It is respectfully suggested that the request for funding of this project be returned to the Library of Congress with a recommendation to the Library Administration that it cannot be capricious in the expenditure of the funds; that it would be wholly improper to finance the project of one "pet" organization, while refusing to finance similar projects in the interest of other organizations, similar in kind. If it evolves that the Library's request for funds should be resubmitted to this Committee following consideration of the matters cited above, it is respectfully suggested that other organizations, in addition to the Association for Asian Studies, be granted the opportunity to present their side of the argument to the Committee. Submitted through 1. Black Employees of the Library of Congress (B.E.L.C.) Washington D.C. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED Mr. BENJAMIN. We have your formal statement and the documentation that you want to submit. Mr. PERRY. All I am talking about is the exhibits. Mr. BENJAMIN. The exhibits will speak for themselves. You do not need to identify them at this time. Mr. PERRY. Then I am submitting all of the exhibits as I have already submitted to Mr. Lombard at 5:30 yesterday, that is the exhibits. The testimony I submitted at 2 o'clock yesterday, 24 hours in advance of the hearing. Mr. BENJAMIN. Yes, and your testimony has been accepted. The exhibits are conditionally accepted. Mr. Lombard did advise the subcommittee of your submissions. At this time let me see if Mr. Cook has a statement. Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, with your kind permission I have just one item that I would like to enter in the record, but I did not mention it to Mr. Lombard yesterday. Mr. BENJAMIN. Is it this printed form? Mr. PERRY. It is, yes, sir. Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you include that with your exhibits and we will review that? Mr. PERRY. The reason I did not submit it yesterday was that I obtained it last night at 7 o'clock. It is the transcript, the stenographic transcript of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Legislative hearing of February 21, 1979. All I want to submit is the statement of Mr. Welsh, which appears on pages 84, 85, 86 and 87, involving Mr. Perry and Mr. Cook, and my reply on that last page, 87. Mr. BENJAMIN. We will accept that inclusion conditionally also. Reference will be made to the public document by number, and identification. MR. COOK INTRODUCED Mr. PERRY. May I introduce Mr. Cook, who I think has done more for Library of Congress employees than any other single employee in the Library. Mr. BENJAMIN. Thank you. Mr. PERRY. And also from the point of view of employee organizations. Mr. Cook. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express to you my gratitude for inviting me here today. In the interest of time, I will not read my statement. It has already been presented yesterday, with an accompanying and supporting documentation. Mr. BENJAMIN. We will accept your statement for the record and the exhibits that accompany it conditionally, and you may summarize it if you care to or highlight anything you would like to at this time. [The information follows:] STATEMENT OF HOWARD R. L. COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT am here today on behalf of one of the most outstanding employee organizations in the Federal Government, the Black Employees of the Library of Congress. The record of achievement of this organization is not surpassed by any other organization of Federal employees. All of its work has been on behalf of minority employees but not exclusive of any group of employees. The single aim of the organization is greater integrity in management with a focus toward equal treatment of all employees. For this reason I appear here today to seek a reduction in the appropriations for the upcoming Fiscal Year for the Library of Congress. This reduction is necessary for reasons which I will discuss as this testimony goes forward. First, the Librarian of Congress has not improved the Library of Congress since becoming its Chief Administrator in terms of equal employment opportunity. What has happened is nothing more than outside image making which has no meaning as far as affording each employee equal opportunity. The exhibits, carpet, outside yard decorations, and parties while costing large sums of money, do nothing in terms of his first responsibility of assuring equal employment opportunity under law. Second, the Librarian has assembled unto himself a platoon of caterers which consists of three or four employees. These employees have as their job the serving of food to the Librarian at tax payers expense. per year basis, is quite sizeable. This expense, 1 am sure, оп a Third, affirmative action has continued to decline in the Library of Congress since Dr. Boorstin became Librarian. This decline is reflected in the fact that fewer employees are given the opportunity under law to be a part of programs which will assure their upward advancement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 makes it the Librarian's responsibility to see to it that employees are provided with this kind of The fact that it is not being done is a violation opportunity. of the law. and law Fourth, equal employment opportunity in the Library of Congress is seriously and continuously damaged because the Librarian does not assume the leadership required to force the Equal Opportunity Office to process the complaints which it receives in accordance with Library of Congress regulations and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. This means that a state of continuous violation of regulation is maintained by the Library of Congress' Equal Opportunity Office. It might be that this occurs because the Library seems to do so poorly whenever an employee gets before a hearing examiner or a Judge in the U. S. District Court. A recent case in point is found in the decision of the Honorable June L. Green reported in the Washington Star on January 30, 1979. Fifth, the Library of Congress has a policy which results in having two employees fill one position. This comes about when an employee wins a discrimination complaint. The Libary does not remove the non-deserving employee from the contested position but rather creates an additional position. This means that if you have a GS-13 position contested, paying about $30,000.00 per year, the policy results in an expense to the tax payer of about $60,000.00 per year because of the fact that the Library pays two employees at the GS-13 rate. It is easy to see how this policy results in waste of appropriated funds. It is also a clear indication of mis management. This group of posi Sixth, in the Library of Congress, positions are filled without competition. This is done by reason of the fact that the Library grants itself the right to fill quote "unique" positions without posting or competition. tions has grown to be larger and larger and continues to grow. This practice constitutes illegal employment practices and also results in not getting the best employee for the position. These positions are payed for by appropriated funds which are derived from the general public by taxes while the general public is not permitted to compete for these positions. I maintain that no Federal funds should be appropriated for such elite positions which are not so designated by law. Seventh, corruption and fraud are widespread in the Library of Congress. A classical example of this is demonstrated in the fact that George E. Perry was fired in July of 1977 and that Howard R. L. Cook was suspended for ninety (90) days without pay in July of 1977. These actions were taken by the Librarian against Cook and Perry because they had attempted to expose the false claims of Mr. Paul L. Horecky, then a GS-16 Division Chief. Mr. Perry remains fired and Cook's suspension |