| Comment Number: | OL-10502249 |
| Received: | 3/1/2005 1:12:05 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:
Promotion within the civil service system is not, as popularly portrayed, based primarily on longevity. Small regular annual increases are basically tied to inflation, although a political factor is also involved since these raises are set by Congress. However, a person can rise within their current grade level based on longevity only in the sense that they must not be found deficient. For example, a person may enter the government as a GS-5. They will probably gradually rise to the top of their grade level over many years, unless they are found deficient. Some (by no means all) jobs raise noncompetitively through a career ladder such as 5-7-9 unless the employee is found deficient. A federal employee could stay in the top level of their career ladder for the rest of their career, even for 25 plus years, without further promotion if they don't apply for higher level jobs as part of a competitive process. The most lucrative forms of promotion are all competitive in nature. Some degree of inefficiency is bound to occur in a civil service system like ours that has many checks and balances. Introducing more ability to hire and promote without having to follow as many rules about who is qualified and what makes them qualified is likely to introduce more opportunity for corruption. Even with the current system it is not impossible for favoritism and nepotism to occur. Unfortunately, creating a fully merit based system (with the decision about will open the door to easily promoting people based on subjective points of view. This will not be confined to hiring and promoting people based on their ability to fufill some type of personal need (e.g., friendship, family relations, political favors, sexual favors, access to influential people or a better lifestyle, cash), although that will occur. Even managers who are merely convinced that their viewpoint will revitalize an agency or the country may cause great damage by selecting only people who promote their point of view but have no background in an agency's previous actions and are unwilling to support any but the favored options. New management often feels they should bring in new blood to sweep away old thinking. Instead of having people from a broad spectrum of political or social views work together in our agencies, this kind of redistricting can make an agency narrow minded and unable to assess its own mistakes. Democracy is basically an inefficient form of government, but Americans do not support changing it for an efficient dictatorship. In many countries a corrupt civil service system is a fact of life, and bribes are a recognized part of doing business with the government. We should remember this when we consider the merits of wiping out a civil service system which is renowned worldwide for the honesty of its employees.