| Comment Number: | OL-10509802 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 6:27:00 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:
I and many of my co-workers are very troubled over the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) that is apparently going to be implemented in spite of the numerous red flags that should be cause for alarm in the Federal Register. Despite the voluminous amount of language that addresses the NSPS, there is a showstopper lack of specific details. The message is quite clear "Trust Us!" While I am confident most civilian employees want to do their part in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), the basic fact can not be overlooked that the majority of the federal civilian workforce do not want to be deployed overseas. Had they wanted to be thrust into harm's way, they would have voluntarily joined the military. Having stated the obvious, I also realize that there are specific civilian positions that require a signed statement of mobility in order for a civilian to be assigned to the position. Rather than shooting a mosquito with a shotgun and totally replacing a decades old fair and equitable personnel system, it would make much more sense to specifically revamp the hiring provisions for those few civilian positions that are truly mission essential and can require mobilization. A major misrepresentation by advocates of the NSPS is that the old system rewards longevity instead of performance. I've read many articles that have said "step increases are automatic." Consider this fact. According to newspaper reports, the Pentagon has estimated that the costs of implementing the NSPS will be around $160 million through fiscal 2008. This is in addition to roughly $175 million paid to Northrop Grumman, a defense contractor, for design of the NSPS. If only several million of the $300+ million being spent on NSPS had been spent training supervisors on the proper use of step increases, the present system would have needed very little refinement. Specifically, supervisors should have received training under the present personnel system on how to document deadwood, those individuals who do not perform satisfactorily. After all, the step increases were designed to be effective ONLY when performance was satisfactory, NOT just for showing up at work and being a clock watcher. The irony is that the Pentagon is now going to spend millions to train the very same supervisors on how to properly rate and reward top achievers. If the supervisors wouldn't take the time to document poor performers, it is doubtful they will expend much time to justify the ratings necessary for excellent employees to receive an increase in pay. Several other pitfalls of the NSPS are its continual referral to rewarding "motivated" performers. Legal precedents abound for cases where age discrimination was found by courts where one individual was hired instead of another because they were motivated, energetic, hit the ground running, etc. Why age discrimination? Numerous cases demonstrate that such adjectives are just buzz words associated with hiring younger employees. The language in the NSPS certainly indicates that longevity by definition is now undeserving of future pay raises. Is the actual experience amassed over decades thought to be so inferior and of little value, that a "motivated" graduate fresh out of college should be given the nod and paid more at the "elders" expense. We have been emailed many articles touting the success of pay banding at China Lake which began decades ago. DoD's own NSPS-Proposed Regulations "Fact Sheet" states "DoD has over twenty years of successful experience with testing personnel flexibilities, namely in our personnel demonstration projects, such as China Lake." Yet, there is no mention that the Navy's Inspector General (IG) has investigated numerous complaints and concluded in a 16-page report that managers treated employees unfairly, engaged in a cover-up and ordered the IG's top investigator to stop the probe and destroy his findings. Moreover, the pay-for-performance scores from 1992 to 1998 at both China Lake and Point Mugu revealed a "disparate impact discrimination against older workers." Toss in the real vulnerability of the NSPS to supervisors rewarding those of kindred political persuasion and you've got an unbridled monster of exponential proportion. In an actual town hall meeting I attended, the most common response to questions by the general and personnel expert was "the details have yet to be worked out." What if an employee wants to challenge a rating under NSPS? It is simply incredulous that on 10 March 2005, less than a week before the public comment period ends, the Army NSPS Program Manager sent an email to all Department of the Army civilians that linked a Myth and Fact Sheet which said quote "DoD is developing (emphasis added) a process that will allow employees to request reconsideration of their rating to a higher authority." Ladies and Gentlemen: how can you in good conscience proceed full speed ahead and give blanket approval to implementation of a system still under development in the Federal Register when so many crucial career altering decisions have not been made part of the Federal Register. Many of my co-workers have told me they are not going to waster their time commenting when the system is being forced up/down their (pick an explicative and a body cavity). I suspect that the number of responses and comments being submitted will indeed be very low compared to the hundreds of thousands of employees who could respond and that this will be heralded as tacit approval. Despite the political differences that are splitting this country down the middle, fairness and justice would dictate that its time to reevaluate the NSPS instead of marching "lockstep" down the road in peaceful bliss. As previously discussed, mission essential positions already exist under the present system to support GWOT requirements without resort to a new NSPS that on its face should be declared void for vagueness. Equally disconcerting is repeatedly we are being told that NSPS will not affect veterans preference or retirement benefits. Talk about misrepresentation! Under the present system, even a 5-point veteran is entitled to preference in a RIF. However, under NSPS, the law is CHANGED to only afford such preference to a 30-point disabled veteran. And then there's the statement that "retirement benefits will not be affected by NSPS." While P.T. Barnum is attributed to saying "there's a sucker born every minute," it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that retirement pay will be LESS when step increases are eliminated because the amount used for the computation will not be as great. As today's kids are fond of saying, "Dah!" Another misnomer is that the unions have been intrinsically involved with the new law. As reported in the Government Executive on 21 October 04, "According to Defense Department officials, they considered sharing the plans, but were not able to because it would disadvantage other constituents." So on the one hand, DoD can't give the unions an "advantage" over the run of the mil federal employee, but yet, DoD turns right around on the NSPS web site and numerous publications and touts the corroborative efforts made with the unions. It is unfortunate that it appears litigation may be the only way for reason to prevail. The law that authorizes NSPS does not mandate its implementation. The powers to be need to step back and make sure the details are worked out with full coordination of the unions before implementation. Once the details are worked out, then return to the Federal Register so the civilian workforce can truly make an informed decision and accurate comments to explicit language. Please take time to read and carefully consider these comments. Thank you.