Comment Number: OL-10510431
Received: 3/16/2005 9:36:28 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:

I have not had the time to make my comments specific to the language in the NSPS. I have recently changed my mind on the NSPS bringing improvement to the government employee. I am opposed to its being enacted because NSPS it dramatically increases the number of decisions managers must make affecting the employee’s future. While most of management has the proper vision and ethical perspective, NSPS provides much temptation to abort the merit system and let favoritism prevail. I had always believed that the agency was interested in seeking the truth in a matter where a manager flagrantly abused the “system. This is not the case. The agency is management. ALL effort is focused on winning any argument brought by the employee. Agency’s view is that “management does no wrong.” I am here to tell you that the concept that management “does no wrong” is a myth. Proving this on the part of the employee is almost impossible and one’s career is on the line when he challenges management. While we all know that retaliation for complaint is against the regulations, retaliation certainly does happen and I suspect that it is more difficult to prove than the original issue. My recent experience with the grievance process within the current system provides much evidence to support my comments. I believe the vision of fairness within the agency is lost. Any challenge becomes a contest between the agency and the employee. The employee stands alone. I have been told, and have I verified, that the only person wanting an equitable solution is the employee. Who within the agency is qualified and available with intimate knowledge of the complaint and the specifics of the issues to support the employee seeking truth? The answer is nobody. The legal forces, the administrative investigators, and the remaining administrative processes are supporting the agency to block and distort the truth because the agency must win. The agency cannot afford to have marks of failure on its record. For instance, I was told that less than 1% of age discrimination cases are decided in favor of the employee. Does that mean that more than 99% of the employees are wrong? This is difficult to believe. An example of clouded ethics is as follows. In a recent communication with a person charged with protecting the “merit” promotion system, I was told that the manager can select any one from the referral list because they all meet minimum qualifications. In response to my allegation that a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6), which prohibits granting a preference or advantage not authorized by law, I received the following comment regarding one of my issues with a particular “merit” promotion selection: “You contend that the selectee was given an unfair consideration which led to him being selected for the position. We note that a management official is generally free to select any candidate referred as qualified for the position. While you may believe the selectee was less qualified than you, you provided no information that would indicate that he did not meet the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) minimum qualification requirements for the position.” What happened to “merit” in this statement? So, what does this have to do with NSPS. NSPS is based on integrity of management. As is said earlier, I believe that most of management is ethical so NSPS will work most of the time. For the cases where there is a problem, the only solution is for the employee to leave government service. My issue with NSPS is that there is a significant increase in the decisions affecting the employee’s future. Management is given much more authority. The grievance process will not work. Regulations have been ignored with the old system. As I see it, the regulations supporting fair treatment are being diminished even more to an unacceptable level.