Comment Number: EM-017563
Received: 3/14/2005 9:23:28 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 14, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: NSPS 2005-001Regulatory Information Number 3206-AK76 or 0790-AH82 The Civilian Corps Creed, of the United States Army ?I provide stability and continuity during war and peace.? Page 7552 ADDRESSES: ?The system is an ?anonymous access? system, which means that DoD and OPM will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information?? Thank you for the opportunity to comment anonymously. This entire NSPS is moving too quickly. It appears that many decisions have already been made, without involving the people concerned ? the civilian workforce, the first-line supervisors, or the local commanders. My colleagues and myself are working conscientiously everyday to meet the current requirements of the Global War on Terror, even urgent actions for Iraq. Yet, this NSPS makes me feel that our actions are not appreciated. We?re doing something wrong, we?re following a human resources system that is ?old.? Okay! So it?s old! The B-52 is old, and still blows up the Taliban. The C-130 is old, and could probably stay in production another two dozen years ? if the current budget realizes its importance. We get the job done right. In war, miscommunication and misunderstanding are an enemy. We are engaged in the Global War on Terrorism. Is this the correct time to make changes of this caliber? Not if it results in miscommunication and misunderstanding. Why is it necessary to change the system we currently understand? In this age of ?Transformation,? I need to make one historical observation. The US Army is intent on destroying the divisions and converting to something like ?brigades,? of a type. In the history of the US Army division, only ONE was ever destroyed in battle, in the Battle of the Bulge; I think it was the 29th Infantry Division. So, for the sake of Transformation, it is okay to completely dismantle an existing, PROVEN weapon, for something unknown. It doesn?t make sense to me. The Army needs to ?lighten up,? for easier mobility. That?s why the Army deliberately created the ?light divisions,? of the 1980s. Concerning the type of ?Unit of Action? that is developing ? the US Army has had the ?Separate (Infantry, Armored, Mechanized, Airborne) Brigade? structure on the books for a long time. Okay, we want new and more technology. Maybe some organization changes must be made, but we already have a good structure. But, for heaven?s sake, we now have a critical combat situation and we are intent on destroying known, workable organizations? I hope we are not critically surprised. Congress apparently also hopes so. (AUSA Newspaper. Hill Chair Urges Caution. Association of the US Army, September 2004, page 2). If the Department of Defense is going to make such critical changes with no regard for the current situation, waging the Global War on Terrorism, it deserves questions on exactly what the agenda is. I would be seriously disappointed if the changes are simply political. Now, I begin my critique. Page 7552 The Case for Action Para 3: ??where unpredictability is the norm and greater agility the imperative ? civilians must be an integrated, flexible and responsive part of the team.? I agree. But, in response to this statement, the published ?Civilian Corps Creed? of the United States Army is: ?I provide stability and continuity in times of war and peace.? Should stability and continuity also be considered? Par 4: ?These inherent weaknesses make support of DoD?s mission complex, costly, and ultimately, risky.? Regardless of any concern at all, the DoD?s mission has always been complex and costly. And, war is always risky. Why is it so important to state that the world will come to an end if DoD doesn?t use NSPS? The world will NOT come to an end. This current era has major concern for ?weapons of mass destruction,? a valid problem. But, the nuclear age started at Hiroshima, and the United States has been concerned with nuclear warfare for well over half a century. Chemical weapons were used in World War I, and I think biological weapons were developed in World War II. The civilian workforce should provide effective support, and there may be some areas to negotiate and agree for particular, special requirements. As one example: for a nuclear detonation in the continental United States, all DoD civilian employees within 100 miles may be automatically compelled to immediately support rescue and recovery operations, in a manner similar to US military personnel. This could be a twelve hours on, twelve hours off duty schedule, for perhaps 30 days; being within 100 miles could preclude the requirement for TDY. It would also require the necessary planning, training and equipment; a forklift driver is not a paramedic. And, this can and should be done NOW. Again in Para 4: ?These systemic inefficiencies detract from the potential effectiveness of the total force.? This is possibly true, but the current condition indicates that the US Armed Forces have problems with total (military) force, without considering the civilian workforce. At this time, the US Navy is discharging sailors as much as 14 months early! (Faram, Mark D., Navy Offers Early-Outs of up to 14 months. Navy Times, 21 Feb 05, page 8). Can?t those sailors be used to DO SOMETHING? Our nation is at war, the Department of Defense is at war. For the US Army, there appears to be differences from the active force and the Army Reserve and the National Guard. A newspaper reference indicates that guard and reserve units might be deprived of their equipment! (Anderson, Jon R. Reserve, Guard Units will have to wait to replace gear left in Mideast. European Stars and Stripes, 18 Feb 05). There has been some concern that the National Guard is needed for a role in the Homeland Security. But, if the National Guard is deployed overseas, this is a problem. (Haskell, Bob, MSgt. California to establish six homeland defense teams.htm Army News Service, 1 March 2005). Is the US Air Force fully engaged in the Global War on Terrorism? Occasionally, a USAF pilot drops a bomb. And, the Air Mobility Command is very busy. But, in my years of experience, Air Mobility Command is always busy ? all you have to do is ask them, and they?ll tell you how busy they are. Does Malmstrom Air Force Base, a missile base, support the Global War on Terrorism? It has a large security force, and civil engineers, and a transportation squadron. Can?t at least some of those people deploy to Iraq? No ? the local commander will tell you that he needs his people to support his tactical mission. Page 7553 The case for Action, continued ?As the Department moves away from the General Schedule system, it will become more competitive in setting salaries based on various factors, including labor market conditions, performance, and changes in duties.? More competitive with whom? With civilian industry. So, if a particular location pays $85,000 for an entry-level computer programmer, the only way for the US Government to compete will be to pay $85,000 for an entry-level computer programmer. This phrase indicates that the US Government is willing to pay much higher salaries than it currently is. When can we expect large pay raises? It is necessary to examine the key issue: why do people join Civil Service? What benefits does Civil Service