Passport specialists are hard workers and deeply concerned about the integrity of the United States passport.  Many of them expressed to me their deep concern about having sufficient time to adjudicate each passport application.  They felt that the emphasis was on numbers and not quality, and were concerned that a fraudulent application could slip through in a rush to meet the daily quota.

During my remaining months as Local 1998 president, I went to management on numerous occasions with requests for the union, the exclusive representative of Passport Services employees, to be included in the process of standardization due to the concerns of employees.  Management representatives repeatedly refused us the opportunity to participate, but did say that they would keep us informed of their progress.

Note: Mr. Beardall served as President of NFFE Local 1998 from June 1, 1998 to May 31, 2002.

(Note: President Alex Allen made numerous office visits between June 1, 2002 and November 19, 2003.  In some instances, he would conduct training in one Passport Office while Union representatives from nearby Passport Offices would visit to participate in the training.  He met in person with employees and Union officers from Boston, Charleston, Chicago, Connecticut, Houston, the National Passport Center in Portsmouth NH, New York, Pennsylvania, Seattle, and Washington DC., as well as New Orleans, where he is stationed.)

Note: Mr. Allen served as President of NFFE Local 1998 from June 1, 2002 to November 19, 2003.

327 (non-probationary) adjudicators sign petition asking Passport Services for sufficient time to diligently adjudicate
March 30, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 sent a petition signed by 327 Passport Specialists from 16 offices around the country asking Headquarters to lower the numerical performance requirements ("quotas") "because the current numerical standards do not give us sufficient time to diligently scrutinize the applications and evidence for fraud". The petition was gathered between late January and early March. Only non-probationary employees were invited to sign (probationary employees have few rights to contest terminations, and some expressed concerns about retaliation). Of 383 non-probationary employees asked to sign the petition, 327 chose to sign their names - which is an overwhelming 85% participation rate. Virtually all of the Senior Passport Specialists (GS-11's) signed the petition. The Union asked HQ to respond to this petition within a month's time. The petition marks yet another effort in a long series of attempts by the Union to address this issue with Passport Services Management (see "Hot Topics" link: The Integrity of the U.S. Passport Issuance Process).  Click here to read the petition cover letter, including the wording of the petition: 2007 ADJ PETITION.  

March 30, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 filed a Grievance Between the Parties challenging the system of measuring performance during overtime hours. While GS-9 and GS-11 Passport Specialists must adjudicate, on average, 156 applications every 8 hours normally, on overtime they are required to produce 180 applications. This issue took on greater urgency after HQ ordered all workers nationwide to perform 16 hours of mandatory overtime between March 9th and April 9th, and is ordering workers to again perform another 16 hours of mandatory overtime between April 16th and May 16th. The Union believes that the measuring system is unfair because it does not provide any time for the non-productive tasks (e.g., logging in, locking up, obtaining work and supplies) that is accounted for in a normal day. The Union is also concerned that requiring already-strained workers to produce at an even faster pace will only result in more fatigued workers, more repetitive motion injuries, hurt retention efforts, and further undermine the integrity of the passport issuance process by requiring workers to spend an average of 2 minutes and 10 seconds adjudicating each application rather than the normal 2 minutes and 30 seconds (which is already viewed by employees and the Union as insufficient time - see story about petition above). On March 9th the Union had asked HQ to measure employees the same on OT as they are measured on regular time, but on March 30th HQ replied that it would not. Click here to read the grievance: 2007-03-30 GRIEVANCE.  

March 9, 2007: The Union responds to Management's unprecedented order for nationwide mandatory overtime: 

2. Measure overtime adjudication production fairly - the same way as adjudication on normal workdays.  

7. Quality concerns: whenever we get the “big push” to get more numbers produced, there is the ever-present concern that we may be sacrificing quality at the expense of quantity.  Some reminder(s) to all staff to keep the focus on doing a good job (catching errors, adjudicating correctly, preventing passport fraud) would be helpful.  In a November 24, 2006 email (titled “Emphasizing quality/anti-fraud efforts: other options to consider besides lowering the #'s”) NFFE Local 1998 addressed suggestions and solutions for boosting quality and anti-fraud efforts.  Now that the push for quantity has reached an unprecedented level, the Union would appreciate a response to those ideas for emphasizing quality and would like to initiate a dialogue on these issues.  

February 1, 2007: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) began a series of visits to various Passport Services offices.  The GAO is looking into a number of issues relating to passport document and process integrity, partially following-up on its 2005 report on this subject (see "Hot Topics" link: The Integrity of the Passport Issuance Process).  

November 24, 2006: The Union submitted a list of suggestions to HQ for ways, other than lowering the numerical quota, that quality and fraud detection could be emphasized. These include awards for anti-fraud work, accounting methods, anti-fraud training and meetings, and changes in tools and resources. 

November 24, 2006: The Union responded to Management's October 2nd denial of the Union's request that Passport Specialists be given more time so that they can diligently adjudicate passport applications and detect passport fraud. The Union cited a number of facts and statistics that lead us to believe that frauds can and have been issued in error as a result of requirements that employee work too quickly. The Union asked that HQ reconsider the decision to not provide more time. 

October 2, 2006: Passport Services Management rejected the Union's September 8th request to lower the numerical standard for passport adjudication.  The Union had asked Management to lower the quota so that workers would be able to do a better job of detecting and preventing passport fraud, and making fewer errors.  

September 8, 2006: Union President Colin Walle emailed HQ and once again formally asked that workers involved in the adjudication of passport application be given enough time to do the job right.  He explained that the current quotas are such that Management should have no confidence that attempts to fraudulently obtain passports will normally be successfully prevented.  The overwhelming majority of passport specialists responding to the Union's surveys (see earlier stories) stated that more time is needed.  

February 17, 2006: Passport Services HQ formally rejected the Union's December 2005 and January 2006 requests to establish a more reasonable adjudication performance standard and more fair method of measuring the quotas.  

January 30, 2006: The Union compiled some of the results of the first comprehensive survey of bargaining unit employees (conducted between January 9 - 13, 2006) and informed Management that on the issue of the adjudication performance standards, the Passport Specialists spoke loudly and clearly, with the overwhelming majority agreeing with the following statement: "The numerical performance standards do NOT provide me with sufficient time to diligently adjudicate passport applications (without taking shortcuts) and carefully scrutinize the evidence/application/tools for fraud indicators.”  Out of the 368 employees who indicated a firm response, 248 said they “Strongly Agreed” and 98 said they “Agreed” with that statement – an overwhelming 94% of Passport Specialists (there were 58 employees - mostly new hires - who indicated they were "Neutral", left the question blank, or wrote "N/A", and 23 employees combined who “Disagreed” or “Strongly Disagreed”). In addition, 97% of employees indicating a response said that the focus in adjudication is on quantity instead of quality, employees listed the "integrity of the passport issuance process" as their # 1 issue out of 10 options, and out of 228 written comments that were received 112 focused on the numerical adjudication standards (111 - 99% - took the time to argue that they should be lowered and that we need to focus more on quality).  Almost every Passport Specialist who was present during the week of the survey participated. 

January 24, 2006: Contract negotiations begin.  The Union submits a number of proposals intended to enhance the integrity of the passport issuance process.  

December 2, 2005: Union President Colin Walle submitted a formal request to the Passport Services Managing Director asking that more time be provided to Passport Specialists for diligent adjudication of passport applications. The Union requested that Management lower the numerical production standards expected of approximately 500 Passport Specialists nationwide. Employees have repeatedly expressed concerns about this issue (see "Hot Topics" link above - The Integrity of the U.S. Passport Issuance Process, and see July 15th entry below). Numerous changes throughout 2005 (including the new 2-page application, incorporating cashiering into the adjudication/processing system, and huge numbers of errors from a new data entry system) have made the already unreasonable 2004 adjudication standards even more unreasonable.  

