GovernmentExecutive.com

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided last week to establish a national customer service center run by a contractor, on a trial basis.

On Nov. 5, EEOC commissioners unanimously authorized the agency to solicit bids from private companies interested in operating the center over a two-year trial period. The EEOC aims to award a contract by next summer and start the test in October 2004, an agency spokesman said.

A February 2003 report from the National Academy of Public Administration, a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization, recommended that the EEOC establish a central customer service center as a means of becoming more efficient and better serving the public. But talk of establishing such a center predated the NAPA report, the agency spokesman said.

The idea has sparked considerable controversy. Proponents argue that a national service center would alleviate strain on local EEOC offices. Some offices are not equipped to handle the volume of inquiries they receive, according to the NAPA report.

But Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals No. 216, part of the American Federation of Government Employees, said a national center would waste agency resources.

"I have serious concerns about the estimated $5 million to $8 million price tag and the effect on quality of service when civil rights enforcement is privatized," Martin said. The EEOC is bent on establishing the call center, despite widespread concerns, she said.

"I think they're jumping the gun" by soliciting bids, said Jorge Ponce, co-chairman of the Council of Federal EEO and Civil Rights Executives. He said he would like to see the EEOC collect data on inquiry pileups at district offices, to better assess which offices need help fielding customer questions. If backlogs are only a problem at a few offices, a national service center could prove unnecessary, he said.

The national center could also end up diverting resources from regional offices, Ponce said, and some offices might close as a result. "My concern is that this is just a front to downsize the EEOC's staff," he added. At a time when the number of EEO complaints filed is on the rise, the agency needs more employees, he said.

Contractors tend to lack appropriate training to field EEO questions, Ponce said, and private companies typically have high turnover rates. If the EEOC does establish a permanent national contact center, Ponce would like to see it staffed by agency employees.

EEOC commissioners also voted last Wednesday to reclassify the agency's Albuquerque, N.M., office as an area office, rather than district office, and to move its internal litigation division from the Office of Legal Counsel to the Office of General Counsel. These are merely administrative changes that will help the agency operate more efficiently, according to an agency spokesman. No employees will lose jobs as a result. All three changes "were going to happen anyway, prior to the NAPA report and any talk of reorganizing," he said.

The various changes at the agency do not amount to a reorganization or restructuring, the spokesman said. The EEOC is considering broader changes, but "regarding any large proposal, people will know it when they see it," he said.

COMMENTS

• Unbelievable! As if the EEO process isn't long enough! It's amazing to me that programs to help federal employees are always the programs that are considered expendable. Want to see how contractors work? Take a good look at the contractors handling Federal Worker's Compensation. The government has owed me restored annual and sick leave for over 4 years. I haven't heard from the WC contractor in over a year, and when I finally got through, the contractor didn't even know who my claims examiner was. Many people also don't know that once you sign up for the Federal LTC Insurance Program, it is virtually impossible to get your money back if you cancel coverage under this program. Federal payroll offices' hands are tied, because the "contractor administers the program." Now we have a much touted Flexible Savings Account program where contributions made by federal employees for health insurance expenses will be forfeited back to the contractor if not used within a year. Who is responsible for continuing to perpetrate these scams on federal employees? What about pay-for-performance for contractors? The powers that be don't want us to be able to keep our jobs, but everyone sure supports corporate welfare. DISGUSTED GovExec.com reader Posted November 17, 2003 10:47 AM
• The contract obviously should go to an Indian company to build a call center in Bangalor. This is what most private companies are doing and based on government mentality that is what the government should do as well. Go with the lowest cost operation not with an American operation. This also is part of the Buy American part of the defense authorization bill that Congress will cave in on and allow purchases from foreign sources. There is absolutely no reason to avoid the lower cost Indian call center under these circumstances. Tax payer Posted November 12, 2003 6:19 AM