already have that draw applicants? The answer: job security. The pay simply isn?t equivalent to private industry; Microsoft can, and probably always will, pay computer programmers more. But, Civil Service has a long and proud history of job security. NSPS will destroy that EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE. Later in the same paragraph: The HR management system will be the foundation for a leaner, more flexible support structure and will help attract skilled, talented, and motivated people, while also retaining and improving the skills of the existing workforce. Are we such bad people, now? Today?s Civil Service applicants are college graduates, and mostly ?Outstanding Scholars? at that. And, the US Government has a long, proud tradition of education and training. What is the relationship of NSPS to the DAWIA? Also concerning NSPS: does the US Government incur the ethical responsibility to tell potential employees: ?This is how you will be evaluated?This is how your pay will be determined?Oh, by the way, we can ship you to Baghdad anytime we want ?And, if we want you to pick up and move halfway across the country, you have not right to disagree ? the only thing you can do is quit.? Quite frankly, if new applicants don?t understand it, they will not apply. It is true that a job applicant only has a few minutes to make a good impression, to get a job. The potential employer also has only a few minutes to make a good impression. Throughout our history, people have known of government employment, which has evolved into our modern Civil Service. Now, we are going to completely destroy a system that we all know and understand, and implement something that is very complicated ? well, job applicants will go somewhere else. If you demand extreme flexibility, younger workers will also demand extreme flexibility. They will come to work at Civil Service, get some experience, possibly some advanced education, then leave Civil Service for higher pay in private industry. Concerning the Blue Collar workforce, the US Army is proceeding to hire and train the new generation ? just has it has done throughout much of the last century. If private industry has problems with hiring and training manufacturing workers, it can look to the US Army for a model program! There has been a contention that it takes ?too long? to hire new employees. Back in the ?old days,? the Cold War days, each post or base had a civilian personnel office with hiring authority. As a general rule, they could fill vacancies in less than 30 days ? or the chief would be in trouble. At some point, somebody decided that it would be ?cost effective? to consolidate the hiring authority into regions, and apparently things have gone crazy. The hiring authorities are not responsible to any local commander, and it?s taking a lot longer to hire people, and so on, and so on. The Department sometimes uses military personnel or contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the right answer. Please list specific, historical examples. Perhaps a military commander or a civilian manager didn?t consult the civil service HR experts and figure out how to use Civil Service personnel ? this has happened, before; I saw it happen at a certain airbase, in the early 1980s. This will free uniformed men and women to focus on matters unique to the military. By all means. At this time, my civil service organization has three US Army officers; all field grade, all combat arms or combat support. For whatever reason they are here (it probably helps their career in some manner), we don?t need them, and they are taking manpower slots that civilians can fill. In addition, the system will provide employees with greater opportunities for career growth and mobility within the Department. We already do. People routinely move between organizations, and systems, and progress in their careers - if they want to. The US Government does not traditionally recruit mid-level managers; we generally promote from within. Whatever happens to the ?Senior Executive Service,? and the highest ranks of the career Civil Service members ? those positions have always been peculiar. For the time being, why not use NSPS on these people, and delay implementation for the lower ranks of the civilian workforce? The regular Civil Service member joins as a beginner (an intern or apprentice) and works up to a responsible level. And, enjoys job security. Concerning ?mobility? ? does the DoD have the right to unilaterally decide to move people against their will? All the family strains currently, and traditionally, faced by military personnel will now also be faced by civil service personnel. -We?re facing a serious budget crunch. Where will the money come from, in order to move civilians around? The US Army, under the ?Senior Army Workforce? system, has already decided that promotion and relocation decisions will be made by a central office. Local managers and commanders do not have the right to participate. And, if the individual does not want the relocation, he will probably have no choice. Relationship to the Department of Homeland Security Page 7554 ??will expire 6 years after the date of enactment (ie, November 24, 2009)?? This is to say ? after the next presidential election? Considering this specific issue ? can future presidents or future secretaries make the decision that they do not want or need the NSPS? Again, the current system performed during the entire Cold War. As I will state later in this report: there are other organizations engaged in the National Security. Why stop with the Department of Homeland Security? The FBI and the other law enforcement agencies probably have their own personnel systems. The Central Intelligence Agency? The Department of State? Why simply stop with the Department of Homeland Security? Process Leadership ??a group of 25 to 30 senior experts?? Who are they? Can we find out what happened in these meetings? Are there any records? On page 7555, there is a ?key performance parameter? about being ?Credible and Trusted.? Please identify these experts. Maybe I disagree if they are ?credible.? I?ve been involved with DoD?s personnel game since 1973; I think I have the ability to discern credibility. Were any of these experts base commanders of ?combat bases?? For example: Fort Bragg, or McConnell AFB? Were any from logistics depots, like Red River Army Depot? The senior leaders used the Defense Acquisition Management model as a way to establish the requirements for the design and implementation of NSPS. I also saw a statement that ?China Lake? was used as a justification. Okay ? this all reflects on management of scientists and engineers, at China Lake, and acquisition managers and contract managers. What does this have to do with forklift drivers at NAS Fort Worth? Or, secretaries at Fort Belvoir? Where is the final report on Acquisition Demo? Can all of us take a good, hard look at that result, before we make any decisions on NSPS? All of this indicates that your primary models do not consider the ?ordinary workers,? therefore ? your models are flawed. You must start over. By the way, I heard at least one supervisor specifically state dissatisfaction with the Acquisition Demo project. Do supervisors have the right to be unhappy with NSPS? Page 7555 Guiding Principles and Key Performance Parameters Put mission first ? support National