Comment Number: OL-10503339
Received: 3/5/2005 12:11:05 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 concerning: Federal Register: February 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 29) Proposed Rules: FR Document 05-2582/NSPS (National Security Personnel System) pages 7552 - 7603. SECDEF asserts the need for NSPS. However, all the tools SECDEF claim to need already exist. Additionally, the flexibility SECDEF desires already exists under current law and statute. It is obvious from this document the NSPS creators do not know or have ever worked with the current personnel regulations and statutes. These options exist now. Failure of management to use these tools does not necessitate the destruction of decades of laws, statutes, regulations, Congressional oversight, and jurisprudence. All management has to do is learn what the rules are and how to use them. It is not the fault of employees that management does not get the training (at a much lower cost that this exercise) it needs to do its job. Do not punish employees because of management failure. Reviewing this document is a frustrating exercise. Frustrating, because there is so little to speak to, as there is little tangible in this document. SECDEF uses the phrase, "implementing issuances," over ninety (90) times. How can one discuss vague, untested, unproven assertions? However, by putting out these regulations piecemeal, two factors in DoD's favor come to mind. First, DoD can gauge the political climate as each new set of regulations is published. Second, by delaying publishing all the regulations, fatigue sets in and the number of comments or severity of reactions are reduced. Lastly, DoD's feigned commitment to transparency is amply demonstrated by the lack of detail in this document. The reason civil service exists is to provide a structure to prevent abuses by management and elected officials. How is destroying these safeguards going to be beneficial to the country and its security? NSPS clearly takes us away from these safeguards. For instance, if SECDEF - only - can mitigate outcomes (not the MSPB), then there is no independence of the MSPB. If there is no independence, either by the MSPB or NSPSLRB, then there can be no jurisprudence. Powers will be absolute in favor of management. Since nothing may (or may not) have precedence, then everything will be de novo review by DoD management fiat. Also, since the MSPB itself may not block DoD actions it finds incorrect without DoD permission, then there is no independence or power against management misdeeds. This means, in practice, there is no way to stop DoD from doing what it wishes, when it wishes, and how it wishes. Fear of retribution from above and the resulting sycophancy are the only results and will create abuses of power that can only be imagined. What does SECDEF want, Stepford workers? If DoD cannot project the cost for the war in Iraq and needs supplemental appropriations, how can the cost for NSPS be known? Since government salaries are at only roughly eighty (80%) percent of market salaries and if this system is to net out, how can high-performers be rewarded at market sensitive rates, unless many employees' pay is cut? Furthermore, Congress must authorize and appropriate sufficient funds to cover the DoD budget requests for salaries. If there is a single budget shortfall for salaries, NSPS, presently under suspicion, will not be a trusted system at all. The only flexibility remaining will be to cut employees' (not managers') salaries, high, low, and moderate performers alike. Is this a system that rewards anything at all? This not only limits employee pay, but also delays rewards for an outstanding effort. Part 1