Comment Number: OL-10500061
Received: 2/15/2005 6:54:44 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:

I'm sure EVERYONE'S primary concern with the implementation of this system is going to be safeguards against favoritism by supervisors to "pet employees." Beyond this, consideration needs to be given to the duties described in a person's position description versus those he is actually responsible for performing. In many sections, such as the one I work in now, there are many different things we do and no one person does a little of all of them. Nor do we occasionally switch duties so we get variety and learn about every part of the accounting section's procedures. So one Accounting Technician may exclusively post transactions by self and reconcile them. Another may post and reconcile transactions by others. Another will monitor OPAC transactions and process them; others will balance payroll obligations and disbursements; others still will deal with interfund or some other part of our customer's accounting needs. Yet we are all what will probably be considered associates in a specific "pay band" and our job descriptions will all be the same. If we do not get assigned a particular aspect of workload in our position description, we are not currently rated or appraised on those duties. Hopefully, this consideration will continue in NSPS. Each associate needs to be fairly appraised and evaluated for the work he is ASSIGNED TO DO, not what he is DESCRIBED TO PERFORM in the position description. Furthermore, I believe SOME latitude needs to be allowed for some who may do their jobs well but may have a slight handicap that keeps them from doing it as well as someone else can. THIS SYSTEM MUST BE FAIR TO THOSE ASSOCIATES WHO ARE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED IN SOME WAY. It goes without saying that all of us are apprehensive about something new, but this is dynamically and dramatically new--beyond the paradigm we are used to with new systems and procedures--and therefore the apprehensions behind it are magnanimous and too many to name and perhaps too difficult to accurately communicate in some cases. My guess now is that the transition into this system is not going to be as smooth and seamless as everyone in the planning and implementation areas would like it to be.