| Comment Number: | OL-10509856 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 7:37:21 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:
It is frustrating to read in the Federal Register, The Case for Action, “At best, the current personnel system is based on 20th century assumptions about the nature of public service and cannot adequately address the 21st century national security environment.” The same justification can be made about the constitution of the United States but we had competent enough leaders including lawmakers, enforcers, and interpreters to know that the constitution would evolve and as a consequence, amendments should be made. I stress competency of leaders because I believe that will almost always be the determining factor of the success of almost anything that involves a team. It is not so much how or whom you work-- it is who you work for. Cases in point, from my time within a small area of DoD, some Union officials have been appointed/selected with the lack of negotiating skills and fundamental acuteness to be successful. From what I can register, at least a portion of stewards didn’t even get the training necessary to become successful partners within the personnel system. Same goes, for some members in the personnel field like Personnel Management Specialist and EEO professionals who may possess some skills but lack others and may leave one to think, “how did he/she get in that field?” Finally, supervisors in the professional fields that have wonderful technical skills and have been with the organization for years but with little or no leadership qualities are probably the easiest blame for the state we are in this 21st century. It is not the “current personnel system that encourages a dispute-oriented, adversarial relationship between management and labor,” it is its stewards. Not to be misunderstood, regardless of what the excuse may be, it is hard to appreciate co-workers who seem to “work the system”, so I am supportive of anything that may correct poor performers and bad conduct workers but let us be careful that we don’t create a new system that encourages a dispute-oriented, adversarial relationship between management and labor. Depending on the checks and balances, a new group of tyrants with issues unrelated to national security will certainly take advantage of the letter and not the spirit of NSPS. The spirit of the law? I am naive...we got some work to do.