| Comment Number: | OL-10501544 |
| Received: | 2/25/2005 5:01:51 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:
This message and comments are in response to the National Security Personnel System. Comments will be both general and specific. Page 7552, The Case for Action, paragraph 3, “…it is the process of working and managing creativity to achieve real results.” Comment: When you impose a new set of rules, on personnel or anything in general, you are controlling and not allowing for any creativity. So, how does this new personnel system expect to achieve creativity if it imposes new rules, by law? Page 7553, The Case for Action, bottom of first full paragraph in column one, “… The Department’s 20 years of experience with transformational personnel…” Comment: Whoops! If there are 20 years of experience with transformational personnel, do you think that they will get any better results now by changing the system they could not manage or control to start with? It might be time to change the people at the top and not change the rules for the people at the bottom. Page 7553, The Case for Action, second column, bottom of second full paragraph, “… This will free uniformed men and women to focus on matters unique to the military.” Comment: So what are the unique requirements of the military that these uniformed individuals are already not performing? If the military needs personnel in acquisition, they will put uniformed people there. If the military now only needs to have combat troops, make sure that all advertisement states that, and let us not beat around the bush on this one. Page 7553, The Case for Action, second column, very last sentence, “… the system will provide employees with greater opportunities for career growth and mobility within the Department.” Comment: What hurts the Government the most is the cost of moving people who are qualified to do greater work, but do not have the economic backing to make the move. Say an employee working in a small Government office in the Mid-West has the knowledge and ability to move mountains and is the exact person that an agency needs in Washington DC, but the individual refuses to move to Washington DC. What do you do? According to the new proposed NSPS they either move or they may be reprimanded/fired. Wait a second! What if that person is taking care of an aging parent, does not have the financial resources to be able to afford the high cost of Washington DC, or that person is a single parent held in place by a divorce decree.