Comment Number: OL-10504314
Received: 3/9/2005 8:46:12 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:

I am concerned about the rendering of the performance ratings since many military personnel transition in and out as supervisors prior to the end of the performance cycle. Example: in one year I had 4 military supervisors. Many civilians have supervisors who are E-4 and lower which makes one wonder how can such a lack of experience truly evaluate performance? The fact that an unexperienced military supervisor could be put in a positon of supervision leaves much to be desired. While the current GS/WG systems encourages workers to share information and support one another knowing that it is in their best interest and assistance will have no puntive effect, the NSPS will encourage competition among employees that could actually hurt productivity. As a supervisor I am concerned about this aspect. Why should anyone help a co-worker if offering help has the potential to reduce their future raises? The potential to detrimentally impact morale and productivity in this area has not been addressed. The NSPS regulations are high in detail on how they will limit employee ability to counteract poor management, but low on detail as to how managers will be trained, how standards will be expressed, and how this will make people more productive. In addition will all the standard position core documents be re-written to incorporate new standards or will standards be left up the managers? It has been years since we went to the SCPD's but still many PD's have not yet made it into the library. I think we are on the right track overall ,but the system will need more tweaking. What mechanicism is place to to rapidly handle issues, suggestions for improvement, eliminating processes that have no benefit, etc., that arise that affect the NSPS system as a whole? Will NSPS continue to evolve or once it's printed that's it?