to the Union. In the small-world department, an unusual collaboration occurred between our former Union, the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), and our current Union, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). NFFE won a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on midterm bargaining. The case was actually argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of NFFE by lawyers from NTEU. NFFE had the issue, but not the legal staff. When you have the issue, NTEU has the lawyers. NTEU is also fighting for at least a 4.8% pay raise for civilian federal workers, as well as the military. Write your Congressional representative and your two U.S. Senators to let them know you are interested in seeing that 4.8% gets delivered this year, and that pay comparability becomes a reality. Another way that NTEU is working to put more money in your pocket is in the package of benefits that NTEU offers to members. This year, NTEU switched to Liberty Mutual for automobile insurance. One of our members looked into the Liberty Mutual program and found savings of $600 per year. This more than covers a year's Union dues. More on this later. If you want a list of this year's NTEU benefits package or the long-term-care insurance brochure, call me (Jim Murphy) at 260-2987. ELECTION BRINGS TWO NEW FACES TO EXECUTIVE BOARD Chapter 280 conducted its annual election of officers on May 25. The office of Vice-President was closely contested, with nine candidates vying for six offices. Linda Martin and Richard Nalesnik upset incumbents to win seats on the Executive Board. The new board will take office on June 16, 1999, and serve until June 30, 2000. Those elected are: President, Dwight Welch; Executive Vice-President, Jim Murphy; Chief Steward, Rosezella Canty-Letsome; Secretary, Julie Simpson; Treasurer, Bernie Schneider; Vice-Presidents, Bill Hirzy (elected by the Executive Board as Senior Vice-President), Freshteh Toghrol, Richard Nalesnik, Linda Martin, Bill Garetz, and Arthur Chiu. FROM THE INCOMING CHAPTER PRESIDENT by Dwight Welch First, I want to congratulate the outgoing President and the outgoing Executive Board. This has been one of the most outstanding Executive Boards ever and this has been a banner year for the Chapter. We have reached several fine agreements with management on Flexiplace, Alternative Work Space, and Awards Boards. I would also like to congratulate those reelected and those newly elected to the Executive Board. This was a difficult election to vote in because all were fine candidates. I want to thank Jeff Beaubier and Jim Goodyear, who were not re-elected in this very close election, for their valuable work this past year on members' behalf. Jeff led the fight to keep 18 East Tower employees from having to move this Spring, which would have precipitated a further cascade of moves of up to 90 other employees. He brought us the Living Downstream author, Sandra Steingraber for an enlightening seminar and represented us with several key Congressional offices. Jim Goodyear has been - and I hope he will continue to be - a vigilant watchdog for professionalism and employee rights in the Pesticide Office. He has consistently given sage advice on science matters on the Executive Board and worked diligently on revisions to our Chapter by-laws. Both these members have been working for you for many years prior to their recent Executive Board service and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. With Jim and Jeff as examples, I want to encourage all those who did not prevail in the election - and indeed all members - to become or to remain involved. There is always more work for the union than people to do it. We need representatives and stewards in every Office, and we don't have them yet. Anyone who wishes to participate, should call or e-mail Chief Steward Rosezella Canty-Letsome and copy me. Since the Chapter organization is running like a finely tuned machine, I do not intend to make many changes to committees, Partnership Councils, Awards Boards, or other Union sub-organizations. Indeed, even the duties of outgoing President Jim Murphy will be scarcely changed. Dr. Murphy does a good job as the Union's spokesperson and ambassador and I intend that he should continue the things he does best. Bill Hirzy will take over for another stint as editor of INSIDE THE FISHBOWL. He will keep moving towards returning the 'BOWL to being a monthly publication. We will have some past issues of the 'BOWL, various bargaining agreements, etc., posted in the Chapter 280 website, which is now under construction. Stay tuned for announcements. The past couple of years we have been concentrating on "bread and butter" issues such as flexiplace and transit subsidy. Now that we have these in our collective bargaining agreement, I am hoping to return to the core issues of professional and scientific ethics. I am planning to get new Vice President Richard Nalesnik involved in this issue. I also see a need to keep a more respectful distance from the Labor Management Relations Office. While Partnership can serve both sides well, the LMR office has used our friendly relations with them to cross the line into ULP-land (Unfair Labor Practice). During the past year, the LMR office has tried to influence the editorial policy of the Fishbowl, interfered with investigations conducted by the Union, and in general tried to pit member against member within the Union. BOOK REVIEW: America Needs a Raise, by AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney (subtitle: Fighting for Economic Security and Social Justice, 1996, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 157 pages and about 10 pages of notes) -- reviewed by Jim Murphy I asked myself if this book applies to me and to other Federal workers. The dedication of this book is "for all Americans who are worried about disappearing jobs, shrinking paychecks, vanishing health care, plundered pension plans, and the sense that their work is no longer respected and rewarded." I believe it does apply to us. It resonates with the NTEU motto: "To organize Federal employees to work together to ensure that every Federal employee is treated with dignity and respect." Unions have had an impact on America's economic life, creating the world's largest middle class, winning decent wages that fueled consumer demand for homes and new products, letting working families take their families on vacation and send their children to college, getting a sense of self worth that did more to support family values than today's hollow rhetoric, and raising the standard of public health. These hard-won, union-won benefits came to be taken for granted. Workers and unions became complacent. The problem faced by working people today is partly with wages that are inadequate to support a family, and partly with workers' sense of powerlessness and voicelessness. Now the Unions are needed again, as the balance of economic and political power has shifted even more drastically in favor of those who own the means of production and direct work and away from those who do the work The phenomenal productivity of the American worker has helped raise corporate profit margins and corporate officers' pay packages, but it has not improved the economic state of the workers themselves to anywhere near the same degree. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, but the rich don't want to be blamed. They would prefer to blame -- and have the worker blame -- big government, or "them" -- blacks, Hispanics, or pushy women. Sweeney asks, though, if "they" are doing it to you, how come "they" are doing even worse than you are? Unions bind us together to address common human needs. Sweeney proposes that the solution to the nation's social and economic ills is a "seamless garment of activism," to organize industries and communities, to change laws that impede union activity, to win a voice in economic decision-making, to restore our sense of community, and as a result of this tide of activism, "to make hope and history rhyme." DIVERSITY TOWN HALL MEETING - CLUELESS - by Dwight Welch I got into unionism partly because I have a great deal of sympathy for the underdog. On June 24, 1999 at the Diversity Town Hall Meeting, my sympathies went to EPA Administrator Carol Browner. Not that the members of the audience who spoke up on various diversity sub-issues such as retaliation did not have legitimate complaints. But how much of what is wrong at EPA is Carol Browner's fault? My opinion is that Ms. Browner truly is a committed, well meaning, good person. I believe she wants to improve the state of environmental protection and would also like to leave a legacy of having helped the aspirations of minority employees. My opinion seems to be in the minority. After the meeting, many people expressed their opinion in a single word-"clueless". Those were the kinder folks. Others used words like "liar" and "hypocrite" to define the EPA chief. As many know, especially those of us who have been here for decades, discrimination at EPA is a subset of a much larger problem-Cronyism. For decades the Cronies have been promoting one another. And the Boss Cronies, fearing competition from their Lesser Cronies, usually promote only those who are "Yes persons"; those who will not be competition or a challenge to the Boss Crony. And while there are some really fine managers here at EPA, all too many of them resemble an excessively inbred population - of Cronies. These Crony/managers lack creativity, courage, and other attributes associated with improving the environment of an organization. It has been a sort of reverse evolution-selection of the lamest. As the common saying goes: the scum has risen to the top. Browner's biggest mistake is that she has been unwilling or unable to penetrate through this sticky, toxic layer and get some real input from those who do the work, those who have the answers and solutions-the employees. Ms. Browner suffers from what many political appointees have suffered from in the past. Relying on self-serving "advice" from the Crony/management caste, she is clueless about what is really happening in this catastrophe of an agency that she inherited, an agency suffering from decades of neglect and rampant Cronyism. Let's test this theory by reviewing what happened at the meeting. The first and largest block of time went to a panel of managers reporting on EPA's "progress" in the arena of cultural diversity. These presentations were a mixed bag ranging from good to clueless to out-and-out male bovine manure. By far the star of the management show was Bill Rice, Deputy Regional Administrator for Region VII. Mr. Rice, unlike Administrator Browner, is not afraid to consult with his Union partners and is not unafraid to talk about it. Indeed, I heard a number of minority employees exclaim, "I'm going to apply for a job at Region VII, there is no opportunity for me here at Headquarters." Another rising star is the Assistant