Comment Number: EM-023179
Received: 3/17/2005 12:27:52 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:

Comments on the Department of Defense's (DOD) New Personnel System, being identified as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). (Federal Register: February 14, 2005, (Volume 70, Number 29, Proposed Rules, Page 7551-7603) The following facts have to be identified before any comments can be made on DOD's publication in the Federal Register regarding the implementation of NSPS, can be fully understood. 1. DOD has not identified why it needs this new personnel system to accomplish its mission. 2. DOD has not identified how operating under the current Civil Service system interferes with it ability to perform its mission. 3. To identify this new personnel system as the National Security Personnel System is misleading at best. It appears to be identified as a new national security system to mislead the lawmakers and the public that it has an actual security function and that the current system causes a security problem, neither of which is true. 4. DOD has not identified one single security reason to support it's claimed need for this new system or identified one problem with the old system that caused a security problem. 5. DOD has not specifically identified how this new personnel system is going to be an advantage over the current system. 6. DOD has not identified any supportable problems with the employee protections or the due process afforded with current civil service system, other than to claim it was slow, something it has not shown. Even if it were true, DOD has not shown that their new system will be any better. In the majority of cases, management is the cause of the delay, not the system or the employee. 7. DOD has changed the standard of proof for any employee to receive a favorable decision on appeals or have the decision reviewed to substantial. Meaning that the decision make can ignore or dismiss all evidence supporting the employee's position no matter how preponderant, if they can find one single piece of information that tends to support managements position. 8. This new standard of proof will diminish the basic merit principles not promote them. 9. The new system has not identified any new procedures to make managers accountable for the abuse of the enormous additional power and control they will have over employees and the probability of hiring abuse. 10. This great increase of power and authority the new system has given managers and supervisors can only lead to one outcome, abuse and corruption. Ultimate power, creates ultimate corruption. 11. As identified in the Federal Register, DOD will create most of the operating rules by instruction or policies the will be in terminal flux. This creates three major faults: (1) it will be very difficult for employees to understand not only their rights, but how the system works and their responsibilities, (2) it will give DOD the ability to rewrite the rules at will, if they do not like the out come or it was not in their favor, (3) there will be no oversight either by congress or OPM in the operation of the system, giving the DOD free reins to operate this new system in any fashion they choose. 12. DOD has not identified any negative impact that the current rule under which the relationship between the unions and the government agencies has interfered with it mission or it ability to accomplish its mission. This is just one of the things it needs to insure it can achieve the ultimate power over its employees. Eliminate as many avenues of oversight as possible. 13. DOD has not identified how the current hiring process is to cumbersome (which if operated and utilized properly it is not) or how the unknown process they intend to use is going to correct this problem without promoting corruption and abuse. 14. DOD falsely claims high performers and low performer are payed the same. The low performers do not receive promotions and the high performers do. They can also reward the high performers under the current system with promotion and quality step increases and deny low performers their step increase. However this is would require the managers and supervisor to actually do their jobs and under this new system it will only require a wave of their hand with little or no justification or reason. 15. Currently, employee who want to standup for their right do it on their own, with no help or assistance from their agency or any other government agency. They have to assume the roll of police, investigator and prosecutor. 16. It DOD truly want to insure that employee are treated fairly, which the claim. Why is it they have not setup this new system to insure that all rules are followed in a fair an equal manner? If DOD wants to insure that these rules are followed, it will have advocates for its employee who believe that they have been mistreated or their rights have been violated. Instead of under the current system where DOD spends all of it money and energy fighting employees who stand up for their rights. This current policy alone wastes millions if not billions of dollars every year defending bad managers and supervisors the agencies know were in the wrong. 17. DOD complains the relationship between management and labor is adversarial. However this adversarial position is promoted by DOD and it managers, not labor or employees. As a general rule if labor or an employee attempt to resolve a problem or an issue with their agency, the insist that the adversarial process they setup be used. Even when there are hearings, the agencies attempt to insure that the federal rules of evidence are followed, which is not a requirement, instead of making every effort to find the truth to ensure the employees are treated fairly and the rules, regulations and statutes are followed. This is further illustrated by the fact that rarely if ever is any manager or supervisor subjected to any meaningful corrective action when they have violated the rules, regulations or statutes. It has been said more than once by supervisors that policies and rules are in place only for employees not their supervisors. The fact that labor does not want to use non-adversarial avenues of solving problems is false. This was proven by many of the partnerships under executive orders, resolving many issues and saving millions of dollars. However this process was eliminated by agency managers, again promoting and choosing the adversarial process, because it is in their favor when they have unlimited resources to fight labor an its employees and have control over most of the evidence. 18. The claim that the personnel systems tested under the demonstration projects have shown "a positive results has and can not supported by any even basic scientific evidence. The claims are only supported by managers and supervisors opinions, and even those were taken in a highly subject fashion. 19. The are no claims being made by DOD regarding the value of the personnel processes tested, that were done within the even the minimum of scientific controls to make their claimed findings supportable. In fact one of the demonstration projects conducted at China Lake had no evaluation plan or controls in place. China Lake is one of the major justifications DOD is identifying to support the value of pay for performance, and it did not even have a performance evaluation plan in place and the different testing activities did not follow the same plan. The is no reliable evidence what so ever that the personnel process being tested were of any value what so ever. In fact the RIF conducted under the demonstration project was age discriminatory and targeted specific employees. 