Atlantans for Progressive Libraries.com
Home Table of Contents Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us

The "EEO Climate Study"

Following are excerpts from the “EEO Climate” study commissioned last fall by AFPL’s board of trustees to investigate allegations that the Library Director and Deputy Director authorized illegal personnel transactions.

Long passages of the 37-page document—including virtually all of the first 20 pages—are tedious reading for anyone already familiar with how the library is supposed to manage its personnel transactions. We have excerpted only the parts of each section that we found the most interesting.

If you'd like to read the entire report for yourself, fax your request for a copy to county attorney June Green. Be sure to state that you’re asking for the document in accordance with the Georgia Open Records Act. Green’s fax number is 404-730-6324. (Green's office will charge you approximately $10 for copying and mailing you the report.)

How to Keep Your Bearings as You Read the Excerpts
  • Text from the document appears in black print.
  • To show how the consultant organized her report, all section headings included in the document are reproduced, each with an accompanying citation of the page numbers of the report devoted to that section. Section headings and subheadings appear in bold.
  • The text of each excerpted footnote, preceded by the footnote number and the page on which the note appears, is shown in parentheses.
  • Clarifications are noted in [brackets].
  • Page number citations appear in [italicized brackets].
  • Omitted passages--including omitted footnotes or portions of them-- are noted by ellipsis marks [...]. Entire sections that have been omitted are noted as such under the section headings.
  • AFPLWATCH comments on the investigator’s statements are printed in red.


AFPL Workplace Audit

[Prepared by:]
Nancy F. Reynolds
[Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson]

December 31, 2003

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL...


Personnel Policies and Procedures
[pages 1-7]

Vacancy Notification[s]

[AFPL's] Human Resources [Office] has implemented a posting, facsimile, email and web-based system for notifying potential candidates of vacancies....We suggest reiterating to employees where they can find postings and, further, to mandate that branch staff post openings when received via email or facsimile....[p. 1-2]

Just because HR tells you that they do things by the book, doesn’t mean they really do. Vacancy notifications have not always been emailed or faxed out (and even when they are emailed, that doesn’t do much good when email isn't working, or you’re one of the many library employees who share a computer and thus have problems retrieving your email.) Some vacancy notifications arrive a mere day before the deadline for responding to them; that could explain why employees reported they are not notified of all openings.

Hiring/Promotion Forms and Procedures

...We recommend that a line be inserted for all participants in the [hiring] process to initial attesting that the [proper] procedure was followed.... [p. 2]

Hello? Earth to Board Consultant: Have you ever heard of lying? Putting another line on a form for people to initial, thus assuring an auditor that proper procedures were followed doesn’t solve the problem of people swearing they did something that they didn’t do--or doing something they said they didn't. If the library's Deputy Director tells you who you can and cannot hire, you carry out her orders, and putting a little check mark in a box to say you followed proper procedure wouldn’t change that. “OK, Mrs. Garnes, I’ll re-word the hiring recommendation so it looks like the interviewing team chose another candidate than the one it did, but I will not put my initials on this little line! After all, I have some integrity!” Yeah, right.

…Because the Board only meets once a month, this...unnecessarily delays the hiring process....Virtually all staff contacted...noted the need to fill positions quickly when vacancies arise.... [p.2]

From our observations, hiring decisions for positions below the C40 level are effectively made by branch personnel. [p. 2]

What observations? The observations of managers' signatures on hiring forms? The whole hiring packet is meaningless when people above you on the totem pole can tell you to re-word the hiring documents and recommend a different candidate than the interview team selected--and tell you that while the Human Resources Manager is in the room, no less. Tell this one to the folks who’ve had that experience or the experience of having their B23 candidates rejected by the library's board of trustees. And tell it to the managers who’ve lost their first choice candidate because the board's personnel committee didn’t bother to meet that month (or couldn't muster a quorum to transact any business) after the manager raced to get the hiring paperwork in, leaving the whole process stalled for another month--by which time the first-choice applicant had accepted an offer from a more functional organization. And, incidentally, C level-and-above positions are the professional librarian positions: what makes the board qualified to vote on who are the most-qualified librarians to hire when, elsewhere in this document, it’s noted that the board doesn’t have expertise in library operations?

…Due to the turnover on the Personnel Committee and Board, these individuals are not necessarily in the best position to determine hiring consistently and/or trends.... [p.3]

Staff at all levels and from all protected groups felt certain personnel decisions were driven by favoritism from the Board. [Note 5, p. 3]

Interview Forms and Procedures

The [library's] Human Resources department has begun to draft interview questionnaires for AFPL positions. The outlines we reviewed contained good, job related inquiries and should provide valuable guidance to interviewers.... [p. 4]

We sure are glad they’ve begun to draft those questionnaires at the very point we’re in the middle of a 6-month hiring freeze! We wouldn’t have wanted HR to have had those interview questionnaires ready back when we were actually interviewing job candidates! It’s difficult not to laugh when reading this section of the report, knowing what the reality has been in terms of the minimal role HR plays in helping managers hire library employees. There was a presentation at an agency meeting about a year ago on the plan for standardizing interview questions, the notorious (and ridiculous) rating grids, and the verbiage to use when writing justifications for rejecting candidates. That was it as far as HR assistance went, and by the way, did we mention that this was a year ago? Other than that, when it comes to consistency in hiring procedures, it’s been the blind leading the blind for many years now.