Administrator for OARM Romy Diaz, a relative newcomer to EPA. Like Bill Rice, Mr. Diaz was unafraid of the "U" word, and he consults often with his Union partners and is advancing the cause of labor-management partnership at EPA. At the other end of the spectrum is an apparently clueless management official, Tim Fields. Mr. Fields, who has a reputation as a decent human being, actually spoke of consulting with the Human Resource Councils. Earth to Tim, Earth to Tim, HRCs are in many cases illegal, not to mention a flagrant violation of Executive Order 12871, which mandates partnerships between management and unions, among other things. It was sort of like Mr. Fields getting up on stage and saying, "I helped to end discrimination by committing an Unfair Labor Practice." Clueless. About 55 minutes into the meeting, Ms. Browner, having also mentioned HRCs, and despite our having brought that issue to her attention far too many times, finally uttered the "U" word. In six years Carol Browner has spent a total of 40 minutes consulting in person with her Union partners. Clueless. By far the liveliest part of an otherwise boring meeting was the employee question and answer session. Here are some of the highlights. One employee asked about the continuing problem of retaliation. Ms. Browner replied that retaliation is illegal and won't be tolerated, yadada, yadada, yadada. The fact is that retaliation continues, only it has become more covert and sophisticated. Management doesn't dare retaliate directly, they trump up a charge and "punish" you for that. This was also done in the past, but then - when it was so obviously retaliation - everyone just winked and acted as if they didn't see it. Now the sincerity act is played with great virtuosity. Clueless. The managers also didn't seem to catch on when employees applauded only politely after the management presentations, but with great gusto as employees made various points. One of the highlights of the meeting is when Ms. Browner asked Ray Spears about what to do in the case of discrimination or retaliation. Mr. Spear's rely, "Go to OCR" (Office of Civil Rights) was met derisive laughter that did not appear to register with the management panel. Clueless. During the question and answer period, the Administrator got visibly angry. At a couple of junctures she uttered, "I'm going to bite my tongue." Hearing all of this employee anger, rather than emulating her boss, Bill Clinton, and saying something like, "I feel your pain, I'll look into this for you," the Administrator got very defensive of indefensible positions, thereby turning up not chilling out the anger. Clueless. Ms. Browner honestly indicated that there was much more to do (there is), even while much progress has been made (some has). She cited a lot of numbers, like the increase of minority SES from 4% to 12%. She also said that a lot of minorities were hired at the GS-5 level. But she didn't seem to understand employee questions and allegations of games with numbers. While one can hire a lot of minority employees, what progress is it if they are not given meaningful work? As to the increased number of minority SES, one employee compared it to plantation times, "You can live in the 'big house' but it still doesn't make you equal." She didn't understand the employee perception that most minority SES are regarded as having got there by "selling out their own", as one EPA civil rights leader recently put it. Clueless. One fact that was on everyone's mind during the presentation was that the eight managers selected so far for EPA's new high profile Information Office are all white. Carol Browner and the other managers did not have a plausible explanation for this. Clueless. AN OPEN MEMO TO CAROL BROWNER MEMORANDUM July 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Diversity Meeting Comments FROM: Dwight A. Welch, President NTEU, Chapter 280 TO: Ms. Carol M. Browner, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency This is being written to express comments and questions on behalf of NTEU Chapter 280 which represents EPA Headquarters professionals. Our comments which arise from our attendance at the Diversity Twon Hall meeting on June 24, 1999 concern four areas: management accountability, the continued illegal operation of Human Resource Councils, retaliation, and the need for a contact person within the Administrator's office. Management Accountability The plain fact is that there is no risk associated with abuse of people's rights by management officials. The worst, from a manager perspective, that can happen, is that the employee will be restored or "made whole". However, that an abusive manager can commit acts of unfairness against employees without personal risk or accountability, and, indeed, may even be promoted in spite of such deeds, sends a mixed message to employees. A recent case illustrates this point. In the [name of office deleted], a rather small office, a total of 8 to 10 employees came forward with complaints of racial and gender bias. Some of these employees were intimidated and withdrew, but a total of 5 did carry their complaint to the point of a formal grievance. The grievance was resolved by a 3-manager panel which concluded that employee rights were infringed upon and the grievant was granted the relief sought. However, even while the grievances were ongoing, one of the principal culprits, [name deleted], was promoted to the Senior Executive Service! Apparently those who promoted [name deleted] ignored