HOME |
|
ARCHIVES |
EDITORIALS |
We
Must Understand
The people have
spoken? |
Bud's
Eyeview
On:Voting & pregnancy
|
Dr.
Sterling Lands, II
LESSONS FROM THE VALLEY OF DRIED BONES |
Speak,
Sistah, Speak!
The History vs. The Mystery |
COMMUNITY
|
|
Community |
RESOURCE GUIDE |
Links to the African
American Market |
SUBSCRIPTION |
|
SUBSCRIBE
NOW to AANI |
MEDIA KIT |
MEDIA KIT
Click
here
to download Acrobat Reader to view media kit. |
CONTACT US |
|
Email |
|
Location |
100%
Black Owned
and Managed |
|
|
COVERED
COUNTIES |
Bell
Bexar
Bowie
Brazoria
Brazos
Collin
Coryell
Dallas
Denton
El Paso
Fort Bend
Fort Worth
Galveston
Gregg
Harris
Harrison
Jefferson
Lubbock
McLennan
Smith
Travis
|
|
R. D. Malonson -
Publisher |
|
S. A. Malonson
-
Editor-In-Chief |
|
Bud Johnson -
Managing Editor Emeritus |
|
Anthony Ogbo
-
CopyDesign
Director |
|
|
Roger Jackson
-
Photographer |
|
Jesse Simon
-
Photographer |
|
|
| Advertising/Marketing:
713/692-1892 |
|
Office Phone:
713/692-1288 |
|
Fax Line:
713/692-1183 |
|
| E-Mail:
aframnews@pdq.net
|
|
Corporate Office:
6130 Wheatley Street
Houston, Texas
77091-3947 |
|
|
AUSTIN BUREAU |
Sterling Lands II
Bureau Chief
Maurice Youmans D
istribution Chief
Austin Bureau
Contact Info.
(512) 4546170
(512) 302-9806 fax
|
|
DALLAS FORT WORTH |
Dr. Safisha Nzingha Hill
Allen Carlton
Distribution
|
|
|
•
Founded
African-American News&Issues, established in 1996 and targeting
African-American, readers is one of the fastest growing and largest
African-American owned newspapers in the United States.
• Circulation
African-American News&Issues is the widest weekly circulated Black
newspaper in Texas with a controlled circulation distributed every
Wednesday.
The paper is delivered to more than 100,000 homes and is available at
more than 5,000 locations, including chambers of commerce, churches,
organizations, barber & beauty shops, schools, funeral homes,
restaurants, public schools and libraries, college/university campuses,
select businesses-retailers-grocery stores, transit centers and various
downtown locations.
• Disclaimer
We will not knowingly print false or misleading ads, and cannot be held
responsible for the content of paid advertisements.
• The views and opinions of guest writers and columnists do not
necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher, staff or
board of African-American News&Issues.
• Cost
The first issue is free. Additional copies are available at $2.00 per
copy.
• Say What?
Send letters to the editor to speak your mind. Include name, address,
and daytime phone number (name, city, and occasionally occupation will
be printed). We reserve the right to edit for clarity and space. Send by
mail, fax or e-mail.
• Guest Editorials
Got a lot to say? E-mail or send us a typed, double-spaced article and
we might publish it. Unsolicited articles are published at the
discretion of the editor and are not reimbursed. Articles may be edited
for space and clarity.
• Deadline for Ads
Ad orders and submissions must be received by close of business on
Wednesdays, a week prior to publication.
• Subscription Rates
1 year - $52.00 |
|
The Journey to “No Fear”
FEAR Institute, a non-profit oversight organization, issued a report card
in which selected federal agencies were graded on how well they implement
the first civil rights law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal
Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 [No FEAR]. The
majority of agencies received a grade of “F” in the three criteria
categories with three agencies, the Department of Labor, the Department of
Justice and Agriculture posting data so inaccessible or non-existent that
grading was rendered impossible. The public expects the federal government
to set an example for the private sector, but data issued by the various
agencies reveal a chilling environment of discrimination, harassment,
retaliation, and abuse. The law went into effect on Oct 1st, 2003.
The No FEAR law requires federal agencies to use their own budgets to
reimburse the Department of Treasury Judgment Fund to pay for successful
discrimination claims. Thus, these agencies will begin to feel the pain of
protecting and shielding discriminating managers in their pocketbooks. In
addition, the No FEAR law requires federal agencies to notify its employees
of their legal protections under law and to report to Congress the
disciplinary actions taken against discriminating managers. In accordance
with the No FEAR law, agencies must provide statistical information on
discrimination and whistle blower complaints. The results of the report card
could suggest that some federal agencies do not establish a system of
accountability or transparency that should be the hallmark of a “federal
government.”