August 4, 2005: OIG Criticizes Elimination of Assistant Fraud Program Manager Position. The Union's May 2005 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to have portions of the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) November 2004 review of passport fraud efforts was partially approved, focusing on the decision to eliminate the Assistant Fraud Program Manager (AFPM) position. The released portions reveal that "DS agents working with passport fraud, CA/FPP officers, and all passport agency FPMs" were not "consulted prior to the announcement of the decision to abolish the assistant FPM position in late 2003", adding that "[a]ll of the stakeholders claimed they would have opposed this personnel policy had they been consulted". The report mentioned the fact that the "union had expressed concerns about the effect that the elimination of this position would have on detection of passport fraud". As a result of the elimination of the AFPM's, "[s]everal of the FPMs said they are now spending more time training staff, are involved in a never-ending training mode, and have less time to devote to operational work, case development, and analysis". The OIG formally recommended that the AFPM positions be reestablished. Click here to read more.

July 18, 2005: Union asks Management to Work Together on Passport Integrity Issue. Union President Walle emailed a memo to Passport Services HQ formally asking Management to work together with the Union to enhance the integrity of the passport issuance process, including establishing reasonable adjudication performance standards. Walle cited the results of the survey of passport specialists and also noted the fact that the 2-page application and other changes have made it even more difficult to achieve the quotas. No response has been received as of August 15, 2005.

July 15, 2005: Survey by Union Confirms Concerns About the Integrity of the Passport Issuance Process. The results of the Union's June 27th - July 8th survey of passport specialists views on passport integrity and performance standards issues were released. The survey reached approximately 336 of the 489 passport specialists, and 142 employees responded. The total number of responses and the percentage of employees participating (42%) is the highest of any survey since at least 1998. The results of the survey:

July 1, 2005: A Special Edition of Local 1998 News was published - the 9th edition issued since 1998. The July edition focuses solely on the subject of the integrity of the passport issuance process. Click here for newsletter.

June 29, 2005: GAO Issues Critical Report: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Vulnerabilities in the passport process.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report today titled "Improvements Needed to Strengthen U.S. Passport Fraud Detection Efforts" which criticized the Department of State's efforts to detect and prevent passport fraud. The U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing today titled "Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Passport System Can Be Exploited by Criminals and Terrorists", which addressed the GAO's report on this issue. Four NFFE Local 1998 Union representatives attended the hearing along with a NFFE National official and an IAMAW official. The GAO made six recommendations:
1) consider way to improve interagency information sharing; 
2) establish a centralized and up-to-date fraud prevention library; 
3) consider augmenting fraud prevention staffing; 
4) assess the extent to which interoffice workload transfers may hinder fraud prevention; 
5) strengthen fraud prevention training; and 
6) strengthen fraud prevention oversight.

The report was also critical of the development of the adjudication performance standards and stated that the changes did put more emphasis on quantity rather than quality, but concluded that since the work processes kept changing during the time period studied, they were unable to draw firm conclusions on the issue at this time. All of these issues were brought to the attention of Congress and the GAO by NFFE Local 1998 and the employees that we represent as part of "Plan B", with the aid of NFFE, the IAMAW, other NFFE and IAMAW locals, and our friends and families. To read the full GAO report, click here. To read the prepared testimony of the hearing witnesses, click here.

June 29, 2005: New York Times Front Page Story: Passport Issuance Process Vulnerabilities & GAO Report.  The New York Times had a front page story on the GAO report and problems with the integrity of the passport issuance process. The Times reported that "Insufficient oversight by the State Department allows criminals, illegal immigrants and suspected terrorists to fraudulently obtain a United States passport far too easily, according to a report on the test by the Government Accountability Office to be released Wednesday", which they obtained from "an official critical of the State Department who had access to it in advance". The article stated that "the department placed too much emphasis on rapidly processing passport applications", according to former Diplomatic Security Special Agent in Charge Mike Johnson. Numerous other media outlets also reported this story. Click here for links to additional news stories on passport integrity.

June 28, 2005: NBC Nightly News Report: Passport Applications Not Checked Against Fugitive/Terrorist Watchlists.  NBC Nightly News reported on the GAO investigation and the U.S. Senate Committee hearing scheduled for June 29, 2005. The report focused on the fact that 37 of 67 persons that are wanted were not listed in the Department of State's lookout list, so that if they applied in their true identities they would receive a passport. In fact, one fugitive - James Eberhart (accused of defrauding people in excess of $11 million) - was issued a passport. Another fugitive listed on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List - James Webb (wanted for murdering a police chief in 1980) - was also not listed in the database. The report quoted Senator Susan Collins as stating that, "The American people have a right to be angry about this .... At this stage we should not still be having these problems. They are inexcusable." To read an online version of this story, click here.

June 24, 2005: Congress Schedules Hearing on Passport Integrity Concern: GAO Report to be Released.  The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing on June 29th at 9:30 AM titled "Vulnerability in the U.S. Passport System Can Be Exploited by Criminals and Terrorists". The hearing will cover the GAO's report on this topic. Between December 2003 and March 2004 the Union and the employees contacted Congress to express their concerns about problems affecting the integrity of the passport issuance process. This hearing is a product of those efforts. Click here for more information

June 22, 2005: News Report: Passport Applications to be Checked Against Terrorist/Fugitive Watch Lists.  National news media reported that Passport Services DAS Frank Moss testified before Congress on a soon-to-be-implemented plan to check "everyone who applies for a U.S. passport against a list of suspected terrorists" as well as those who are "subject to a federal felony arrest warrant". Click on this link to the Washington Times article. The Union conveyed concerns to HQ Management at the December 2003 National Union-Management Council meeting, specifically concerns that applications were not linked to terrorist watch lists. Managers at some regional offices were already aware of this problem. HQ replied that they would pass on our concerns. Subsequently, as part of the "Plan B" effort to communicate passport integrity concerns to Congress, some employees reported to Congress that this problem had still not been addressed. In response, HQ issued a memo (click here for memo). The Union believes that this new plan to check passport applications against terrorist watch lists/fugitive databases will greatly enhance the integrity of the passport issuance process. 

May 10, 2005: The Union filed a Step 2 Formal Grievance challenging the year-end appraisal given to a GS-11 Senior Passport Specialist. That employee had been rated "Outstanding" overall for the past 10 years, and had been rated "Outstanding" overall in an interim evaluation given on October 27, 2004, yet that rating was reduced to "Excellent" overall for the year-end rating. The grievance challenges the overemphasis on the quantity of the employee's work at the expense of ignoring her accomplishments in the quality aspects of the job.

April 26, 2005: Deadline for submitting claim forms for “suffered and permitted overtime” in connection with the Union’s April 20, 2004 grievance challenging the FLSA status of bargaining unit employees. Over 300 bargaining unit employees submit claims forms for “suffered and permitted overtime”, which is defined as working outside of one’s normal schedule, with the knowledge of Management. The Union had strenuously argued on a number of occasions that the adjudication performance standards virtually required employees to work through breaks or lunch in order to achieve the quota, and that this was one of the “shortcuts” employed by Passport Specialists in order to meet supervisor’s expectations.

April 12, 2005: The Union files a Formal Step 1 Grievance after Management rejected the Union's March 16, 2005 Informal Grievance.

April 8, 2005: HQ Management replies to the Union’s March 30, 2005 Memo, stating that they appreciate the Union’s “views and the opinions of all our front-line employees whom you represent”. Management explains that the goal of the new applications “was to make it more legible, provide additional space for the specialist to record documentation, and comply with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software requirements”. Management states that “the union will receive notification when CA/PPT begins preparation for the next version of the application” and that they will “ensure that, before the deadline date and the final version of the application is decided, the union will have an opportunity to submit comments and suggestions.” Management “will consider all appropriate actions”, so if “it is apparent that additional accommodations are necessary or the employees need a ‘grace period’ these options will be explored”.

March 30, 2005: Union President Walle emails HQ with a Memo regarding the new 2-page passport applications. Walle reports that he has “heard from a number of employees, in various positions, in most of the offices, that the new 2-page passport applications are more cumbersome and take more time to work with than the old 1-page applications. There are also a number of complaints about how the forms are designed.” He states that the “new application forms should have formally been shared with the Union before the ‘point of no return’ when the forms were approved and sent to the printing presses”. Walle has been “advised that this is a potential ULP, but we are not going to be filing anything”, instead, “We should focus on looking forward and making the next version better….” The Union has three formal requests: 1) take employees comments/input into account in the next version of the forms, 2) institute a “grace period” for all employees to meet performance standards working with the new forms, and 3) reexamine the performance standards as a result of the effects of the new forms on the employees’ abilities to meet them. One final suggestion: use four or five of the regional Union/Management Councils, with employees and supervisors working together, as development committees to craft the next version of the forms.

