The Steward March 26, 1998
Mr. Charles R. Engel
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
This is in response to your March 3, 1998 letter, addressed to President William Clinton, which the White House has referred to our Agency for reply. Therein you express concern about our Agency's funding level, and the prioritization of cases, and refer to the impact of this upon the above case which you have pending with our Region 32, Oakland Regional Office.
Before turning to your case, I want to address your general concerns about funding, and about our prioritization process. The Agency has experienced a decline in its budget and staffing levels. As a result of the Agency's limited resources, the Agency has been unable to handle all of its cases as expeditiously as in the past. In order to deal with this problem, we have developed a case management approach which attempts to maximize the Agency's effectiveness by differentiating cases based upon their impact on the public. Under this approach, cases having greater and wider impact on the public will be handled first and the time frame for completion of these cases will be consistent with our previous time goals. Other cases, although also important to the mission of the Agency and to members of the public, will be processed in accordance with time goals that have been extended to reflect the realities of our current and projected budget and staffing situation.
We recognize that, in ideal circumstances, all cases would receive sufficient resources to ensure immediate resolution. Unfortunately, however, the Agency's current limited budget provides substantially fewer resources than we have traditionally enjoyed, thereby mandating that we direct our efforts in the most efficient and effective manner. This approach represents a conscious, considered approach to maximize the effectiveness of our time and efforts.
With respect to your case, Region 32 is in the best position to comment on the specifics. However, my understanding is that the case was held in abeyance pursuant to the Agency's longstanding policy of deferring further action, where the underlying issue is or could be grieved, pending the outcome of the grievance-arbitration process. This latter deferral policy has been in effect for many years, and long predates our current budget situation and prioritization system. I also understand that Region 32 sent you a letter on March 16 with respect to further action on the above case and assume that you have been or will be in further contact with them.
I hope that the above information is helpful to you.
Very truly yours,
Dana L. Hesse
Deputy to the Assistant.
General Counsel