20. DOD has not shown any relationship to the September 11 attacks and a need to change their personnel system, much less made it clear. Claiming the change is nothing less that an absolute requirement is also not supported what so ever with any facts or evidence. These claims are nothing less than unsupported inflammatory statements being made to unjustly support their desires using the emotions of congress and the people. 21. DOD can show that pay banding has not been show to improve employee performance or their contributions. If a factual study was actually performed, by an unbiased party, there is no doubt this claim would not be supported. All these unchecked positions of authority will only lead to one conclusion, corruptions and the demoralization of the honest employees. 22. DOD has not provided one example to support that it has a problem that prevent it from using it employees effectively as an organization. 23. DOD has not provided one example to support that the current system limits opportunities for its employees. I doubt that this statement can be support in any way form or fashion. 24. DOD has not identified anything in it plan that will maintain the core values of the current civil service system, that the employees are assured to be paid and rewarded based solely on their performance, innovation and results or provide its employees greater opportunities for career growth. 25. DOD has provide not evidence that the new personnel system will increase its ability to execute its national security mission. 26. DOD has identified it intends to change the hearing of appeals, review of appeals, qualification requirements, appointments, promoting detailing, reassigning, reduction in force procedures, but has failed to identify what those changes are going to be, so that any interested party could have any input into DOD's new personnel system. 27. DOD is claiming that the labor organizations are going to have the opportunity to have input regarding this new personnel system and participate in developing and adjusting the new labor relations system. How ever it does not identify or provide that "input or participation" will be any more that an possible notification of a change or that they will receive a response to any identified concerns. 28. This new personnel system can not void any collective bargaining agreements and it would be unconstitutional for congress to pass any law to void these contracts. 29. DOD had not identified any process or procedure to insure that the new personnel system or its manager are going to be held accountable to insure that it will be credible and trusted, or that the system assures openness, clarity, accountability or support the merit principles. This is unquestionably and unsupported statement. This claim should not be relied upon by anyone until such time DOD can show without question it has thoroughly outlined and identified how this is going to be implemented. 30. DOD had not presented anything to support its claim that there will be accountability at all levels. This is nothing more than an empty promise, that will not occur. 31. All of the procedures that DOD claims to being putting in place to insure accountability should be in place before anything else is considered. To do anything less, is a guarantee of failure and will corruption. 32. DOD is misleading congress in it statement that it had meetings with employees, employee representatives to solicit feed back. If you notice, they state "design elements" what ever those are. DOD did not put forth any information to these parties that provided them the opportunity to discuss or have any meaningful input into what was presented in the Federal Register and these meetings were put on by DOD in an effort to mislead congress into believing they were allowing input into the new personnel system's designe. I could identify hundreds of additions problems with the new proposed system, but DOD will not consider any them in for the finial rules on the new personnel system, they will simply be dismissed as dissenting opinions as to the necessity and value of this new personnel system. Responses to rule published today are no longer seriously addressed or looked at, the federal agency simply dismisses any negative feedback and goes forward with their plan. The Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management have moved forward with this new personnel system using deceitful tactics. They have intentionally presented it without specifically identifying any specific reason or need for a new personnel system and wrote the rules in a very vague and non-specific manner to prevent any concerned party from having the ability to intelligently reply or challenge any part of it. DOD has no intention of creating a personnel system that will promote any merit principles or the efficiency of the department. This conclusion is supported be the total lack of any real specific rules regarding the new personnel system they are proposing. DOD intention with this exercise is to have a personnel system with no enforceable or definable rule and have a totally at will work force. Something that is needed to meet its goal of having no accountability except to the Executive Branch, by keeping congress in the dark and silencing those employees who would dare to blow the whistle on any inappropriate actions by the DOD. All of the desired results of this new personnel system presented by DOD, have been very limited and non- specific. DOD has not presented any information, data or evidence to support their need for this new system or how this new system is really going to operate. DOD has not presented any specific need or problem with the current civil service system that can not be accomplished under the current civil service system. The DOD problems identified appear to be caused by lazy managers and the poor efficiency of its personnel offices. The DOD has not identified any specific problem(s), ( other than in an extremely general non- specific sense), with the current civil service system that is impacting its ability to perform its mission. A brilliant strategy, I must say, to support the unjustified and unneeded changes, which has served them very well up to this point. This intentional lack of specific information on it plan and needs, has almost totally eliminated DOD's requirement to respond to any specific Congressional concerns and has effectively prevented employees, citizens and unions from intelligently challenging the vague and broad reasons given by DOD in support of its request for this new personnel system. The intent and desire of DOD in requesting this new system, appears to be one thing and one thing only, which is to do away with any and all employee protections. To effectively turn all its employees into at will employees, to prevent and discourage as many of its employees as possible from identifying corrupt and wasteful practices by the Department of Defense and/or its contractors. The DOD mobility plan will encourage employees to leave DOD, not stay as it appears to claim. Very few employees will want to keep a job where they have to relocate their families on a moments notice, and can not put down any roots. I have observed DOD agency operations for many years and they have show no concern for following any rules except for when they were forced to follow them. How can anyone believe that to grant the DOD to not only write and change the rules at will but to be the sole judge of it compliance with those rules to be a good idea? DOD has shown intention of promoting the merit principles or a viable avenue of appeal for it employee's to use when mistreated or are victims of reprisal for whistleblowing or other protected activity is there is actually going to be protected activity, something that could not be proven by what has been presented so far. This ideal of a new personnel system for DOD should be stopped now before any more tax dollars are wasted on DOD attempt to destroy any possibility of having its operation function in an efficient and productive manner.