Security goals and strategic objectives; I like to think that we are all mission essential, in our current positions, at our current home stations ? or, we wouldn?t be employed in the first place! There is absolutely nowhere in this Federal Register that mentions the military departments, or the major commands, or the local units or organizations. It only mentions the Secretary of Defense. OBVIOUSLY these subordinate headquarters and units will have a role in the NSPS. But, this Federal Register doesn?t say anything at all about that role. At some later parts, I will recommend some word changes to reflect the military departments. The most critical aspect, to address right now ? Civil Service members work for their military department, with some working for independent DoD agencies. That?s where employment contracts are signed, where the personnel records are maintained. And, by the way, each organization and unit subordinate to the DoD has its own mission. For myself, the phrase ?Put mission first,? harkens back to the darkest days of Strategic Air Command; well over half a century ago. You were mission essential if all you did was clean toilets. ?Put mission first? has the danger of allowing the commander to stop reading, and to LEGALLY disregard everything that comes after the phrase. Respect the individual ? protect rights guaranteed by law Certain portions of this publication seem to indicate that this will NOT be true. I will explain later in this report. Value talent, performance, leadership and commitment to public service If the NSPS wants to be ?competitive? with private industry, what happens when an individual quits the Civil Service and goes to work for Microsoft? Where is the commitment to public service? NSPS makes it all about money. Be flexible, understandable, credible, responsive, and executable This Federal Register announcement is hard to read. I have a master?s degree, and I routinely read legal papers. The forklift driver at the Defense Logistics Agency will have some trouble understanding this document. Lack of understanding leads to lack of trust. Ensure accountability at all levels The commander of the 507 Maintenance Company (Jessica Lynch?s unit) who got lost, the military people at Abu Ghraib, the trucking unit that mutinied, and so on. By all means, hold people accountable. And, when the military commander gives an ?illegal? order? What do civilians do? In the Acquisition field, the Federal Acquisition Regulation governs all decisions. Now, we have had the example of Brown and Root in the combat zone. Commanders want something, and the Civil Service contracting officers have to stand up and say: ?No, sir, you can?t do that.? It causes problems. Balance HR interoperability with unique mission requirements Perhaps this bullet should be the first bullet, replacing ?Put mission first.? Be competitive and cost effective I have noticed that there are sometimes shifts between being ?combat ready,? and being ?cost effective.? Concerning cost ? over many years, any half-witted manager can put enough words together to make anything ?cost effective.? Why are we still wasting time and money on the V-22 Osprey? Fiscally Sound: Aggregate increases in civilian payroll, at the appropriations level, will conform to OMB fiscal guidance, and managers will have flexibility to manage to budget. Is the Civil Service personnel payroll such a tremendous amount on so many projects that managers need to budget it? Please examine any current acquisition program ? F/A-22, V-22 Osprey and the others. For the older systems, aren?t there other, more important logistics support problems that affect the budget? If old C-130s have cracks in wings, what does a manager do in the Civil Service budget to fix those cracks? For the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review, the United States needs an effective, detailed analysis at the conclusion. Yet, there is at least one news article that indicates the services may instead engage in parochial disagreement. (Erwin, Sandra. Defense Review: Beltway Dogfighting at Its Best. National Defense, March 2005). Congress has the responsibility to appropriate money for specific purposes and uses. It has provided money to use for the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Has there been any diversion of funds for other uses? Is the US Army using any of those funds for its transformation? Is this what Congress intended? (Erwin, Sandra. Efforts to Reorganize US Army tied to Emergency War Spending. National Defense, March 2005) Congress and the Government Accountability Office are already dissatisfied with the DoD fiscal management. (Barr, Stephen. Congress Growing Impatient with Longtime ?High Risk? of Financial Waste, Washington Post, 21 Feb 05, Page 2B. Lee, Christopher. GAO Report Points to Pentagon Waste. Washington Post, 26 Jan 05, page 19). I recently attended a briefing on armor for vehicles. Did the Army really need seven weeks to allocate money to pay for the vehicle armor program? This is not fiscally sound or flexible, or responsive to ?the mission.? Quite honestly, it ?sounds good? for managers to manage ?the budget.? But, if they have trouble with ?stuff,? how in the world are they going to have credibility to manage people?s pay? As a related observation: the money, and the human talent, ALWAYS go to the new systems. Old Systems aren?t glamorous. In the early 1960s, the Air Force had the F-105 fighter. It was old. All the system managers/acquisition managers/logistics managers left it as fast as they could, and moved on to the brand new F-4. In the 1970s, the F-4 was old. All the system managers/acquisition managers/logistics managers left it as fast as they could, and moved on to the brand new F-15s and 16s. In the 1990s, the F-15s and 16s were old. All the system managers/acquisition managers/logistics managers left it as fast as they could, and moved on to the brand new F/A-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It was easy, writing this section ? all I had to do was cut and paste and change a few numbers and letters! And, it?s true. Supporting infrastructure: Information technology support and training and change management plans are available and funded. It sounds like we need another half a billion dollars to waste on yet another computer system, and more weeks of manpower devoted to training on this NSPS and writing the appropriate ?change management plans.? Shouldn?t managers and supervisors be spending their time on ?mission? issues? My ?back of envelope? calculations indicate that the manhours away from work to attend the training for NSPS will cost about $250,000,000. I thought I might be wrong, then I saw an article that indicated NSPS will cost about $850,000,000 to implement. Can?t we use this money for something more important? Schedule: NSPS will be operational and demonstrate success prior to November 2009 Has the US Government ALREADY DECIDED that NSPS will be successful? The above comments indicate that NSPS will be ?credible.? If success has already been decided, why bother? Please remove ?and demonstrate success? from this comment. That will make this statement ?credible.? Page 7557 Continuing Collaboration ??known generally as the ?30/30/30? process.? What?s the rush? Other comments have indicated that the NSPS will be ?event driven,? not time driven. This NSPS affects hundreds of