January 27, 2004: The Union filed 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 a 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. The FLRA rejected the ULP's on April 7, 2004. Click here for: FLRA Ruling

September 16, 2003: The Union filed a Grievance Between the Parties with HQ over the denial of official time for a comprehensive study to determine reasonable and fair adjudication performance standards - quotas that can be achieved without taking shortcuts.  The grievance is denied on October 16, 2003.
Grievance - National Standards Study. 

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. The Step 3 level of the grievance is denied by HQ on July 3, 2003.  

October 24, 2003: The Union submitted its proposals in response to Management’s formal notice of the change in elements/standards. The Union proposed 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 emphasized that its goal is to help “maintain and enhance the integrity of the passport issuance process.”  Click here for: 10-24-03 Union Proposals.  Management responded on January 9, 2004:PPT Management Formal Response to Union's October 24, 2003 Memo.  The Union inquired on January 13, 2004: President Walle's Inquiry. Management replied to the inquiry on January 22, 2004: Passport Management Formal Response to Union's October 24, 2003 Memo. 

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

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.  Click here for: 8-1-03 Proposed 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: Standards portion of UMC Meeting Minutes

September 19, 2002: Miami Passport Agency Union-Management Council discusses what should be an appropriate numerical standard. 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 4, 2002: New York Passport Agency Union-Management Council discusses numerical performance standards. NY Management forwards to HQ suggestion by Union that quotas be lowered. 
 
April 23, 2002: Union President Bill Beardall contacts Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Georgia Rogers to express his concerns about the number standards, specifically the impact of technological changes on “quantity and quality”, and requests negotiations as appropriate. President Beardall summarizes previous communications on this issue from November 1998 to the present.
Click here for: Union Letter to Georgia Rogers
Click here for: Union Request for Information
Click here for: Union Request For Negotiations

April 22, 2002: New Orleans Passport Agency Union/Management Council discusses new adjudication standards.  Management recognizes that the employees' "2 major concerns were adjudication standards (numbers) and counter production.  The consensus was that due to the extra duties, i.e. CCA, 2 parent signature, PFM hits, etc., they felt that our current production standards should be lowered."  

March 22, 2002: New Orleans Union Vice President Alex Allen files Information Request with Management: "Information Requested: Adjudication production standards/quotas for the last ten years. In conjunction, a copy of the elements for Adjudicators/Passport Specialist for the same time period. In addition, we request the number of expedite applications received and their percentage of the total work received over the same time period. Particularized Need: To evaluate and provide input in accordance with article 18 paragraph 4 of the agreement between Passport Services and the National Federation of Federal Employees- Local 1998 Federal District 1, International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO."

December 19, 2001: During the Seattle Passport Agency Union-Management Council meeting, Seattle Management proposes: "Lower the hourly numbers to: GS-5 - 17; GS-7 - 21; GS-9/11 - 23. Eliminate ranges and excellent and outstanding numbers.... Add EFs to the number element." Note that the GS-9/11 number proposed is 23 per hour, while the national number proposed by Management for 2004 is 24 per hour. Management also proposes: "No more "fudge factor". By doing this, we are eliminating the "squishy number" issue. The new standard would be a "hard" number - if people's average falls below it, we would have to look at counseling and possibly performance improvement plans." Management incorrectly states that "We are the only agency that doesn't include EF's."

September 25, 2001: September 25, 2001: Annual Union/Management Council Meeting in Washington, DC. The Union tells Management that, "Passport specialists in many offices (are) concerned that ... changes in work processes may have negatively impacted the quantity and quality of work being produced. Cites anecdotal evidence of increased number of fraudulent passports being issued in error. Would like the issue to be seriously studied together by the Union and Management and then discuss any necessary changes."  Click here for: Impact of Photodigitized Passport Issuance

July 3, 2001: Collective Bargaining Agreement between Passport Services and the Union goes into effect. The Union had made proposals for Article 18 that would require methods used to measure Passport Specialists' performance to include all applications, not only applications that were approved. Many offices only gave credit for applications that were issued, and gave no credit for applications that were not approved because of insufficient evidence or fraud indicators, even though these applications take more time to adjudicate. Management did not agree to these proposals and they were not included in the CBA. The 2004 Adjudication elements, proposed to the Union on September 19, 2003, finally incorporate this principle of counting all applications. One version of the Union's proposal read: "The Parties agree that standards measuring the quantity of the work done by Passport Specialists shall be based on the general principle that the Specialist is expected to adjudicate a required number of passport applications." The subtle emphasis on "adjudicate" rather than "issue" was intended and explained to Management to mean that all applications would be counted.

