| Comment Number: | OL-10502438 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 8:14:26 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:
Comments of the proposed NSPS Regs: The justification for NSPS is predicated on the DoD national security mission. While this is our mission, fulfillment to the mission requires flexibility. This flexibility exists in the current system. Currently mangers have the flexibility to reassignment/move employees: Managers have always had the option to reassign or detail employees as needed with notice. Perhaps the process and timelines to do this are cumbersome and should be re-examined rather than developing a whole new system. 7560 -Pay for performance: This concept has been in effect for years. High performing employees should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions this is currently in place under the GS system. Managers have the ability to award high performers e.g., quality step increases and bonuses, incentive and on the spot cash awards. While not perfect the proposed regulation does not accurately represent the current system. Pay for performance is not new and is required under the current system. Pay for performance will not produce all outstanding employees, it is not possible. Nor could the Department afford the pay increases associated with that level of performance. But should DoD diminish the work and contributions of good or excellent employees? The current system has a predicable and systematic way to reward all levels of employees. Also employees at higher steps (5 and above) don’t get an annual increase, they must have a satisfactory rating for two years. They do, however, receive an annual cost of living increase. Having a “pool” of funds to reward outstanding employees didn’t work under the GM system. This concept seems to be recycled under NSPS. NSPS dictates that pay increases are based on manager’s ability to budget and retain funding. Similar to the training budget, when funding get tight training budgets are the first to go. The proposed pool for salary increases will be vulnerable to budget cuts. Also where does Congress come in? Traditionally federal pay increases are approved by Congress and employees could count on knowing what they could expect for a satisfactory level of performance. Under NSPS the employee doesn’t have a clue although pay bands will be published, it is up to the discretion of the manager to determine and award or not award pay increases. The proposed system reeks of inequity and is ripe for grievances. Performance Management – subpart D: I agree with the proposal that poor performers should not be rewarded but only after management has made a significant effort to help the employee improve his or her level of performance. During performance rating periods managers have the option to rate an employer less than satisfactorily but often don’t do. I don’t see this practice changing under the new system. Under NSPS an employees performance and behavioral expectations can be modified during the course of the performance year. Again, this is not a new concept. Managers have had this capability during the mid year review and with proper notice during the course of the performance year. Setting and Communicating Expectations by supervisors to employees has been a basic concept in performance management and required under best practices. This concept is not unique to the NSPS. Managers are required to do this now. Ongoing feedback at least one a year: Feedback should be informally and formally throughout the year – once a year is ludicrous. Best practices in HR require managers to provide feedback more than once a year. How can anyone in good conscious fire someone or give him or her a poor performance when they have only provided annual feedback? Workforce Shaping – Subpart F: Proposed RIP process is unfair and not good for Department. As presented the new RIP system could potentially retain an employee with an outstanding rating but two years of employment and remove an employee with an excellent rating with ten years of employment. This process has the potential for loss of institutional knowledge and loss of good and loyal employee. The performance-rating factor should not be weighted above longevity during a RIF. The implication is that DoD doesn’t value employees who have worked hard (albeit not outstanding which is subjective and at management’s discretion) with a demonstrated commitment to the organization). 1. Adverse Actions – Subpart G: I believe there should be an appeal process for employees removed for adverse actions and that an impartial process should be outside of DoD. The Secretary of Defense should not be the only authority to mitigate the mandatory removal offense. I believe an impartial and objective authority should weigh into the decision making process. 3. Adverse Action Procedures – recommend extending the timeline from 15 days to 30 days notice. Given inevitable delays and mailing system I believe that 30 days notice and reply period is fairer to employee. Employees should have been given a formal time frame to improve performance. As stated in proposal an employee could be notified of poor performance and have an adverse action initiated within days of notice. If unwilling to extend time line allow employee to request an extension for extenuating circumstances. 3. Appeals of Mandatory Removal Offenses: retain deadline for class appeals at 30 days. Twenty days places an undue burden on the employee, especially if they under legal advisement to prepare and submit appeal. 7. Penalty Review- this section should be revised as it is written the MSPB is just a perfunctory body with no authority. They MSPB is a vital link in ensuring personnel practices are fair to the employee and implemented in all federal agencies. 7578 Subpart B-Classification and Classification Structure: If appears that as part of the implementation process all positions will undergo reclassification. Not sure this needed – it implies that reclassified positions could be at a lower pay band. Setting and Adjusting Rate Ranges: 9901.321 as written it appears pay bands could be lowered not maintained. DoD has the capability to adjust pay rates for position up or down. Employee’s could be in pay band 2 and then adjusted to pay band 1. There needs to be a safeguard for the employee in determining a predictable pay rate. As presented this practice would be detrimental to recruitment, retention and morale. 9901.807 Appellate procedures 2 and 3 the MSPB may not reverse Department action if removal is based on national security. This to be flushed out, the Department seems to justify all if actions on national security. If the national security violations are not defined it could be used as a loophole for unfair removal of employees and personnel practices. Again, the final authority is the Secretary no opportunity for appeal. This is not right or fair, there needs to be an intermediary with an appeal option in the decision process.