| Comment Number: | OL-10510427 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 9:35:52 AM |
| 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:
Subpart D - Performance Management Page 7586, Section 9901.407 Monitoring performance and providing feedback The “periodic feedback” proposed in the regulation allows large gaps of time between periodic updates. Regular, ongoing and timely feedback on performance is the only fair, credible and effective way to properly manage employee performance. 9901.407(b) should be modified to read as follows: “Provide regular, ongoing, and timely feedback to employees on their actual performance with respect to their performance expectations, including one or more formal interim performance reviews during each appraisal period.” Page 7586, Section 9901.408 Developing performance and addressing poor performance 9901.408(a) states: “DoD implementing issuances will prescribe procedures that supervisors will use to develop employee performance and to address poor performance.” These procedures have not been defined, so there is no way to determine if they will be fair, effective and credible for employees. This process should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. No changes should be made to the performance management procedures currently used by DoD agencies until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. A system without a fair and credible performance management process will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security. 9901.408(b) states: “If during the appraisal period a supervisor determines that an employee’s performance is unacceptable, the supervisor will- (1) Consider the range of options available to address the performance deficiency, which include, but are not limited to, remedial training, an improvement period, a reassignment, an oral warning, a written reprimand, or adverse action defined in subpart G of this part, including a reduction in rate of basic pay or pay band; and (2) Take appropriate action to address the deficiency, taking into account the circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the unacceptable performance and its consequences.” Giving supervisors the authority to take actions ranging from remedial training, to such drastic measures as adverse actions and demotions, without providing specific criteria to make such decisions, is unfair to employees and supervisors. Only fair and effective rules that prescribe appropriate actions to be taken by management to address poor performance will be accepted by employees. Otherwise, the resulting distrust of management and decreased morale and productivity will harm national security. No changes should be made to the current performance management procedures used by DoD agencies until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. 9901.408(b)(1) should be modified by adding: “Employees will be provided a reasonable opportunity to improve performance before an adverse action is proposed or taken, except in the most extreme cases of unacceptable performance which seriously and immediately endanger national security and/or the safety of personnel.” Page 7586, Section 9901.409 Rating and rewarding performance 9901.409(a) states: “The NSPS performance management system will establish a multi-level rating system as described in the DoD implementing issuances.” This multi-level rating system has not been defined, so there is no way to determine if it will be an effective and appropriate process to rate employees. This rating system should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. No changes should be made to the rating systems currently used by DoD agencies until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. A process without a fair and credible rating system will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security.