Comment Number: OL-10508783
Received: 3/15/2005 10:44:40 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:

CONTINUATION OF COMMENTS 10. Subpart C., Other Performance Payouts, P. 7560 Extraordinary pay increase. Does this increase come out of the pay pool funds? If so, will others in the pay pool be short changed if one person is granted this pay increase since funds are limited? Who ensures it is appropriately used? 11. Subpart C, Pay Administration, Reassignment, P. 7561 A great deal is written to make sure what can be taken away from the employee. If this is spelled out so explicitly, how to reward the employee should also be explicitly and equally spelled out. For example, it should state if an employee changes positions from a lower level to a higher level within a pay band, they should receive a pay adjustment of up to 10% or the maximum pay of the pay band, whichever is lowest. 12. Subpart D, P. 7561 and para 9901.405 (5). “Supervisors have the option of establishing and communicating performance expectations during the course of appraisal period through specific work assignments or other means.” A statement to protect the employee is missing. Something like: For an employee to be evaluated on any change in performance expectation, it must be documented in writing at least 90 days before the end of the rating period. 13. Subpart E, Recruitment and Competitive Examining, p. 7563. “Examining procedures will adhere to the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301 and veterans; preference requirements set forth in 5 U.S.C. 3309 through 3320.…” We quote “NSPS is a performance-based system;…(P. 7563, Probationary Periods)” If this is true, there should not be veterans’ preferences or longevity preferences. If veterans receive preferences, longevity should also be a preference. We read this to mean that a person who has veteran’s preference and has a poor performance record will likely be assessed as a better performer than the employee without veteran’s preference and a good performance record. 14. Subpart F, p. 7564. “The proposed regulations retain existing veterans’ preference protections in reduction in force (RIF).” As we addressed in Subpart E, if NSPS is a truly performance-based system, there cannot be preferences for veterans. 15. Subpart F, P. 7564 “As provided by current law, within each tenure group, the Department will list employees with a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more ahead of all other preference eligibles…” As we addressed before, if NSPS is a truly performance-based system, there cannot be preferences for veterans. So what this says is the laws change on everything else for government civilians but we will let the veterans preferences stand—right? Subpart G, 3. Adverse Action Procedures, P. 7565 “The proposed regulations eliminate the requirement for a formal, set period for an employee to improve performance before management may take an adverse action.” There needs to be a time period agreed to by both the supervisor and the employee which is written and signed by both. This written document also needs to outline the performance that the supervisor requires of the employee so the employee has recourse. In addition, as individuals at a base under a performance-based prototype, we have to make our general comments which are listed below. - The concept of awarding the high performers sounds good on paper. In reality, the people who are perceived as the stellar performers hog the majority of the performance pay funds leaving those of us who are solid middle-of-the-roaders to the leftovers. As a result, over the 5 years of our demonstration project, most of us have been losing money due to insufficient funds remaining in the pay pool pot to adequately compensate us. Personally, every year I’ve been entitled to more than I’ve received but the funds are not there. MORE IN ANOTHER SUBMITTAL - RECEIVED RUNTIME ERROR ON ATTEMPT TO ATTACH FILE