| Comment Number: | OL-10500204 |
| Received: | 2/15/2005 2:44:12 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:
To all it may concern, Although the new National Security Personnel System (NSPS) appears to be a positive move in redefining the governments ability to hire, fire, and promote personnel from the ranks when necessary, I have some concerns about the systems’ flexibility with those personnel that happen to fall short of this program and become the “people in cracks” of regulations. I have been an active Army member for approximately eight years. I have been a sergeant in charge of troops and material, and currently, I have several years as a professional working in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I have experience in management and in my profession. My comment or concern involves several areas pertaining to the work load and employee performance. Most work loads are dramatically reduced due because funding is being diverted to the war effort (that’s what I have been told). Some employees have fallen in the “cracks” of the current system. Others around me have long term projects and are continuously being funded and don’t suffer from lack of work. I am concerned that certain employees’ performance rating will hurt due to the lack of work. As a result, those persons will be punished by not receiving pay raises and/or receiving any promotional awards. I’m concerned with the new NSPS and wish to make another comment: how are current supervisors going to rate employees if there is little work? What active role does the supervisor play in helping an employee develop the skills and “corporate knowledge” to complete the mission? Or do does the employee slowly get pushed out and then some eager young college graduate takes their place? When I was a sergeant, I made it my job to ensure my soldiers knew their jobs and to help them to achieve their work goals. I haven’t seen much of that type of motivation being conducted with the current system; will it change with the new next system? I have many concerns. This new system may strongly promote cronyism and nepotism within the ranks: where is it written for the checks and balances on supervisors and managers? I am deeply worried that the government employee system is headed for the wrong changes for the general employee. I haven’t seen enough change for management itself. I haven’t read any requirements to become a supervisor (other than from seniority, which the new system wants to remove). The general employee is there to do a job, to be proud of doing that job. I believe that if management styles and techniques aren’t improved with built-in checks and balances, how does one expect the general employee to improve? That is my comment. Thank you