...The Board makes decisions in reliance on the very office [the Director’s] it distrusts to make these same decisions. [Note 6, p. 4]

Employment Application

[Nothing interesting in this section.]


[Job] Offer Letters

[Nothing interesting in this section.]


Disciplinary Documentation

[Nothing interesting in this section.]


Personnel Files

It would've been helpful if the investigator had addressed in this section of her report the issue of board members inspecting employees' personnel files. Considering the number of times that board members have felt free to discuss even the medical situation of employees, one would think any document advocating better personnel procedures would advise board members that “confidential” personnel files are just that--off-limits for board perusal.

Fair Labor Standards Act:
Minimum Wage, Overtime, and Recordkeeping [Requirements]
[page 8]

[Nothing interesting in this section.]

[Performance] Evaluations
[pages 9-13]

Kudos to the auditor for even trying to get into this area. AFPL work plans have strayed so far from their original function that they are almost un-usable. Partly, of course, that’s the result of Mrs. Garnes’ determination to standardize workplans within each classification, which led to the evolution of 26-page workplans. Not to mention the delightful Garnesian solution to the challenge of providing objective criteria for performance ratings, e.g. “Acceptable: has 80% knowledge of collection” vs. “Failing: has 75% knowledge of collection.” (Garnes never explained how to calibrate, much less defend to the employee, that 5% differential!)

...Many staff report that instructions have been given not to rate any employee as "Outstanding." As a result, many employees receive essentially the same evaluation every year, such that evaluations are no longer worthwhile.... [Note 11, p. 9]

...Members of both sexes and races across the system noted that evaluations can and are on occasion used vindictively to punish for a variety of personal reasons, ranging from political disagreements to dislike.... [Note 12, p. 9]

...Some employees...indicated that their supervisors did not meet with them [at the beginning of each performance appraisal period] and, as a result, that they did not have work plans or other performance guidelines.... [p. 10]

In the evaluations we reviewed, the evaluation rating summaries were almost uniformly based on incomplete data. Moreover, the written summaries did not address all areas of responsibility for the position. As a result, the evaluation gives the appearance of unfairness.... [p. 10]

...The failure to address each duty [listed on the evaluation form] makes it appear that a supervisor can pick and choose among tasks and rate accordingly. Hence, to rate an employee low, a supervisor could highlight one or two tasks the employee failed to perform adequately and ignore the remainder of tasks (which may have been accomplished) within the Standard level. Similarly, an employee could be rated high by ignoring tasks that were not accomplished and highlighting the two or three tasks that were accomplished.”... [p. 11]

...It is readily apparent that the level of detail incorporated into many of the work plans is, simply, not feasible.... [p. 12]

Staff responding to the Workplace Survey and contacted individually also note that, in their experiences, the evaluations are unmanageable, unrealistic and too complicated to be workable. Staff also noted that the complicated factors do not accomplish additional objectivity. [Note 14, p. 12]

...We recommend eliminating the percentages [currently required for measuring performance]. [Note 16, p. 12]

...Employee morale at the Library remains low and is based in large part on the employees’ beliefs that they have no input in the decisions that affect their work lives.... [p. 13]

Compensation
[page 13]

...Employees who are reclassified [emphasis added] to a higher level do not receive any increase if their pay is within the range for the higher classification. Employees who are promoted [emphasis added] from lower positions into higher classifications, on the other hand, receive promotional increases.... [Note 17, p. 13]

[Employee] Complaint Procedure[s]
[pages 14-18]

...We recommend expressly adding a statement in the EEO/harassment policies that retaliation against individuals for engaging in protected activity is prohibited. [p. 14]

Why bother, now that we know that retaliation is in fact prohibited on paper but not in practice? Why bother wasting more paper to print a few more empty words? Ask the victims of Ms. Hooker’s vindictiveness whether retaliation is practiced at AFPL. Ask librarian Monica Foderingham-Brown about her involuntary transfer after she spearheaded the petition a few years back demanding that the library board resign. Ask librarian Debra Branton about her demotion when she disagreed with Hooker. Ask librarian Cal Gough about his involuntary transfer to a branch library when he objected to one of Garnes' schemes, or former Central Library Administrator Bill Munro about his treatment by Garnes. Ask librarian Mary Starck or Maureen Kelly about their post-lawsuit retaliatory transfers. Ask ex-Development Officer Brian Williams about Ms. Hooker’s threats to “get him”. Hell, ask Carolyn Garnes about how Hooker “got” her!

Yeah, let’s make sure we amend some employment form or statement of county policy to say that retaliation is officially and strictly forbidden. That should really keep those would-be rights violators in line.

Employee Complaint Filings

...In 2003, there has been a significant increase in OEEO/EEO activity with eighteen cases filed....(Note 19: The only arguable pattern relates to the number of charges which arise out of the decisions of two particular members of management. As neither of these individuals is currently employed by the Library, however, we make no recommendations aimed at remedying this issue.) [p. 15]

This is one of the oddest parts of the entire report. To understand why, let’s transport ourselves to the Nuremburg Trials in post-WWII Germany: “Your Honor, it’s true that, so it won't happen again, we’re trying to establish here the causes of and culpability for this horrendous world war. Now, we keep coming up against the name Adolph Hitler. However, since he’s dead, there’s really no point in poking around any further into the role he played in all this.”

