Comment Number: OL-10511458
Received: 3/16/2005 3:35:47 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:

Reference The Case for Action: An article was written in the Government Executive by Shawn Zeller, Thursday, November 20, 2003 that included some interesting statistics on performance ratings. The article cited a 2001 Brookings Institution study that found that less than a tenth of 1 percent of 700,000 government employees failed a pass/fail rating system. That study also found that of 800,000 employees using the “outstanding”, “exceeds fully successful”, “fully successful” and “minimally successful” or “unacceptable” rating system (which should be familiar to defense employees), that less than 1 percent were at the lowest rating. Given these statistics, how could a group of 25 to 30 senior experts representing various elements within DoD, OPM, and the Office of Management and Budget conclude that overhauling the personnel system will somehow fix a problem that can be described as it has? I have worked as a civilian employee for the DoD for 22 years. I was a GS-13 mechanical engineer before becoming a supervisor, and I believe that the only real obstacle to dealing with performance issues within the current system is the will to do so. I have twice used the current system to institute performance improvement plans, and to remove and/or get people to quit before the final decision came down. At the same time, I have heard numerous complaints that the system does not allow management to do anything. While the current system is far from perfect, it does afford proper protection of employees from incompetent and/or abusive supervisors, and it sets clear criteria for dealing with both performance and behavioral issues. I would love to have a more flexible system, however; I have to seriously question how anyone could figure that someone who can’t make the current system work, should be empowered by anyone to do anything. That would be like expecting the student who can’t do the first simple math problem to do better on the next more difficult one.