March 18, 2005: The Union sends an informal survey via email to employees regarding their reaction to the new 2-page passport applications. Employees unanimously respond that the new forms take longer to work with. Some employee comments: “Two page applications take longer”; “ask Washington (managers) if they would give us a grace period of adjudication numbers on the counter as well as the desk”; “The info [on the application] does not match the [computer] screen order which makes it difficult to review”; the info “on the DS-11 & DS-82 are in different locations’; “It's quite cumbersome to continually flip pages looking for information”; applications are coming in with “the photo [stapled] into the two pages so the staples have to be removed and the photo has to be re-stapled”; we “particularly [need] ... a grace period to get adjusted to the new forms”; “The orange/purple shading hides adjudication markings in some areas”; “It's time consuming-trying to review two pages and still make sure that this is the true person makes it very difficult”; “There is not enough room at the counter to adjudicate the new forms, especially when we have more than one applicant”; “We are NEVER included in the implementation of anything … If they included a panel of ADJUDICATORS … then we could get the forms to benefit both the applicants and the adjudicators”; “No one likes these forms!!!”; “THE COLOR IS BLINDING”; they have “drastically altered the application, [but] have they taken in to account the time it will take to adjudicate?, 2 pages, twice as long to adjudicate”.

March 16, 2005: The Union files an Informal Grievance after a Senior Passport Specialist receives an Excellent overall rating and a Fully Successful rating in Element 2 for the 2004 appraisal. The employee, hired in 1995, had received Outstanding ratings every year prior to 2004. The employee had been rated Outstanding in every sup-part of Element 2 except for the sub-part that set the production quota of 24 per hour where the employee was rated only Fully Successful. Despite greatly exceeding work expectations in every other sub-part of Element 2, the Fully Successful performance in that sup-part dictated the rating for the entire element, and that in turn caused the overall rating to fall from Outstanding down to Excellent. Management denied the grievance.

March 7, 2005: The new 2-page DS-11 and DS-82 passport applications are distributed to the public. Union President Walle emails the Union reps in each office and asks them to forward to him the input and reaction they receive regarding the new applications.

February 8, 2005: The Annual National Union/Management Council Meeting is held in Washington, DC. Though it is not on the agenda, Management officials express their feelings regarding the Union and the employees contacting Congress regarding concerns with the integrity of the passport issuance process. These officials state that they would have preferred that the Union not contact Congress, and work with Management instead, and they expressed anger at the wording of some of the letters sent to Congress. The Union responded by stating that great efforts were made for more than two years to work with Management on this serious issue, but that these efforts were repeatedly rebuffed, and that contacting Congress was the very last resort. The Union and the employees did not feel that they could simply drop the subject once the traditional efforts (partnership, negotiations, grievances, information request, etc.) had been rebuffed by Management, and that there was a moral imperative to take action. The Union also reminded the Management officials that they had previously complained about some of the wording of the sample letters on the Union’s website, but had been invited verbally and via email, to point out what they disagreed with, and that the Union would have reviewed these concerns, but no response was ever received to that invitation in December 2003. At the meeting, the Union was provided for the first time with a preview of the new 2-page passport applications. Management officials expressed that it had been their intent to share this with the Union previously, but that there had been an oversight, and now it was too late to make any changes before the applications were printed for the public.

February 2005: An experienced Passport Specialist who has consistently received high ratings in the past wrote a memo to his supervisor explaining why he chose Option C. This Adjudicator explained that the only part of his elements with which he disagreed was the requirement to adjudicate a minimum of 24 applications per hour. He stated that this number was "too high", and that while he was able to achieve this quota, there was a cost to doing so. For example, he had to forego lunch hours and work through the time allotted each day to manage email and other administrative tasks. This employee believed that "quality and accuracy" should be more important than to "crank out the best 'desk work' numbers that I possibly can".

December 9, 2004: Passport Services Managing Director Ann Barrett replies to the Union’s November 30, 2004 Memo, stating that Management took the step to eliminate the AFPM in order to raise fraud awareness.  She added that Management would continue to evaluate the program.   

November 30, 2004: Union President Walle responds to the November 16, 2004 reply from Assistant Secretary of State Harty.  Walle clarifies that in all ten of the offices that had AFPM’s, other Passport Specialists were rotating through the FPM office for a number of years, so that there has been a misconception that these employees were not gaining any experience in the FPM office.  The AFPM position coexisted with Passport Specialists rotating through the FPM office, and having an AFPM furthered that goal by providing continuity of training during the absence of the FPM (vacation, sick leave, training, lunch, breaks, etc.).  He also points out that the Assistant Secretary was provided with erroneous information, and that the statistics she referred to actually revealed a worsening, rather than an improving, situation.   

November 16, 2004: Assistant Secretary of State Harty replies to the Union’s November 8, 2004 Memo.  The reply claims that the elimination of the AFPM position has led to better development of other Passport Specialists, who will now have the opportunity to rotate through the AFPM position, and has help improve fraud detection.  

November 10, 2004: Management changes a checklist related to the integrity of the passport issuance process, without employee or Union input, and mandates that it be used nationwide.   

November 8, 2004: Union President Walle sends an email Memo to Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty asking her to reconsider the decision to abolish the Assistant Fraud Program Manager position.  Walle cites support for the recreation of the AFPM position from 1) Management officials past and present, 2) Fraud Program Managers, 3) comments from former Assistant Secretary of State Mary Ryan, 4) numerous Management Assessment and Internal Controls Review reports, 5) bargaining unit employees, 6) the Union, and 7) other DOS Bureaus and other Government Agencies.  Walle states, “Our Union and our employees strongly feel that creating a new GS-11/12 AFPM position in all sixteen Passport Agencies (and more than one in the larger offices), and allowing all eligible employees to apply, would greatly strengthen the Fraud Prevention Program at the Passport Agencies, and this would in turn contribute to enhancing the integrity of the passport issuance process.  The 12 employees who had faithfully served as AFPM’s in 10 different Passport Agencies made numerous contributions to anti-fraud efforts.  They provided needed continuity and back-up to the Fraud Prevention Managers, ably and reliably filled in during absences, gave expert training both to Passport Specialists and Acceptance Agents, served as trusted and knowledgeable liaisons with other entities (<OMITTED>), offered valuable language/translation resources, created and maintained award-winning fraud prevention resources and training guides, and even created a <OMITTED>.” 

September 2, 2004: HQ Management emails the Union with copies of the revised Performance Standards for 2004, to be applied retroactively to the beginning of the year.  The quota at the public counter is lowered to 7 per hour from 9 per hour for GS-9 and 11 Passport Specialists.  Management’s April 2003 study showed that employees were averaging 6 per hour, so this change brought the standard closer to a reasonable number.  Management also lowered the DS-19 quota at the Charleston Passport Center, the production requirements for all grades at the Special Issuance Agency, and the DS-11 quota at the National Passport Center.  The Union had previously informed HQ in December 2003 that the DS-19 quota was too high, and that the Charleston supervisors had agreed with that assessment.  The reason for the change at the National Passport Center was due to the change in work processes: since they had been adjudicating the same way in 2004 as the regional passport offices (without contractors performing “document review”), then their standards were adjusted to be identical to those offices. 

August - September 2004: The Government Accountability Office (GAO - formerly "General Accounting Office") continues their investigation into the Department of State's efforts to combat passport fraud by visiting the New York Passport Agency, the Miami Passport Agency, the Charleston Passport Center, and the New Orleans Passport Agency.

August 17, 2004: The New York Passport Agency Union VP Two-Feathers Neal emails Union President Walle with a description of the numerous negative effects that the new computer/cashier processes are having on Passport Specialists both at the desk and at the public counter.   