thousands of Civil Service personnel. Perhaps we need more time. If I don?t understand it, I will not support it. Again, the forklift driver is going to have trouble. page 7558 Relationship to Other Provisions of the Law ??the critical national security mission?Each provision must be construed to promote the swift, flexible, and effective day-to-day accomplishment of that mission, as defined by the Secretary.? First of all, the day-to-day mission is already swiftly, flexibly, and effectively accomplished at the local unit and at the local civil service organization, or at least, it should be. Why else do we bother showing up to work, every day? Tinker AFB currently buys lots of spare parts for USAF aircraft. Isn?t that critical to the national security mission? Or, does the Secretary of Defense intend to change Tinker?s mission? So we remember the history ? what did Tinker AFB do when the Federal Building was attacked, in Oklahoma City? THIS ONE INCIDENT can clearly destroy much of the credibility for the need of NSPS. I would like to see a specific statement of how the NSPS interacts with other existing laws. I would also like to state that the NSPS exists only as part of the National Defense Authorization Act; it does not stand on its own. There are currently an entire range of federal laws that affect Civil Service, both within and outside of the Department of Defense. These are some: Federal Employees Compensation Act Fair Labor Standards Act Family and Medical Leave Act It would be a good idea to expand this section to examine some of these relationships. Concerning the ?Family and Medical Leave Act:? If an employee has a sick family member and must take large amounts of time off, this is legal under the FMLA. But also ? it affects the employee?s performance. And, the manager or the colonel can decide that ?The mission comes first.? I remember the case of a baby being very, very sick. The colonel and staff insisted that the (military) crewmember didn?t have a problem. The baby died. The colonel and his staff decided that the crewmember did have a problem after all, and asked when could the crewmember come back to work. There was no empathy or sympathy, at all. Of course, this was a purely military situation. Is there any relationship between the NSPS and the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, of 1980? It was initially defeated in 1976 and 1978, and finally passed in 1980. Classification ?Subpart B ?DoD (in coordination with OPM) will establish broad occupational career groups?? This sounds okay. It is important to consider that we got this far because human beings made specific decisions, relevant at their time, to format the current system. I remember when the US Air Force decided to make great changes to all the Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs), in the early 1990s. Actually, it changed nothing. An F-15 pilot remained an F-15 pilot; he couldn?t fly an A-10 or an F-16, and certainly not a C-5. The forklift driver at Norfolk Naval Base could probably drive a street sweeper in Saudi Arabia, if necessary. And, he could probably drive a snowplow in Alaska. Quite honestly, I would punish a first-line supervisor who didn?t make sure that his employees didn?t periodically rotate their duties so they could operate most, if not all, of the unit?s basic equipment. DAWIA affects so many of the ?Acquisition, Technology and Logistics? civil service members. DAWIA seems to advocate dual qualification in a number of fields. Big problem ? how does an individual maintain proficiency across a broad range of management skills? What will logically happen is that he?ll routinely use one or two skills, then ?get rusty? on all the rest. Again, the first-line supervisor better make sure this doesn?t happen. DoD may elect to phase in the coverage of specific categories of employees or occupations under the new classification and pay system established under these proposed regulations. Why not do this: as there will be a very large retirement in these next few years, have employees sign a statement: ?I will retire on _____ (a specific date, before 24 November 2009); I elect NOT to participate in the NSPS.? This would make things easier. For all the new-hires, we can concentrate on working out ALL the problems with the NSPS. Page 7559 TABLE 1: The taxpayers won?t mind if you use a little more ink to include more examples. For whatever reason, only the ?Engineering and Scientific Career Group? is illustrated. What does this have to do with forklift drivers? Why not list ALL of the career fields? Or, at least give a cross section? This ?regulation? is seriously deficient for not expanding this vital section. National Security Compensation Comparability First Paragraph: ?In accordance with the NSPS law...? The NSPS is not a law. It is a part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Page 7560 Performance-Based Pay I want to make one specific statement right now: Only the United States Department of Defense can write something so COMPLICATED! There has been a contention that NSPS will not change retirement. YES! IT WILL! Because there will be a change of methods in computing pay, and that leaves open the possibility that some individuals will receive pay reduction or pay stalemate, the new calculations can result in reduced retirement pay. And, I can assure you ? the current retirement system is one of the inducements for new applicants to join the Civil Service in the first place. It appears to me: we?re currently very busy. And, our supervisors and managers are very busy. There?s a war going on, you know. This entire NSPS adds greater responsibility, meaning, more work, in personnel appraisal and the entire human resources management function. Concerning ?Performance-Based Pay,? do the supervisors and managers WANT this responsibility? Again, I have specifically asked above ? who are the people who developed this NSPS? Any base commanders? First of all, much more time will be required to make it work. Second, there is a psychological factor ? if a manager has been using a specific style, it might be necessary to change; and the manager and the subordinates might not like the change. -This NSPS implementation could be a shove to push older managers out the door, into early retirement; this definitely looks political. The retirement could be voluntary, just so they don?t have to put up with this extra work. And, with the Global War on Terrorism, we need their skills now. Third: what authority does the local manager have? ?I have specifically decided that I will just give everybody a 2.5% raise.? Is this legal? -Knowing Air Force commanders the way I do, this is what will happen: On a base, there will be a meeting once a year. The commander will have his staff, to include the local Civil Service manager, and the Judge Advocate General, and he might even invite the local president of whatever union. The first order of business will be to identify a handful of top performers. These people will get special awards or rewards ? under NSPS, big pay raises. The second order of business will be to examine the list of poor performers and to insure that the bureaucracy is working to make them improve or leave Civil Service. The last couple of minutes will be a simple statement to give all other Civil Service employees the same pay raise. The meeting will be over in an hour, ninety