| Comment Number: | OL-10500236 |
| Received: | 2/15/2005 5:02:09 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:
1. Section 9901.807(d)(1): indicates that standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. The comments on page 7567 of the Notice of Proposed Rules indicate that the standard was chosen for both misconduct and performance actions to simplify the appeals process. Suggest changing standard for both misconduct and performance actions to substantial evidence to promote swift, flexible, effective day-to-day accomplishment of the mission. The appeal procedures established by NSPS will protect employee from arbitrary and capricious actions of the Department. 2. Section 9901.807(k)(8)(iii): Once the Department has served notice on the parties that it will reconsider the initial AJ decision, there is no time frame given for the Department to issue its decision to remand/affirm the initial AJ decision or issue a final DOD decision. Suggest adding a reasonable timeframe to bring resolution to the issues. 3. Section 9901.914: Representation Rights and Duties. In referring to EEO complaints, the commentary on page 7571 of the Notice of Proposed Rules states that this section makes it clear that the union has no institutional right to represent the employee or attend meetings related to resolution of the employee’s issues in an EEO complaint. However, this section does not specifically refer to EEO complaints. Suggest including specific language to clarify lack of union institutional rights during formal and informal complaint proceedings including mediations, DOD investigations of formal complaints, and settlement negotiations with individual employee on matters not affecting the bargaining unit as a whole. 4. Subpart C of Notice of Proposed Rules sets a basic framework to reward high performers with pay increases and to deny pay increases to those with unacceptable performance. The proposed plan is based on a performance system which will require supervisors to advice employees of the requirements for success and foresees improved communications with employees by requiring ongoing feedback with the employees with at least one interim performance review during each appraisal period. Under the proposed rules, the employee will be held accountable for his/her behavior and performance and the supervisor will be held accountable for clearly and effectively communicating expectations and providing timely feedback regarding behavior and performance. All of these goals can be achieved under the current GS pay system and with the current performance evaluation system, TAPES. Under the current system, employees with high performance can be rewarded with performance bonuses and quality step increases. The poor performer with a rating of “needs improvement” does not get a within-grade step increase, and thus is not rewarded solely on the basis of longevity. Under TAPES, the supervisor is obligated to advice the employee of his/her performance standards and to communicate accomplishments necessary to succeed or excel. Under TAPES, the supervisor is required to conduct a mid-point evaluation to provide ongoing feedback to the employee. Under the current system, an employee is held accountable for his/her behavior and performance. The fact that the current system is not utilized to its fullest potential is not a sound reason for discarding the system. Merely changing the name of the performance evaluation system is not going to make supervisors better at communicating with their employees. The time and money would be better spent teaching supervisors to be better communicators and evaluators with the performance evaluation and pay system already in place.