August 12, 2004: Union President Walle emails HQ to ask about “ a new DS-11 [passport application] … being created that would be two-pages long….  Are you planning on getting reactions or ideas on this before it is issued?”  He adds that, “as we have previously discussed, there was a lot of dissatisfaction when the current DS-11 was released….  A number of employees have expressed concerns about how a 2-page DS-11 would affect how they do their jobs.”  The Union’s concern is “with the process, and we believe that the employees across whose desks 150 - 400 of these forms pass every day would be good resources to utilize in creating any new forms.  At the least, they would be good people to ‘bounce’ any proposed DS-11 revisions by before millions of forms are printed or downloaded.”  Walle specially asks that “employees be brought into this process and that any proposed DS-11 be shared with employees (specialists, processors, and typists) prior to going to the printer for their reaction.  Another idea would be to treat the form like the draft Passport Instructions, which are being shared with the Union prior to being completed.”  The Management response received that same simply states, “Thank you for your comments”. 

July 20, 2004: NFFE Local 1998 President Walle receives an undated memo from Passport Services Management: Click here for Memo. The memo states that Management was informed by Congressional staff members that 6 of the 10 fugitives on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List were not in the computer database against which passport applications are checked. Management asserts that testing the database to check on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List and releasing the results to Congress was a violation of the Privacy Act, and that employees are to "immediately cease" running these tests.  Note: the Union disagrees with Management's assertion that the Privacy Act was violated.

July 13, 2004: Passport Services Management contacts Union President Walle and informs him that they have conducted the 6-month review of the adjudication performance standards and have decided to make a beneficial change.  The reason for the change was that Management found that 88 of the approximately 420 Passport Specialists nationwide were not meeting the new quotas.  Though the hourly standard will remain the same, the time against which employees are measured is being changed, retroactive to the beginning of the year.  For example, a GS-11 Passport Specialist at a regional agency who works an 8 hour day will now be measured for 6.5 hours of work instead of 7.0 hours.  So rather than having to adjudicate 168 applications in a day, on average, the employee will now need to adjudicate 156 applications.  Measuring employees for 6.5 hours on the 8 hour day was the Proposal # 14 in the October 24, 2003 Union Request to Negotiate.  Performing a 6-month review was something that Management had told us they would do and which we formally incorporated into Proposal # 9.  Walle emails the other Union representatives and tells them that “this is definitely a step in the right direction.  Based on comments that I have received from numerous specialists, I do not believe that even those who were meeting the quota were happy about the shortcuts they had to take to get there, so unfortunately this does not resolve all of our problems.  We still have the same problems with their methodology for determining the standards that we expressed to them last year, namely that they are basing what the number should be on how employees are actually performing – and if employees have to take shortcuts and are making mistakes to get that number, then a standard based on that number means that those shortcuts and mistakes would continue to be made.”

June 24, 2003: At the suggestion of Union officers, who received the idea from the Union rep at the Miami Passport Agency, the Seattle Passport Agency adopts an award program to reward employees in the area of passport fraud detection. 

June 4, 2004: The General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office - GAO) and the Department of State's Office of Inspector General are provided with a list of ten concerns that employees have with the Department's efforts to combat passport fraud.  The Passport Specialist performance standards are only part of one of the ten concerns.  The other concerns include insufficient training, resources, focus, and staffing.  They also include the elimination of the Assistant Fraud Program Manager position and gross disparities in fraud detection rates from one office to another (comparing hundreds of thousands of applications from the same region).  Due to the nature of some of these issues a copy of this document is not being linked here.

June 2004: The General Accounting Office (GAO) sends three investigators to the Seattle Passport Agency and the Los Angeles Passport Agency to interview Management officials, employees, and Union officers. 

May 14, 2004: The Department of State responds to the April 27, 2004 letter from Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA).
Click here for: Letter from State Department

May 2004: The General Accounting Office (GAO) is asked by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to investigate the concerns about the passport integrity process raised by NFFE Local 1998.  The GAO begins by interviewing Management officials at Passport Services Headquarters and at the Washington, DC, Passport Agency. 

April 23, 2004: Management's Passport Services Weekly Update includes this entry: "Union's Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against Passport Services:  On April 7, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) dismissed two Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges filed by the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1998 (the Union).  The Union filed the ULPs, after the January 1 implementation of the new performance standards for Passport Specialists, alleging that Passport Services violated the contract by failing to negotiate before implementing the new elements and by failing to provide the Union with additional information on the new elements.   The FLRA determined that Passport Services had no statutory obligation to bargain with the Union over a change in working conditions because the parties' collective bargaining agreement addresses the matter in dispute.  Article 18 of the contract between Passport Services and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1998, expressly covers the development and implementation of new performance elements; therefore, there was no violation.  Since there was no violation, the FLRA saw the second ULP, which was a request for additional information in connecting with negotiations, as unnecessary. The Union has until May 10, to appeal."
Click here for: FLRA Ruling

April 8, 2004: The Union filed a grievance over the elimination of the Assistant Fraud Program Manager and Assistant Customer Service Manager positions in response to Management's refusal to bargain with the Union over this issue.
AFPM/ACSM Grievance

March 9, 2004: Management responds to Union's January 30, 2004 regard violations of the Contract.  All requested relief is denied.
Click here for: Management's Response

March 4, 2004: The Department of State responds to the February 6, 2004 letter from Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Click here for: Letter from State Department

February 27, 2004: The Department of State responds a letter from Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA).
Click here for: Letter from State Department

February 6, 2004: Congressman Henry Waxman (CA) and Congressman Tom Lantos (CA) write to Secretary of State Colin Powell with concerns about the integrity of the passport issuance process and ask for information used to develop the adjudication elements and standards. Congressman Waxman is the Ranking Minority Member on the House Committee on Government Reform and Congressman Lantos is the Ranking Minority Member on the House Committee on International Relations.
Click here for: Letter to Secretary Powell

February 5, 2004: Interim Union President Walle meets with staff member at Congressman Jay Inslee’s office to express the Union’s concerns about the integrity of the passport issuance process. 

February 2004: Local 1998's efforts to maintain the integrity of the passport issuance system were highlighted in the February Federal Employee, newsletter for the National Federation of Federal Employees.  A one page article chronicles the concerns expressed by many passport specialists about the issuance process and the extensive effort made by Local 1998 to reverse recent actions by Passport Services management officials.
Click here for: February Federal Employee (see page 6)

January 30, 2004: The Union files a Grievance Between the Parties in response to contract violations committed by Management.
Click here for: January 30th Grievance

January 27, 2004: The Union files two Unfair Labor Practices charges against Management.  The first charge is for violations of 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) for failing to provide necessary information in response to the Union’s September 12, 2003 Information Request.  The second charge is for violation of 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1), (5), (7), and (8) for implementing the 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements prior to the completion of negotiations, so that no meaningful negotiations took place. 

January 22, 2004: IAMAW President Tom Buffenbarger blasts Passport management over the new quotas established for passport examiners. President Buffenbarger said, "Our national security is at stake and Passport Office Management is insisting that employees serve up US passports faster than a happy meal at McDonalds. If management won't listen, Congress should
step in to ensure terrorists and criminals don't get US passports."
Click here for: IAMAW Statement

January 22, 2004: Management replies to the Union's January 13th inquiry, refusing to provide any additional response.
Passport Management Formal Response to Union's October 24, 2003 Memo

January 13, 2004: Interim Local 1998 President Walle inquires about Management's January 9th response to the Union's October 24th proposals.
Click here for: President Walle's Inquiry

January 12, 2004: Passport Specialists are provided with their Performance Appraisal Plans for 2004. Many choose to select "Option C", indicating that they do not agree with the plan.

January 12, 2004: NFFE National President Rick Browns writes to approximately 60 Congressional representatives about the passport integrity concern. President Brown states, "These employees ... simply want to be allowed enough time to perform their mission with the care and diligence it deserves."
Click here for: President Brown's Letter

January 12, 2004: NFFE National issues Press Release regarding passport integrity concern.
Click here for: NFFE Press Release

January 9, 2004: NFFE News, published by NFFE National, includes an article on the passport integrity concern.
Click here for: NFFE News

January 9, 2004: Management formally responds to the Union's October 24, 2003 proposals.
Click here for: PPT Management Formal Response to Union's October 24, 2003 Memo

January 2, 2004: The new adjudication standards/elements are implemented.

