| Comment Number: | OL-10508457 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 8:48:07 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:
The proposed system is flawed as is the logic for it's existence. Discipline is not a large problem in the civilian workforce, rather failure of existing managers to understand and execute the corrective measures to ensure compliance. Having been a manpower and personnel coordinator for a 5000+ workforce for a period of 7 years and both a collateral and Chief, EEO Counselor, I can say that we did not have that may bad apples. The system in place has provisions for proper action, but the military supervisors (and lacky civilian supervisors) were either reluctant to exercise their authority or did not want a blemish on their division's record, because of what the investigation into the problem would uncover. The hiring and firing guidelines you propose leaves civil servants more in line with the Kangaroo Courts of the Military UCMJ System which does not hold the supervisor responsible for anything, and leaves the worker vunerable to reprisals with no recourse or chance for fair representation. Although the hiring system needed revamping to allow direct hire authority for highly qualified candidates. Having been a PAQ Coordinator I know the frustration of soliciting and actually hiring true Quality Applicants for civil service. However, I would not recommend civil service now for a graduating college senior. The current system which gives preference to the Military in hiring and promotion will eventually abolish any gains you make. Many of these people chose the military vice other avenues because they were not top in their class or profession. Most bring their poor work habits and lack or time accountability to the workplace. Going to the Gym, Hospital, BX, Pharmacy, and Commissary take precedence over anything else. The pay scaling is another story. Have to agree with comments I've seen from published articles on this program. The Boot Lickers or "Yes Man/Woman" will be greatly rewarded while others will be shunned. The personality game will weigh much more heavily than actual performance and output. Having run the Awards program at Installaton level and for a 200-person HQ MAJCOM Directorate I know how the favorite sons/daughters are always granted a higher percentage of the funds allocated year-after-year. In one case, I know of an entire division was denied award monies, while the deputy civilian supervisor got the maximum percentage and a Civilian Service Medal. If the division is considered as failing isn't that a reflection on the management they possess? I believe that supervisory authority should have controls and any actions recommended for dismissal be limited. A board of senior civilians from other functions on an installation or at a HQ should be the final authority on proposed civil service removals. Within organization reviews are not objective and can not overcome the bias of the management or the supervisors that make up that management up. A similar approach should be used for contested pay issues. "Yes-men/women" are the rule not the exception in military service now. The previous principles of support your workforce and employees is lost. The new system gives the supervisory layer too much authority with little accountability and just allows them the mechanism to hire and fire to get at the good ole boy system.