a statistical study which showed that females and minorities in his office, [name of office deleted], got promoted less and waited longer for promotions than white males. Since one of the managers on the diversity panel was also a member of the above referenced grievance panel, I asked him about this after the Town Meeting. The manager indicated that the panel had not found discrimination to be substantiated, however, he did indicate that the subject manager exercised "poor judgment" and made "some stupid mistakes". Granting this interpretation, why would EPA promote into the SES, someone who exercises poor judgment and makes stupid mistakes? Another stark example is that of [name deleted], the short-term OCR director. In his 11 months as OCR director, [name deleted] had 9 EEO complaints filed against him, 5 from his own office! Yet [name deleted] was promoted to SES. Is this the message on accountability you want to send to employees? Illegal Human Resource Councils First, my appreciation to Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 7, William W. Rice and Assistant Administrator Romulo L. Diaz, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management for having the courage to mention the "U" word. They mentioned consulting with their "Union Partners". However, we were greatly distressed to hear other members of the panel extol and refer to working with Human Resource Councils. We have said it before and will keep repeating it until it is heard, HRCs are illegal and need to be replaced by Partnership Councils. The Unions are the only legal agents of negotiation of working conditions for EPA employees and are specifically cited in Executive Order 12871 as the agent with which management is to "partner" in such issues. In this connection, we note that you have met with our Union for a total of 20 minutes in your two terms as EPA Administrator. Contrast this with several meetings of one and two hours in duration, from your predecessor, Mr. William K. Reilly, a one term Administrator from an Administration allegedly hostile to unionism! Retaliation Despite the advent of a Democratic Administration, retaliation occurs on an all too frequent basis. Even though this Administration is purported to have less tolerance for retaliation, the retaliations have just gotten more sophisticated and covert. Diversity Contact Our Union suggests that you appoint a single point of contact within your Office with whom employees and their Unions can feel free to discuss their issues. This contact should not be an SES manager, who employees will view as having "sold them out" for personal gain, but rather an employee advocate such as Chris Bullock. Mr. Bullock is an even handed leader who doesn't claim discrimination where it doesn't exist, but at the same time not afraid to tackle the tough issues. You have inherited an Agency in which cronyism has flourished for decades. You take advice from these self interested benefactors of cronyism who have promoted each other. Rather, you should solicit input directly from the employees and their Unions. In spite of all the above, you may still retrieve some portion of the good will with which the employees greeted you in 1993. My suggestion, should you give a Diversity Town Meeting another try, is to first meet with Civil Rights and Union leaders. Then appear before the employees, not surrounded by managers, but surrounded by these employee leaders who you have urged to step outside the box and take the challenge. In this context you may regain some of the trust of the employees and not be subjected to criticism now directed at you, for abuse perpetrated by others. EDITORIALS Romy Diaz-Will Reform Come at Last? - by Dwight Welch Romulo Diaz is the new Assistant Administrator for OARM. Perhaps reform will come to EPA at last. First impression is that Mr. Diaz will bring much needed reform to his office and thus to personnel matters. Mr. Diaz is already looking into Merit Systems Promotion reform. With recent budget cutbacks, Mr. Diaz is the only Assistant Administrator to have invited the Unions' participation in making suggestions to save the Agency money. Not only did Mr. Diaz incorporate Union input for making cuts, but he listened to the Union's complaints about shuttle-bus service cuts being too drastic and moderated these cuts somewhat. He also agreed to the union's request to keep the Headquarters library functioning, albeit with different personnel. I also hear it through the grapevine, that Mr. Diaz is really big on professional development and training and has scrounged money here and there for the professional development/training pot. Finally, one direct benefit for our Union is that he has asked the Print Shop to now do the printing of INSIDE THE FISHBOWL, so we no longer have to recruit an army of volunteers to do one or two hundred copies each. Mr. Diaz' aide and alterego, Jessie Ulin, has an extensive Union background. Both she and Mr. Diaz seem sincerely dedicated to the concept of partnership. Reform may come to EPA at last. LETTER TO THE EDITOR (via email) From: STEPHANIE JAMES To: WELCH-DWIGHT Date: 5/11/99 8:58am Subject: Fishbowl Dear Mr. Welch: I am writing in regards to the article on security that occurred in the April 1999 edition of "Inside the Fishbowl". I found the comments concerning black youths in the mall area of WSM blatantly racist. I work at WSM and frequent the mall area. I have never witnessed any "unruly and disruptive youths". The quoted that was printed