| Comment Number: | OL-10502194 |
| Received: | 3/1/2005 10:52:52 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:
Subpart G (9901.712) - This section says that the Secretary has the sole discretion to establish mandatory removal offenses (MRO). This is effectively a zero tolerance policy that only the secretary can mitagate. While I am sure that most people who commit MROs should be fired, zero tolerance policies are by their nature unfair and too inflexible. As an example of how zero tolerance is distorted in the Phila. area we recently had a case where an 8 year old was handcuffed and taken to the police station for bring in scissors. There will always be cases where firing is grossly unfair due to mitigating circumstances and to have the secretary of defense as the only person who can mitigate the penalty means that nothing will ever be sent to him. Conversly, if he takes this duty seriously he will become a full time cabinet level personnel officer. Leaving this authority with the secretary also serves to disempower local managers, which the anthesis of current department policy.The ability to mitagte should be assigned to a much lower level. There is also the risk that secretaries will make small things MROs to respond to the scandal du jour.