Day Before Hack Announced, OPM Released 'Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination' Guide

     The day before the Office of Personnel Management first announced a massive data breach of personal information, now former OPM director Katherine Archuleta's attention was focused elsewhere. Archuleta published a blog post on June 3 entitled "Celebrating Every Member of Our Federal Family" in recognition of "LGBT Pride Month." The White House reposted Archuleta's article the same day.
     In her post, Archuleta announced the release of an updated guide called "Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employment Rights, Protections, and Responsibilities."
 

As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month, I want to proudly reinforce my continued commitment to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members of our federal family, and recognize the incredible contributions this community has made in service to the American people...

That’s why I’m so excited to announce that the Office of Personnel Management is joining our partners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit System Protections Board, and the Office of Special Counsel to release an updated guide titled “Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employment Rights, Protections, and Responsibilities.” This informative resource will help LGBT federal employees make more informed choices about how best to pursue their individual claims when they believe they have suffered from discrimination.

    On the OPM website, the agency has seven "top priorities" listed. The first two are "Honoring the Workforce" and "Build a More Diverse and Engaged Workforce". Number four on the list is "IT Improvement" to "streamline and update IT systems" and number five is "Background Investigations" to "lead efforts to strengthen the background investigations program across government." The priorities list does not include any direct references to "security."
    When reporters questioned White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on June 17 about calls for Archuleta's resignation over the data breach, Earnest said that Archuleta had made cyber security a priority and that the president had "confidence" in her to do the job:

[T]his is an issue that they’ve been working on for some time; that Director Archuleta, in one of her first priorities that she identified after taking that job, was to upgrade the OPM computer network, particularly their cyber defenses.  And this is obviously an ongoing process, and the President does have confidence that she is the right person for the job...

OPM, under the leadership of Director Archuleta, recognizes that this does need to be a priority and that there is significant and important work that needs to be done to make sure that they’re fulfilling their responsibility to protect the data of federal workers... 

[A] number of senior White House officials have been in touch with the senior leadership at OPM.

     As further information came to light that the OPM breach was far worse than first revealed, Director Archuleta initially said she had no intention of resigning (via Federal Times):

"When I took office in late 2013, one of my priorities was to upgrade OPM's antiquated legacy systems," she said during a call with reporters Thursday. "It is because of the efforts of OPM and its staff that we've been able to identify the breaches."

      Friday, however, news broke of Archuleta's resignation.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Maryland Obamacare Exchange Forms Advisory Committee Reflecting 'Gender, Racial, Ethnic, and Geographic Diversity'

    The state agency in charge of Maryland's beleaguered Obamacare Marketplace, the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange (MHBE), is looking to establish a standing advisory committee to provide the board of the MHBE advice and input on a "broad range of policy issues."  The MHBE sent out a letter to "stakeholders" this week who might have an interest in serving on the committee.  While the solicitation does not include prerequisites, qualifications, or credentials required to serve, it expresses the board's desire that the committee reflect "the gender, racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity of the State, as well as one that constitutes a diverse cross–section of stakeholders in the MHBE."
    A copy of letter appears below [highlight added]:

    At the link included in the letter, the board provides a template of a "voluntary, non-binding letter of interest" that asks respondents only for name, organization (including business category), contact information, and  two short answers: how their participation would contribute to the expertise, experience, and diversity of the standing advisory committee, and a description of their knowledge and expertise regarding policy issues of importance to the MHBE.
    The problems with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Maryland have ranged from website crashes to lower than expected enrollment to, more recently, faulty Medicaid enrollments.  The exchange has tried extending deadlines, offering retroactive coverage, and even replacing the leadership of the team in charge of the Maryland Health Connection, but problems persist.
    In February, the MHBE even solicited proposals for "WEB-based entities", essentially substitute websites to perform the sign-up and enrollment functions that MarylandHealthConnection.gov was intended to perform.  These "WEB-based entities", however, would still be forced to take the enrollment information back to the Maryland Health Connection to actually enroll consumers in health plans.  While the MHBE confirmed this via email on February 10, the agency has failed to provide further information despite multiple follow up email requests in the intervening weeks.
    In the meantime, the MHBE posted the notice regarding the standing advisory committee.  The original deadline of February 28, 2014 for applications for the committee has been extended to March 7, 2014.  No reason was given for the extended deadline.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

