| Comment Number: | EM-008393 |
| Received: | 3/4/2005 11:00:34 AM |
| 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 4, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: Recently, I read the NSPS legislation in the Federal Register. As a veteran and civil service employee with over 30 years Federal Service, I had been looking forward to working a few more years and retiring. Now, it is clear to me that I must leave before this new system is imposed on our workforce. Despite lofty rhetoric about how this new system will "...protect the civil service rights of its employees (reference Subpart A ? General Provisions)..." at every turn, it seems to abrogate long-standing, sensible personnel practices which were implemented to protect against the spoils and cronyism this new system is destined to reinstate. All in the specious argument that all this is necessary in the interest of national security. What in the world is meant, for example, in the broad statement that DOD sometimes uses military personnel or contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the answer? I must infer that this underscores a concept that civil servants are somehow interchangeable with military personnel for purposes of deployment or relocation. I volunteered for the military and served on active duty during the Vietnam era and was deployed as a reservist in Desert Storm. I did not join civil service with the desire or intent to be deployed or relocated in country or overseas as my supervisors might dictate. When necessary, our command has asked for volunteers and has to my knowledge always found people willing to go. Considering my age, current health, and family responsibilities, I have serious reservations about such prospects. How can any reasonable person see this as anything but an attempt to undo civil service protections and undermine negotiated agreements with recognized bargaining units? Let's look at simple issues like Cost of Living Adjustments and locality pay (reference Subpart C) -- which were instituted to provide a measure of keeping salaries in pace with inflation and make allowance for high cost of living areas. NSPS offers no assurance that the bonuses will adequately cover these costs, nor are we even sure what our base salary will be at this point, how the pay bands will be set up, what our performance standards will be, etc. How are we to reasonably make financial plans when even the pools for such bonuses adjust salaries based on labor market conditions, performance, changes in duties, and an undefined "various factors" (which might as well say, budget?) Now I have no dislike for my current supervisors and have done all right as far as bonuses and awards under the current system. But I do not plan my budget or expenses based on receiving awards which may or may not be received (and which, in any event, under NSPS won't even assure that my wages will keep pace with inflation or cover the fact that I live in a high expense area). And the decisions by the supervisors on pay is not subject to review or appeal. This is curious -- I could appeal my performance rating and win, but no adjustment would be made to my pay as a result. Given the dismal record on Federal Pay comparability over the years, I do not have any realistic belief that more money will be available for bonuses and salaries from year to year than some arbitrary percentage loosely based on Cost of Living or tied to military pay raises, so how do I benefit, particularly if my current salary is near the top of my pay band? Subsection (h) of Section 9902 authorizes a sketchy, ill-defined appeals process, but asserts that "... current legal standards and precedents established by MSPB under 5 USC chapter 77 continue to apply, unless such standards and precedents are inconsistent with legal standards established under this subpart. And these would be what, exactly? Decisions by a new board handpicked by the Secretary of Defense? Makes me feel really secure that someone will objectively consider my rights and that decisions will be subject to reasonable review and appeal. Yes, I am a civil servant working for DOD, and I well appreciate the current challenges we as a nation face. However, there is no need to implement such a sweeping reform that places such autocratic power in the hands of the Secretary of Defense and DOD supervisors, and without providing specific details as to its implementation practices and procedures. And I will remember the Senators and Representatives, who blindly accepted this system without proper consultation and oversight, when I go to the polls. Sincerely,