Comment Number: EM-008367
Received: 3/3/2005 5:00:30 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 3, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: 1.9901.103 Definitions ? Promotion ?means the movement of an employee from one pay band to a higher pay band??. Why is demotion not defined? Webster?s dictionary, ?to reduce to lower grade or rank: relegate to a subordinate or less important position ? opposed to promote?. If movement to a higher pay band is a ?promotion? then movement to a lower pay band must be a ?demotion? whether it is voluntary or not! 2. I work for a Naval Officer. The Officers (my supervisors) rotate every two years. For the most part they are concerned with their careers (promotion to a higher rank). They have little or no compassion for civilians or respect for the current Personnel system. They have (and will) destroy anyone who might tarnish their precious career. Their biggest goal in life is hiring their "retiring" cronies. I have no idea how the Government can train a temporary employee (Officer) and maintain any semblance of realistic expectations by the subordinates. My supervisor also has an Admiral as his/her superior. These Officers protect themselves by their own ?unwritten? code of honor (protect your fellow Officer) at the expense of any civilian employee. How does NSPS propose to protect civilian employees from ?Glory? bound individuals who have stated, ?Civilians? careers are none of their concern?? 3. Page 7575, Subpart A ?General Provisions, 9901.101(b) ??enhance accountability at all levels..?. Supervisors are held accountable by their superiors not by their subordinates, yet it is the subordinates who will bear the brunt of these new guidelines. Again in my case, we have Military Officers who use military ethics/codes to subvert any civilian personnel system. It is impossible to ?make? an Officer do anything (from what I have seen myself). I have seen Officers openly refuse to comply with civilian, DOD, FAR regulations without recourse. I have great fears these news guidelines will give some inflated egos even more latitude to crush those who would point out the rules and regulations. CIVILIAN REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO MILITARY OFFICERS! 4. In a very recent article in the Washington Post, Stephen Barr wrote an expose' on NASA executives. The NASA employees were complaining about the new (NSPS) type system and how it had already affected their wages. I won't go into the details because the article is there in the "Federal Diary" area of the web site. Basically the NASA employees are complaining because most received 2.5% pay raises or less (many received nothing at all). The higher echelon people (inner circle) received the big pay raises. "NASA officials said they took scope of position into consideration, a factor allowed by OPM." If OPM will allow a factor not specified in the new NSPS or SES regulations then we (GS/WG) will be subject to the same type of system abuse. In actuality the NSPS regulations, Subpart A9901.101(b) states, "employees and supervisors are compensated and retained based on their performance and contribution to mission...". Federal Register SES rules and regs published on 6 Dec 04, Subpart D states, "...set and adjust the rate of basic pay for an SES member on the basis of the employees' performance and/or contribution to the agency's performance...". The SES rules and regs make no mention of scope of position neither does NSPS. See SES "Federal Register" Web Site Below: In essence, the NASA officials stated they, "established a structure based on position worth--positions with the greatest responsibility were eligible for the greatest pay raises". So much for the dumb hard working "stiff" who thinks he/she will be paid for their performance. Somebody needs to re-read the NSPS regulations. Contribution to mission sounds and looks like contribution to the agency's performance! Aren't they one in the same? Contribution to mission and contribution to agency performance are synonymous. Agency performance is directly related to mission accomplishment. I see nothing in NSPS that would preclude those in charge from getting the same determination from OPM when the time comes. Both regulations were deliberately written to give managers the latitude to overly (and legally) compensate those who they consider "more important" than a hard working employee with outstanding performance. I dare Ms. Mary Lacey to draw a "LEGAL" distinction between the two regulations and their synonymous statements. Let her be on record stating GS/WG employees will not be paid based on a system that allows the managers to determine whose job is more important. If we're going to be judged on our performance then let the best worker win. If we're going to be judged on how important our job may be then everyone is going to want the "important" jobs. We here at NAS Corpus Christi have seen and met Ms. Lacey, she talked for over and hour and never once mentioned ?job importance? or ?position worth?. The large audience would have raised the roof! Tell everyone the TRUTH! If we work our fingers to the bone and our particular job doesn?t significantly contribute to mission accomplishment then all our hard work (performance) is for nothing. 5. The withholding of pay increases and (in some cases) decreases in pay will not be considered "adverse actions" under the pretense of poor/substandard performance. If I have a complaint about my annual appraisal (under NSPS) I can ask for a review by the next higher level of supervision. If an EEO/whistleblower complaint involved two or three levels above my supervisor any decreases in salary and withholding of annual (COLAs) can now be used as "reprisal actions" without being considered an "adverse action". We government employees were protected by the Whistleblower Act and EEO Regulations based on "adverse actions", i.e. demotions, constructive demotions, denial of step increases, etc. Once the new NSPS regulations are in effect the term "adverse action" changes and any manager who has an axe to grind will be free to "get back" at any previously protected employee. I am starting to believe there is no help for all of us who held tight to our morals and high standards. 6. Can there be a moratorium for those who risked their families and livelihood thinking we were doing the "right thing"? 7. Doesn't anyone realize the whole IG/EEO/Whistleblower system is in jeopardy if a supervisor can manipulate your salary (no pay raise or decrease of pay) to get even with a complainant. If these supervisory actions are not "adverse actions" then no one will risk their families and livelihood for the betterment of the Government system. 8. Not only do these guidelines admit that it "groups several grades into bands", substituting Pay Bands for GS grades, it also boasts (9901.304, 9901.103), "considers a promotion as an action which assigns an employee to a higher broadband". If being moved to a higher broadband is a promotion then being moved to a lower broadband must be a demotion. If you are demoted it must be an adverse action? The new term for this "demotion" is "contribution-based" action. Did Webster change his definitions as well? I am not being disrespectful...I am frustrated by the language and perverted use of certain words in the NSPS regulations. Now I can be moved to a lower Pay Band and it will not be considered an adverse action. Subjective "contribution-based" pay systems are ruthless and dangerous in the hands of a supervisor who has been caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar. When unethical actions involve 2 or 3 levels above ones' supervisor it makes the retaliation that much easier. Allow me to apologize for my aggressive manner. I have always believed I was protected against certain adverse actions. I would normally be able to claim reprisal as a result of an adverse action (demotion, reduction in pay, etc)...but now I can't. By NSPS documents how can you be "promoted" to a higher Pay Band and not "demoted" to a lower Pay Band. Now it is a "contribution-based" action not an "adverse action". Longstanding employee protections don?t shield me against contribution-based actions (or is that the point)! Title 5 does not protect any one gainst "contribution-based" actions it protects against "adverse actions". Title 5 refers to "reductions in grade", there are no grades in the NSPS. In NSPS, even a reduction is pay is referred to as a "contribution-based" action, Title 5 refers to "adverse" actions. Where am I going wrong? I know the rules, regulations and laws but they don't apply if the specific terms that invoke these laws and regulations are changed or convoluted. WEBSTER'S - Demote: to reduce to a lower grade or rank: relegate to a subordinate or less important position - opposed to promote. What definition would be used in a court of law? Around here if you have a nice fishing boat or a dear lease or play golf your changes of promotion and pay raises increase exponentially. If you're retired military they will create a job opening. I have read many of the comments at the NSPS web site, 99.9% are aniti-NSPS. Will the people in Washington listen to us "pathetic" (but damn loyal) civilian employees?