| Comment Number: | OL-10502927 |
| Received: | 3/3/2005 1:13:23 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:
My concerns are around the supervisory accountability. In the recent presentation, it was said that no manager would pay so much for a person that it would impact on the overall budget and leave the agency unable to do their job--as in poor business decisions. If you look at the recent history--the last few months of regionalization--surely that statement is false. The standing up of regional staffs at the expense of the worker bee is the norm rather than the exception and the service provision has taken a back seat to every other type of special interest. HRO has told us that Veteran's preference does not apply in hiring in the regional positions so the problem, I suppose is not this latest rendition as much as the "old boy" network that is still functioning on the edge of legal hiring practices. I welcome the ratings being returned as it gives performance opportunity; however, my concern again is that those supervisors who have not done their jobs in the past--poor attendance and failing of standards several times will be maintained once again and promoted. I suppose there is no fool proof system but the major weakness is in the trust you seem to have that the supervisory staff are going to do the documentation to get rid of deadbeat performers. How are we going to get rid of deadbeat supervisors? That should be part of an effective evaluation system and was glossed over at the presentation. As the pool of managers narrows at the top, the more cronyism is used as the basis of hiring.Neither OPM nor DOD representatives through the HRO system are willing to stick out their necks to do their jobs; they change their information to the field daily about what is legitimate in hiring--so how can you expect that they will be responsible and do their jobs when it comes to evaluations? You spoke of change and morale--everyone fears change and all that--what people fear is unfair practices without any recourse. Supposedly the appeals processes are still in place but they have been discouraged--only time will tell how effective they will be. They don't follow the rules now--how does this change that?