![Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., speaks at a hearing on Capitol Hill on May 23. Foxx co-signed a letter accusing the EEOC of mismanagement over a possible one-day furlough.](https://cdn.govexec.com/media/img/cd/2024/08/29/082924_Getty_GovExec_Foxx/860x394.jpg?1724959137)
Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., speaks at a hearing on Capitol Hill on May 23. Foxx co-signed a letter accusing the EEOC of mismanagement over a possible one-day furlough. Michael A. McCoy / Getty Images
Republicans criticize EEOC over nixed one-day furlough
The agency said that no additional funding and a high pay increase for federal employees helped create its budget shortfall, but GOP leaders called it a failure to adjust spending.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had told employees that they could face a one-day furlough at the end of August due to a budget shortfall. While the agency managed to avoid it, Republican leaders on the House Education and the Workforce Committee criticized the agency this week for even considering having one, arguing that it shows mismanagement.
Agency officials said that Congress not providing an increase in appropriations between fiscal years 2023 and 2024, paired with the 5.2% pay raise for federal employees, largely caused the financial conundrum. They also blamed it on fewer staff departures than expected and “substantial increases in security, rent and required mission critical contract costs.”
“These claims provide evidence of significant mismanagement at EEOC, indicating that furloughing workers and depriving taxpayers of EEOC services were inappropriate responses to avoidable spending issues,” wrote full committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., in a Monday letter to EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows.
Specifically, they said the agency failed to adjust for security, rent and contracting costs and to recalculate its projections about staff departures. They also slammed the hiring of 493 employees in fiscal 2023, writing it was “obvious” that doing so would create spending problems.
EEOC said in a statement that it took numerous cost-saving measures to avoid a furlough: limited hiring; implemented operating cuts to all divisions; eliminated most training funds; reduced travel; and delayed spending on longer-term projects.
“The notice of potential furlough was issued only in an abundance of caution, while the agency continued to find sufficient savings to avoid having to implement one,” agency officials told Government Executive in an email. “Thanks to the collective effort of the agency’s staff and our operational management team, we were able to do so.”
Foxx and Kiley requested the EEOC provide to the committee all documents and communications between the agency and the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management and American Federation of Government Employees relating to the possible furlough by Sept. 10, as well as an assurance that leaders will not propose another furlough for the remainder of fiscal 2024.
“Only when rock bottom was nearly hit did the agency reevaluate. That’s not the way any organization should run, and is why oversight is clearly needed,” House Education and the Workforce Committee spokesperson AnnMarie Graham-Barnes told Government Executive in an email.
The Republican committee leaders also criticized the agency for not fully returning workers to in-person, on-site work. They wrote that the inaction seems to have contributed to a decline in average productivity per employee; however, the studies they cited to prove this point address remote work in general and do not specifically examine the productivity of EEOC employees. In fact, one of the studies looks at data entry workers in India.
Looking ahead, the fiscal 2025 House bill would cut the EEOC appropriation to $420 million, from its current level of $455 million, while the Senate measure would fund the agency at its request of $488.2 million.