President Obama and Women: The Face-off [Photo]

    President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately, even from his most ardent supporters, such as Congressman Charlie Rangel, for the "lack of diversity" in his latest Cabinet appointments.  As Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard reported, Rangel called the lack of diversity "embarrassing."  In an effort to dispel the notion, Jay Carney was compelled to tick off a list of as many women in the Obama administration as he could think of in a press briefing yesterday.  In this context, one can only wish there was an audio track accompanying the latest photo of the president released by the White House:

    Feel free to supply some dialogue in the comments section below, but keep in mind my Comments Policy in the right-hand column, please.

Diversity for Me, But Not For Thee

    Andrea Mitchell recently reported about internal Obama adminstration reaction to Susan Rice's withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of State:

ANDREA MITCHELL: A lot of Democrats are saying that the president did not show enough loyalty. A lot of women in the administration are very angry tonight, and I'm saying this at a very high level. Angry because they feel that she was not treated with respect, she was not given the support she needed and she was left to twist in the wind.

    Are the men in the administration angry too?  Just the women?  Why?  Because this president, who doesn’t need binders to pick qualified women, decided to accept the decision of a women to withdraw her name?  Should he have refused and nominated her against her wishes?  Or do these “angry women” think she was told to remove herself from consideration?  Are these women saying that if Rice was a man, Obama would have stood behind her?  After all this time of telling us Republicans are the ones waging a war on women, are they accusing their own president of waging a war on Susan Rice?

    Instead, why aren’t these women saying, “This President has shown great leadership in putting both men and women of all races in places in his administration on the basis of their qualifications for the job.  It’s ridiculous to say that Barack Obama treated Susan Rice differently because she’s a woman. Susan Rice made her decision to withdraw, and the president treated her like an adult and accepted it.”  Can these “angry women” not say that because they don’t believe it? Because they are so used to reacting to everything in terms of sex and/or race?  They’ve spent weeks accusing Republicans of sexism and racism for opposing Rice and criticizing her for her now infamous Benghazi comments on those Sunday talk shows. Is it possible – is it just remotely possible – that neither the Republicans criticism nor the president’s decision to accept Rice’s choice to withdraw have NOTHING TO DO with her sex or race?

    The Republicans have a long history of criticizing Democrats of both sexes and all races, and those Barack Obama has thrown under the bus are also the picture of diversity (Obama’s own grandmother, Van Jones, Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, and Ludacris, to name a few – someone has compiled a helpful if somewhat outdated list here.)  Have we lost the ability to look at political issues without resorting to a demographic analysis of all the individuals involved?  

    Or can we blame the media - like Andrea Mitchell - for introducing this element.  Here's another example.  At the White House Press Briefing Friday, the following exchange took place between Jay Carney and an unidentified reporter:

Q    Now that Susan Rice is out of the running, the President's -- 

MR. CARNEY:  Do you want to know who is in the running? 

Q    Well, yes, if you care to respond to that.  But the President is losing someone who would have brought diversity to his Cabinet.  So how important is it to the President now that his Cabinet with her out of the running reflects the sort of diversity that we see throughout the rest of the country?  

    “[T]he President is losing someone who would have brought diversity to his Cabinet”? Is someone’s race and sex the most important factor in determining diversity?  Would not John Kerry, now the presumptive nominee, bring diversity to the Cabinet?  John Kerry’s background is certainly quite diverse: married to an extremely wealthy woman; Vietnam veteran and harsh, vocal critic of the same war; long-time Senator; former presidential candidate.  How many other people in America can match that demographic?

    For all the left's talk about Republicans and conservatives being sexist and racist, more often than not it is they who focus on the external.  But on the other hand, maybe this incident shows progress of a sort.  In addition to the "good ole boys" network of old white men we hear so much about, this may be evidence of the emergence of a "good ole girls" network who look out for each other.  As the saying goes, you've come a long way...