| Comment Number: | OL-10508960 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 11:40:11 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:
Subpart D The "pay for performance" system will provide greater opportunity to reward brown-nosers & suck-ups. I have seen too many of these receive step increases & awards more for their sucking-up ability than for their actual performance. The proposed system will pave the way for even greater abuses. I also worked for an office where the deputy decided that rather than use award money for those who truly deserved it, he spread it around so that everyone received the same percentage. Not much incentive there. How will TAPES be revised to better communicate expectations? When I worked for an installation directorate, my performance objectives were clear & easily measured (e.g., "Complete 75% of contract modifications within 10 days of identification of need and 100% within 15 days"). Today (working for USACE) my objectives are far more generic & far less measurable (e.g., "Anticipate requirements and be proactive in delivering products to customers on time, with high quality.") Will there be a way for employees to evaluate supervisors? There are supervisors that were promoted to a supervisory position solely as a reward for past performance (i.e., promotion to supervisory position is the only way to get a higher grade). Although technically proficient in thier field, they may be lousy supervisors. Beyond the 1-year probationary period, there's no recourse to removing a person from a supervisory position because he is a bad supervisor (not to mention that the person making the determination is likely the one who promoted him, not the employees under him). There also tends to be little adherence to "requirements" that indicate what training should be completed prior to promotion to supervisory positions (the Army has several leadership classes that I would bet a majority of supervisors have not attended- LEAD, OLE, PME, & SBLM). Veteran's preference- In order to truly attract the best, the Army (maybe other services as well) needs to stop the practice of hiring newly retired officers into high ranking civilian positions. I have spent 10-years working for the DoD & have already realized that I'm going no higher within DoD. I have applied for too many positions that went to retired military (who now are GS-13 & above while still collecting retirement). While they are well qualified, it sends a clear message regarding who will get promoted. And if it's not going to be me, I'll look elsewhere. Not a problem? Army installations are civilianizing the Director of Public Works positions- what percentage of these positions have been filled by retired military?