January 24, 2000: Annual Union/Management Meeting in Washington, DC.

September 29, 1999: Seattle Management proposes to the Union a numerical standard for Expedite Fee applications, which make up between 30 – 40% of the work and take longer on average to adjudicate.  An existing standard of 25 applications per hour for GS-9’s and GS-11’s had already been set for Routine applications.  Management proposes a standard of 17 applications per hour for GS-9’s and GS-11’s.  This proposal does not get adopted, and specialists in Seattle do not have a numerical quota for Expedite Fee applications until January 2, 2004, when the Routine and Expedite Fee applications have a common quota of 24 applications per hour. 

November 2-3, 1998: Annual Union/Management Meeting in Washington, DC. Management states that with the implementation of the new Photodigitized passport ("Photodig" or "PD") that we "need partnership - need user input" on how to make the system work better. Management states that we "will have to look at performance standards because Namecheck hold will [now] pop up when app[lication] is wanded at adjudication (inspection)", so the Passport Specialists will now have to perform additional, time-consuming, but very important tasks while meeting their quota, rather than having those tasks performed afterwards by a specialist detailed to handle these cases who is not being measured against the quota. The new system will be "user friendly - will be much better". Management acknowledges that "photodig will be traumatic for [a] number of employees". The Parties discuss performance standards, including the quota for adjudicating/accepting applications at the public counter. Regarding the new appointment system at the New York Passport Agency: they "have a lot of ID witnesses and language problems, so have lower number per hour than [the Los Angeles Passport Agency] at [the] counter". Management states, "yes, we need to look at this" and "eliminate the frantic stuff". The Union states that "we have [a] problem with [the] standards, not [the] appointment system or screening" and recognizes that with "different offices" we may need "different standards". Management replies that this is "a good point" and that the "Booz-Allen study may help". Management acknowledges that with photodig, "all standards will have to be revisited", that "we will have to work with you" on this, and that "we wouldn't want [the] standard [to be] so inflexible that one office suffers".
Note: these quotes all come from the notes takes by Union S/T Walle, and were not released as joint meeting minutes (that practice was not adopted until the September 25, 2001 meeting).

Note: the 3 most recent Union presidents (Colin Walle, Alex Allen, and Bill Beardall) communicated concerns and made requests (in person, via email, and by telephone) to HQ Management relating to the integrity of the passport issuance process (including the development of the performance standards) on numerous occasions, including: July 18, 2005; March 30, 2005; November 30, 2004; November 8, 2004; August 12, 2004; December 18, 2003; November 13, 2003; November 10, 2003; November 5, 2003; October 31, 2003; October 10, 2003; September 19, 2003; August 8, 2003; April 17, 2003; March 7, 2003; October 25, 2002; October 24, 2002; September 20, 2002; September 11, 2002; July 11, 2002; July 5, 2002; June 17, 2002; May 16, 2002; March 28, 2002; March 1, 2002; February 27, 2002; January 24, 2002; January 7, 2002; November 27, 2001; September 5, 2001; and December 7, 2000. 

June 29, 2005: 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.

November 2004: Among other issues, the Department of State's Office of Inspector General released a report on its investigation into the elimination of the Assistant Fraud Program Manager (AFPM) position. Portions of the report released via a FOIA request 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. The Union made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in May 2005 to have portions of the report released, and on August 4, 2005 the Department of State mostly granted that request. 

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.

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. Between June and September 2004, the GAO visits the Passport Agencies/Centers in Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Charleston, and New Orleans.  

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 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 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

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