Comment Number: OL-10510687
Received: 3/16/2005 11:19:22 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’d like to take this opportunity to submit some general comments to the new NSPS being proposed. First, the process, and one has to wonder “the subterfuge” taking place to explain and educate federal employees on the new system. One just has to look at the Federal Register being referenced as a source of information. It is vague and ambiguous and fails to answer some of the most general questions one may have. How is a person to determine if the new system is better than the current if the source document is so vague? Where are the details? It’s been reported that one reason this new system is needed is to ease the hiring process. Currently I see no problems in hiring new employees. The office I work in seems to have found an easy work around to this issue. As I look around, I see quite a few employees brought in as temporary contractors to fill the voids of retirees or those that left for a better position. Yes, we pay a premium for their services, but if their performance is satisfactory, often they’re converted to a federal employee. (Summary, pg 7552) Another supposed benefit of the NSPS is to more fairly reimburse an employee financially for his performance. Yes, you may find high performers receiving the same pay as low performers, but this issue is eventually resolved thru promotions. Also, I believe high performers are additionally compensated for their effort thru awards. To believe that the NSPS will improve pay for performance, one is forgetting the subjectivity involved in issuing ratings. Although two employees may have the same job description, how can you fairly rate one employee’s performance compared to another employee when the employees perform different tasks? How can you separate the daily mundane tasks from those of high visibility when both are needed to complete the mission? It was never explained in the Federal Register how employees will be grouped into pay bands. Are they grouped by job function, or by organization (office)? Either way it appears to be a daunting task to fairly rate employees due to the numerous different responsibilities of each employee. It wasn’t adequately explained how the retirement system (TSP) will change. Although I did hear that nothing will change, I’m skeptical based on the wording found in the Federal Register. When it’s mentioned that there’s no change, one can presume that this means the calculations and requirements of the retirement system won’t change, but if the definitions are changed the potential contributions to my retirement change. For example, my retirement contributions are based on my adjusted basic salary, which includes base pay and locality pay. Now under the new system if my retirement contributions are calculated on my base pay (not including locality, cost of living, etc), my contributions to TSP are reduced. More details are needed. (9901.313, pg 7581; 9901.332, pg 7582) Another reason given to change the system is National Security. I’m assuming the desire is to reassign civilians to different duties and/or geographic locations immediately in response to a national emergency. What evidence has been given to support this? We understand that events happen that force an immediate reaction not only to our military services, but also to the civilian workforce. But has there been a time when DoD civilians did not respond? I constantly see the civilian workforce volunteer when the call is put out. (Summary, Guiding Principles and Key Performance Parameters, pg 7555; Summary, Coordination between DoD and OPM, pg 7557; 9901.101 para. (b), pg 7575) It will now be asked of Managers to accept a more comprehensive role in fairly and equitably assigning ratings to employees. In recent years there’s been a large reduction in the workforce. What we’ve seen as a result, former technical experts are thrust in the position of “managers”. And many are trying to continue to perform both roles, as manager and technical expert. Even with the proper training in the NSPS, an extra burden will now be placed on management. (pg 7562, Performance and Behavior Accountability) In closing, there appears to be many questions left to be answered. To replace the current system now without additional discussion and compromise could possibly do an even greater disservice to the decent hardworking civilian workforce. Yes every system has its flaws, but the current system still appears to be a better system than the proposed NSPS.