minutes at the most. If we are going to be concerned about ?the mission,? we should consciously reduce the time commitments that detract from that mission. Unit commanders currently do not spend much time on Civil Service personnel matters; any increase will detract from their current operations. For the civilian managers in the big Civil Service organizations ? they?re busy, too. Concerning appraisals: are Civil Service workers allowed to compare their appraisals with each other? How else are we going to know if the system is working? The system is supposed to be ?Credible? and ?Trusted.? I have heard one first-line supervisor indicate that with NSPS, he will require each employee to write their own appraisal, and he?ll sign them as written. That way, if there?s a problem, it?s not his problem! This example reflects military ?Officer Effectiveness Reports? of many years. There have been many commanders who have simply left it up to the individual. And, I remember one woman who wrote her own OERs, taking three days each. Isn?t that time she could/should have used in the performance of her normal duty? The last I remember, she retired as a full colonel. In mentioning OERs, the common Air Force perception was ? it doesn?t matter what YOU DO, it matters HOW WELL YOUR BOSS WRITES IT, and how many stars (the highest ranking general officer) will sign it. In the 1980s and 1990s, there have been problems with the equity of the Army and Air Force OER systems, with a number of court cases. And, I was once told, that for Marine Corps officers, one bad OER, written by one supervisor who was mad at the officer, could destroy an officer?s career. What does this say about the psychology of that great, MILITARY organization? I am specifically asking that this entire situation be linked to the civilian appraisals required in the NSPS. I ask this because there will be extreme trouble, and the DoD should recognize it now. Page 7561 Pay Administration Overtime Pay provides all managers everywhere an immediate, understandable measurement of management performance. With the NSPS emphasis on ?Pay for Performance,? such a measurement is that much more important. Deletion of Overtime Pay would only force other, unidentified information sources to be developed, with no guarantee of success. Overtime pay is currently specifically identified in the Fair Labor Standards Act. There were times in my military service when I wished I could have had an ?overtime? calculation, to prove that my organizations needed more manpower. It didn?t happen. During the current Global War on Terrorism, the US Army has repeatedly had trouble paying soldiers. What kind of administrative and systemic problems can we expect with NSPS? A concern can be the pay for Civil Service personnel who deploy to the combat zone. How will their performance be evaluated? And, also, I believe we face the disparity between the civilians and the military personnel: Civil Service personnel make a lot more than military personnel, and the civilian contractors make an unbelievable amount of money. In Bosnia, this created some hard feelings. What role does Congress have in pay administration? Congress appropriates funds for specific purposes. In the past, it has seen fit to provide for annual pay raises for both military and civilian personnel. Under NSPS, will the Department of Defense routinely disallow such congressional interference? (Barr, Stephen. Resolutions in House and Senate seek parity in pay raises. Washington Post: 2 February 2005, page B2). Lastly, the Federal Aviation Administration is currently using some type of ?pay banding? system. Please provide a report on that system, and specifically address how the problems will not be incorporated into NSPS. We are all part of the US Government. Promotion Do individuals have the right to refuse promotion? This might seem odd, but we?re talking about human beings. Page 7562 Employees share the responsibility of identifying and communicating difficulties, whether due to problems in understanding, communication, or accomplishment of expectations. Yes, ANYTHING that affects my performance will immediately be communicated to my supervisor. We have to rely on computer systems, of varying quality and capability. I have the right to complain every time anything goes wrong ? because these computer problems affect my performance. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, section1.102-4, specifically indicates that we will work together on ?Acquisition Teams.? Very good. Now, if any individual on the team is performing poorly, affecting MY performance, I will ask for that individual to be replaced. If you think that the Civil Service has backstabbing at the upper ranks, right now, it will explode when NSPS affects everybody. By the same token, supervisors and managers will be held accountable for clearly and effectively communicating expectations and providing timely feedback regarding behavior and performance. All a Civil Service employee has to do is to continually repeat: ?I do not understand,? and this point fails. By the way, will the commanders and managers always understand a mission change? I remember one face-to-face encounter with an Air Force colonel, and his dismay over another, dumb change. The whole problem landed on my desk, and I solved it, as a captain. These include but are not limited to remedial training, an improvement period, a reassignment, an oral warning, a letter of counseling, a written reprimand, or adverse action defined in subpart G of these proposed regulations; including a reduction in rate of basic pay or pay band. What happens if a commander chooses the most extreme punishment first? He has the legal right to do so. Why not put this list in a specific order, and demand adherence? Setting and Communicating Performance Expectations Supervisors will involve employees in the planning process to the maximum extent practicable. In so doing employees will better understand the goals of the organization, what needs to be done, and how well it should be done. Final determinations in setting expectations, however, are within the authority of the supervisor. I thought the Secretary of Defense was supposed to do this. Doesn?t he need the flexibility to make critical mission changes in an immediate manner? If that happens, he?s not going to waste time communicating anything. It involves the National Security of the United States. What happens when the employees say: ?That won?t work.? Will the supervisor immediately simply put their foot down, like military commanders so famously do? And, believe it or not ? sometimes the employees do have a better way. At this time, my organization is involved in LEAN, and it seems to be working. If the supervisor is going to make final decisions, then perhaps the supervisor should simply make all decisions, without wasting time planning. Why bother communicating with employees? IS SO MUCH OF THE WORKFORCE SO UNRESPONSIVE that this is necessary? In the days following 11 September 2001, how many people said: ?No, that?s not what the rules say?? Well, it?s been over three years since 11 September 2001. The war in Iraq might have some future particular incidents, as will the war in Afghanistan, and those campaigns have been going on for some time. The US Army is engaged in RESET, to take care of equipment. The world goes on. We have to be ready