(The)Rogovin report on allegations of equal employment opportunity violations and related merit abuses at the Civil Service Commission

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CONTENTS
• Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS = 1
• Ⅱ. FAILURE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION = 7
• A. Introduction = 7
• B. Those Seven Cases In Which, Based on our Investigation and Interrogation of Smith, We believe that the Failure to Take Corrective Action is No Longer at Issue = 11
• C. The Griffiths Case = 21
• 1. Background = 21
• 2. Initial Selection of Staiman = 23
• a. Factual Findings = 23
• b. Smith's Allegations = 29
• ⅰ. The Selection of Zwirn as Board Member = 29
• ⅱ. The Selection of Tillman as Board Member = 32
• ⅲ. The Alleged Contradiction in Testimony = 35
• ⅳ. The Alleged Impropriety of Selecting Staiman as Deputy Chairman from a Board Member Member Certificate = 36
• ⅴ. Staiman's Ineligibility for the Deputy Chairman Position = 39
• ⅵ. The Significance of Routing the Berzak Recommendation to Hampton Through the Personnel and Labor Relations Division = 40
• ⅶ. The Alteration of the Promotion Certificate = 42
• ⅷ. PLRD's Knowledge of Improprieties Prior to Staiman's Selection = 46
• ⅸ. PLRD's Response "After the Fact" = 49
• 3. The Ad Hoc Panel = 50
• a. Factual Findings = 50
• b. Smith's Allegations = 53
• ⅰ. The Role of the Panel = 53
• ⅱ. The New Position Description = 57
• ⅲ. The Absence of Up-to-Date Performance Evaluations = 63
• c. Critique of the Ad Hoc Panel's Work = 64
• 4. The Chairmanship Panel = 66
• a. Factual Findings = 66
• b. Discussion of Smith's Allegations = 69
• ⅰ. The Selection of Mondello and Mahoney as Panelists, and Bohart as Executive Secretary = 69
• ⅱ. The Selection of James Spry as a Panelist = 70
• ⅲ. The Use of Personal and Interpersonal Abilities as Rating Factors = 71
• 5. The Final Agency Decision = 72
• a. The Civil Service Commission's Resonse to the Final Agency Decision = 72
• ⅰ. Recommendation No. 1 = 73
• ⅱ. Recommendation No. 2 = 79
• ⅲ. Recommendation No. 3 = 80
• ⅳ. Recommendation No. 4 = 81
• ⅴ. Recommendation No. 5 = 81
• ⅵ. Recommendation No. 6 = 82
• ⅶ. Recommendation No. 7 = 82
• ⅷ. Recommendation No. 8 = 84
• ⅸ. Recommendation No. 9 = 84
• b. Smith's Allegations = 85
• ⅰ. The Reconstruction Panel's Work = 86
• ⅱ. The Refusal to Reconstruct the Zwirn and Tillman Selections = 91
• ⅲ. The Failure to Take Disciplinary Action = 93
• 6. Evaluation of the Griffiths Decision = 95
• 7. Griffiths Case - Conclusion = 97
• D. The Rutledge Case = 99
• 1. Background = 99
• 2. The Civil Service Commission Response to the Final Agency Decision = 101
• 3. Smith's Allegations = 103
• E. The Thompson Case = 106
• 1. Background = 106
• 2. The Civil Service Commission Response to the Final Agency Decision = 109
• 3. Smith's Allegations = 111
• F. Failure to Take Corrective Action - Conclusions = 117
• Ⅲ. RESISTANCE TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT = 118
• B. Action Plan Development Prior to Fiscal Year 1977 = 120
• C. The Fiscal Year 1977 Affirmative Action Plan = 122
• D. The Fiscal Year 1978 Affirmative Action Plan = 141
• E. Affirmative Action Plan Development - Conclusions = 163
• Ⅳ. RESISTANCE TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - REPRISAL = 154
• A. Reorganization of EEO = 154
• 1. Introduction = 154
• 2. Shift of Responsibility for Development of Action Plan to PLRD = 156
• 3. The 1975 OMAA Audit of the IAG／EEO Office = 158
• 4. The OMAA 1977 Study of the Organization of the EEO Program = 165
• 5. The Draft of the Fiscal Year 1978 EEO Action Plan = 171
• 6. The Task Force on the Internal EEO Program - 1978 = 173
• B. Alleged Intimidation = 178
• C. Reprisal - Conclusions = 182