| Comment Number: | OL-10509422 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 3:14:32 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:
General comment. Having read most of the federal register notice; I note numerous "tools" being recommended that currently exist within our TAPES system. Holding persons accountable for performance, communication, counseling, setting goals and objectives, monitoring performance, awards, incentives, step increase (or not) etc. I am not convinced a new system is needed for these things to occur. The current system has all the tools available. In my opinion, there are many weak, lacking supervisors who are not performing their duties now (I am a GS13 whose manager has not performed an initial tapes counseling for the last 5 years). These types of managers should be currently held accountable for their lack of willingness to perform basic supervisory duties. A new system will not force this to occur (isn't this "required" now?) There is no "punishment" nor corrective action taken now if these things do not occur (at least within my organization). In summary - this new system will not force current managers/senior supervisors to do the extremely hard work of LEADERSHIP and make the hard decisions of counseling, holding personnel accountable for their actions/work and actually rewarding those who deserve and leaving out those who do not deserve awards. Until DoD decides they can "stomach" these very hard decisions then enforce the use of the regulations on the books and USE the hard tools available - no new "system" will solve the basic problem that civilians "leaders/managers" just don't want to do this very difficult task. The FR speaks to intensive training - which I agree is needed for most; however, all managers have training now and yet - if unused - the skill set becomes worthless. My detailed comments follow: $9901.343. The reduction in pay based on managers decision when they are not necessarily "schooled" nor proficient in leadership is a bad decision. $9901.353. How is the pay set ("anywhere within the assigned pay band") is too broad. Will this exact amount be available to someone interviewing for a position - can one inquire as to exactly where in the pay band the salary will be when considering applying for a position? Is this required information when positions are advertised? $9901.410. Covered in general comments - (2) "fair, credible, and transparent...system" - transparent to whom? What is different than status quo? (4) and (5) both are available for use now - why aren't these being used to the full extent now? (6) This is a required part of TAPES now - why does this have to be restated to managers? (7) "effective safeguards" - This needs to be more fully explained - WHO ensures this is fair (according to whose standard?). $9901.405. b(4) "hold supervisors and managers accountable for effectiely managing.. performance" Why isn't this being done under current requirements? What is NEW here? If a manager is ineffective - then how will this new system change their behavior? That manager should be dealt with now!! c(1-5) All of these are things that should be performed under current system. This entire system screams "change for the sake of change". The current system is not broke - but it's not being used as intended either. And if the current system can't be enforced - what makes us think a new system will be? Why are those at the highest levels enforcing the regulations on the books? I'm disheartened that so much time and money went into putting out this FR publication. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars. We have tools available for use and I challenge those who are in position to enforce their use to do so and stop trying to find the "silver bullet" regulation that will make the system "work". Nothing will make leadership/management work except hard diligent, time consuming effort by managers willing to make the necessary difficult decisions and have those very hard counseling sessions necessary to motivate performance or encourage some personnel to move on. I vote no