for a major incident in the United States. Okay! Plan for it, then explain the plan! And, you must consider ? some of us don?t have security clearances. The US Armed Forces have a very bad habit of overclassifying, especially to ?hide? something they don?t want to discuss. I know ? I did it when I was a war planner. Page 7563 Staffing and Employment ? Subpart E Veterans?s preference This is not a true statement. Retired field-grade military officers do not get veterans? preference. There?s plenty of retiring majors and lieutenant colonels who could immediately move into Civil Service. Do you want them? TELL THEM. Appointing Authorities Additional NSPS Appointing Authorities However, where DoD determines that it has a critical mission requirement, the Department and OPM may establish such an authority? Please replace ?DoD? with ?Military Department.? We work for military departments; they hire people, they maintain civil service records. In the US Government, there is a history of ?ad hoc committees? to quickly form and resolve immediate problems. For the armed forces, there are temporary ?Task Forces? that perform a specific, immediate mission. Upon completion, the Task Force disbands. Additionally, some organizations evolve and migrate. What is the full history of the US Air Force Special Operations Command? In each and every instance, obviously there are personnel concerns. And, the Government has always handled them. Why do we need NSPS? Probationary Periods NSPS is a performance-based system; therefore, a critical first step is the ability to assess employees? performance during their initial entry into the Federal service and as they move to positions requiring markedly new skill sets. We already have probationary periods. One key point in this regulation is that there is no specified time-limit of how long a probationary period will last. This is a regulation ? list the period here, now. Page 7564 Workforce Shaping ? Subpart F ??reduction in force.? On 16 May 2005, the world will come to an end for many people; this is, of course, the date when the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list will be published. Now, how to use the NSPS in this reduction? There isn?t enough information or documentation. There is the distinct, unpleasant possibility that there will be personal or political favoritism, for an individual to be retained or transferred to a surviving location. I am specifically asking: please suspend any discussion of ?reduction in force? until after the completion of the entire BRAC process ? yes, for some years. As a reasonable observation ? as people spend time in a job, they generally gain proficiency and can perform better. So, logically, older workers should make more money. This ?Performance-Based Pay? seems to imply that supervisors and managers can find some other way to measure performance and make the pay decisions. Well, it?s going to take time (which we?re short of; there could be another terrorist attack, and a resulting mission change, at any time). And, it is going to force some other type of quantification ? LONGEVITY and STEP INCREASES are here now! What?s really wrong with them? Page 7564 Adverse Actions ? Subpart G These changes are directed at the cumbersome and restrictive requirements for addressing and resolving unacceptable performance and misconduct. Could you give a good, solid statistic? Exactly how many bad people do we have? Surely there must be a record. Also, have the current regulations been used to the maximum extent possible to improve performance or discharge offenders? I doubt it. Page 7564 Adverse Actions ? Subpart G 1. Actions and Employees Covered ??National Security Labor Relations Board?? The United States, as a nation, is at war. The US Government is at war. The Department of Defense is an element of the US Government. The US Government already has the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) and so on. Also, there are other departments and organizations that have ?National Security? responsibilities ? the FBI and CIA, for example. Why not, as the entire US Government as at war, have the existing Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service IMMEDIATELY develop a ?fast track? method to handle the ?National Security? cases, with the Secretary of Defense (or, more appropriately, the secretary of the military department) to sign that a specific case has this ?National Security? bearing, for these agencies to immediately handle? And, giving more flexibility, the secretary of the military department may withhold signature, indicating that the specific case should be handled routinely, thereby allowing the FLRA and FMCS to give priority to the ?National Security? cases? For any number of reasons, the secretary may desire to do so. The US Government is at war. Let?s involve the whole government. Page 7565 However, it is important to preserve the Secretary?s flexibility to carefully and narrowly determine the offenses that will fall into this category and to make changes over time. The absence of this flexibility has been problematic at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), where the IRS Restructuring Act codified mandatory disciplinary offenses in law and limited the agency?s ability to make needed changes. We are a nation of laws, and we should abide by those laws. I?m sorry that the IRS Commissioner has problems; perhaps he can coordinate changes to the legislation with Congress. Military personnel have recourse to punishment, and protection, by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Why can?t civil service personnel have equivalent law? Again ? the entire US Government is at war, not just the Department of Defense. As the different individuals hold the position of Secretary of Defense, this provision allows each secretary to make decisions. This can be fraught with personal opinions and politics. How can Civil Service workers correctly identify the changes in a timely manner? Unless a written letter comes from the new secretary, clearly and specifically indicating his decisions, and disseminated to the entire workforce at one time, then there?s going to be problems. Cast it all in law, and be done with it. Appeals ? Subpart H Merit Systems Protection Board Again ? the entire US Government is at war, not just the Department of Defense. Page 7566 1. Appeals to MSPB ?agency?s critical national security mission. Is it necessary to AGAIN comment how ?critical? the national security mission is? We know ? the Department of Defense has been guarding our great country for fifty eight years. We fought in Korea, in Vietnam, and twice in the Gulf. And, we?ve had all the other incidents and situations, along with who know how much covert action? The mission doesn?t change. Only the people do. Page 7567 5. Standard of Proof I don?t understand this section. This is another indication that the entire US Government should be involved. The FLRA and the FMCS have experts in this field. Allow them to perform their governmental duties. Page 7568 8. Attorney Fees This is an unreasonable standard that can deter the Department from taking action in appropriate cases and has a chilling effect on the Department?s ability to carry out its mission. When will the Secretary of Defense be so afraid of a personnel decision that it will affect the ability to carry out the mission? Are you absolutely, 100% sure that paying a legal bill will so dangerously affect the national security? If the Department of Defense is willing to pay over $258 million for ONE (1) F/A-22, surely it can pay a lawyer fee if it?s made a mistake! (Are we absolutely certain that the Department of Defense hasn?t made any mistakes in the management of the F/A-22 program?) We, the Civil Service employees ? we are not the enemy. Osama bin Laden is the enemy. Page 7568 Labor-Management Relations ? Subpart I Congress recognized DoD?s need for enhanced flexibilities to ensure mission accomplishment when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act providing for the creation of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). This specifically indicates that the NSPS is part of this law, not that the NSPS is a law itself. 