| Comment Number: | OL-10509501 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 3:51:49 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:
After reviewing this I have some large questions. I can find no real way for a netural 3ed party to make determatins on any subject that any management office makes. I undersand that the present system if a berden to most managers and the system if not fexlable. But how can you turn over to managers and supervisor control a broad as this seams to be when they can not even get a persons there performance appraisals out on time. I have worked in both the private sector and gov. and when I worked in the Private sector I never though a uninon was a good Idea, I have to come to the Gov and see how the Good old boys took care of there buds to start thinking that the unions were a good thing. Pay banding is ok Pay fo r Performance as you have laid it out in like the Fox in the Hen house. I would feel better about this new system if thier were better safe gards in place or if thier was a better 3ed party review. Also I see that Vets are not handled it in the same way as Titile 5 Law has for ever. With the Kids coming back from War You should keep totaly intact the Vet parts of Title 5, no changes for the Vets! I Also dont feel good about "DoD will issue rules regarding" no plan in place for some one to make comment on?? till its all in the light dont put it out! I do not feel that the Guiding Principles for the NSPS are of any meaning. I do not feel that any of them will be followed or are credible. If you as you say" Protect rights guaranteed by Law" then don't change a thing. In truth the key Operational Characteristics and requirments have not been met! And never will this will be a mess that we will have come back and revist and fix. it supports nothing is not sound and I for one can find nothing that I can turst or think is credible for the long run or for future of DoD or the folks that work for it. I think that