| Comment Number: | OL-10500168 |
| Received: | 2/15/2005 1:40:43 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:
I do not believe that this personnel system is better than, or as fair and just, as the current system. The newly proposed NSPS is extremely subjective and while its intent is to mitigate ineffective employee performance, it widely opens an opportunity for subjective assessment of employees by, in many cases, non-qualified supervisors. The Plan calls for "most civilian employees" to be eligible for coverage by NSPS - what makes the ineligible jobs more sacrosanct? Why isn't EVERY civil servant subject to NSPS, including the inventors and writers of this new beneficial personnel policy? Why shouldn’t we modernize all out-dated civil service systems? In fact, if the American people are not satisfied with our elected official’s performance, why not let them withhold their bonuses? While New Jersey has one of the highest cost of living indexes, it appears that the “Locality Adjustment” portion of salaries is also in jeopardy of being withheld for anyone who is deemed to be a “poor performer”. Will an equal lowering of taxes be issued to compensate the lowering of incomes based upon a supervisor’s opinion? Also, it appears that the groupings of GS levels in each pay band leaves the lower level with room for advancement and the higher level with none. What would be the incentive for advancement or taking on added responsibility of the higher grade?