| Comment Number: | OL-10507787 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 3:10:30 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 believe that the NSPS is concentrating on the wrong issues. Specifically, I don't believe that Government employees as a whole are as overly concerned with pay and benefits as they are about career progression, promotion opportunities and whether under the current administrations Management Agenda and recent legislation there is security and stability in continued Government service. PAY & COMPENSATION: When considering the scope and numbers of personnel to be effected by the change to the new personnel system some thought should be given to grandfathering those under the current Civil Service rules. As vacancies occur the change to a simplified pay banding structure with pay based on performance could be easily accomplished without disrupting the status quo. If an individual under the old pay system opted to apply for a new vacancy and was hired then they would automatically be converted to the new pay banded system. I can see only chaos resulting from a whole scale conversion. Considering the number of retirement eligibles currently employed and the age of the work force it is not unrealistic to envision a conversion could still be accomplished within the mandated timelines and without the upheaval. CLASSIFICATION: I believe the NSPS has completely missed the boat with classification. Not that simplified generic position descriptions allowing more flexibilities in assigning employees to new or different work isn’t a great idea. It is. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work in the real world. For nearly five years as a supervisor and another five years as a Management Analyst I have classified hundreds of position descriptions. I have found that most employees and supervisors prefer a structured detailed position description. The employees greatest concern is that unless it is specific they will not get credit for the work they are doing. The supervisors greatest concern is that if the work is not identified in the position description that they can’t hold the employee responsible for non performance and any disciplinary actions will not hold water. I have counseled both supervisors and employees to insure that specific tasks are identified in employee performance standards and are well documented however there is still the concern. I can envision the supervisory nightmare of having an entire section under pay-banding, where all employees are performing different tasks at different levels and operating under the same generic position description. Especially as it comes down to awarding bonuses. I foresee a plethora of grievances. From experience most grievances have nothing to do with an employees performance but the employees interpretation of what duties they perform versus what they should perform and to what level. HIRING & STAFFING: Point in Fact. The Federal Government is the only agency in the United States that actively discriminates in its hiring practices. Rather than allowing supervisors and managers to interview and select the most highly qualified individuals to fill their vacancies it establishes hiring priorities for Priority Placement Program eligibles, Veterans, Students, Spouse Preferences etc. This practice severely inhibits career progression and promotion opportunities for career employees and is detrimental to agencies ability to retain the best and brightest. Even to hire the best and brightest as the prioritization limits the availability of candidates to select groups. Laws against discrimination were developed to protect ALL people not just selected groups of individuals. Supervisors and managers should be required to follow the ‘Letter of the Law’. The same Law as applies to the Private Sector in their hiring practices. There is no need for discriminatory preferential hiring practices in Federal Government. Recent legislation that allows for by name, non-competitive hiring of Veterans and Students is a prime example. While there are circumstances where this is beneficial to organizations i.e. to fill critical need GWOT positions quickly it is detrimental to filling permanent requirements. Primarily, as it discriminates against the in-house workforce by stifling career progression and promotion and is generally demoralizing to the workforce. Unfortunately it has become the normal practice with many organizations, my own included, to use this hiring strategy if for no other reason than it generally takes less than 30 days to complete versus the 90-120 day processing time required for a competitive hiring action. Another legislative action that has caused some consternation is that related to hiring of Civil Service Annuitants. The new law while allowing for direct hire to fill critical need GWOT positions is too limiting both in terms of justification for its use and length of service allowable. In fact it is in itself discriminatory as it prohibits Civil Service Annuitants who wish to return to the workforce as permanent full time employees from setting aside their retirement and doing so. Earlier legislation allowed retirees to reenter the Federal workforce if they agreed to set aside a portion and/or all of their retirement benefits or allowed them to pay back into the retirement fund what was previously paid out to return to their pre-retirement status. Retirees in critical fields returning to the Federal service are tremendous assets to organizations. They should be allowed to compete for and be hired permanently if their wish is to return to Federal service. Managers should have the flexibility to hire them if they are the most qualified individual for the job. It should not be limited to short term critical need positions. The creation of regionalized Civilian Personnel Operations Centers with installation Civilian Personnel Advisory Centers has severely handicapped the ability of organizations to effectively manage personnel. They are in my opinion non-value added. Reasons are numerous: 1) CPOC & CPAC personnel are almost totally non-accessible to organization supervisors and managers. Our supporting CPOC doesn’t even provide a phone roster of Team members supporting the installation. CPAC personnel spend more time in personnel training than in providing personnel services. They are almost never available to answer questions. 2) The creation of CPOC with attractive career progression hiring tracts siphoned what knowledgeable CPAC personnel were available on installations as well as many of the best and brightest from other organizations. Another draw was the perception that CPOC personnel are exempt from OMB Circular A-76. This may explain why CPAC personnel are unavailable most of time. There is no residual expertise there. 3) With two personnel organizations to deal with the time to process personnel actions is prohibitive. Regardless of OPM’s recent claim that they are meeting their Scorecard goal of 60 days processing time they fail to account for the time it takes for the RPA to be processed from the organization, through the installation Resource Management Office, the CPAC and finally to the CPOC. They also can not be accounting for the time it takes to clear Priority Placement Program eligibles or the time it takes to finalize a commitment once a selection has been made and then return it to the organization. Point in Fact. 90 to 120 days is more the norm than the exception. 4) More and more of CPAC & CPOC responsibility is falling to supervisors and managers. Classification is a prime example. Organizations are now responsible for writing and classifying position descriptions. With Delegation of Classification Authority this process should have been streamlined and much simplified. The truth however is the opposite. This is due in part to installation Garrison Commander’s reluctance to grant delegation of classification authority to its supervisors and managers. One relative issue is the short-term training of supervisors and managers to perform classification versus CPOC personnel who receive both continuous classroom and on the job training in classification. It is redundant to make the untrained supervisor and manager responsible for classification while paying a highly trained CPOC Classification Specialist to say Go or No Go. 5) CPOC & CPAC personnel spend more time counseling managers on what they Can Not Do than how they Can Do to help managers meet and accomplish their Human Resource goals. SUGGESTIONS: 1) Consider grandfathering the current Civil Service work force and move forward to a pay banding pay for performance system when filling new vacancies. 2) Reconsider the generic position descriptions unless all employees in a given area will be performing the exact same duties. You’re asking for trouble if don’t. 1) Lose the discriminatory hiring practices. Allow supervisors and managers to be as responsible to the law as their private sector counterparts and hold them to it. 3) Expand the Civil Service Annuitant hiring authority. It benefits the annuitant and the Federal Government. 4) Lose the CPOC & CPAC concept. Give installations back their TEAMS of highly effective personnel specialists who were dedicated to their customers and not to whatever installation they determine has priority first. 5) Consider eliminating CPOCs & CPACs altogether or at least the recruitment portion of it. In the private sector if an agency needs a position filled they go to Manpower Services or Kelly Girls or whatever agency can provide the candidates necessary for supervisors and managers to fill their positions with. I’m not a strong advocate of Privatization but in this realm, If the Shoe Fits Wear It. Human Resource providers in the private sector earn profit by making Customer Service their Number One Priority! Something our CPOCs and CPACs have forgotten.