If you were investigating the cause of a longstanding problem and found a pattern involving the same two individuals, wouldn't you think it was worth your while (or, say, $112,000) to examine those patterns? As in: How did these two people manage to do what they did? Did Ms. Hooker know what they were doing? Did she have some part in it? Were staff fears of retaliation, discrimination, and punishment fed by the remarks and the actions of these two un-named individuals? Where were the checks and balances to stop the abuse?

If we don’t establish what happened and how it happened, how can it be prevented from happening again? And how can a comprehensive investigation of underlying causes be conductedif the investigator doesn't look at, and report, all the evidence? Surely such an examination would have shed some light on the problems at AFPL.

In any case, one of the most glaring omissions of this report is the investigator's failure to report the fact that the paperwork authorizing certain illegal personnel transactions instigated by Garnes also have Hooker's signature on them. The invesigator could and should have reported that empirical fact at this point in her report, instead of sweeping it under the Garnes-is-gone-now-so-what-she-did-doesn't-matter rug. It does matter, and partially because of that additional signature on those incriminating documents.

...The charges involve virtually the entire spectrum of protected classifications/actions including disability, national origin, race (Black, White, Asian), retaliation, age, hostile environment, and sexual harassment. They allege improper treatment relating to a myriad of employment actions, such as failure to promote, unfair evaluations, transfer, unpaid time off, failure to hire, co-worker conflicts, and disparate treatment in assigning job duties. Further, they largely involve different departments and/or decision-makers.... [p. 15]

...The Director recently contacted OEEO on behalf of an unknowing employee....While this contact may reflect nothing more than careless fact gathering, a creative plaintiff’s attorney could easily cast it as an attempt to mislead OEEO and retaliate against Board members.... [Note 20, p. 16]

...Many employees voiced concerns about their workplace safety.... [p. 17]

AFPL Personnel Actions
[pages 18-21]

...A substantial number of employees responding to the Workplace Survey indicated that personnel actions–promotions in particular–did not appear fairly awarded nor to have been awarded consistent with County policy....We noted a prevalent practice of temporarily awarding promotions until vacancies could be bid and filled....In some cases these positions were not bid for an extended period of time, perhaps giving the appearance that these employees had been promoted without following proper procedures....To avoid the appearance of impropriety, we recommend...approval to bid the vacancy [in any position] be sought where possible at the time the approval for a temporary appointment is sought.... [p. 19]

...Paraprofessionals...indicated...that their professional counterparts are disrespectful of them and their abilities. While paraprofessionals do not comprise a [legally] protected group, no doubt their contribution...is significant and they should be treated with respect. [Note 25, p. 19]

...Reasons for the inequities [cited by employees] range from alleged discrimination to politics, being in the wrong clique, dislike and favoritism. Employees expressing these beliefs cross all racial, gender and age groups; they further cross all classifications and locations.... [pp. 19-20]

...Employees who...received progressive discipline were more likely to agree that [personnel] processes were properly followed than those who were not. [p. 20]

Well, duh! Looks like the investigator is acknowledging that some library managers apparently never heard of--or find it convenient to ignore--the county's policy of "progressive discipline." Although the investigator doesn't say if Hooker is among these managers, AFPL employees know she is. In the punitive personnel actions she has initiated herself or authorized on behalf of others (chiefly Garnes), Hooker has repeatedly forgotten that county personnel policies (theoretically) protect an employee whose performance the manager becomes unhappy with, and (theoretically) requires her to refrain from severely punishing or authorizing severe punishment of an employee before giving the employee a reaonable chance to change his or her behavior. That the board's investigator neglected to emphasize in her report that Hooker, among others, needs immediate and thorough re-education in the county's progressive discipline procedures is one of the report's greatest failings.

...Data [about AFPL personnel actions] received from the County varied, in some cases substantively, from that received from the AFPL Human Resources department.... [p. 20]

Workplace Survey and Employee Interviews
[pages 21-35]

Overview

We have briefly reviewed a number of prior studies conducted relating to library staff issues and obtained some historical perspective form long term staff members. In 1994, a third party study found Black and White issues existed at the Library. To a certain extent these ideas have stuck and remained at least in the back of everyone’s mind since that time. The personnel actions and trends we reviewed over the past two years as noted, however, do not demonstrate (except as otherwise addressed herein) such discriminatory animus.

It appears that, as a result of the 1994 study, there was a large reorganization, which in essence transferred employees to [racially] reintegrate the system. After this reorganization, approximately 200 members of the Library staff signed a petition seeking to get rid of Board members; the Board then allegedly developed its own "hit list." The result was to create distrust and tension throughout the system. Those issues, too, have remained among a segment of the staff until the present day. [p. 21]

The investigator's timeline is inaccurate. The reorganization she refers to here took place in 1996. The staff petition demanding the board's resignations was unrelated to this reorganization and in fact took place in the summer of 1998.

In 1996, it appears the Board assumed responsibility for hiring/firing staff. At this same time, the Board became more actively involved in the Library’s day-to-day operations, and the then acting Director left the system. Thereafter, the Board hired two short-term directors, who in turn left the system. Further, there were periods where no Director was in place. As a result, from approximately 1996 until the present Director was hired in December of 1999, the Library has had no consistent leadership, and issues continued to fester.

