| Comment Number: | EM-017482 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 2:49:04 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 10, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: Docket Number NSPS-2005-001 and Regulatory Information Number RIN 3206-AK76/0790-AH82. I believe that the proposed NSPS legislation will prove to be debilitating to the current civil service system and will sabotage the very fabric of our country?the Federal Civil Servant. After reviewing the NSPS Federal Register dated, 14 Feb 05, I was amazed at how one-sided the regulation was. The following represents my observations on why Part 9901 of 5 CFR, Chapter XCIX, "National Security Personnel System" must not be implemented as proposed. Subpart C-Pay and Pay Administration The proposed pay system in NSPS wants to implement minimum and maximum "rate ranges" based on geographic and market supplements. We are all aware that when the Laboratory Demonstration and Acquisition Demonstration projects were implemented, there were and continue to be multiple issues involving good upstanding employees who were "penalized" and received no increases because there were other employees who, through affiliation that received bonuses that thoroughly exhausted the pay pool. I believe that most employees work hard and want to do a good job; therefore, I propose that all employees in DOD should continue to receive the same annual pay across-the-board adjustments that we enjoy now. It appears that it?s not clear on what performance will yield what percentage of pay. I wish to counter that individual pay increases for performance should include well-documented percentages to enable workers to thoroughly understand the pay system and the basis of their pay increases. Subpart D-Performance Management NSPS regulations contain a provision whereby an individual?s performance and behavior will be taken into account. Under the current system, behavior has already been built-into the appraisal. For instance, how one interacts with co-workers and a person?s ability to work independently are already assessed. Adding conduct which clearly can differ from one?s performance is just plain wrong and should assessed separately. Additionally, like anything else, the appraisal system is subjective and is prone to interpretation. This country is founded on our ability to voice our opinions and when we disagree, we have recourse for possible adjudication. To ensure equity and fairness I wish to propose that DOD employees retain their right to grieve their appraisals in an independent forum. Subpart E-Staffing and Employment The proposed NSPS regulations cites that there will be a public notice for all notice for all vacancies but will give preference to local candidates before considering applicants outside the local commuting area. Theoretically, this can be a good thing for those who work and live in our area however, my career field like many others advocates broadening by being geographically mobile to advance in my career. If DOD organizations will be giving preference to their own, how will the DOD ever profit from the wealth of knowledge and culture that could be gained from actively recruiting all qualified applicants regardless of where they are stationed. To do otherwise, will foster "in-breeding" by giving management officials a license to only hire relatives and acquaintances. Please retain the DOD?s ability to recruit and hire the best qualified applicants regardless of geographical location. Subpart F-Workforce Shaping The reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures may be considered cumbersome however the alternative cited in the proposed NSPS regulations is clouded in secrecy by underhanded management officials plotting to include employees in RIFs regardless of function rather than dealing with the employee through disciplinary means. I propose that RIF rules and procedures remain as currently identified. Subpart G-Adverse Actions The reply period for adverse actions such as removals and other disciplinary actions such as has been shortened and runs concurrently with the actual notice. While we all agree that the procedures in place to discipline should, in some instances be shortened to promote the efficiency of the service there are problems with management officials and their advisors who may not work in earnest to serve the employee hence, robbing the worker of valuable time needed to defend themselves. Each bargaining unit has processes in place that identify notice and reply periods and those timeframes should remain in place to preserve fairness and equity. Subpart H-Appeals The proposed and eventual disciplinary actions are very important management tools used to help the employee correct undesirable behavior by either instituting a temporary disciplinary action or by completely removing the employee from Government Service. In the cases of suspensions, for instance, where the employee is in jeopardy of losing significant pay, the employee should have some recourse, to appeal to an independent board such as the current Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and not stop employees at a grievance entity established by the very agency that has proposed the discipline. I propose that disciplinary appeals be grievable to an independent board. Subpart I-Labor Management Relations Collective bargaining should remain as is to preserve the Government?s integrity and the employee?s rights to organize and be heard. Sincerely,