1. Purpose In authorizing the creation of the NSPS, Congress recognized that maintaining the status quo with respect to labor-management relations would not provide DoD with a workforce that is sufficiently agile and flexible to execute the current and future national security mission. It seems to me that Congress wants to see a proposal, and will make a decision, later. What does the law actually say? Please provide detailed examples of the situation where the current mission is not being met. Please identify the offending commander, and hang him. If there is a commander who is not completing his assigned mission, how could it possibly be because his Civil Service workers are sabotaging him? He should immediately use all available military personnel, twelve hours a day, seven days a week, if necessary, and accomplish his mission. And, immediately identify the offending Civil Service members to everybody, including Congress. Concerning labor unions: I was once assigned to a certain airbase, overseas. The base commander, a full colonel, hated the host nation, hated the local nationals, hated the labor union that many of them belonged to, and really wasn?t happy with us, the US Air Force members who worked for him. His conduct seriously jeopardized even the existence of the base. He was replaced, and the new commander was much more considerate. Many, not all, of the labor problems seemed to disappear. Is it possible to determine military officers who are specifically ?anti-union,? and prevent them from being assigned to critical leadership positions over large numbers of Civil Service workers? I am afraid that there could be a commander who takes on the personal ?mission? of union-busting. It COULD happen. Does the Department of Defense want to ?UNION BUST?? At least have the integrity to stand up and say so. In the current era, we are faced with political pressures and sometimes, unethical behavior; I believe Ms. Druyun is still in prison. It is logical that the Department of Defense wants to stop any and all union activity. Thus, it authorized the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to establish a labor-management relations system that addresses the unique role that the Department?s civilian workforce has in supporting the Department?s national security mission. See 5 USC 9902(m). It is important to realize that Congress will review the NSPS; this Federal Register indicates so. It?s not over until Congress specifically agrees. When the NSPS is properly developed, why not go back to Congress and ask for federal law to specifically document approval? Again, many of the other government agencies also have civil service personnel who perform ?National Security? functions. Page 7569 Collective bargaining: is modified to specifically identify the Department instead of the term agency in chapter 71 and to remove the term ?consult? because consultation, under the proposed regulations, as well as under chapter 71, does not require that the parties reach an agreement. I don?t fully understand this. Again, if I don?t understand, what about that forklift driver? Also, I am asking that base commanders and post commanders get some training in union activities and labor relations. And, you know ? just maybe some local commander can work with the local union to resolve their problems, and possibly find a way to better complete his assigned mission. In my vocabulary, this is called ?leadership.? Page 7570 7. Management Rights To carry out its national security mission, the Department must have the authority to take actions quickly when circumstances demand; it must be able to develop and rapidly deploy resources to confront threats in an ever-changing national security environment; and it must be able to act without unnecessary delay. In my first reading of this document, I wrote the phrase ?Posse Comitatus? in the margin. After studying this document for some time, I see no reason to cross out my notation. Again, what about the military departments? The major commands? The local units? Unless there is going to be an EXTREME change, the secretary of defense will tell the Chief of Staff, who will tell the general, who will tell the colonel, who will tell the major, the captain, the lieutenant, the sergeant, and finally the private is going to do something. I don?t care how ?transformed? we get, that?s what happens now, has happened in the past, and will happen in the future. Many years ago, I believe it was General Vessey who made a comment to the effect that just because we have the communications capability to for him to talk to a lieutenant didn?t mean he wanted to. And, the lieutenant didn?t want to talk to him, either. Wasn?t this the famous ?waterpoint? message? I can?t recall. This entire issue is that the US Armed Forces have absolutely tremendous communications capability, and still can?t manage it correctly ? years ago. And, we?ve had any number of miscommunications before 11 September 2001; apparently, it could have been prevented. In my years of military service, especially as a staff officer, I learned that no matter what the intelligence situation revealed (or did not reveal), there is always the demand for effective, proficient planning and coordination ? and these take time. If it takes a little longer to explain it to the Civil Service workforce, and the affected unions, what?s the problem? I imagine, on 11 September 2001, McGuire AFB responded to the terror attacks on the World Trade Center, and the Civil Service workforce assisted that effort. This, of course, occurred while the Pentagon was under attack. Again, why do we need NSPS? And, by the way ? during the coldest part of the Cold War, we had some fighter aircraft that could take off in six minutes, and Strategic Air Command could fight a whole war in about an hour or so. How fast do you want to act? That?s on the military side. Do you really want to have civilians similarly involved? Yes, we have police and firefighters who act pretty quick. FAA air traffic controllers do their job in seconds. The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms people handle bombs, very quickly. Any ?mission? is going to concern putting a large military force at a specific location, at a specific time. What does that have to do with civil service workers? We don?t carry guns. What about ?operations security?? We?re civilians, we don?t know about that! -After the initial action, then the military forces will need various logistical support ? civil service, contractor, or military forces. But, that?s after the initial