Shortly after the current Director was hired, the Library again reorganized, transferring staff. This reorganization and its aftermath appear to have triggered the same sentiments of distrust, insecurity, fear of reprisal, etc. that were identified in the workforce in the mid-1990s. Those and other issues have remained in varying degrees to the present time. [p. 21]

Survey and Interview Responses

...Many staff members were reluctant to provide any information whatsoever [to the Workplace Survey].... [p. 21]

Employee Satisfaction

Fifty-one and one-half percent of staff reported being very satisfied or satisfied with their positions.... [p. 22]

Which means that 49.5% are not very satisfied or satisfied. That's a lot of unsatisfied people for a single organization.

Morale

...With a few exceptions, supervisory level employees correctly gauged the morale of their [work] locales. [Note 32, p. 22]

...Morale among all staff remains too low. Fifty-four percent of staff reported below-average morale.... [p. 23]

...Only 3% surveyed said their morale is very high.... [p. 23]

  • Primary Reasons for [Low] Morale, and Recommendations

    It appears that the primary drivers of low morale are the perception that promotions and transfers are not handled fairly, poor communications at levels above immediate supervision, and the perception that staff cannot express opinions (again at levels generally above immediate supervision) without fear of reprisal. [p. 23]

    Interesting. So the front-line supervisors-- who are also credited in this section with accurately describing the morale of their staff--are confident enough to allow staff to express their opinions honestly. In other organizations, this might not be noteworthy, but for almost 5 years now, Hooker has been barking at library managers about their shortcomings in managing library staff. That’s (theoretically) why even the library's assistant managers are now required to attend Hooker's Agency Managers Meetings (the ones she doesn't cancel): Hooker claims managers weren't sharing information with their staffs. Even at the Agency Managers Meetings held immediately after librarian Gladys Dennard was murdered, Hooker turned the tragedy into an opportunity to berate managers for failing to correctly supervise and discipline staff--all the while, of course, denying that she knew anything at all about the volatile personnel situation that led to the tragedy. So it’s worthy of note that this audit found that managers (or at least most of them) actually have acceptable, workable relationships with their staffs.

    Other significant, and often related, contributing factors are the perceived lack of promotional opportunities, staff’s perceived inability to provide input in decisions that affect them, a perceived instability in the organization and the perceived lack of job security. Lesser contributing factors include dissatisfaction relating to classifications and pay (particularly at lower levels) and the lack of sufficient resources and staffing. [p.23]

    • Communication Issues

      As in prior surveys, communication gaps still seem to pervade the system. (Note 33: We do note, however, that the Director appears to have begun more openly communicating with staff. She has held meetings with all staff, for example, to apprise them of the possibility of layoffs and hiring freezes.) [p. 23]

      This is certainly a knee-slapper! These budget conclaves the auditor praises Hooker for convening are classic examples of the ways in which Ms Hooker is a poor communicator and a poor leader, and always will be. Here's what actually happened:

      • Having already canceled an upcoming Agency Managers Meeting, the primary vehicle for communicating to staff administrative plans and decisions, Hooker with barely 24 hours notice--thus throwing into disarray branch coverage schedules in every library in the county--announces that all staff will be required to attend one of a series of emergency meetings about the budget crisis. Just by convening these "emergency" all-staff meetings, Hooker created unnecessary and total panic among staff.

      • As library staff duly attend one of the mandatory meetings, it turns out Hooker has nothing to say beyond what staff have already read in the local newspaper; that, in fact, Hooker was using these meetings for staff brainstorms on how she might best respond to the the county manager's demand for departmental budget cuts!

      • These emergency budget crisis meetings exemplified Hooker’s leadership/communication style in yet another way: When an attendee at one of the meetings repeated his question to be sure he heard her answer correctly, Hooker mocked him by telling her audience to repeat out loud her initial answer to his question.

      • To add mismanagment to mismanagement--and manifesting yet again another of her annoying management patterns--Hooker never communicated to staff the upshot of the budget crisis; library staff have heard nothing more about it from that day to this one, except when various managers asked her questions in other forums at later dates. Staff still don’t know if the budget is untouched, or if it was cut $2.3 million, or $2.8 million, to cite the three scenarios Hooker described in her emergency staff meetings. Hooker never bothered to send out even a measly all-staff email message reassuring staff that the budget cuts would not result in personnel layoffs. No one knows why Hooker never bothered to send out such a message, especially considering the fact that Hooker maintains a whole raft of secretaries to remind her what needs doing.

      • And did we mention (the board's auditor doesn't) that Hooker canceled the monthly Agency Managers Meeting twice more after her all-staff emergency conclaves?

      So much for the auditor's naive conclusion that Hooker has turned over a new leaf and has "begun more openly communicating with staff." (Staff have learned to run in the opposite direction whenever they see Hooker coming. Now why is that, we wonder? On this question the board's independent invesigator remains silent.)

      At this point, we’d settle for an occasional smoke signal from the roof of the Central Library.

      While staff generally report good communication with immediate supervision, above this level, staff do not feel that they are included in the information loop. Information is, thus, often gained through hearsay and the rumor mill and, as many noted, may not be accurate or may be colored by opinion or speculation. Indeed, staff of all races, genders and ages cited the need to rely on the rumor mill for information as one of the greatest weaknesses of the Library–noting that same leads to wasted time spent gossiping, to finger pointing, to decreased teamwork, to increased distrust and to worsened morale.

