| Comment Number: | EM-001330 |
| Received: | 3/1/2005 12:34:00 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
March 1, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: I Comments on the NSPS Proposals: I have been a federal employee at the United States Air Force Academy for approximately 16 years with dedication to protecting and serving my country. I recently became aware of the New National Security Personnel System proposed and drafted for implementation. I have reviewed the regulations and I am appalled about the alleged purpose and intent of these regulations. These regulations were intended to protect the government interest as related to National security and minimal proposals promote the intent. I have been a witness to private contractors being exposed for hiring illegal aliens within my installation and not having clearances required of all Federal Employees. I have watched the Federal workforce depreciate and employees absorbing the additional requirements set forth. I have witness organizations becoming more effective and efficient through the creation of Most Efficient Organizations stemming from successful A-76 competitions. It is hard to believe that Congress would allow DOD and DHS to have blanket discretion to demoralize the employees with a system that promotes inadequacies to equality. I would like to specifically address the shortcomings of these future changes as identified by citation. ? Subpart B ? 9901.201-9901-231 Classification gives the department the authority to abolish the general schedule and federal wage system to implement a pay banding system to disguise rank and fluctuate duties within specified career groups. This does not uphold the Merit System Principles and will not be productive with duties not clearly defined or suffice mission purposes. ? Subpart C ? 9901.302-9901-373 Pay and Pay Administration proposals have been established with very subjective criteria and the discretionary authority given to management officials will ultimately demoralize groups of employees within any career group or band. Employees will be required to compete against one another to be considered a good performer, receive higher rates of pay or to be entitled locality increases. Pay will be established using groups and bands and will obviously be allotted at the highest rate to validate the appropriated funds disbursed by congress. These disbursements will be grouped into pools for the purpose of determining what rate of pay individual employees will receive based on labor market conditions, mission requirements, and availability of funds. This will also give managers the right to afford certain employees preferential treatment to pay raises over employees that are performing at a higher level of responsibility. This has nothing to do with national security and it allow individuals to abuse their authority discretionally. ? Subpart D ? 9901.401-9901-409 Performance Management gives the agency the authority to change employees expectations throughout the year with the potential of setting employees up to fail, due to the uncertainty of requirements and obligations not clearly established to evaluate performance. This will not provide any structure for clear and precise expectations and will allow managers to create difficult task that many will not be capable of performing nor have ample enough time and training to allow the individual to conform to expectations. The regulation also negates the employee?s right to file grievances through the negotiated procedure and the agency has not proposed the internal procedures to be established for these types of occurrences. This will also be used to establish rates of pay, Rif retention standings, and other types of actions deemed appropriate. This is not security protections to the nation or to the employees subjected to this type of system. This just obstructs the right to due process and eliminates any Merit to Principles. ? Subpart E ? 9901.501-9901-516 Staffing and Employment will allow the agency to establish discretionary probation periods for employees and were not specifically defined in the proposed regulations. It will definitely abolish equitable definitions of probationary periods and allow agencies to establish inconsistent periods with no compromise to National Security, but definitely employee?s job security. ? Subpart F ? 9901.601-9901.611 Workforce Shaping will allow the agency to change the way reduction in force procedures were established regarding tenure, veterans preference, and performance ratings. The agency has proposed to use subjective performance ratings as the deciding factor to whether or not an employee will be retained. The regulation also allows the agency to use other criteria to conduct reductions in force that are not related to lack of funds or shortage of work requirements. Dedicated and qualified employees can be replaced by employees that have managerial attractions. ? Subpart G ? 9901.701-9901-721 Adverse Actions allows the agency to make ?Mandatory Removal Offenses? (MRO), and may not be less than termination unless the secretary decides otherwise. This regulation has also changed the notice and the reply periods for these types of offenses. The agency will also be allowed to bar representatives of the employees choice by the mere assertion that there is a conflict of interest or the representative can not be released because of cost or duties assigned. These (MRO) circumstances are proposed to have issues that basically concern National Security Breeches and Acts of Terrorism. The agency would have these rights without the change and due process would be given only if the situation could warrant such rights to any individual accused to have committed such acts. This would also be subjected to the Patriot Act as written and sustained through the legislation enacted. ? Subpart H ? 9901.801-9901.810 Appeals have been changed to shorten the time an individual can appeal an action and the jurisdiction of the Merit System Protection Board has been modified to lessen the agencies burden. These changes are proposed to eliminate impartial due process given to appellants and to basically make it impossible for an individual to have a fair trial of facts. Administrative Law Judges will not have the authority to mitigate penalties unless the action is ?wholly without justification?. This will totally undermine the Merit System Principles and gives the agency the right to reverse the MSPB decision merely by claiming impact on National Security Mission. This is totally a case of communism and democracy has taken a back seat to the agencies political agenda. ? Subpart I ? 9901-901-928 Labor Management Relations is proposed to have major impact on existing bargaining agreements, scope of bargaining, representation rights and duties, standards of conduct for union representatives, information request, grievance procedures, and unfair labor practices. The National Security Labor Relations Board will be unilaterally appointed by the Secretary of Defense and the impartial third party review will be obsolete. This agency has been given the authority to change and undermine prior case precedence. They have been given the authority to decide issues concerning unfair labor practices, negotiability disputes, and bargaining impasses. These changes are supposed to eliminate threats to National Security and there has been no evidence to indicate that these issues have ever posed a threat to the Nations Security. Employees were afforded these rights through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which were enacted so the government would be a model employer for the American Citizens. These regulations will change the way citizens view the Federal government and will not provide National Security as portrayed to the Congressional Committee. Please consider the information provided in this memorandum and make revisions to the proposed regulations during the meet and confer sessions up to including the congressional review. I believe that a change of the system could be productive as long as the rights and procedural aspects of the new system are formulated to provide equality and due process to all parties of concern. I don?t believe that the congressional intent to ensure due process and Merit System Principles is being proposed through the initial draft regulations. Sincerely yours, Sincerely,