| Comment Number: | OL-10511193 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 2:26:16 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 NSPS will change every element of basic pay, performance management, labor relations, and the employee appeal process of 700,000 people. This scares me because, the Rule, which is extremely vague, no more than an outline, describes a system without a foundation. The lack of foundation is evident in the many “DoD will document in implementing issuances” or “DoD may” statements contained within the document (9901.211, 9901.212 and 9901.342(b-d)). These paragraphs and many more illustrate that DoD has not yet developed the criteria and rationale for the fundamental elements of a new system. I am also concerned that so many civil service laws are being discarded (see remarks under Section 9901.104 in the attached), that Congress will not vote on our pay raises and that, for all intent and purposes, the DoD will have dictatorial power over our grievance and appeal processes. Almost everything written in the rule about the pay setting, payout, performance rating and performance management are vague and describes a system that is a moving target. For example, see the methodology for Setting Rate Ranges and Local Market Supplements on page 7559. There are six factors (local market, mission, lack of funds, other employees pay adjustments, 5 U.S.C chapter 59 and other relevant factors (they forgot the alignment of the sun, moon and stars)) mentioned within those paragraphs, any or all of them may be used to determine the rate range which can be adjusted at any time for any reason by an exclusive decision of the DoD. Missing, are the details of how these “setting and adjusting” determinations will be made or how often they will occur. Another moving target is the Rating Methodology: DoD, Performance Pay Pools, and Performance Payout, page 7560. According to these paragraphs, my supervisor will recommend my rating level, pay out amount and distribution method. However, the final determination is made by people that do not observe my performance, a pay pool panel and pay pool manager. These strangers decide whether I receive a raise (which increases my retirement fund, increases my purchasing power and, increases the government’s financial obligation) or a one time bonus (which will be used to pay off my debt since I didn’t get a raise and is a short term liability to the government). My last example of a moving target is in the third paragraph of Performance Management–Subpart D, page 7561. It states that performance expectations can be amended, modified or changed throughout a performance period. There is no mention of a timeframe that should elapse between receiving standards and being appraised under the new standards. However, time elapsing is probably irrelevant since, 9901.409 (g), on page 7586, states that a rating can only be challenged under a procedure that will be disclosed in a future DoD implementation issuance. In Subpart I – Labor Management Relations, page 7594, I am stripped of all rights in the collective bargaining and grievance/arbitration processes. I could write pages about the unfairness of the proposed NSPS, but I believe I’ve made my point. After reading the rule, my comment on the overall document is this; I receive more comprehensive answers from a Ouija board. NSPS should be re-named to reflect what it really is, the DoD payroll and retirement reduction plan. The economically punitive nature of NSPS is an insult to all hard working, dedicated DoD employees. I do agree that the current GS system rewards a minority of employees with undeserved cost of living increases; but why punish the many for the faults of the few? Under NSPS, a minority of employees will receive a raise/bonus because the pay pool will suffer a funding draught. The reality is that when the DoD has to choose between purchasing a war machine or giving employees a raise, the war machine will be purchased. Also, I resent the implication, on page 7553, that unless DoD is allowed to expeditiously implement NSPS our country is at risk for another terrorist attack. If I thought that delaying the implementation of NSPS would have a negative effect on the Department’s ability to protect our country from terrorist actions I would not be writing this letter. However, I am not convinced that the insurgents in Iraq or the terrorists in other countries will be deterred from their activities as a result of a change in my pay and appeal processes.