      To ameliorate this problem, we recommend that staff be informed of issues affecting their areas and the system through regular communication from the top levels of management. Staff should be informed, where at all possible, in advance of final approval and implementation. Due to the apparent prevalence of the rumor mill, this information is likely already to be disseminated among the ranks. Management’s failure to disclose the information itself results in increased distrust, greater insecurity and lower morale. Depending on the nature of the information, communications may occur through staff meetings, email or memoranda.

      Moreover, while most staff are not focused on the Board or its monthly meetings and decisions, some staff quickly obtain Board approval information and disseminate same. As a result, information relating to employment actions is available and spreading through the system before the Library can announce actions to the employee population. To minimize the speculation relating to the reasons underlying these actions, the Library must issue announcements and advise affected staff as soon as it [sic] possible after Board approval. Where possible, staff to be affected or impacted by personnel decisions should be apprised that the decision is being recommended.... [pp. 23-24]

      Unfortunately, open and regular communication will not result in a quick fix of the underlying problem. As [discovered] in prior surveys mistrust remains rampant on all levels. This mistrust will only be overcome through sustained, open and honest communication. [p. 24]

    • Promotions and Transfers

      Staff at all levels and locations and across protected classifications continue to question the impartiality of promotions, transfers and hires. Staff perceive that managers at all levels fill positions themselves or at the direction of those (including the Deputy, the Director and the Board) above them based on improper animus and favoritism. (Note 35: Perhaps contributing to this perception as well is the reported lack of managerial skills among some members of management....) Some of this perception relates to the past litigation and continuing, related issues. In other cases it relates to personal experiences or rumor.... [pp. 23-24]

      As a whole the Library should focus on moving beyond the past lawsuit and related issues. While it lacks some control over this matter, the Library needs closure. The Library will not be able to get past these issues without the cooperation of each and every member of its staff. Employees must stop their rumor mongering and that of their peers, get on with their lives, and focus on their work and on improving morale in their own work groups. (Note 37: Many members of staff at all levels cited rumors and, often, the AFPLWATCH website as the greatest weaknesses of the Library. Both are noted to make the Library ‘sicker.’ With greater, open communication, perhaps the perceived need for same will cease. [p. 25]

      We’re going to put aside the temptation to a sarcastic response here. Whether the Board, the director, and the consultant believe it or not, employees would love nothing more than to “get on with their lives.” However, one-third of our lives are spent at work. More than that, most of us are dedicated to our work of providing the public with the information, recreation and education that they expect from a library. The library and its staff did this swimmingly for years and years. In the mid-80’s, it was probably one of the top libraries in the country. While any workplace has its rumors, its gossip and its malcontents, the library’s current alarming amount of all three is not due to a change in the attitude of employees. It is a reflection of the decline in the leadership of the library.

      • There are not many organizations that have lost an $18 million dollar lawsuit over discrimination.

      • There aren't many workplaces that have sustained two violent deaths of their employees.

      • There are not many library systems where the director screams at her admininstrative staff, or where people who make comments at meetings find themselves transferred shortly thereafter.

      • There are not many successful workplaces where the focus swings wildly from month to month, where projects are thrown together and absorb all resources, and are then abandoned.

      • There are not many libraries where the director and the deputy director, each with immense power over the daily work life of employees, are at daggers drawn, and employees are caught between the two of them.

      • There are not many library systems where employees live in fear of being transferred to some far off outpost, and the resulting hideous impact on their personal lives.

      To speak of getting past issues when these issues still exist is precisely the kind of thing that employees do not need to hear.

      And, no, there would be no need for AFPLWATCH if these issues did not still exist. But the hits on this website continue to climb. Reports from employees who still suffer from these issues increase in number. To ignore the 600-pound elephant in the living room is not the solution: getting him out of the living room and the house back to normal is the solution. Don’t shoot the messenger because he persists in reminding you that the elephant is here and pooping all over the place. Believe us – the people behind this website would like nothing better than to blog off when the library gets on the road to recovery.

    • Fear of Reprisal

      While 77% of staff felt comfortable expressing disagreement with their immediate superiors (Note 38: A number of employees in locations across the system reported dictatorial and vengeful behavior from their supervisors or managers....), staff at all levels reported an intense fear of reprisal from top management and the Board. Fifty-six percent reported feeling they could not [dis]agree with the Director without fear of reprisal; 52% felt they could not disagree with Board members; 47% were afraid to disagree with members of the Administrative Team....” [p. 25]

      Interestingly, only a small segment of staff expressing these fears reported much, if any actual interaction with either top management or Board members. Also interesting was the comparatively small number of employees who reported having personally experienced retaliation. Fewer still was the number of employees who alleged having experienced retaliation from the Board or top management. Hence, it is evident that these fears are largely premised on perception and rumor. [p. 25]

      Since when does one have to have experienced retaliation in order to fear it? Or is the example of retaliation against others not enough to instill that fear? When you see a colleague fall into disfavor with the director or deputy director or Central Librarian, and then see that colleague targeted for abuse, transfer, a bad evaluation – doesn’t that send exactly the message that it’s intended to send? Let’s put it this way: in Iraq, if you were thinking about going against Saddam Hussein, did you have to experience the people-shredder machine personally before you developed a healthy fear of it? Wasn’t word of the shredding of others enough? It may only be a perception, it may be a rumor, and it’s true I haven’t been shredded personally, but, hey, I’ll take perception over experience anyday!

