Open letter to Congress--It's time for weed cleaning in USDA
By Monica Davis
In response to US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's 2009 letter claiming
that it was a "new era at USDA", and before he shoved his boot in his mouth with
the premature firing of Shirley Sherrord over a highly edited clip showing her
"racist ways," Lesa Donnelly, a former USDA Forest Service fire fighter who is
now an activist/mediator, wrote:
I am experiencing déjà vu from your 14 action items. While they sound like a
good start, excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of your plan to bring in a new
era of civil rights at USDA - I've heard it before. And while past "new
approaches" took years to implement, employees continued to lose their
financial, emotional and physical well-being from harassment and retaliation.
The number one reason for this is that many of the employees you will task to
implement your action items are the same employees who worked under Espy,
Glickman, and so on. They were obstacles to positive change in civil rights then
and they will be obstacles to change now. I would like to take this opportunity
to recommend that you pay close attention to the current employees in your OGC
and inspector general offices, civil rights office, human resources office,
mediation cadre, and your directors and regional foresters because these
employees have been the biggest obstacle to making positive changes in civil
rights. I would like to suggest that you seriously reconsider contracting with
attorneys to represent the agency. I've observed they have little vested
interest in settling EEO cases and much interest in receiving thousands of
taxpayer dollars as they extend cases to oblivion. Action item one should be -
Weed Out Obstructionists.
Donnelly, a current Vice-President of the Coalition of Minority Employees, noted
massive problems with USDA and the Forest Service (FS), where substantial
bigotry remains in the "Last Plantation" after more than three decades of
litigation and congressional hearings and legislation.
· In 2007, a woman in Region 4 was brutally assaulted by a male
coworker. The coworker was not held properly accountable. The woman believes she
is at risk for additional violence. FS management has been nonresponsive and she
has been retaliated against in 2008 and 2009 for filing a complaint.
· In 2008, an African American woman in Region 5 was threatened and
intimidated by her white male supervisor who told another man that he wanted to
shoot her with his gun. There was no accountability and the woman, who had been
complaining about harassment from this man for years was retaliated against for
reporting the incident.
· In 2009, there are continual Region 5 incidents of female employees
and employees of color being discriminated against in hiring, promotion and
assignments. This is occurring despite 30 years of litigation for gender and
race discrimination.
· Women in law enforcement and firefighting are harassed and
discriminated against throughout the Forest Service, particularly in Regions 4,
5 and 6.
· In 2008, a Region 6 female firefighter (Helicopter Rappel Manager) was
terminated as a result of whistle blowing on her crew for drinking on the job
and other unsafe practices. Former Under Secretary Mark Rey personally assured
me an OIG investigation was initiated but key witnesses have yet to be
interviewed. As we move into fire season I am concerned that personnel and the
public are still at risk.
· A former female employee in Region 10 (Alaska) who has a serious
disability and physical deformity was harassed, isolated and shunned by her male
supervisor and coworkers. They would make fun of her, humiliate her and treat
her as if she was mentally incompetent due to her physical disability. She quit
due to emotional stress.
· Recently two African American employees in APHIS were publicly
humiliated when they were presented with monkey dolls as awards. (Donnelly
letter)
Donnelly is right: USDA is in need of a major weed cleaning. If Congress does
not clean out the obstructionist weeds in the agency, they will strangle and
impede this Settlement, just like they strangled the last one, and other civil
rights class actions over the last 15 years.
It will be business as usual. USDA has made sure of that, beginning with its
failure to make it its mission to add a statement of future compliance and
efforts to ensure compliance with civil rights laws and federal statutes:
Judge Friedman also declared that he was "surprised and disappoint[ed]" that the
USDA did not want to include in the consent decree a sentence that in the future
the USDA would exert "best efforts to ensure compliance with all applicable
statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination."(CRS report for Congress,
The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers,
2010)
In fact, it has been business as usual for the past 14 years, from the filing of
the Donnely female firefighter class action in 1995 against the US Forest
Service (USDA), to the first Black Farmer Lawsuit in 1997, to the current 2008
Pigford II case.
Lawrence Lucas, Coalition President said, "The blatant discrimination in USDA
and especially the Forest Service is allowing wide-spread abuse of women and
others in California. We thought the Donnelly Settlement would have a positive
impact but the Forest Service refuses to implement it and USDA refuses to hold
managers accountable.
The 14 year of litigation--Pigford and the current Black Farmer Agreement shows
that it will take more than mere funding of a settlement to eliminate the
institutional bigotry and criminal collusion which necessitated the Black Farmer
Settlement, and other class action suits for women farmers, Native American
Farmers and disadvantaged white farmers in the first place.
Litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination
against African- American farmers began in August 1997 with two discrimination
suits brought by black farmers—Pigford v. Glickman, No. 97-1978 (D.D.C. 1997)
and Brewington v. Glickman, No. 98-1693 (D.D.C. 1997)—but its origins go back
much further.1 For many years, black farmers had complained that they were not
receiving fair treatment when they applied to local county committees (which
make the decisions) for farm loans or assistance. These farmers alleged that
they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan
approval than were non-minority farmers. Many black farmers contended that they
were facing foreclosureand financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely
loans and debt restructuring. Moreover, many claimed that the USDA was not
responsive to discrimination complaints. A huge agency backlog of unresolved
complaints began to build after the USDA's Civil Rights Office was closed in
1983. (CRS report for Congress, The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a
Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers, 2010)
Moreover, researchers note that the latest Black Farmer Settlement, "Pigford II"
is "terminal" in the sense that it can not be appealed:
The Pigford II settlement is final and may not be appealed. A provision of the
settlement permitted the claimants to void the settlement should Congress not
make the $1.15 billion appropriation by March 31, 2010. While Congress did not
make this deadline, the settlement is clearly a priority of both the USDA and
the White House, suggesting that the plaintiffs are unlikely to exercise the
right to void the settlement in the near term. Unlike the original Pigford
decision, the Pigford II settlement does not include a suggested settlement
amount for individual claimants, although it does provide for higher payments to
claimants who go through a more rigorous review process. Claimants can seek
fast-track payments of up to $50,000 plus debt relief, or choose a longer
process for damages of up to $250,000. Payments to successful claimants could
begin in the middle of 2011 if the funds are appropriated. (CRS report for
Congress, The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black
Farmers, 2010)
The "late filers" who missed out on Pigford I have the opportunity to fast-track
their claims and receive up to $50,000 and debt relief, or they can choose a
more rigorous process which is longer, and could result in damages of up to
$250,000. Either way, it is a bittersweet pill for farmers who have lost farm,
property and income worth millions.
When the average tractor costs more than $50,000 and land goes for as much as
$2500/acre, or more, many of these farmers have lost years of income, and
property worth as much as $500,000, or more. The black farmer whose land
contains more than $100,000,000 in coal and oil reserves, the cotton farmer who
produced more than $250,000 in cotton annually, or the would be chicken farmer
who was driven out of business, looks with bitterness at the $250,000 ceiling,
but half a loaf is better than none.
While half a loaf is better than none, many of these farmers would like to see
these institutional thieves, abusers and rapists jailed and prosecuted. That
will only happen if Congress grows a spine and cleans the weeds out of USDA.
Civil rights laws, federal law and the Constitution apply to USDA, and
everywhere else.
Many farmers are saying thanks, but they'd like to see some house cleaning
at USDA.
Monica Davis is an author/editor/activist who has written and reported for
print, Internet and radio outlets for more than a decade. Her book, Land,
Legacy, and Lynching: Building the Future for Black America profiles the
atrocity of economic terrorism in the nation's cities and in farm country.