For example, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/No
FEAR data, in the first quarter of FY 04 the processing time from the filing
of EEO complaints until final action is taken was, on average, 838 days – by
law these investigations are suppose to be completed (with the exception of
extensions) in 180 days. EPA also reported that there were three findings of
discrimination and apparently not a single manager was disciplined or fired
for breaking civil rights laws. According to a June 26, 2003, GAO report, a
report Congresswoman Jackson Lee requested, EPA has not disciplined any
manager or employee for discriminatory conduct since 1995.
The No FEAR law certainly has its critics. Bill Bransford, counsel to the
federal government Senior Executives Association (SEA) said recently in a
Federal Times article that his organization would fight any action by
Congress or the Administration that would mandate disciplinary actions
against a manager for workplace discrimination, “It’s a real concern that
the No FEAR act is the first step to hold managers out as scapegoats…merely
because a jury has ruled in favor of a plaintiff.” The SEA represents 6,000
career executives across the country. The reality is that managers in the
federal government have historically not had to fear disciplinary actions
for breaking civil rights laws. For these managers, jury verdicts have
neither meaning nor substance. This actually alludes to another problem that
we face in America – tort reform and the diminution of the juror’s role in
civil actions.
The civil juror is widely perceived as suspicious and even dismissive of
victims and their grievances. Critics who have assumed or asserted the
ignorance of jurors may have overlooked what jurors know well: everyday
realities and everyday people. Plaintiffs are sometimes threatened, because
jurors believe that they understand what reasonable persons will or should
do. Tort reform law that threatens to strip civil juries of compensation
award authority in demographic areas that have a majority of minorities
demonstrates a discriminatory effect. Not only would such law fly in the
face of Democracy, the underlying intent of this legislation violates the
equal protection clause of the U.S.
Until the passage of the No FEAR, discriminating federal managers were not
only shielded by the federal system but given promotions despite claims of
misconduct. Without oversight from the Legislative and Executive Branches,
this situation only bred uncomfortable, unsafe, and hostile work
environments. This confidence is rooted in the knowledge that discriminating
managers had little to fear from the lack of oversight, confirming that
Bransford’s view is correct. Discriminating managers in the federal
government have operated above the normal standards of democracy. Under the
No FEAR law federal agencies must report the disposition of disciplinary
actions by agencies against discriminating manager to Congress.
Despite federal law, agency heads have repeatedly refused to acknowledge
that civil rights laws are being violated in their agency. A January 22,
2004 press release on the issuance of No FEAR regulations cites the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) Director as deeming claims for the violation
of civil rights law “inappropriate reactions.” If the Director of OPM
defines such behavior as simply “inappropriate reactions,” how can the
American public expect the OPM to translate the intent of Congress and the
President into guidance for the federal government?
Government must become more responsive and accountable to the public,
particularly those who have suffered at the hands of discriminating managers
and a dysfunctional EEO system.
Federal government victims endure a cycle of retaliation and harassment.
Lives and livelihoods are destroyed. Families and communities are torn apart
as a result of the years of stress resulting from workplace discrimination.
The merit protection system does not work when civil rights are suppressed.
The cost for the victims is prohibitive. Attorney retainer agreements can
cost upwards of $30,000. Alternatively, the government provides, free of
cost, attorneys to managers to defend them against civil rights victims. The
vulnerable are at the mercy of the mighty.
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Director of Civil Rights, Karen
Higginbotham, in a March 10, 2004 letter to the National Treasury Employees
Union Chapter 280, admitted that two years after the passage of the No FEAR
Act, EPA still does not have procedures in place to discipline
discriminatory managers. The lack of action by federal agencies to
discipline racist and sexist managers, could either be construed as
negligence or a willful disregard for congressional mandates and for the
law.
Congress has done its part and the President is to be commended for doing
the right and noble thing and signing the bill into law. Federal agencies,
however, are dragging their feet on the implementation of No FEAR. It seems
that they are more concerned with protecting the scofflaws than carrying out
the letter of the law.
The fight for the integrity and effectiveness of No FEAR is a battle that
America cannot afford to lose. Federal workers who have been silent and
others who also value justice, equality and human dignity must join this
battle. I ask you to join this struggle. |