action. There should be time for someone to plan and coordinate. I want to specifically state: in this Global War on Terror, we may occasionally have critical intelligence failures, and that?s too bad. But, we should not suffer from deficient planning ? proficient planning should already be occurring ? or from poor leadership or malicious caprice. Please do not let commanders hide behind ?The Mission? if they are doing a bad job. I?ve seen it happen, before. My concluding note on this point is that there are large numbers of Civil Service members who serve in various intelligence and counterintelligence roles. I have no real knowledge of their actions or conditions of service. (If I did, it would be classified and I couldn?t talk about it). Page 7573 EO 12866, Regulatory Review Among the NSPS design requirements is to build a system that is competitive, cost effective, and fiscally sound, while also being flexible, credible, and trusted. Again, the Department of Defense is going to compete with Microsoft. Page 7587 9901.514 Non-citizen hiring This is a problem for the United States as a nation, not simply for the Department of Defense. We don?t have enough students who want to study the tough subjects of science, mathematics, and engineering, and the difficult foreign languages. I?m not sure it will make any difference to pay more money. Page 7591 9901-703 Definitions (11) A National Guard technician who is employed under 32 USC 709 This is my idea: Develop a large group of Civil Service positions with mandatory military reserve commitments. And, it?s already done. The US Air Force has done this for some years. In order to obtain certain Civil Service employment, the candidate must first enlist in the US Air Force Reserve. The candidate completes all mandatory basic training, officer training and technical training, in an active military status, then starts work as a Civil Service employee. During this whole process, the US Government is looking the individual over, evaluating him. If he?s not good enough, he?s gone. During the performance of both duties, the individual works in his standard Civil Service position, performing generally according to specific military standards. For the ?one weekend a month,? the individual uses that time for additional military training ? gas mask proficiency, small arms, physical fitness and so on. In an emergency, or as part of a major overseas project, the Civil Service member deploys, as a member of the Air Force Reserve. To the best of my knowledge, this concept is used in the ?Combat Logistics Support Squadrons,? and with a number of ?Individual Military Augmentees.? With the currently projected Civil Service turnover, couldn?t some percentage of the Civil Service workforce be employed under this concept? Somewhere between 15%-25%? As we send large numbers of forces overseas in the ?Global War on Terrorism,? these personnel could deploy, and perform their essentially civilian jobs, as military members. If there is a combat situation, they already have the necessary military training to defend themselves. In the event of death or injury, their status and benefits would already be prescribed by current federal law. In the event that an employee cannot maintain military readiness (for example, a medical condition), the employee would lose Civil Service employment in that particular manpower slot. The employee could be moved into another manpower slot, not requiring the reserve military commitment. If there is a discipline issue, the employee can be fired from Civil Service, and receive the appropriate military discipline. My feeling is that under NSPS, the Department of Defense essentially wants military officers wearing civilian clothes. This idea, to have large numbers of civil service with mandatory military reserve requirements, will meet this perception. 9901.715 (f) The Department may disallow as an employee?s representative ? If the manager is unhappy with an individual, but the supervisor IS happy, what do we do? I?ve seen this problem before. HOPEFULLY the supervisor will have the integrity to stop the manager. But, that doesn?t always happen. (g)(1) An employee who wishes the Department to consider any medical condition that may be relevant to the proposed adverse action will provide medical documentation, as that term is defined at 5CFR 339.104, during the opportunity to reply, whenever possible. Can we put an age limit on this, too? Military personnel must meet certain age limits. Also, physical fitness limits? Military personnel must meet certain physical fitness limits. On 29 January 2005, Ms. Barbara Heald was killed in Iraq, in a mortar attack. She was 60 years old. Is our great country so bad off that we must send grandmothers to die in combat? (unknown staff writer, Civilian Killed In Iraq is Identified, Los Angeles Times, 3 Feb 05). What do you do in a mortar attack? I don?t know, the Air Force didn?t teach me. Page 7592 9901.717 Departmental record Please comply with the existing Federal laws and government regulations. Again, the entire US Government is at war, not simply the Department of Defense. MY CONCLUSION In studying this entire ?National Security Personnel System? REGULATION, I am extremely concerned. First of all, it is not a regulation. There?s no way a supervisor or manager can point to any specific section and legally say ?I made my decision based on this.? There?s going to be a lot of court cases; I hope the DoD is hiring a lot more lawyers. This ?regulation? needs a tremendous amount of work before the next stage of implementation. Again, the NSPS should be ?event-driven,? not ?time-driven.? -Is a supervisor going to fire somebody because he?s grumpy in the morning? I better change my attitude! Is this one of those ?Tom Peters Management guru? fads? ?Management by walking around?? This NSPS gives the indication that ?we?ll make it up as we go along.? Is this any way for a professional organization to behave? I have made a list of the full colonels I?ve personally known, and I remember their personalities and characters. On the entire list, I believe ONLY ONE would have studied this NSPS, and I am certain he would disagree with it. For the others, several would be hostile that the Department of Defense was imposing on them ? more work that was already being performed in a routine manner with little of their time. At many points in this publication, the ?National Security? and ?The Mission? are constantly emphasized. Yes, we know how important they are; some of us were writing mission statements two decades ago, and some of us were bleeding. It seems instead that the Department of Defense is wrapping itself in the flag, attempting to shame us, the Professional Civil Service. As the Civil Service, we have the right and the responsibility not to engage in partisan politics. We are the United States Civil Service. Yes, we are not perfect. But, we work in a manner that we are proud of, and a manner that the citizens should be proud of. We conscientiously follow regulations and procedures (some of them extremely complicated), and we generally adapt to the changing environment as necessary. We support our country, our government, and our governmental agencies, and our customers. In the case of the Department of the Army, our customers are the Warfighters. More important ? our performance is already governed by law. Sincerely,