|
news
Vets try to uphold
law
By Danielle Grossman
Summer Forty-Niner
The Vietnam era
veterans at Cal State Long Beach have been trying for eight
years to get the university to uphold a federal law that was
created in 1974.
Since 1993, the
veterans' battle has involved the U.S. Secretary of Labor,
the governor of California, the Department of Labor, the California
Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, among many others.
After employee
layoffs in 1992 that seemed to target veterans, Raymond Renaud
wrote a letter to former President Clinton in 1993 regarding
the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
Renaud wanted to know more details about the law.
The letter was
directed to the U.S. Secretary of Labor, who passed it along
to the Veterans Employment and Training Services, a division
of the Department of Labor. The compliance of VEVRAA did not
fall under VETS. Further, VETS did not know whose jurisdiction
VEVRAA did fall under.
After much inquiry
and confusion, Renaud found that VEVRAA fell under the jurisdiction
of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
Discrimination
complaint filed against CSULB
On Sept. 25, 1995,
Renaud filed a complaint of non-compliance against CSULB with
the OFCCP. The complaint was amended January 26, 1996, adding
21 veterans ? also campus employees ? to make it a class action
suit. It was also amended by the OFCCP, turning the suit complaint
from a non-compliance complaint into a discrimination complaint.
Over a year after
the complaint was first filed on Oct. 25, 1996, a Notification
of Results of Investigation was issued. The NORI listed the
general complaint against the university, each of the members
of the class action and what their individual complaints against
the university were.
It also stated
that five of the members had not self-identified with the
university as Vietnam era veterans, and therefore were ineligible
for any benefits. The findings of the NORI indicated that
there was "insufficient evidence to conclude that the
contractor has violated its obligation."
But, the veterans
knew that they had identified themselves as veterans with
CSULB. On Nov. 16, 1996, 12 veterans filed letters of appeals
? included together with a cover letter written by Renaud
? and sent them to the national Department of Labor office
in Washington, D.C.
It seemed to the
veterans that the OFCCP had relied upon the word of the university
instead of investigating thoroughly, said John Whittaker,
an audio technician and discriminated veteran.
Walter H. Moore
Jr., another veteran and communicative disorders professor,
was able to obtain his personal file and found the questionnaire
that he filled out in 1979 from the personnel office at academic
affairs.
When a person is
hired by CSULB, he or she is issued a questionnaire. One of
the questions asks, "Are you a Vietnam Era Veteran?"
Moore had found that all five people had checked the box marked
"yes." "Dates of service" were also listed
for all five people.
According to university
administration, once people identify themselves as a veteran
on the questionnaire, they are transferred to another list,
called the Veterans 100 report, which is submitted to the
government. However, these five people were not transferred
to this list.
"I think it
was a flaw in how we transcribed the information, " said
Armando Contreras, executive assistant to CSULB President
Robert Maxson. "We had to reexamine how we did things."
Under the requirements
of VEVRAA, CSULB is obligated to issue an invitation to self-identify
that allows employees to identify as Vietnam era veterans,
allowing them benefits under the 1974 law. Whittaker wrote
a letter to Helene Haase, pacific regional director for the
OFCCP asking the difference between a self-identified veteran
and a veteran.
Haase replied a
week later, in a letter dated November 25, "Again, for
your information, the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] does
not require this agency to provide answers to questions. The
FOIA only requires that we provide documents which may have
relevance to the questions. We therefore are not providing
any answers to your questions at this time."
According to her
letter, Haase legally had the right to refuse to answer Whittaker's
question, though she was supposed to provide him with helpful
documents.
Veterans take
action
A year after the
appeals were sent by the 12 veterans, on Nov. 4, 1997, Renaud
received a personal letter of rejection for the appeal from
the OFCCP. The other veterans were not mentioned in the letter,
nor did they receive any letters themselves.
Whittaker, unaware
that Renaud had received the rejection letter, wrote three
letters in 1998 to Congressman Steven Horn inquiring if the
appeals had been reviewed so that the case could be reopened.
During that time,
Renaud and Dave Nelson, a photographer for University Publications
and a veteran involved in the class action suit, contacted
Col. Joseph Smith, director of the Los Angeles Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs.
"My interest
as a veterans' advocate was to see that the law was being
obeyed," Smith said.
A meeting was held
with Renaud, Nelson, Moore, Contreras, Barbara Franklin, interim
director of Equity and Diversity, and Smith in order to get
CSULB into compliance with VEVRAA. Two other meetings were
held, but, according to Moore, nothing resulted.
Smith also expressed
concern about the lack of activity from the meetings, despite
several suggestions he made to the university on more than
one occasion.
"It was difficult
to get them to take the initiative to do those things required
by the law," Smith said.
Before one of these
meetings, in May 1998, Franklin asked Gale S. Baker, university
counsel, Office of General Council, for a copy of CSULB's
obligations regarding VEVRAA. Baker responded to her inquiry
in a letter dated May 20, and provided Franklin with a copy
of the act, though by law, the office of Equity and Diversity
is required to have a copy of all obligations relating to
affirmative action programs available upon request.
Moore files
non-compliance complaint
On Oct. 12, 1998,
Moore, frustrated with the university's lack of compliance,
filed a non-compliance complaint ? separate from the original
discrimination complaint ? with the secretary of labor, against
the university.
"When we got
back the original NORI, it said that CSULB was in compliance,"
Moore said, "I said, 'that's nonsense.'"
Moore went through
the regulations and, in his non-compliance complaint, he cited
all the areas CSULB was not in compliance and provided evidence.
Moore later went on to request the help of a few representatives
from California and Alabama ? the state where Moore owns a
lot of land ? to put pressure on the OFCCP to open the investigation.
The OFCCP regional
office did not receive the complaint until December 9. A meeting
was held Jan. 19, 1999 discussing the investigation of the
complaint. However, the OFCCP wrote in the NORI that the investigation
started February 19.
Veterans requested
that a neutral party be assigned to the case because of several
complaints against William Smitherman, Los Angeles district
office director, who supervised the original investigation
of discrimination. The investigation falsely stated that five
people were not Vietnam era veterans. Victor Martinez, district
director for the San Diego office, was named supervisor of
the investigation.
The second part
of this story will appear in next week's Summer Forty-Niner.
|
