IMPORTANT FURLOUGH UPDATE FOR NTEU280 MEMBERS

Earlier today, our Chapter President Amer Al-Mudallal sent out an e-mail to NTEU280 members advising them that the mandatory August 30^th furlough day will be canceled and the total number of furlough hours for this fiscal year has been reduced from 55 hours to 47 hours.  At this point, we have been told that any additional furlough hours taken above the 47 hours will be restored to employees as annual leave.  We will update members as more information becomes available.  The Administrator has sent an all-hands e-mail with a video message to all employees.   

[If you missed the Administrator’s e-mail, here is the video. ]  

Union participation has been identified as one of the reasons for the reduction in furlough hours.  Your union has worked tirelessly to ensure that sequestration’s impacts on our members and on their vital missions would be minimized.  Although we have seen the furlough hours reduced (first from 104 hours to 55 hours and now from 55 hours to 47 hours), please understand that we are not “out of the woods” yet.  Our employees have been furloughed for a total of 47 hours for FY13.  The House has come up with a budget proposal would dramatically reduce EPA’s FY14 budget.  And sequestration and its challenges do not end on September 30, 2013 – rather, they continue for years into the future. 

EPA has engaged in much belt-tightening.  We fully expect difficult times to continue.  We are here to support our members, the hard working professionals charged with protecting the environment and the health of our fellow citizens. 

Now, more than ever, your membership in NTEU280 matters!  

Thank you for your support and we stand ready to assist you with your questions and concerns. 

Scientific Integrity Policy - Message from Chapter President to Bargaining Unit Employees

"Dear NTEU Bargaining Unit Member,

Apparently the [attached] email that was sent as a mass mailer by the Agency’s Scientific Advisor/Interim Scientific Integrity Official, Dr. Glenn Paulson, was automatically directed to some of our staff’s Microsoft 365 email junk boxes.  I’m forwarding it to you in the hope that you have a chance to read the email and attachment, the Scientific Integrity Policy.  Please be aware that NTEU Chapter 280 continues to raise certain concerns with Agency Management regarding this Policy, as well as Management’s planned Policy training, and the lack of any comprehensive Policy Implementation plan that might detail how elements of the Policy might be put into everyday practice.

Please review the attached EPA Scientific Integrity Policy (http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf) before the scheduled Webinar on the afternoon of Tuesday, August 20 (3:30P-4:30P).  Please consider the following issues which have a particular relevance for those employees in our bargaining unit:

1.      Differing scientific opinions (section A. 3, pg 5)

The Policy has charged the Scientific Integrity Official and Deputy Scientific Integrity Officials with the task of developing a “transparent mechanism for Agency employees to express differing scientific opinions.”  If a dispute cannot be resolved in “internal deliberations” (presumably at the lowest level with one’s supervisor, or within one’s Office), then the issue is to be addressed in scientific peer review.  This skeleton of a procedure suggests that all science “informing an Agency policy decision” undergoes scientific peer review and that all at the Office level are knowledgeable about a particular scientific subject or are impartial.  In some EPA organizations, peer review for scientific product is not necessarily part of the process for all products, and in some EPA organizations, scientists and engineers report to lawyers, who may have some knowledge of science/engineering, but lack the training and education to “get into the weeds”.  For such cases, this would leave the dispute between a junior employee and his/her immediate supervisor, or other middle and senior level managers within an Office/Organization.  Not only is there a potential conflict of interest if a desired upper management regulatory outcome is at odds with the scientific evidence, but the process might be protracted and might not be documented in any transparent manner.  This approach leaves a junior employee potentially vulnerable to retaliation by middle and upper managers, and may well result in delays in resolution of the disagreement related to escalation of the dispute up the chain of command.  In effect, this is a disincentive for the employee to bring forth a differing scientific opinion. 

2.        Scientific Integrity Committee (Section V, pg 10).

The Policy’s authorities are the Scientific Integrity Official and those who comprise the Scientific Integrity Committee.  The Committee members, termed “Deputy Scientific Integrity Officials” represent each of the Agency’s Program Offices and Regions.  These individuals are not necessarily scientists or engineers, may have conflicts of interest with respect to Agency regulatory agenda, and may not necessarily understand the issues that they are charged with acting on (including a personal understanding of a defensible and credible scientific product).

Please review the Policy before the August 20 webinar, and prepare to ask questions and raise your own concerns.  Should you be interested in being engaged in an Agency-wide forum on the Scientific Integrity Policy, please contact NTEU Steward Dr. Brenda Seidman (seidman.brenda [at] epa.gov). 

Thank you.

Amer Al-Mudallal, President

NTEU Chapter 280

202-566-2789"