15-F-0338_doc_1 001 EE I Fowuolmm. an AR 1H:mmw MOTJAG. IF MORE SPACE IS REQUIRED IN FILLING OUT ANY PORTER OF THIS FORM, ATTICH AEDIWML SHEETS llan I - .mu by Directot. Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (WNW WW 21 December 201 i (am-?mm r: imprappommor mmdoauppohm ma (Sn para :45. an SECTION II - {hi/05mm) (board) commnmod Part McNair. Washington. DC a. 0300 an 23 member 201 (If: ramlboudmeuorme um 0mm. chockhm . and and-d. the paci?ed: mm and am and emna?an of absences. if any.) The ?lm norm (mm. reapmdanIs. mama!) we proud; (After each name. Indian capacity, 9.3.. Pmsidmr. Recorder. Member. Lena! Adviser.) . dlowinnpanom gm. madam. mum!) mm: 1500 on ?23 February 2012 1m (lama-ma m; {no-m) mum gamma-name mu m) 1600 on 6 Maul: 2012 m} semen a: - mecxus'r FDR mac-swim cases was ND NA Indowes {pun 3-15. AR 15-5} Aretha numbered HM {Ammonium I. Thu lather cl or I summary at oral um? . Copy cl nu?u In mponm. Inwaea near 9. Mow} u- d. All ulna mm?; to 0; Item mu appalnung Emmy? o. Fancy Act Stuemnbf?am. orally)? 1 El?m owner or man! at any mung ?than?. MINER. or enter problem: mm my" mama dmledcfw?nmu)? h. Anydhuli?llea?papmf??mo?dm) (Wan aflmgam a: arm . DI 1674, IIAR 1933 sorrm OF How-n 15 m. Pml?lm 003 s:th {pm 3-19. AH 15-8} The {hm?ga?ng of?cer) (board) . having mmiullyoonaldomd the ovidoncl. . Attached Findings med 6 March 20: 2. SBGTEDN V- mmnemnnons (PM AR view a! the shave ihe (investigalfng of?cer) (board) recommend-z Attached Recommendations (Jami 6 Match 2012? 6 Page 3 0? ply?. on Form am 1953 an: IE II no 005 Sections and of DA Form 1574. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Of?cer 6 March 2012 The Director of the Center for Hemispheric Studies (CHDS) directed an informal investigation into allegations of a hostile work environment, mismana ement, resource management discrepancies, and racial prejudice raised I After extensive review into these allegation, I find that the Center?s leadership has not violated any laws or Department of Defense rcguiations. has not acted unethically towards its employees, and has maintained good order and conduct expected in an organization of the Department of Defense. The Center does have several challenges that should be addressed. Many current and fonner employees feel that a hostile work environment exists due to an underlying atmosphere of favoritism towards certain current and former employees that causes and has caused unhealthy competition among the faculty and support staff. Additionally, this atmosphere of favoritism may have a negative impact on the achievement of the Center?s goals and objectives as faculty members may be assigned duties based on friendships and existing relationships rather than expertise and academic credentials. Favoritism was cited by all former employees and more than haif of those current employees interviewed as the most pressing need that should be addressed. Many employees interviewed feel that the Center?s leadership is either unaware of ongoing favoritism or unwilling to effect change to eiiminate perceived favoritism. Most employees interviewed felt that leadership needs to do more to help them understand and follow the Center?s policies. Many employees interviewed agreed that the Center should provide its employees with clear administrative and operational guidance to reduce uncertainties about routine day-to-day operations and how faculty members are selected for program leadership positions (Course Director and Deputy Course Director). 0n the allegation of mismanagement, i found that management of the center appears to be somewhat decentralized in certain areas, Such as in the selection of Course Directors. Of the faculty members interviewed. many felt that the Academic Council lacked suf?cient transparency. They also felt that the Center?s leadership was not involved enough with day-to- day academic program decision making. Additionally. faculty believes that certain senior faculty, along with the Academic Council. filter information ?ow to the Director conceming new ideas for academic programs sti?ing innovation. I found no evidence of any type of discrimination based on federaliy protected ciasses. i did ?nd a lack of sensitivity towards the use of derogatory language used within the staff. It was not clear if the Center's leadership has done enough to emphasize that alt individuals are to be treated with respect and dignity by not disciplining individuals that use derogatory comments or expressions towards other employees. 007 Sections IV and of DA Form 1574. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer 6 March 2012 was Hostile Work Environment: Many current and former employees feel that a hostile work environment exists due to an underlying atmosphere of favoritism (addressed below) towards certain current and former employees that causes and has caused unhealthy competition among the faculty and support staff. Additionally. this atmosphere of favoritism may have a negative impact on the achievement of the Center?s goals and objectives as faculty members may be msigned duties based on friendships and existing relationships rather than expertise and academic credentials. Favoritism was cited by all former employees and more than half of those current employees interviewed as the most pressing need diet should be addressed. Many employees interviewed feel that the Center?s leadership is either unaware or unwilling to effect change to eliminate perceived hostile work environment. The range of responses concerning a hostile work environment varied greatly among the staff interviewed. it was clear that those in leadership. both academic and non-academic. felt that the Center did not have a hostile work environment while non-leadership faculty and support staff felt in varying degrees that a hostile work environment does exists. Many of the employees outside of leadership positions felt that there was not an appropriate mechanism to share ideas or complaints. Most