December 2003, January 2004: Passport Specialists and friends write, email, and visit Congressional Representatives to ask for their assistance.
Click here for: Sample Letters

December 18, 2003: During a regular monthly conference call with Passport Services Management officials, Interim President Walle is told that the HQ officials are very angry at the Union for contacting Congress.  Walle is told that this will negatively impact how Management deals with the Union in the future, including upcoming contract negotiations - including what Management will and will not be amenable to including in the contract.  The Management officials express outrage over the contents of some of the sample letters on the Union website for contacting Congress with concerns over the integrity of the passport issuance process.  Interim President Walle issues an invitation to Management to provide him with a list of criticisms and inaccuracies in the letters or other portions of the website.  He commits to giving the list a careful and open-minded review, and promises to remove anything that is inaccurate or inappropriate.  Later that day, Walle emails the Management official and reiterates his offer: "If there's something on the website that is unfair or inaccurate or offensive, let me know and - obviously we have different perspectives - I will strive to be open- and fair-minded, and if I agree that there's a problem, I will remove or change any of those items."  Note: As of July 29, 2004, Management has yet to provide any list to the Union.  In his email, Interim President Walle also adds: "I feel extremely uncomfortable - even physically and digestively uncomfortable - going to Congress on this, and when I try to put myself in your shoes I understand your anger.  If you could put yourself in my shoes, see what I've seen, and heard and made the efforts that I - that we - have made, you would see this is a matter of principle and personal responsibility - we can't afford to do nothing.  I obviously don't want to wreck our relationship with Management or end up at Homeland Security.  But this is one of those 'sleep at night' and 'look myself in the mirror' issues - we need to do what we can to give each application the scrutiny it deserves.  If we fail, then at least we tried.  Again, we aren't complaining to Congress about every little thing, like AWOL, work schedules, awards, bus passes, etc.  We are only taking this step because we feel that we have exhausted all of our other efforts, and some other ideas (that would result in 100 people getting PIP's) are illegal."

December 11, 2003: Passport Services Management briefs the staff of the U.S. Senate Government Affairs Committee in response to the concerns brought to that committee by the Union.

December 8, 2003: Passport Specialist start to receive their 2004 Elements & Standards.

December 5, 2003: Management issues Memo including Standardized Performance Elements for Passport Specialists.  “The goal has been to develop fair and reasonable elements and responsibilities that reflect the current complexity of the passport specialist position …. We asked for and received many excellent suggestions and comments on this project from passport agency management, supervisory personnel and Passport Specialists throughout the project.”

December 1-2, 2003: Annual Union-Management Council meeting in Washington, DC. The Union requests again its position that the employees do not have enough time to do their jobs, and asks if Management is planning on working with the Union and considering allowing more time per application. Management unequivocally replies that they will not. The Elements and Standards shared with the Union on August 6, 2003 will remain unchanged.

(November 20, 2003: Colin Walle becomes Interim Union President.)

November 13, 2003: Secretary-Treasurer Walle answers Management’s questions: “You do understand me correctly - basically I was a bit taken aback that the idea was out there that the Union had missed its chance to have input/make proposals into the numerical standards. I thought we were on the same page - you were going to look at the numbers, get that to us, and then we'd respond - the study we'd proposed last year wasn't rejected by you at the time so much as tabled 'til the future (which is now). The email … was intended to just clarify that we felt we weren't done with this process on August 6th, and that our October 24th proposals/input should be considered, as well as employee input (in accordance with your original plan). We would still like to do the study, but are considering some alternatives. I'm more interested in a response to the October 24th proposals than the November 10th email below - the email below is just a way of saying that the October 24th proposals are relevant, should be considered, and were not submitted ‘late’, as well as correcting the record for anyone else who has joined in on this issue after some of the events listed.”

November 13, 2003: Management responds: “Colin, we are working on a response to your Oct. 24 e-mail. That too, is quite lengthy, so it is taking us some time…. I don't think we will have a response to you before the end of next week. If I understand you correctly, you want us to take into consideration the information you are providing here before we respond to the Oct. 24 e-mail. We will do that, although it may add a bit of time to our response time.” (Note: Management does not respond to the Union’s October 24th proposals until January 9, 2004)

November 10, 2003: Secretary-Treasurer Walle emails DAS Frank Moss and other DC Management officials with a correction to misstatements made in Management’s October 14th denial of the Union’s September 16th Grievance Between the Parties.
Walle responds to this false statement in that October 14th response: "Regarding the alleged violation of Article 18, Section 4, regarding employee participation in establishing the standards, as well as the alleged violation of Article 4, Section 6, regarding Union participation, headquarters tried to engage NFFE Local 1998 in the process through the local partnerships. However, we understand that local participation was discouraged by NFFE from the national level (see attachment)." Walle cites examples of input from New York, Seattle, and Miami as evidence that local offices did participate. Walle then lists three examples of Management stating in 2002 that Management did not want to consider the numerical standards at the time. He summarizes: “The Union expressed in May 2002 (and on numerous occasions since then) that it wanted to develop its input into the numerical portion of the standards by means of a study. Management did not want to address the numerical standards with the Union at any time prior to 8-6-03. When the Union then re-proposed the study, Management rejected it, partly on the grounds that the Union had already had a chance to give its input. Clearly this is contradictory and illogical. Management can't have it both ways. Management expressed that it wasn't interested in working on the numbers with the Union before, but is now saying that the Union should have given its input into this back when Management wasn't interested. Management is rejecting the Union's study now partly on the basis that it should have been done previously, yet it had previously rejected it. In conclusion, the numerical standards issue - which is intrinsically related to the quality/fraud prevention/integrity of the process drum that we have been banging on for years - was not addressed by Management and presented to the Union until August 6, 2003.”

November 5, 2003: Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Frank Moss visit the Seattle Passport Agency. S/T Walle asks to meet with DAS Moss and Assistant Secretary of State Harty to ask them one question: will Management work with the Union on the numerical standards, or not? The visiting Management officials do not have time to meet with Walle, so he hands DAS Moss two copies of an email (one copy for DAS Moss and the other for Assistant Secretary Harty). The email asks if Management has decided whether or not to work with the Union on the numerical performance standards. No response to this query is received until December 2, 2003.

October 31, 2003: Secretary-Treasurer Walle emails Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Frank Moss: “I understand that both of you may be visiting the Seattle Passport Agency on November 5th.  I will be assuming the duties of Union President in mid-November, as current President Alex Allen will be stepping down since he's been selected for a supervisory position, but I would like to take the opportunity to talk to both of you when you visit if you are available.  One issue that I would like to discuss with you is the direction of the ongoing development of the 2004 adjudication performance standards/elements, and specifically the Union's concerns over maintaining/enhancing the integrity of the passport issuance process.”

October 24, 2003: The Union submits its proposals in response to Management’s formal notice of the change in elements/standards. The Union proposes more time for each application, but continues to assert that an objective study would be the best way to determine a reasonable number. The Union’s introductory sentence emphasizes that its goal is to help “maintain and enhance the integrity of the passport issuance process.”
Click here for: 10-24-03 Union Proposals

October 23, 2003: Los Angeles input: "Based on my personal opinion, the management believed that the new modern technology has greatly helped improve our productivity. However, they failed to realize that the proposed quality and quantity requirements for passport specialists were set before the current technology took place. Since the original requirement standard was set up, they keep adding more and more of what we have to do with the same amount of time."

October 20, 2003: New York input: "Quality and quantity do not match-up in the present system. With the pressure to get higher numbers, the error rate will also get higher.  Common sense is common sense."

October 14, 2003: Management denies the Union's grievance over its proposal to do a more comprehensive study on the performance standards.  Management cites a May 16, 2002 email from the then-Union VP in Chicago as a basis for denying the Union’s September 16, 2003 Grievance Between the Parties, even though the instruction in that email from then-Union President Beardall to not participate with Management was reversed by new President Allen on June 19, 2002. 

