| Comment Number: | OL-10502118 |
| Received: | 3/1/2005 8:14:02 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:
Section .103, definition for “mandatory removal offense.” Recommend ending the sentence with “as to warrant removal from the Federal service.” Section .103, definition for “Performance.” Recommend that the implementing regulations contain examples of behavior and demeanor that is would be considered to exceed a standard and what would fail a standard. For example, if a supervisor believes he or she is always right, would arguing your point too forcefully be poor behavior, what about raising a matter to a second level supervisor if the first level supervisor fails to see the benefits of your recommendation. Would that be improper behavior? What about a boss who tells a secretary what to do instead of asking? That could certainly be improper demeanor. How about someone in meetings that asks too many work related, but embarrassing, questions of the boss? Is this poor demeanor? While I believe this is a slippery slope, if you are going to establish these standards, you should at least define them with enough specificity to as not to allow them to be abused. This clearly looks like the work of OPM! Section .103, definition for “Secretary.” Recommend this be clarified to indicate that Secretary also means “or designated representative.” In a number of instances it is clear that the action is not intended for the Secretary of Defense to perform, but rather a management representative within the Department. See, for example, .918, multi-unit bargaining. Clearly, the regulations do not intend the Secretary of Defense to be involved in determinations as to whether multi-unit bargaining will occur at an installation. Yet the Secretary him or her self will be involved in decisions regarding mandatory removal offenses. Section .106(a)(2)(ii) and (iii). Does section (ii) mean the Secretary can limit the number of national unions collaborating? If so, recommend adding in section (iii) between the words “recognition” and “will” the following, “invited to participate in the collaboration process described in 9901.106 by the Secretary,” Section .106(a)(3)(i). Does “employee representatives” mean local unions? Section .106(a) (5). In section .106(a)(3)(i), representatives can submit written comments as well as discuss their views regarding proposed final draft implementing issuances. However, in section .106(a)(5), only written comments will be considered and made part of the record. Should this section also indicate that oral comments would also be considered? Section .108(a). What is meant by “designated employee representatives” in the second sentence? Does that mean all local unions? This section should be clarified to state exactly what is meant by “designated employee representatives -- locals, nationals, or those designated by the Secretary of Defense. Section .221(d). Recommend adding “in writing” between the words “approves” and “the” in the first sentence. Section .222(b) - recommend changing the word “required” to “applied” in the last sentence. Section .222(c) - Is there any timeline for the appeal to OPM? Section .342(a) - Recommend adding the word “total” between the words “the” and “number” in the last sentence. Section .356(e) - Recommend adding “no lower than the pay of the position prior to the temporary reassignment or temporary promotion” between the words “employee” and “upon” in the first sentence. Section 408(b)(2) - Recommend changing the word “action” to “actions” in the first sentence. Section .607(c) - Does this preclude release of retention lists to the union or do the unions receive the list only when serving as an employee’s representative. Section .712(c) - Recommend spelling out procedures for getting Sec Def mitigation of mandatory removals. Section .715 (and other related sections) - need to address what happens when fifth day is a weekend.