      A lot of commentary [collected by the Workplace Survey] related to the Deputy Director, from whom 45% feared reprisal. Since she is no longer with the Library, those comments are not related here. [Note 39, p. 26]

      Again, how are these comments not relevant? Ms. Garnes was part of the climate of fear and misery that permeates the library, as these comments apparently attest. How was she able to do this? Why was she allowed to do this? That’s what makes such a discussion relevant, because without establishing how she got and abused her power (as in, having the backing of a particular board member), there can be no safeguards put in to keep it from happening again. This is the very heart of the matter at the library – and yet this audit doesn’t find it relevant enough to discuss it.

      While many staff report neutral or good relationships with the Director, it is evident from virtually all levels that the Director has a tendency, at least on a subconscious level, to lead through fear, threats and intimidation. She is not only perceived to target individuals at whim, but has reportedly in some cases openly announced her desire (and ability) to have specific individuals removed. (Note 40: As a result, some staff report working in constant fear. Many spend countless (non-productive) hours documenting everything they say and do so as to mount what they see an inevitable [need for a] defense down the road.)

      Of course they do. That’s why it’s so aggravating to be told that staff needs to just put all this behind them. When you’re in the jungle, you learn to live defensively, and as long as Hooker has the power over people’s jobs that she has, people are going to be on the defensive. In her case, past performance is an excellent predictor of future performance, and anyone who doesn’t document every contact, every directive, every conversation with Hooker, will kick themselves when they’re in the tumbrel on the way to the guillotine.

      Moreover, [Hooker] is consistently described as unpredictably prone to belittling and berating staff...either publicly and/or in other, improper forums (e.g., in front of their peers or subordinates). (Note 41: While it appears the Director talks down to everyone, she needs to be mindful that not everyone takes equal offense. Minority employees may find this conduct to be discriminatory.) Not surprisingly, this management style is reported by many as exacerbating longstanding insecurities, fears of reprisal, and mistrust. It stifles open communication and contributes to lower morale....And it appears to permeate the organization, whether through personal observation or rumor.

      Even if [Hooker’s] intentions are honest and her motivation legitimate (Note 43: It does not appear [to this investigator] that her decisions are motivated by any discriminatory or other unlawful animus, however. Rather, it appears [to this investigator] to be a communication issue. From [employee] accounts, she is particularly challenged in this regard when having to deliver an unpleasant message and when confronted in response to same. In these instances, she appears prone to either abruptly to end the conversation and/or to explode.), this conduct must discontinue immediately. Personnel matters must be held in the strictest confidence and neither shared...nor openly discussed. Performance-related issues should, similarly, be addressed in confidence and in a private forum..... [pp. 26-27]

      To correct these deficiencies (Note 44: In addition, it appears the Director has a tendency to shoot from the hip regarding personnel issues....), at a minimum, we recommend that the Director undergo some management and sensitivity training. Moreover, we recommend that she receive more targeted training on employment law. Finally, we recommend that, to the extent she is the final approving authority, she seek the input of Human Resources....(Note 45: Because the Human Resources Manager reports directly to the Director, certain staff questioned her ability to be as effective and impartial as her office requires. Where we were able to identify specific situations, we have reviewed the facts and not found this fear to be founded.)

      As would be expected in any organization, it is evident that certain members of the Board do not get along with each other and/or do not get along with the Director (and Deputy Director before she retired). The disagreement in this case, however, is patently evident to staff of all races and genders and at all levels of the organization. The evident (and, on occasion, expressed both publicly and through the media) distrust, dislike and hostility contributes to the fear of reprisal, insecurity, low morale and instability of staff. While these issues may not be capable of resolution, we recommend that they not be expressed or otherwise demonstrated to staff or in public forums. (Note 46: Thus, for example, Board members should not bring up issues, heard from staff or the public, for the first time in public settings. Instead, members should discretely [sic] advise appropriate Library personnel of these issues, which may then be directed to appropriate Library personnel for investigation and resolution. The combatants on both sides must eliminate the appearance that each is trying to set the other up.) [pp. 26-27]

    • Lack of Input

      As a general matter, staff...do not feel they have control over their working lives, which increases their levels of insecurity. Staff perceive that their input is not sought as to decisions that impact them. This lack of involvement almost universally leads employees to believe their opinions are not valued and, hence, they are not either valued or respected.

      Because they are the true providers, staff need some say in decisions that affect their service. Moreover, as in many cases staff are responsible for implementation of projects or systems, some staff input should be sought prior to commitment.(Note 47: As noted below, staff perceive that the failure to include them results in decisions that are unrealistic, impossible to implement and/or doomed to fail.) Here too, we would recommend that the Library institute some formal process for employee recognition--whether recognizing an employee of the quarter, circulating memoranda expressing thanks for ideas or assistance on a particular project or the like. [pp. 27-28]

      These are nice sentiments. But they are band-aids. The problem is not with employees. The problem is with the governance of the library. Having a tyrant send out an email quoting something a manager wrote nominating the employee of the quarter (since we do, in fact, have this program) does nothing to assuage employee fears or improve morale. We recognize it as a meaningless device. Give us a mission, give us the tools to do it, free us to do the job we want to do, respect us when we do it, lead by example and not by fear, protect us from board politics – then you won’t have a morale problem so deep that no amount of recognition or cookie-giving can solve it.

