Testimonies

Building a Support System for New York City Veterans

Mister Chairman, and members of the committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 8,000 member veterans and supporters in New York City, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate with IAVA.  I proudly served 10 years in the Army beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist, and leaving service as an active-duty Cavalry Officer in 2007. Throughout these 10 years, my single most important duty was to take care of other soldiers.  In the military they teach us to have each other’s backs.  And although my uniform is now a suit and tie, I am proud to work with New York City to continue to have the backs of America’s service members and veterans.

Two of IAVA’s main initiatives this year are lowering the staggering 12.1% new veteran employment rate and helping new veterans reintegrate into civilian life after deployment or separation from the military. To help achieve these objectives in New York City, we believe that providing liaisons within city departments to address the unique needs of veterans, particularly those of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is a promising start. Therefore, IAVA supports the passage of Int. 0480-2011.

Veterans, particularly those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, need advocates in their local communities to help them overcome numerous challenges after release from active-duty. They must deal with a cumbersome and confusing VA system; merge back into their families’ daily lives; reintegrate into their jobs; understand what benefits they qualify for under local, state, and federal law and then navigate the application and claims processes. In addition, some veterans must also assert their employment rights under USERRA or their financial rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. As it stands, they must navigate most of these challenges alone, without counsel, guidance or encouragement. They lack contacts to expedite the process or the knowledge and experience to determine the best course of action. Additionally, they must expend a significant amount of time and effort, impacting both their work and families. As a result, veterans used to “driving on” to complete the mission without seeking glory or the limelight often get lost in the process. As the saying goes, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” and culturally veterans tend not to want to be the squeaky wheel, even for benefits they have earned.

IAVA believes that the legislation under consideration can be a significant step for providing the counsel, guidance and encouragement that veterans need as they navigate the readjustment to civilian life. IAVA believes that having a designated veteran liaison within each city department is a necessary step, if only from the standpoint that there is a need for veterans to have an advocate within government. Having a designated veteran liaison, a known entity where institutional knowledge and experience resides, will be a significant positive force in speeding along the resolution of any issue that a veteran faces. Having this liaison accessible within the workplace, in each and every department, will provide veterans with ease of access and help assure that this resource is not wasted or unused.

While IAVA endorses this legislation, we must consider other factors. First, the city must ensure that veteran liaisons are more than mere symbols, who have presence but lack authority. Veteran liaisons must have real power, a clear mission, and access to the highest levels of their department and city government. Their authority must be clearly defined, and advocacy for veterans must be their primary function. It’s critical to grant them the power to help veterans in a meaningful, impactful and accountable way.

In preparation for this testimony, IAVA staff communicated with veteran liaisons and veteran commissioners in several cities and states including Chicago, Boston, Connecticut, and Oregon. All expressed the belief that a veteran liaison is an important and necessary function; there is significant demand for their services. This need exists equally in New York City. According to the Mayor’s Office of Veterans Affairs, there are over 7,700 military veterans currently employed by the City of New York – a significant population that needs to be served.

Curious about New York’s current system for dealing with veterans, our staff contacted the Mayor’s Office of Veterans Affairs. Two staff members in the office told us that departmental veteran liaisons exist and that there is a contact list; however, they could not grant us access to it. Instead, they told us to contact the departments directly and, if the departments chose to, they could connect us. Unfortunately, this proved to be a futile exercise: no one we spoke to in the commissioners’ offices had any idea who or what we were talking about. Even when we reached an officer at the NYPD who was aware of the veteran liaison, the officer could not give out the name of the liaison or answer any questions regarding the liaison.  This is obviously an evolving program and it will take time to get this right.  Fortunately, that list is now posted on the Mayor’s Office for Veterans Affairs website.  Hopefully this will clear up some of the confusion that my staff encountered.

If anything, IAVA believes that this is a clear example and strong argument for formalizing the duties and position of veteran liaisons within city departments. If we, a well-recognized veteran service organization asked to testify before the council on this issue, could not locate or gain access to the existing liaisons, what is the likelihood that a city employee would? Do city employees even know that liaisons exist? We could not locate or speak to the liaisons, so the first of these very basic questions is ‘no’ and the second remains unanswered.

We did not find any city or state that had as comprehensive an approach as New York City.  By placing one liaison in each agency, New York is already ahead of the pack.  F or example, Boston’s liaison deals with the veteran population at large and primarily refers veterans to appropriate agencies and answers basic benefit questions. Chicago was the most analogous. The director of the Chicago’s Veterans Affairs Council (VAC) serves as an advocate and ombudsman for veterans employed by the city while the Veterans’ Resource Office primarily serves the population at large. Still, the experiences of other cities can provide New York an important roadmap for dealing with issues of veterans’ access, labor unions, the need to update city ordinances, provision of services and resource distribution. For example, allocating more than one liaison to departments with a larger population of veterans especially the police and fire departments might be useful.

In conclusion, IAVA believes that New York’s plan is a unique solution and worthy of support. IAVA also believes that care must be taken to ensure the efficacy of any proposed solution before implementation, especially when new ground is being broken. With the proper structure and resources, the New York plan could become a model for outreach to veterans within government.

Thank you.