| Comment Number: | OL-10501247 |
| Received: | 2/24/2005 12:14:50 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:
9901.231 - Recommend rule define how an employee covered by NSPS will qualify for transfer to other Federal agencies once GS rating is abolished. I.e. current system allows easy transition from Corps of Engineers Natural Resource Management positions to counterparts with National Park Service. A GS 09 Park Ranger (025 series) is interchangeable between the 2 agencies. Not sure how that will work once NSPS is implemented. When going from Corps to NPS, how will NPS know what the comparible grade is? 9901.514 Non-citizen hiring - This appears to be a good solution to staffing needs for jobs in areas such as Iraq. Hire the locals to do the jobs needed over there rather than disrupting the lives of employees in the states. 9901.601 Internal placement - This is a concern. It appears this could be an easy way to get rid of persons based on personality differences, rather than on merits or work performance. 99601.601 More of an editorial on my part: Very little is said about what most folks in our work unit are concerned about. I am an Operations Manager at a Corps of Engineers civil works project. My background is in natural resource management and this is a career field I pursued aggressively, moving 14 times in a 31 year career. I have never been satisified with less than outstanding performance, and feel most in my work unit are the same. I, and most of my peers, are not living in an area so they can work for the Corps/DOD, but rather chose our careers so we can live where we choose. In my case, I do not live in Heber Springs, AR so I can work for the Corps, but work for the Corps so I can live in Heber Springs! Many of our spouses work or have their own businesses and relocation is not an option, yet we fill a vital need in the Corps in our current assignment and are not interested in moving. We do excellent work and fulfill essential mission roles where we are. The underlying feeling by many is the conversion to NSPS is a means to allow the Agency to move us at their whim, even though we are fulfilling mission requirements where we are currently serving. Additionally, I gladly fulfilled my 8 year military obligation and there is a feeling that the conversion to NSPS is a means to staff positions that are/were military positions. The perception, and maybe reality, is the military is not getting the numbers they need, so civilians are going to fill gaps that have been historically military. This is explained as they should have been civilian positions all the time. If so, recruit those from outside rather than a forced move of employees that signed on in a specific career field. If an employee is doing a great job where they are, the position is identified as needed, and the employee is satisified staying where they are, the Agency should not disrupt the personal/family lives to relocate these individuals. In a way, these employees are already paying a price for staying in 1 location. They are often in dead-end jobs, but are OK with that as their family is happy. Employees that place their families in front of their jobs are, in my opinion, morally correct, and should not be punished for their decision. I am not talking about poor performers, rather employees who go the extra mile in their positions, are concerned about the taxpayers and take great pride in their work and productivity. Forced relocation will, most likely, result in more poor peformers instead of better employees. If one does not like where they live, the work ethic is bound to suffer, resulting in more adverse personnel actions when the employee may have been an outstanding performer before the forced relocation.