    • Instability of Leadership

      Another source of concern expressed by staff is the apparent instability of leadership at the Library. Staff generally believe that this instability has the tendency to affect the quality of the work they perform and services they provide.

      The Director’s management style appears to have the opposite of the expected effect. Rather than instilling confidence in her leadership, it has created the impression among many that she either lacks the ability to lead effectively or lacks the knowledge and/or skills to manage a library. It creates the appearance that she not only fails to respect staff in general, but further does not respect her management team. It appears to have led to a lack of respect for management on many levels.

      Thus, the perception at all levels of staff is that the Director is either unable to refuses to lead, such that the Board effectively micromanages the Library.....Because it is not involved in the daily operations of the Library, the Board (as with personnel matters) largely relies on the Director to advise it as to the feasibility of the initiatives it proposes and the Library’s ability to implement same. Yet, staff perceive that the present Director has no real control over the Library, serves at the pleasure of the Board and, thus, either can not or will not stand up to the Board. One result...is that the Director moves too quickly to act at the Board’s behest. (Note 49: Another consequence is the appearance that nothing is accomplished. The Director makes recommendations; the Board does not trust those recommendations; the Board itself reviews the recommendations; the Board makes its suggestions for improving the recommendations; the Director reviews the Board’s recommendations, etc. Meanwhile months and months and months pass with nothing seemingly accomplished. Again, from the perception of staff, there is no one leading the Library.) Initiatives are, thus, perceived as being approved without giving reasoned thought to either consequences or the ability to implement same. Staff see certain initiatives simply die. When others cannot be implemented for whatever reason, staff perceive that blame...is continually pointed downward. Ultimately, staff have come to the conclusion that no one at the top either accepts blame or is accountable and that, ultimately, there is no one leading the Library.

      From [employee] accounts it is evident that the present model is not working well. Who or whatever it is or may be, the Library needs leadership and needs a single point of leadership. If it is the Director, the Board may well need to delegate the decisions affecting the Library to the Director and then hold the Director accountable for those decisions. If the Director fails, the Board’s recourse is to replace the Director. If [the Library’s leadership] is the Board, the Board must effectively become the Deputy Director and Director. (Note 51: Whether decision-making is delegated or not, there should be experienced library personnel on the Board. Some segment of the Board must be familiar with how libraries function.) It must become familiar with operating a library and it must obtain first-hand knowledge of the facts upon which it will base its decisions. When it makes those decisions, it must be held accountable. Moreover, when decisions are made by whomever leads [the library], they must be given the full support of those charged with communicating and/or implementing them.

      Again, regardless of the leadership, that leadership and all top management levels must cease airing their differences to staff and in public. While differences of opinion and disagreement are healthy, public infighting and threats are not in the best interest of the Library. Threatening litigation and the like serves absolutely no legitimate purpose to the benefit of the Library. The Library has enough negative publicity; it does not need to create its own. At a minimum, this hostility contributes to the fear of reprisal, insecurity, low morale and instability of staff. More importantly, it threatens the stability and integrity of the organization itself. [pp. 29-29]

    • Continuing Allegations of Illegal/Improper Treatment

      From survey commentary it is further clear that a significant source of staff’s distrust and lower morale arises from perceived unfair or biased decisions or actions of other staff members or in certain cases supervision and/or management personnel. On various levels this mistrust has led to a lack of teamwork. It has, hence, contributed to a sense of helplessness. [p. 30]

      • Disciplinary Treatment

        Thirty-two percent of staff responding to the survey (Note 52: ...[the equivalent of] approximately 11% of the employee population...) felt they had personally been subjected to discrimination. (Note 53: Thirty-seven percent report having witnessed [emphasis added] discrimination....).... [p. 30]

        Of those allegedly experiencing discrimination, 43% most recently experienced the treatment within 3 or more years; 22% within the last 2 years and 33% within the past year....Of the entire group alleging discriminatory treatment within the past year, 30% alleged discriminatory treatment from...co-workers; 40% from the public; 65% identified supervisors and/or managers (of these 25% included the entire chain of command), 10% identified the Deputy Director and 15% identified the Director.... [p. 31]

        The increase in reported discriminatory treatment from the two-year to one-year periods is not a positive trend.... (Note 57:...There has been a marked increase in allegedly discriminatory comments [emphasis added]....Fairly significant numbers of comments are attributed to Board members and the Director....) [p. 31]

      • Harassment

        Thirty percent of staff responding to the survey (Note 58:...[the equivalent of] approximately 10% of the employee population....) felt they had personally been subjected to harassment.... [p. 32]

        Of those allegedly experiencing harassment, 29% most recently experienced the treatment within 3 or more years; 27% within the last two years and 41% within the past year.... [p. 32]

        ...Of staff alleging harassment within the past two years, 23% identified co-workers, 14% identified the public, 27% identified supervisors/managers, 23% identified the Deputy Director, 9% identified the Director and 6% identified the Board as being the responsible parties. [p. 32]

        ...Reported harassment by supervisors/managers and the Board has remained static; by co-workers has decreased and by the Director has increased.... [p. 33]