October 10, 2003: Union S/T Walle responds to Management's reply: "Whoever is telling you to fight with all you breath any input from the Union on this is giving you some really bad advice and you ought to ignore it." S/T Walle explains, "The portions of Article 18 that address changes
in performance standards were negotiated in 1991 in the context of each office having individual standards. The Union made proposals in 2000 that would have "nationalized" some of these things, but Management shot them down (e.g., all offices will count all applications, including suspended applications and fraud referrals), saying that it wanted to leave these things for each office to decide and would consider weighing in on these "field" decisions perhaps in the future. I don't think Alex, or Bill before him, has a problem with a national standard - the problem the Union has repeatedly enunciated is with the process that Management has gone through
to set that standard.... During the process leading up to this, [a Management official] stated that the numbers - the issue of biggest concern to the employees - would not be addressed until the end, so the employee have not, until now, had a chance to respond and give input into that vital
issue."
Click here for: Request For Information

October 10, 2003: Management reply to President Allen's September 12, 2003 information request: "As [a Management official] stated early in the August 6th meeting, the substance of critical performance elements and standards is nonnegotiable, as it is reserved by 5 USC 7106 to management. [That Management official] further informed NFFE that the implementing procedures and appropriate arrangements for unit employees adversely impacted by the exercise of management's retained right to establish and modify critical work requirement statements (aka "impact and implementation, " of I&I), have already been negotiated and agreed upon during the last contract renegotiations. Article 18 of the contract, Performance Standards and Evaluation, sets forth those procedures and appropriate arrangements. If NFFE wishes to propose an otherwise negotiable I&I proposal the substance of which is neither presently covered by the contract nor was introduced and later withdrawn from consideration during contract renegotiations, management will take NFFE's proposal under consideration."

October 9, 2003: San Francisco input: “based on my experience, production has been the sole determination of competence for Passport Specialists. I feel 'under the gun' and suspect that my coworkers do as well. Who holds management accountable?”

October 7, 2003: Management provides some of the data used to develop the numerical standards. The data shows, for example, that GS-11 specialists adjudicated 23.30 applications per hour and that GS-9 specialists adjudicated 22.63 applications per hour, yet Management proposes that both GS-9’s and GS-11’s raise their production to 24.00 per hour in 2004.

September 19, 2003: Union President Allen emails all 600 bargaining unit members, and 3 HQ Management officials with a copy of the September 16^th grievance.  He also states: “Now this is really where I do not want to be misunderstood.  I am encouraging everyone to work with whatever system your management comes up with but do not kill yourself doing it.  Give management an honest days work….  Just so we understand each other, I am not at all encouraging anyone to work slower or anything like that.  What I am suggesting are things like, do not work through your lunches or breaks and do not cut corners to meet these new standards or to make any of the other ideas such as centralized suspense work.  By the way, it is illegal for you to do any of those things anyway.”

September 16, 2003: The Union files a Grievance Between the parties over the denial of official time for the study.
Grievance - National Standards Study

September 12, 2003: The Union files an official Information Request with Management, asking for - among other things - all "Studies and reports created or collected by Management in DC or by Management in the field offices on the number of frauds issued in error for each of the last 10
years".
Click here for: Information Request

September 8, 2003: Management provides formal notice to the Union of its proposed 2004 Adjudication Elements and Standards.

August 29, 2003: Honolulu input: "PD slows us down considerably.... I am getting sick of having to fight with mgmt about numbers!  I wish they would get away from the factory how-many-widgets-can-you-make-in-an-hour type of mentality! It is so history, we have moved on from the Ford assembly line!"

August 28, 2003: Management denies the Union’s request to conduct another study:
“After consulting with other members of the PPT management team, I am not approving the request for official time to perform a second survey of ppt specialist production.”

August 8, 2003: The Union contacts Management and expresses the following: “I think it bears repeating that as far as the numbers are concerned, the employees and the Union are concerned about this not because we want to do as little as possible but because we strongly, deeply, and sincerely care about doing our jobs the right way. We just want enough time to do all of the things that we are supposed to do. We are not a bunch of lazy bums who just want to avoid work. As (Manager X) said, none of us wants to issue a passport to a terrorist, like those visas that were issued by the State Department and INS. For that matter, we don’t want to issue a passport in error to a gun runner, murderer, child molester, drug dealer, sniper, or other criminal – and you all know this isn’t a hypothetical list, but actual applicants that I’m describing.”

August 8, 2003: Washington DC input: “I am not at all comfortable with management's proposal of 24 adjudications per hour ….  I cannot meet the current ‘posted’ quota of 160 per day unless I take no morning break, skip lunch entirely, and have ‘high energy’ that day….  Therefore, we should counter-propose nothing higher than ... 20 per hour.  Another issue: the survey conducted by management at WN should be considered invalid, because: they would not answer questions and tell us what it was for, but simply told me … ‘show me what you can do.  I want maximum numbers.’  For this reason, I set aside all CTZNSHP cases and suspense letters and did not do them, thus inflating the amount I was reasonably capable of doing.  This is not my fault; I was following the directions of my supervisor, which I am always supposed to do no matter what….  If I am forced to sign these numbers of 24 per hour next year, then I will feel like I am cutting my own throat, and I will also feel the union has let me down if they agree to this….”

August 6, 2003: Management and the Union meet in Washington, DC to go over the elements/standards. The Union states that its primary goal is, “We need enough time to do our jobs the right way. If our employees and our Union didn’t care about quality, then we wouldn’t be raising these concerns. The employees are not concerned about the numbers being too high because they are lazy and want to do as little work as possible. The employees are concerned about the numbers being too high because they care very deeply about the integrity of the document that we are producing. This is the point we have been trying to make on this issue for a number of years.” The Union expresses its belief that, “In the past, the primary emphasis has been “all about the numbers”. We have spoken to several managers at all grade levels who have told us privately that their primary concern is production.” The Union adds, “Passport Specialists report that they feel they are working too fast and many are concerned that we may issue a passport to a fraud or even a terrorist.”
Click here for: 8-6-03 Meeting minutes
Click here for: 8-6-03 Overall Performance Concepts
Click here for: 8-6-03 Standardization of Process and Procedures

August 4, 2003: Management sends the Union its proposed Performance Standards and Elements, dated August 1, 2003.
Click here for: 8-1-03 Proposed Standards.

July 30, 2003: National Passport Center input: Some people work during their breaks and lunches.  If their numbers are included in this proposed national standard, the numbers are wrong….  Did the Supervisors & Management sit down and do these numbers themselves for a week or more to see if these numbers are good?  Have they also held a pen in their hand 8hrs a day at the centers?  How can Management say push, push, push the work, here are your errors (why so many) and by the way why didn’t you catch that fraud?”

July 29, 2003: Charleston Passport Center input: “It may be nice to know what time management study was used to arrive at a national standard and how that study related to NPC, CPC, and PPT/NO in relation to the counter agencies.  Also what adjustments to the standards were made post 9/11 with regards to more time being spent on fraud training and in examining applications for fraud.” 

July 28, 2003: Los Angeles input: “Please ask them to lower the counter count because it takes extra time to do the PIERS searches . Los Angeles doesn't have a computer at each counter and I don't know if the other agencies have one at the counter but it does take time to go to the back to our desk to our computer and I think that should be factored in. I also think that the desk should be lowered also because a large number of applicants have previous passports and they take extra time to reclear.”

July 3, 2003: HQ Management in DC issues its response to the Step 3 Grievance filed by Seattle Union VP Rob Arnold concerning the addition of complex casework to the applications that employees must adjudicate while trying to meet their quota (the Union had filed a grievance contending that while the quota had remained the same, the addition of the time-consuming complex cases into the mix made it harder to meet the quota). Management comments, “you referred to the standardized performance elements. You will be pleased to hear that Headquarters is making steady progress. As stipulated in Article 18, Section 4, once standards are developed, we will share the proposed changes with the Union.”

April 17, 2003: President Allen emails officers with update: “Frank Moss, the new DAS, visited our office today and we had a good conversation. He also told us about some of the things in the pipeline for us. They are working on putting a computer chip on the back page of the book and there is real talk about some type of travel document, whether it be a Passport or some other document, for travel to Canada, Mexico and other regions in the hemisphere that does not now require a passport. We talked a little about the national standards and his vision is that it be fair and that it gives you the time to do the things that you need to do.”

April 11, 2003: Seattle Union VP Rob Arnold files a grievance over a change in work processes that affect the Passport Specialist’s ability to meet the performance standards.  Previously Management had allowed the complex cases to be removed and adjudicated by a specialist assigned to that task only, who was not measured against any numerical standard, leaving the other specialists to attempt to meet the standard while adjudicating the less complex cases. 