made by a youth who "shoved" a security guard was preposterous at best. For your information, black youths do not express themselves with this type of verbiage. Perhaps the author of the article was looking at an old "Starsky and Hutch" television episode and got carried away. I'm surprised they didn't report that the youth said, "I'm gonna come back and get you SUCKA". The bottom line is that crime is increasing in white suburban schools at any alarming rate. Perhaps the author should be more worried about the school in their own neighborhood as opposed to the one on the second floor of the mall. P.S. Take me off of your mailing list. I read enough slanted journalism in the Post everyday!!! Editor Welch's Response: To begin with, the comments in the article were those of employees and security personnel. Since I am not here at 7:00 AM, when the alleged incident took place, I am in no position to judge how true the employee and security reports on it were. The article simply reported what employees said are their concerns. As one who grew up in the inner city and attended "tough" schools, I am not completely ignorant of what inner city children face. Also the article did not say "black youths". Hmm, could it be that someone has jumped to a biased conclusion? "Smoke your xxx" is 90s street lingo, replacing "I'm gonna pop a cap up your xxx." Where have you been? (I first encountered the phrase in a Spike Lee movie - I believe it was "Boyz in the Hood"- not Starsky and Hutch.) For the record, most of the students in these magnet schools, in my opinion, are highly motivated; the problems seem to be more with kids from other schools who are just passing through the commercial mall. To say that there are no problems with youths in the mall and neighborhood areas ignores the facts. When I was beaten and robbed by a trio of teens over on Delaware Ave. S.W., the language used was something you can't print. In the Mall I've witnessed youths with firearms, big knives, and drugs. Finally, I agree that inner city kids have no lock on crime. Last year, a kid I knew at a county high school was arrested and jailed for bringing a gun to school. I could have written a story about it, but since most EPA employees do not live there, there would not have been much interest. What goes on here, where a lot of us work, is of much greater concern. A MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND HONESTY - by Bill Hirzy Since 1985, the professionals' union has taken an interest in the issue of fluoride levels in drinking water. What follows is a White Paper documenting why that interest arose and why it continues - at a heightened level of intensity. The issue remains at its core a matter of professional ethics and honesty - or the lack of it - in setting and maintaining a public policy mandating the use of America's drinking water reservoirs as a disposal site for a hazardous industrial waste, even in the face of mounting evidence of harm from, and mounting public and professional resistance to, that policy. The union continues to work toward putting a code of professional ethics in place for EPA. This story is only one of many that demonstrate why such a code is needed - for protecting both EPA's professional employees and public health and the environment. WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF PROFESSIONALS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1 Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results. In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride. Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm. In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years. Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston \8. From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent. We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request. The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired. Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above. Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston. John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation. Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride. In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies. So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best. Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong. We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees. The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24. This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683. END NOTE LITERATURE CITATIONS 1.Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61. <a href= "http//:www.rvi.net/~fluoride/naep.htm"> On-line . 2.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 3. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998). 4. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 5. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996) 6.. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 8. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 9. Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW. 10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11a. Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984). 11b. Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984). 11c. Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11d. An increase in the number of Down's syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985). 12. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).
15a. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen,
|