      • Retaliation

        Approximately 21% of staff report having been retaliated against: 44% within the past three years, 28% within the past two years and 28% within the past year.... [p. 33]

        ...It appears that many of the individuals holding supervisory or management positions have never been taught or learned the skills necessary to manage employees. Staff and, indeed, some managers themselves noted the need for management training.... [p. 34]
Miscellaneous Issues

...Many report that the Library lacks a vision and/or consistent mission.... [p. 34]

...Many report feeling slighted by Board members who visit the Library. [p. 34]

...Not an insignificant segment of staff surveyed responded that they were satisfied with their jobs and the Library. Nevertheless, they routinely reported lower morale, due to their inability to serve the public properly. Thus, their morale issues relate to insufficient equipment, lack of materials, the inability to move ordered materials into circulation, or, the predominant complaint, computers that do not consistently work. Since these morale issues are inconsequential by comparison to some others, they should be the simplest to resolve. By improving morale as to this group (Note 62: ...It would seem logical for the Library to focus initially on determining what is broken in the system and fixing that first.), it may be easier to turn around morale on other levels as well. [pp. 34-35]

Summary of Recommendations within Proposed Timetable
[pages 35-37]

Immediately:
  • Initiate regular and open communication with staff concerning issues affecting them.

  • Cease the public airing of grievances among top management, staff and the Board.

  • Begin monitoring employment actions affecting staff, who have pursued complaints or grievances, for fairness and legitimacy.

  • Begin monitoring overtime, complaints (OEEO, grievance, and related) and personnel actions. Continue to monitor same on a monthly basis.
Within 45 days:
  • Collect and correct year end workforce data.

  • Delegate hiring at C40 level and below to Director.

  • Circulate a memorandum reminding all staff that copies of policies and procedures are available for review in the [library's] Human Resources department for those who have questions or need familiarity.

  • Circulate a memorandum reminding and requesting that staff contact security and/or file incident reports with concerns and/or patron issues.

  • Contact appropriate County officials regarding the possibility of implementing a bright line standard relating to threats and the possibility for revision of OEEO policy and procedures.

  • Pursue with the County the implementation of system for continuous tracking of all complaints (grievance, OEEO, etc.) as they occur, by complainant, location, date of filing, decision-maker and/or other accused, the nature of the complaint and to include, upon resolution, a summary of the allegations, and disposition including reasons therefore [sic].

  • Implement a procedure for clearly announcing temporary appointments to staff and for simultaneously seeking approval to bid the vacancy, where the position will be permanently filled.
Within 60 days:
  • Complete revision of employment related forms, employment application..., timecards, interview forms, offer letters and disciplinary documentation.
Within 90 days:
  • Review revised forms with supervisors and manager[s] and clearly instruct all that they are accountable for ensuring their part of [the] process is fair and for notifying Human Resources should the procedures be altered in any manner, whether for legitimate or questionable reasons.

  • Determine whether to delegate hiring and firing authority to Director. If retrained by Board, select committee to be involved in every phase of [the] process.

  • If C40 or higher level hiring only [is] retained by the Board, adopt policy for calling emergency session of the Board or for otherwise obtaining specific hiring approval, should circumstances necessitate same.
Within 120 days:
  • If hiring is retained by the Board, complete training of committee members relating to County policies and procedures and equal employment opportunity; adopt policy for calling emergency session or for otherwise obtaining approvals relating to personnel matters, should circumstances necessitate same.
Within 180 days:
  • Finalize interview questionnaires for AFPL positions to be filled.

  • Complete purge of Library personnel files.

  • Human Resources to review and analyze complaint filings for trends. Conduct review of same every 6 months for 2004 and 2005 and, if trends have not been evident, annually thereafter.

  • Human Resources to review personnel activity for trends and areas of adverse impact. Conduct review of same every 6 months for 2004 and 2005 and, if trends have not been evident, annually thereafter.

  • Completion of management, sensitivity and equal employment opportunity training by the Director.
Within 9 months:
  • Complete revision of evaluations.

  • Human Resources to identify managers and staff needing management training or targeted equal employment opportunity training.

  • Complete assessment of library skills training needed by staff.
Within 1 year:
  • Completion of management and equal employment opportunity training, as identified above.

  • Completion of library skills training for staff identified above.
[End of report]

 With the exception of her urging the Board to extricate itself from the hiring and firing of library employees, the consultant's recommendations for fixing the mess Hooker's made of the library are naive and beside the point. What amounts to "better living through better documentation" won't come anywhere close to getting beyond the impasse Hooker's continuing employment represents for the library.

Our own list of ways to begin fixing what's wrong: We realize this is a long list, but it is a crucial one. If an acting director were at least seen to be starting work on all these areas, it would be a sign of real change that could help staff sign on to the new regime. There may be additonal areas that will need immediate attention once Hooker is gone; our readers' suggestions as to what those areas are would be most welcome.

Meanwhile, short of establishing something like a Peace and Reconciliation committee for the library system, or bringing in the county government's Employee Assistance specialists to conduct venting sessions, there may be no way for the staff to work through the abuse, anger, fear, and mistrust they have experienced for the past five years. But implementation of the steps we've listed will put AFPL on the long road to recovery, and that will be the surest way to healing and to a healthy and vibrant library system.



Home Table of Contents Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us