| Comment Number: | OL-10501055 |
| Received: | 2/23/2005 11:34:48 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:
Overall, the NSPS in the Federal register is is vague and lacking in details to truely evaluate the proposal. However, the minimal details that were provided, caused great concerne for me. For example, in the "Adverse Action Procedures" on page 7565, provide a time frame for employee notification and time frame for the employee to respond, which are to run concurrently. The NSPS does not distinguish between regular day and working days. The potential exists for an employee to be on vacation for two weeks and management decides to provide the 15 day minimum notice with a 10 minimum response time. In this situation, the employee time to respond has expired, just as they come back from vacation, and management can say it met the requirements in the NSPS. The employee has a long fight ahead, and won't trust management again. Is this fair, reasonable, and the intent of NSPS? Another example is on page 7578, section 9901.106, paragraph 2(ii), which the Secretary determines the number of employee representatives to be engaged in in the continuing collaboration process. Does this provide fair due process, when the Secretary can decide to meet with only one employee representative? The Secretary controls the process and can eliminate a union from the process, but one union does not represent all Federal employees. Another example is on page 7578, section 9901.106, parqagraph 3(ii), the Secretary decides if employees representatives will have a chance to discuss their views with DoD officials. I though the employee representatives were to be part of the process. It sounds like the Secretary can sotop that, which is not in-line with the Law . Another example is page 7578, section 9901.106, paragraph 6, states the continuing collabration process won't affect the right of the Secretary to determine the content of implementing issuances and make them effective at any time. If an inportant issue is being discussed, the Secretary can implement his or her wishes regarding that important issue, which will make the collabration process a complete waste of time, money, and manpower. I don't think absolute power to the Secretary is a good choice. Finally, page 7584, Subpart D- Performance Management does not put in enough safe gaurds or details of the proposed safe guards to prevent management from abusing their power over a person's pay. It needs to be clear that workers & managers are accountable, and the NSPS needs have more details provided now to assure all employees, whether managers or workers. Without greater detail, it is very unclear is the appropriate safeguards will be put in place. As it is currently written, this NSPS proposal is creates to much uncertainity, and doesn't create a sense of confidence that the details will have the safeguards for employees & the flexibility needed by DoD. When you are dealing with a persons ability to provide for their family (including spouses, children, and elder persons), the details become critically important and very revelant. I don't see them in this NSPS proposal. This NSPS proposal needs a major revision.