Comment Number: OL-10505085
Received: 3/10/2005 2:44:28 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:

I have been working in the public sector now for almost 28 years. 2-1/2 years was spent working for city governments. 13 years was active Army. I have over 10 years as a Federal Civil Servant under the current system. I am a male civil engineer, well trained, wide applicable experience, and registered in three states. I am a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. I have some flaws, but my record generally speaks for itself. I believe that my responsibility is to the taxpayers, not the Government (the difference is subtle but very important!). There are some problems with the existing system. And the goal of Pay for Performance is laudable. However, as you will see below, the current system of pay in the Federal sector at least protected me from some aggregious behavior. Under the new NSPS, I would not have stood a chance. As you can also see, by creatively bending (not breaking) the rules in the current system, managers created the flexibility that some say is not there. In the Federal sector, I have had four supervisors. The first was blatantly sexist and believed in the Good Ole Boys (GOB). I got the menial work after I refused to play along. When a lady in our office filed an EEO complaint and they investigated, I told the truth. My job started evaporating ... as did my bonuses. Another lady in the office was openly trying (and apparently succeeding) to curry favor the way that men accuse women of doing all the time. My last bonus from him was $500 ... as a GS-11 Engineer. Her last year of awards and bonuses totaled over $4000 ... as a GS-5 clerk. The second supervisor was fair and compassionate. My opinion and work were valued. He made sure that I knew his expectations and gave me the tools to succeed. He outlined his vision for the office and his employees and allowed us to pursue it as it best fit our work ethics and personalities. We were very successful. He also tried to get me promoted and compensated. However, he was working against the GOB which forced him to promote another to a 1-year temporary position that ended up getting extended four times and was finally made permanent ... all without competition. He retired. The third supervisor was blatantly discriminatory concerning my veteran's/Reserve status. He rarely came out of his office except to parley with the GOB. My job with him, too, started evaporating, so much so that I called OPM about USERRA rights and veterans discrimination procedures. In addition, he was caught up in the EEO complaint of the first supervisor. Fortunately, the head of our district saw me in a different light. When I finally sought out a promotion/reassignment because of the pressure, I got $0 bonus for my final year, notwithstanding that I had provided him with most of the rating bullets he used on his evaluation support form and had an Exceeds Expectations evaluation which disappeared when I announced I was moving. My fourth boss has asked me to do some unethical things. It is just as easy to do them the right way, but once you lie and bend the rules, it takes more lies to cover up. In addition, there are two individuals in our office that ALREADY promote themselves by tearing others down. I refuse to stoop that low even though their work is no better than mine. I have met or exceeded performance expectations in all the jobs, so I have been able to keep my step increases and get minor bonuses ... because they are built into the system. Under NSPS, I believe those three supervisors would have acted capriciously because I refuse to kiss butt. Pay for performance issue will likely become a pay for loyalty issue because of the limited avenues for appeals and the exclusive management privileges outlined in NSPS. It has the potential to be great, but I fear that the implementation will fall far short ... as Teddy Roosevelt saw years ago. Think about what is in the best interests of the taxpayers ... NOT management. Do the right thing.