| Comment Number: | OL-10502597 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 1:33:06 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:
3206-AK76/0790-AH82 Under the Pay per Performance and the yearly evaluation process for raises we recieve 1 evaluation and it determins our raise. We need to have prior evaluation to direct employees to an excelent rating. The standards need to be known for an excelent rating and a formal means of letting employees know where the stand in their rating to improve their rating. This will also assist in the rating evaluation to determine improvement to more acurately evaluate employees. A quarterly review will allow supervisors to effectively comunicate their desires and disapointments to their employees, and will allow the employee to improve. In a year 3 reviews with the 4th being their evaluation would be benificial. Guidelines for supervisors to write an accurate evaluation need to be in place to avoid overwhealming quanity of evaluation reviews from employees unsatisfied with their evaluation. The provision for spelling out the rating process need to be made abundantly clear for supervisors. This process has left a scar on process for lack of details. We, as a whole, can not properly review the proposed NSPS change and have informed and educated issues. It left many employees feeling like there was something to hide. Once the information is made avaliable we will not be able to make public comment on our then informed and educated knowledge. This is not fair to employees whos jobs are affected.