April 2003: The two-week review of adjudication work in all agencies conducted by Management takes place.  Management does not notify the Union of this study.  The Union had previously pointed out serious problems with this methodology – the basic idea being that basing a future standard on how employees are currently working, when those employees are rushing, working through breaks, and cutting corners to meet the current standard, will only force employees to continue these unsafe practices in the future.

March 7, 2003: Union President Allen reports to the Union officers on his monthly phone call with Management: “The National Standards are still on hold.  They received some numbers from the agencies but his comment to me was that they could not justify them to themselves so they knew that they would not be able to justify them to us.  So they went back to the drawing board.”  These numbers are not shared with the Union, and at this point the Union is still waiting for a proposal from Management to which it can respond.

March 2003: The Department of State’s FY 2004 Performance Plan is published.  It states that “Photo substitution is now more difficult with the photodigitized passport; the Department will continue to identify ways to enhance the physical integrity of the passport.  In addition to maintaining document security, the Department must now close the loop on fraud perpetrated during the application process.”  Part of the Department’s Strategic Objective #1 – Protect the Nation – is the “Effective and timely passport issuance, with document integrity assured.”  The Mission Statement included in the report recognizes that “The Department has important homeland security responsibilities, such as combating visa and passport fraud ….” 

February 3, 2003: New Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services Frank Moss emails all Passport Services employees: “Passport Services has a well deserved reputation for serving the needs of our 7 million American Citizen customers each year and I want to let all of you know how much I appreciate the commitment to service that all of you demonstrate each day.  I certainly look forward to working with all of you as we continue our shared effort to provide great service to our American citizen customers while also meeting our critical responsibilities to strengthen the Nation's security.  I have a request for all of you.  If you have a suggestion as to how the work of Passport Services could be improved, feel free to share that with your Regional Director, Ann Barrett, the Managing Director, or me.  The best ideas for improving service and security often come from those most directly involved in the process so please share your ideas and suggestions.  Passport Services is a great operation today; let's continue to improve it by working together as we face new challenges and opportunities.”

January 16, 2003: Seattle Union-Management Council meeting: Union: there is “a need to lower the numbers because of national security concerns and that an increase in the quality of our work would keep the number of rewrites to a minimum.” The Union is “concerned that specialists are not referring as many as they should due to rushing in order to meet production quotas…. (citing) the frauds that were issued in error as anecdotal evidence of the result.”

January 9, 2003: Miami question: "I have a meeting with management today about the standards and the many concerns that have been addressed to me. I plan to use this time to express that I feel no one should be penalized for not making the old numbers when the debate is ongoing for the national standards."

December 3-4, 2002: Annual Union-Management Council meeting in Washington, DC. Management informs the Union about its August 19 – September 3rd study, and the Union points out numerous flaws with Management’s methodology. The Union states, “improvements in technology have helped immensely with the quality of our work, they make the work take longer, and there has been no corresponding decrease in performance standards. Concerned that employees are rushing to meet their quotas, which employees often believe is all Management cares about, and that errors and even fraudulent applications are being issued as a result.” Management: "The numerical quotas are the last thing that will be focused on."
Click here for: UMC Meeting Minutes
Click here for: Standards portion of UMC Meeting Minutes

October 28, 2002: Boston input: “The GS-11 numbers sound to high to be realistic.  One would be lucky to meet minimum standards, let alone exceed them for a higher rating.” 

October 25, 2002: Union S/T Walle inquires: “On the performance standards/elements issue, if you have wording but not numbers, or numbers but not wording, we’d still be interested in seeing the latest. We’d also like to be apprised of where we are at in the timetable to complete this. Is it still the goal to have these in place for 2003?”

October 25, 2002: Management: “The working group met and left with several separate tasks to complete. When we have something complete, we will show it to you. We are still planning to implement in 2003, but not necessarily at the first of the year. We do not have numbers yet.”

October 24, 2002: Union S/T Walle inquires: “Regarding the agenda, I’m assuming that performance standards for 2003 will be on it.  Is that correct?  Where are you at on that initiative?  We haven’t heard anything for a while, and that management team met a month ago on the subject.  Do you have the latest wording on the elements?  And have you come up with numbers yet that you think would be appropriate for each GS-level?”

September 23, 2002: New Orleans Union officers provide input into the proposed standard to New Orleans Management, including request to gather statistics on complex cases. 

September 20, 2002: Secretary-Treasurer Walle emails all bargaining unit employees at the Washington, DC Passport Agency: “I’m writing to you on behalf of Local 1998 President Alex Allen….  As you probably all know, Management has been working all year on developing standardized Performance Elements and Standards, including desk and counter adjudication quotas, that will be implemented in 2003 for all Passport Specialists nationwide.  As we have no union members from PPT/WN, we have had no input on this from any employees in your office.  We would very much like to hear from you so that we can do our best to represent your views on this subject in our response to the final draft that Management will be sending to the Union.  We have heard that you had a quota of 40 per hour for GS-11’s before, which would be the highest in the nation, but then heard conflicting stories that a) the quota was for TDIS-III, b) the quota was for “paper adjudicating” only, and that another specialist would check the information against the TDIS screen, and c) the quota for only for checking the information against the screen for already-adjudicated applications.  So, as you can see, we need not only your input on how you feel the elements and standards should read and what an appropriate quota would be, but also on what your elements/standards have been in the past and how you actually perform your adjudication duties.  We have about 180 union members out of the 600+ employees in the Passport Services bargaining unit, and have received input on these elements/standards from many union members and non-union members alike.  We’d very much like to include your input in these efforts.”

September 20, 2002: HQ Management replies: “We're still working on the content. The numbers will be addressed later. The overall approach was to have a basic standard that works for most agencies and then adapt as necessary for other agencies.”

September 20, 2002: Union S/T Walle inquires about performance standards and elements at the Special Issuance Agency (in Washington, DC).

September 19, 2002: Miami employees/Union inform Management that their production quotas and error rates are not realistic. Miami Management stated that they were forwarding the employees concerns to the Management committee that is development the elements/standards.

September 19, 2002: Union S/T Walle emails Connecticut Union: "Whatever input you get from your specialists, and pass on to your mgmt, please also share with Alex and me."

September 19, 2002: Connecticut input: I think that before establishing a National standards to be in place, the team that is going to work on this next week should do a study for about 2 to 3 weeks. In this study they should be involved and adjudicate at their desk and at the counter and see if it is feasible to leave the high numbers established on the proposals of 8-7-02.  PD 1.3 is slower. And not counting the duties as assigned that each Passport Specialist have to do. Specially in smaller offices such as CT and Honolulu.

September 13, 2002: Union S/T Walle encourages the Miami Union/employees to participate in the development of the elements and standards, but to not get involved in the numbers, since they will be the same in each office and we “need to present a united front”.

September 12, 2002:  San Francisco input: "I was under the impression than since 9/11 the integrity of the US passport is more important now than it has ever been. ...... And now we are being asked to spend LESS time inspecting documents submitted with each application. How can management justify this?????"  "It's taking more & more time to process each application. The # standard should cut in half."  "Since every application is different, can the union work to eliminate the #'s altogether & let us work at our own pace?" "It is not fair that they are raising the Standards. With this new conversion to TDIS-PD VERSION 1.3 they should lower the numbers needed to adjudicate because this version 1.3 is so slow when the application comes up on the screen after wanding the application."  "This new fully successful standard is nearly unattainable for the following reasons: tdis 3.1 is slower, derivative cases take longer and are more complex, fraud referrals take time to write-up, 2 parent consent cases sometimes require a thorough review of many pages of the dissolution of marriage judgements for custody orders.... You can only squeeze so much blood from a person - then there is just no more."

September 12, 2002: Management: "However, the numbers are the last things we'll get to. It is important to first reach agreement on what we expect people to do, then get to how many. When we get to discussing numbers, I can assure you that there will be an explanation of where they come from.”

