| Comment Number: | OL-10509409 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 3:11:20 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| Attachment: | NSPS_Comments.doc Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
GENERAL. The NSPS Regulation as written really seems to be illegal and unconstitutional. Does it really have anything to do with National Security??? I truly hope that Congress will take a “hard” look at this proposed Regulation and realize the damage that it will do to the Federal Government. They need to “STOP” the Secretary of Defense and Director of OPM by taking away the authority that’s been given them under H.R. 1588-230. If we lived in a perfect world, with perfect people; then NSPS “MIGHT” work! {More important, Congress ought to ask for explanations and explore in greater depth the whole issue of civil service reform. Because these personnel decisions involve so many people, and could have such national impact, lawmakers should consider stepping in to help define what performance criteria mean, to preserve a meaningful appeals process and to ensure that unions stay involved in government employee affairs, at least when there is no reason to bar them......Taken from the washingtonpost.com, 1 Mar 05, Page A14.} I believe that one of the underlying reasons for this reform is to make the Federal civilian workforce operate more like the Military. Military personnel know when they join the services that they can be assigned anywhere in the world with a moments notice, as well as, the methods of discipline are much harsher than ours. But if I had wanted to be in the military, I would have joined the ROTC program at my college approx. 32 years ago. So, I really don’t appreciate the fact that the NSPS would treat me like the military treat its personnel, esp. when it comes to making it a condition of employment that I accept assignments instead of being able to volunteer for them. I have never worked or lived in a war zone and really don’t have a desire to do so this “late in the game.” To add the statement, “Worldwide Mobile” in our job descriptions and make it a condition of employment with the Federal Government is unconscionable. Overseas and other assignments/reassignments should continue to done on a voluntary basis. I am also concerned about the fact that we were given a Regulation to review that has blanks to be filled in at a later date. That’s like a contractor giving me a contract for work he’s going to do at my house, but fails to include how much the work is going to cost and other pertinent information (will be submitted after he completes the job), but hands the contract to me for signature. So, I really hope that after this comment period is over and the blanks are filled in, the regulation will be provided for comment again. Then we will truly have something substantial and tangible to comment on. COMMENTS ARE ATTACHED