employees felt that to raise any issues would result in retribution or even termination. However, when pressed for specific examples of instances that illustrate a hostile work environment most employees stated that there was not a speci?c exarnple but more of an attitude among the leadership. Several employees pointed at llegarions against the Center and the consequences he has faced as an example of a hostile work environment. Another aspect that may contribute to the perception of a hostile work environment according to some employees is the lack of dialogue between the Director and the faculty and staff. Many employees felt that the Director is somewhat disconnected with the dayuto-day morning of the Center allowing subordinate leaders to make operational and programmatic decisions. The staff beiieves that there should be more Director level interaction to provide employees an oppmtunity to share ideas and submit complaints without the fear of retribution. Below is a sampling of comments submitted by employees regarding the hostile work environment: 0 Hostile work environment for those not within the inner circle 0 if you are. liked you will do well if not then yon will be marginalized 0 Signi?cant fear of retribution from Center and Academic leadership 0 Director rarely meets with faculty 0 New ideas never get past supervisor to Director for approval 0 Lack of trust and respect from Senior leaders to the subordinates 009 Sections IV and of DA Form 1574, Report of Proceedings by Investigating Of?cer 6 March 2012 On the Staff side of the Center. several employees pointed out that the only staff members that were being promoted were the. individuals working in the front office. Some employees complained that position descriptions were changed to reflect greater responsibilities to increase GS levels widiout a corresponding increase in workload or responsibilities. While I found nothing illegal or unethical with position description changes, the Center may want to conduct a desk audit on support staff positions to ensure that responsibilities are appropriately re?ected in position descriptions for pay purposes. Below is a sampling of comments submitted by empioyecs regarding the favoritism; 0 Director seemed disengaged from ?xing issues?may not have encouraged favoritism but may have just ignored it 0 Academic council used to reinforce favoritism Friction between staff because non-PhD are teaching while We are not assigned to teach courses on issue that they have expertise in 9 Academic favoritism is a question of fairness Academics are evaluated based on teaching publications and outreach yet some academics are not given the opportunity for outreach and teaching 0 Some are allowed to travel to outreach event when for unknown reason others are not I People with wrong expertise selected to attend outreach events while experts are left behind?more experienced individuals not attending - Retribution for academic dissent . shown favoritism because he was allowed to participate in Doctoral course while on government time 0 Their needs to be a coiiaborative process and recommendation to the Director for decision on course director selections Some professors allowed to travel in conjunction with course -other not allowed 9 Small group of individuals reWarded with travel, others denied - Only three full professors on staff but none assigned to lead any functional courses Senior leadership dismisses academic favoritism No basis for selection for TDYs 'No transparency in the selection of course directors Center has a bias that is controlled by a small group of academics Academic experts not selected to lead programs?non-experts selected instead 0 Maybe because experts are new it Number of Faculty threatened by new employees I ?You are making us look bad because you published. more recognized. more involve 0 Allow new professors to act as Dep Course Dir to moonrage mentorship and teaming - Course director selections made based on previous experience 011 Sections IV and of DA Form 1574, Report of Proceedings by Investigating Of?cer 6 March 2012 expertise. This potential mismanagement could have a direct impact on the delivery of programs. Additionally, faculty members believe that the Center lacks a training and program to helpjunior or new employees understand the unique academic and defense environment. 0 Below is a sampling of comments submitted by employees regarding the mismanagement: Dir Disconnected?allows subordinates to run the org Center used for personal agendas and not stated mission Trouble meeting student quotas (students state that content not unique or different) Some leader?s management style is that of a boot camp sergeant Leaders keep everyone unsettiedioff-baianced so they can bene?t and manage things to their best advantage Latin American professors have taken over the academic side Director rarely meets with faculty Org needs SOP to improve transparency Most mismanaged organization ever seen Preference for former military of?cers in key positions Skills mismatch for programs?wrong employees with the wrong credential while the right employee with the right credentials are marginalized Academic council not performing effectively Certain Senior leaders undermine the Director Very compartmentalized - Very poor information ?ow No leadership follow-up to issues raised by employees Director should, meet with each faculty quarterly individually Or as a group Things are fair but internal communications are lacking Need a suggestion box Director needs to be more hands on Feedback to staff lacking needs closer oversight on course content Some professors are good at teadring while others are good at organizing Director has not stated that a course director has to have at least 12-24 months at center before they can lead a course Center does not incorporate new professor effectively Some professors feel that they have too much to do Some ?ll piiled on and required to do too much Some employees