Comment Number: OL-10507576
Received: 3/14/2005 12:38:58 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 a pay for performance personnel demonstration project within the DoD for a few years now. There are good things and bad things within the system I work. The Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System as proposed in the 14 February Federal Register does not address specifically any of the good or poor aspects, which are already known to exist, through the personnel system trials performed within the DoD itself. This clearly demonstrates that this proposal is insufficient and should not be implemented. Issues, which have been identified, include: 1. How are the pay pools determined? Members of a pay pool are effectively competing against each other for shares. Should team leaders, who control the work assignments of their team members and provide, input to supervisors on their team members’ performances, be in the same pay pool as their team members. These team leaders surely have an unfair advantage over others when they are included in the same pool. This is the case in our system. What is the intent in this matter in the NSPS? 2. What happens to a person capped at the top salary of their pay band? In the "Best Practices" plan described in the 2 April 2003 Federal Register Vol. 68, No.63, described a system wherein personnel capped in their bay band do not receive any of the shares they earned by performing well. In fact these shares can be given to others in the same pay pool. In our demonstration project this is being done in the pay pool of upper management. This accelerates the salary increases to new members in this pay pool, as most of the supervisors in this pay pool already are paid the maximum pay in the band. In this case the system rewards some as a result of the performance of others. In other situations, capped employees are given all their earned shares in the form of a bonus, as their salaries cannot be increased. At least these employees receive some money for their performance in the “pay for performance” system. The primary issue is that a performing employee should be rewarded. They may be capped because of they choose to work in a job at which they are good. Often moving to the next pay band means moving into another type of work such as being a supervisor. The NSPS proposal does not provide the details to indicate if it intends to stop paying for performance when an employee reaches the top of their pay band. 3. The NSPS proposal does not provide specific details on how it intends RIF retention to work. The "Best Practices" plan did not adequately reward employees for their experience even if they had a history of high performance. It allowed a person working for only three years with three top ratings to bump a more experienced employee with only two top ratings in the last three years even if they had received the highest rating in all the years worked previous to the last three years. Where is the justice in this consideration for performance? Our demonstration plan includes time in service but only the quality of work from the last three years. 4. What are the ramifications of increased salary as a result of pay for performance? When an employee’s salary increases are they effectively promoted? Are greater expectations expected of them because they are paid a higher salary? The NSPS proposal states a promotion is when an employee moves from one pay band to the next higher pay band. Is someone paid more because more is expected of him or her or because they are very good at what they do? There are inconsistencies in this matter in our personnel system. 5. Who has the authority to determine qualifications for positions? Section 9901.221 states that DoD will develop a methodology…. It seems that a system that is proposed to begin within a few months would already have and be able to present the details on how the system will work. Our agency determined job descriptions and the qualifications of its personnel. How far down the chain will these authorities be delegated? Will an agency director, division chief, or branch chief have these authorities? Will the office of personnel management be involved in all of these matters? 6. Who has the authority to change a workforce’s size, shape, deployment, or mission? Will an agency director, division chief, or branch chief have these authorities? 7. There are allowances to modify our personnel system. However, even though many people have developed concerns with details within our system and have proposed changes to it, no substantial changes have been implemented. Situations such as the proposals of “Best Practices” and the NSPS as well as inertia and political conflicts have prevented making what many consider to be known improvements to our plan. How and by what authority will NSPS be allowed to develop and improved with time? There are many other issues proposed in this plan that are beyond the scope of experience gained by our personnel demonstration project. These include the changing of the recognition of labor organizations and mandatory removal offenses. The appearance of inappropriate behavior is seen in this proposal’s discussion on these issues. Many sections are written in future case, indicating methods will be developed. This is inadequate for proposal for implementation. The “Best Practices” plan described in the 2 April 2003 Federal Register Vol. 68, No.63, while lacking in many respects, did provide much more insight and description of how its proposed plan might work. This proposal is a very disappointing effort on a subject that the government has obviously been working on for much more than 2 years. Additionally, all presentations made to the workforce on NSPS by our management prior to this announcement were woefully inadequate and insufficient to provide any understanding of what NSPS would actually be or how it might work. In section 9901.342 (d) 3 control points are suggested within pay bands. This seems inappropriate and contrary to the concept to pay bands. If control points are required it seems more pay bands are needed. Scandal and corruption within our government have been well documented from time of the Continental Army through the present. There is no reason to believe it will go away. Removing methods that provide checks and balances will only increase inappropriate actions. Civil service reform was instituted to reduce nepotism, favoritism, and corruption within the government and with the government’s actions including interaction with contractors. How will the NSPS protect the American people from the types of abuses that caused our current civil servant personnel system to be developed? The proposed NSPS as presented to the American people in the 14 February Federal Register is inadequate and incomplete. Do not implement this proposal!