| Comment Number: | OL-10503067 |
| Received: | 3/3/2005 10:21:01 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:
Subpart C - Pay and Pay Administration – Performance-Based Pay – Performance Pay Pools - - Using such pay pools will instigate a money grab on the part of unscrupulous supervisors for the benefit of those that they feel partial toward. Favoritism and cronyism will rapidly develop as there will be greater efforts on the part of most employees to schmooze the boss with hyperbole about themselves, and those that they support, rather than actual work being done. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld wants performance enhancements established for purposes of putting the right person in the right place at the right time, but pay banding isn’t going to make that happen. Negative attributes of human nature that result from greed and covetousness will lead to corruption within DOD as most supervisors and many that are in the higher levels of Government have a propensity for unconscionably developing strong feelings of self importance. Darleen Druyan is a perfect example of that phenomenon. This means that those that should be rewarded for superior performance won’t be and those that will be continuously rewarded for their hyperbole will likewise develop a taller and taller sense of entitlement, in much the same manner that terrorists do. This same result occurred among military officers in the 1970s when Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) controls were imposed. Limitations were put on the number of superior ratings that could be written. The program ended because too many good officers were leaving the military after having been ruined. Like controlled OERs, pay banding is not a viable solution to improving civil servant performance within DOD. - - As an experiment and to determine the effectiveness of withholding appropriate compensation from Federal employees, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s salary should be reduced to that of a GS-5 in order so see what impact such reduction in pay will have on his motivation and work ethic. Over the period that he continues as a GS-5, his efforts at schmoozing the President to get a salary increase should be closely monitored. If he begs strenuously for additional salary, every objectionable task available within the Pentagon should be made his duty in order to verify his work ethic. If his motivation falters, more objectionable duty should be given to him and military officials within the Pentagon should evaluate and question his diminished work ethic. If there is no improvement in his work performance, he should then be dismissed from Government service. If there is improvement, his salary should then be raised to that of a GS-6. If he complains about the meager increase, he should then be reminded of the Government’s austerity program due to the need to rebuild the country of Iraq that he was instrumental in destroying while looking for weapons of mass destruction. If he continues to complain, then he should be quickly dismissed from public service using the faster methods of termination that the President wants put in place within Federal Civil Service. The results of this experiment will qualify the need for pay banding.