not fully employed Academic selections not being done by academic expertise 013 Sections IV and of DA Form [574, Report of Proceedings by Investigating Of?cer 6 March 2912 Below is a sampling of comments submitted by employees regarding the discrimination: - Treatment of women at times inappropriate 0 Leadership reacted appropriately when inappropriate remarks or content used on programs II No gender or race based discrimination a Guideiine to ensure gender and race discrimination in academic products were maintained but not published I There is a military mentaiity of protectionism - Never perceived any racial discrimination - ade life miserable for reporting affair with, a contractor?? resulting is signi?cant retribution 0 Females given plenty of work but not neces sarin the work they want I Male members yell at females 0 Academic ieadership do not trust females and treat them as if they need to be hand- held 0 Women told they need to request teiework in advance while men are allowed to telework without prior approval - Professors not being treated equaily There is a bias towards prior military service creating an inherent tension with employees 0 Has not witnessed any discrimination but there is a tone that ?irts with potential discriminatory practices 0 Has seen some sexurdly inappropriate content in course work 0 Femates are often rehearsed before presentation to Flag level of?ciais white males are not rehearsed I New Employees are marginalized because they are more current on issue than the old guard 0 Old Empioyees feel threatened by new empioyees - Many have noticed a pattem of dust standards 0 Not sure if it gender based orjast certain groups 0 Former my be getting preferential treatment/Opportunities to lead course without academic credentiais 0 New employee marginalization 0 Non military marginalization I Female faculty do not ?nd that they are treated equally I Women may think there is some discrimination 0 Female professors not selected to lead courses in the ?rst year a Junior females may feel dismissed 0 Obama Email 0 Email between spouse and center employee 015 Sections IV and of DA Form [574. Report of Proceedings by {Investigating Of?cer 6 March 20:2 other CHDS personnel. According to Senior Academic Leadership. compounding the appearance of impropriety is the fact that both contract were awarded for signi?cant amounts of mane}r with very little deliverables for the Center and the Department of Defense. Below is a sampling of comments submitted by employees regarding the resource management. lessened - Comp time 0 Have been mid to minimizo travel on weekends 0 Deputy Director directed that travei should be done during the week when possible 0 No fonnai instructions 0 Contract renewal process held over employees head a Center using Tole-work tantamount to time off - :2 Investment does not seem to have a good return on investment 0 MTG with Arab Ford. SOUTHCOM POLAD. I Econ security issues in LA I SDUTHCOM wanted a study of economic crisis impact on insecurity CHDS did not have the academic expertise to deliver a product to SOUTHCOM Locked in house at CTN SP but found them to be more expensive Director mam-om) Ihad worked before was project lead I as to culminate with the publication of a book I Roughly 1? provided names and project detaiis I a: Only for hours billed and deiiverables SOUTHCOM project interest diminished because the impact of the economic crisiss in Latin America was not as severe as expected I CHDS and SOUTHCOM interest faded I CHDS Dir decided to discontinue the project I some insights from the effort and better understanding of economics in the region Director interested in bring expensive notable or individuals with broad name recognition Center contracted for his services l?biieitibim was a dif?cult individuai to work with ?Mal-[hm eluded people in project that would not have passed vetting Contract terminated before all required product de?vered 0900 0 0000 017 Sections IV and of DA Fenn l574, Report of Proceedings by Investigating Of?cer . 6 March 2012 Senior leader travel checked with DSCA OGC Travel Comp Time looking at ways to be more restrictive No Travel SOP Maximum use of contract carriers No DFAS or DSCA audits No policy letters or Center SOP Cniie Conference Review 000000 personally procured tickets 0 Started Travel on 13 July but claimed travel comp on 17 July . ll Perkin =51000r $20May may be using more expensive parking garage ?rm?:t m: oes EA need to travel? (bats) 0 Approved for comp time and regular leave on 18 July . - 0 Approved Comp time for [2 hours to write notes and communicate with others - TRVL Voucha' return date should have been 25 July?received 1 I hours of travel comp on 25 Jul . - Earned travel comp time when not travelling?probably shouid have been regutar comp and not travel . Personally procureti tickets 0 Claimed a taxi to the tenan on departure and then claimed terminal parking - 0 Did not claim taxi, parking. or mileage to get to airport?how did she get there (gov provided transportation?) Probably under paid O19 Sections IV and of DA Form 1574, Report of Proceedings by Investigating Of?cer 6 March 20I2 0 Conduct staff desk audit to ensure position description accurateiy reflect current responsibilities. Some staff have asked for audits claiming that duties have signi?came increased without a corresponding increase in saiary. Make employees aware of the Center's suggestion box and encourage its use 0 Review the Center's policy and procedures for selecting course directors and deputy directors. Publish guideiines, criteria. and procedures to avoid the appearance of favoritism. - Develop a new employee sponsorship and orientation program to share best practices and unique Center requirements with new employees. 0 Develop a faculty memorship program for new faculty members. Explore option to create mentorship opportunity within the Center and across the Regional Center enterprise. {bli??blmicl COL. USA Investigating Of?cer