| Comment Number: | EM-017584 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 3:22:53 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 11, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: [Outreach 7555] The Federal Register talks about a comprehensive outreach and communication process. This has been an obvious failure so far and needs major improvements before proceeding any further. PEO-NSPS and related management must not be allowed to hold back vital information or tell lies to support the effort to sell this very destructive proposal. I have read many of the comments submitted to date. A large number do not reference a specific part of the Federal Register and many just ask questions instead of comments to improve or change a rule(s). I include one such comment for reference below. This is very indicative of the extremely poor job done by PEO-NSPS of reaching out and communicating with the employees. Congress and OPM must demand that all comments received be given a proper and honest review. The process and procedures for making comments were made much too difficult and overly rigid. This is most likely how the future steps will be handled if Congress and OPM do not demand an open and honest process. The experimental demonstration projects were handled very poorly also. But, no corrective action was ever required. This must not be allowed to continue in such a covert fashion. We can not allow devious reasons for changing systems, telling lies to sell the new systems, or excluding comments that did not meet PEO-NSPS standards. From submitted comments....... ........................ Comments This appears to be a blantant disregard for the Constitution and the respective civil rights affording oversight by the powers that be, i.e., Congress and a vote of the American people. It is forced idealogy the promotes the degradation of the very fiber of America being a democracy. Instead of enforcing the current civil service system which is realistic, it promotes changing a good work force into untrusted and forced labor mirroring third world governments. All law and its affected subseqent agencies are defined. This is not a defined program that was well thought out; instead it is a proposed program to confuse the masses and proceed without caution, leaving destruction wherever it takes off with us (civil servants) being at risk and the American National Security. Continuity and context are the key and this proposal has none. Our entire workfoce that sustains the current workload of America knows it is not in excellent health but it is functionable. It is better to function at good performance level than change to a new system that lowers the standards of integrity and honor and replace it with political unrest leading to destruction and the end of a realistic workplace which had bearing and a purpose. And if making a diversified workforce was a problem in the past; implementing this program only makes it easier to take from the have-nots and give it to the have-mores. One thing the current program supported when enforced was equal opportunity, soon there will be none. It is a criminal shame as many different groups have dedicated and given their lives to the support and protection of our democracy only to again, find they will not be rewarded fairly and are targeted as expendable. I am inclined to agree and support many other civil service professionals (workforce level workers and good managers) who say this reeks of -- AT WILL -- hiring and firing practices that will make a bad situation worse. It is an orchestrated effort to conceal the real facts of a workforce needing to confront real world issues that could be corrected by enforcing the current system with tried and true directives. God Help Us All if this program is not held back for scrutiny by the powers that be. To borrow from another civil servant I ask the same questions?: Your proposal states Local market supplement setting will be defined at a later date in an issuance from the DoD. Why aren't these items defined now and published in the Federal Register? Why did the DoD publish a proposal that isn't fully defined? Is the intent of the DoD to publish issuances at a later date so that these issuances do not have Congressional oversight and employee representation? Sincerely,