September 11, 2002: Union President Allen emails all 32 Union officers (VP and Stewards in all of the 17 offices except for the Special Issuance Agency in DC), and also cc’s a Passport Services Office of Field Operations (FO) Management official in DC: “In a conversation with FO today, there may be some misunderstanding about what we want to tell management about the new performance standards.  We would like for you to engage in open and honest discussion about the proposed elements except for the numbers.  We feel that the numbers should not be discussed until there is some good method for determining if they are fair.  Many of you are having council meetings about the standards and that is good.  I say again, please discuss the elements but we ask that you do not submit numbers for the quotas at this time.”

September 5, 2002: Houston input: “We should be concerned about QUALITY as well as quantity. These are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually harmonious. With the addition of CCA, Two parents signature, Prism, Clasp, and more, I think our plate is full. I fear that some may go into a ‘stamp and sign’ mode, which you and I are opposed to…. Fight the good fight.”

September 5, 2002: Chicago input: “The standards are … too high! With the amount of responsibilities that are now incorporated into adjudication, you will need 12 hrs instead of 9 hrs we now have…. It can be done without giving quality work and just going with quantity.”

September 5, 2002: Chicago input: “I just thought I would send you another point of view. I became an adjudicator [more than 2 decades] ago. At that time the quota for all adjudicators was 25 applications an hour. At that time adjudicators only had to notate applications and check citizenship evidence at the desk. Now, we have to call applicants, check information in the computer, add endorsements, check clearance ‘hits’, check PFM records. Also, the regulations have become more complex with the new adoption laws, the two parent signatures, and the new citizenship laws.”

September 5, 2002: Union President Allen emails Union officers and NFFE National: “For some time management has been working on a proposal to set national standards for all Passport Specialists in every agency.  We have repeatedly requested to be let in during the planning stage of this process but management is forging ahead…. The primary focus seems to be on speed.  We feel that especially since 9-11 there should be more of an emphasis on accuracy.  We know for a fact that many specialists are taking shortcuts to make the quotas.  Although management will not admit it, quotas are what they look at most and it is definitely the thing that they council and hold over their heads most….  The latest proposed set of standards that they have going around actually raises the quotas.  What can we do?  How much leverage do we have when they present us with a proposal and some kind of deadline to agree or disagree?”

September 4, 2002: San Francisco input: “San Francisco previously suspended all complex derivative cases, assigning them to the derivative box where one person would adjudicate all until completed.  Time spent on derivatives was not counted as production and therefore not held against employee.  Since CCA and TDIS-PD- all complex cases and CCA's are kept in the batches and processed by adjudicator themself….  No special time allotment given for them.  I actually had 16 derivative cases in one routine box.  5 different families.  Needless to say, I did not make my hourly production.  I did inform management and suggested reverting back to the derivative box and special assignment for processing.  That was shot down.”

September 4, 2002: New York Regional Director forwards input from Union/employees to HQ Management, including lowering the quota.

September 4, 2002: Boston Regional Director emails Union and employees with the proposed standards. This version contains very high quotas that are not included in other versions.

September 3, 2002: HQ Management emails Regional Directors with update on Performance Standards and Elements, referencing planned meeting on September 24-26 to decide on how to set the numerical quota.

August 19 – September 3, 2002: First unannounced Management study of Performance Standards, not revealed to the Union until the December 3-4, 2002 National Union-Management Council meeting.

August 2002: Union Newsletter: President's Message by Alex Allen: "I will fight with every ounce of tenacity in me to ensure that any standards set will be fair."

August 2002: Union Newsletter: former President Bill Beardall: "The development of national performance standards is evidence of management's failure to comply with Article 4 [of the collective bargaining agreement]. Since the September 2001 union/management meeting in Washington, D.C., Local 1998 has made numerous pleas and inquiries about the process of developing these standards. We have continued to remind management that the union and
those we represent, the people doing the work, need to be fully involved in this process.... Management has invited us to share our thoughts, but even at this late date, the union has otherwise been fully excluded from the process.... This issue is one both of fairness to employees and one of preserving the integrity of the United States passport."

July 15, 2002: George Lannon appointed Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, in place of Mary Ryan. His message: “To all CA bureau staff: A change in leadership is always complicated. Given the respect and affection enjoyed by Ambassador Ryan, my period as acting assistant secretary for CA will be especially challenging. I know that you will all stay focused and continue to move forward in safeguarding our nation’s security. The President’s legislative proposal for a Department of Homeland Security gave the Department firm marching orders and a leading role in the global war on terrorism. Our experience, ingenuity, and patriotism uniquely qualify us to implement the president's vision as codified by the congress. We in CA have a prominent place in the front lines of this global war. We’ve never failed to do our part in the past, nor will we in the future.”

July 11, 2002: Union President Alex Allen contacts HQ Management and expresses his concern about our operating under a “Passport Express” system, similar to the “Visa Express” program that was blamed in the media for the September 11th hijackers receiving their visas. President Allen explains, “We do not want to be the ones on the 6:00 news for issuing a passport to a terrorist”, and he includes a copy of a July 11th Washington Times article regarding the retirement of Assistant Secretary of State Mary Ryan.
Click here for: Text of e-mail

July 9, 2002: Seattle Union completes its poll of the employees on the elements/standards and submits the results to Management. One comment from that poll: "I think the managers in Washington D.C. need to clarify how future changes to the system which further slow us down will be addressed in the numbers standards. Agreeing on an acceptable production quota is
meaningless if they just introduce another time-consuming change to adjudication right after it goes into effect."

July 5, 2002: President Allen forwards a memo from an employee in Houston to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Georgia Rogers: "The idea of establishing national standards for a quota system is analogous to replacing a single part in a dilapidated vehicle when buying a new car would be more advantageous. The quota system effectively ensures that production remains
high. Passports are quickly processed and put into the hands of applicants. However, in a "post-September 11th world" the quota system sustains an environment where more importance is placed upon the production of a product than on security.... Production is held in higher regard than quality. Therefore, the production of a product is more important than ensuring that passports are not issued to those not entitled to them. The US State Department recently created a superior passport document with high-tech security features, but even if the document is secure, US security may be compromised through a passport issuance system based more on an industrial mentality of the past century than a 21st century model.... Several months ago the INS received criticism for not carefully adequately controlling who they allowed into the United States. If a person ever does harm to the United States with the aid of a US passport, the press would love to discover that passports are issued on a quota system that causes some of the DOS workers who issue those passports to feel like they do not have time to worry about checking for fraud because they have to produce, produce, produce. I hope that CA [Consular Affairs] will reconsider the quota system and create an environment where passport specialists can adjudicate passports without pressure placed upon them by an outdated system."

June 27, 2002: Union President Allen emails all Union officers with the poll developed by Seattle Union VP Rob Arnold as an example of how they can collect input to provide to their local Union/Management Council. 

June 25, 2002:  Los Angeles input: I don't think that GS-5's should have a quota. I also think that the new quotas are not very realistic. As an Adjudicator, one has so many obstacles (i.e. For us here in L.A., language barriers; CCA law, PFM checks, etc.) that slows the adjudication process down. We had a meeting week before last with our fellow Union members, and we all agreed that first, no ADJUDICATOR was used to establish these numbers. Second, management did not even allow us to be in this process of standardizing anything!!!  What do you think about these comments?

June 21, 2002: President Allen emails study idea to Management. He adds, "On another note, I do not think that a GS-5 should have a quota for the first year. They should be able to concentrate on training. I have seen many times that people do not develop the basic skills to be good Specialist because their main focus is on trying to learn how to produce numbers."

June 19, 2002: President Allen emails Union Vice Presidents in each Passport Office, encouraging them to participate in the development of the non-numerical portions of the standards: "To that end, I would suggest that we work closely with your Council and provide input on the wording of the elements. I would still like for us not to endorse or comment on the
numerical standards. I would like for you to give your comments in writing and e-mail me copies of whatever you suggest. Please ensure that all members of your bargaining unit know what we are doing on this issue. If you have not already forwarded them copies of my previous e-mails, please do so ASAP. They have a need to know and if they have questions or concerns about issues, we need to know them sooner than later." This constitutes the "further notice" referenced in former President Beardall's May 15, 2002 email: from April 29, 2002 until June 19, 2002 the Union was formerly advising to hold off on participation in local meetings, but from June 19, 2002 onwards the Union is encouraging local participation.

June 17, 2002: Union President Alex Allen emails Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Georgia Rogers with input collected form employees on Elements 1 and Element 2.  He