| Comment Number: | OL-10510803 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 12:06:41 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:
The idea behind NSPS is right on the mark. Ratings based solely on performance is long overdue. I do believe there should be solid processes in place prior to enactment. For example, there is no due process to appeal adverse actions. Also, all training needs to be consistent across the board and documented so all levels are accountable. Documentation will be the key throughout the rating process. One question I have is where does the pot of money start? Is it command or installation? Will bases bid on command funds? If so, who racks and stacks? I disagree with the locality pay being dumped into the big pot. The individual has control over most factors, but cost of living is not one of them. This process also increases both superviory workload and responsibility. You may consider a standard format for all appraisals. This will ensure all employees are rated the same and will reduce favoritism and personality conflicts. Accountability should be documented at all levels. Also, I think certain jobs will have an advantage over all others. With the emphasis on mission accomplishment, those who work in or closer to combat positions will have a greater advantage over the run-of-the-mill classes, especially if bases will be competing command-wide for funds. Extensive training across the board is a must. In my opinion, current civilian personnel knowledge is minimum. Increased training needs to coincide with increased responsibility and again, well-documented. I think an outside agency should represent employees at the labor union level. Having the government control labor relations is like having the fox guarding the hen house. To fairly represent government workers, an outside agency has the advantage. It should be an non-competitve contract.