Comment Number: OL-10511283
Received: 3/16/2005 2:52:18 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:

I don't believe the new National Security Personnel System is going to make the DOD a more competative and progressive employer. First, I disagree with "The Case for Action" particularly the paragraph which states "NSPS will generate more opportunities for DOD civilians by easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current system and providing an incentive for managers to turn to them first when certain vital tasks need doing. This will free uniformed men and women to focus on matters unique to the military." This sounds like the Government wants to replace typical military personnel jobs with civilian personnel. Is the "incentive to the managers" a system which makes it easier for them to force their civilian employees to work in areas like Iraq? Right now the opportunities for civilian personnel to go to Iraq are vast, so why does this Proposed Rule state that it "generates opportunities." The additional (incentive) pay for civilians is in place too, yet you don't see mass amounts of civilian personnel volunteering for Iraq. Civilian employees are not generally a group of people that take chances which is why you see more military personnel and contract employees volunteering in Iraq. Military personnel don't have a choice, and contractor's incentives are a lot higher than Government incentives. One of the guiding principals is to respect the individual - protect rights guaranteed by law. Are you changing the law with this new personnel system so that you don't violate this principal? If the Goverment values talent, performance, leadership and commitment to public service, it will not force its' civilian employees to perform military personnel functions - it will increase the military personnel instead. In my organization, CENAE, the USACE started implementing "mobility clauses" in new hires and promotions, and since then, I've noticed the "talent, performance, and leadership" go downhill fast. We had a great group of people that were hired into a special career ladder promotion/accelerated intern program that were really making a difference as they worked their way up into higher positions, and it came to a screeching halt. Most of them left because of the new hiring requirements brought in workers that care more about their career ladders than the organization. They don't have a vested interest. This new personnel system seems like it will make these aspects of our organization worse. I don't see how it will instill a feeling of respect in the individual. Moreover, since the same supervisors will be conducting the evaluations and deciding on pay, you will only have the same problems with the system. Some supervisors just don't have the courage to give "fair" appraisels - they don't want to hurt feelings, and don't want to face lawsuits. I think more training for supervisors would be helpful, and more training on how organizations can make the evaluation/pay system fair across the board would help too.