Comment Number: OL-10511474
Received: 3/16/2005 3:41:26 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:

Comments regarding: Part II Department of Defense, Office of Personnel Management, 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901, National Security Personnel System; Proposed Rule, 14 February 2005 (RIN 3206-AK76/0790-AH82) GENERAL COMMENTS The first question to ask is “Do we need a new personnel system? If so why?” The personnel system currently in place doesn’t seem to be totally broken, so why not just change a few glitches in it? Why reinvent the wheel? I would think that under the current DoD situation, re-doing the personnel system at this time is unnecessary and the money that is being spent could be put to better use. As a Federal Government career employee with over 21 years of service, I see these changes as a possible way to eliminate long-time employees. Most of us are still very productive and dedicated to our jobs. I have worked with several agencies and departments and believe that my dedication and service to my country deserves, at the very least, to be grandfathered regarding personnel systems. The proposed DoD NSPS will likely reduce the effectiveness of the DoD Civil Service and greatly undermine the morale of the ordinary DoD worker. The overall performance of the DoD will likely be undermined and degraded. All of this will occur due to the changes to employee pay brought about by the new system. The NSPS regulation as stated here has little, if any, substantive material. As such, the “implementing issuances” are the measures that control the NSPS. The NSPS regulation does not provide any means for civil servants to review or comment on “implementing issuances” prior to their enactment. This results in a personnel system that could be arbitrarily and capriciously implemented by those who may not be knowledgeable about DoD civil servants and the important role we have. As a career federal employee, this is an unacceptable and unresponsive method of personnel management. The NSPS is a system that will not attract quality civilian applicants into the DoD. SUBPART C AND SUBPART D GENERAL COMMENTS Of great concern is the proposed system for rating annual performance and the relationship of the annual performance rating to pay. Some civil service jobs require repetitive tasks and uniform performance times and annual performance is relatively easy for a supervisor to observe and rate. However, many more jobs exist where the primary output is professional services provided to others and the supervisor exercises a great deal of personal judgment in determining an annual performance rating for the employee. If a single supervisor accomplishes the annual rating or the annual rating is assigned by a board of supervisors, a high degree of subjectivity is necessary to evaluate most jobs. It has been proven difficult in civil service to distinguish among the great majority of excellent employees. Only the few employees involved in spectacular accomplishments (many times involvement in these events is entirely a matter of luck because they are the “hot” issues of the moment) stand out among civil servants. The majority of hard-working, excellent employees do not stand out in this manner. A lot of very good people deserve recognition or pay enhancement. The existing system allows for a supervisor, to appropriately recognize excellent employees at the local scale. The very few employees who do not deserve special recognition or significant pay enhancement do not receive it. The pay system specified in Subpart C presumes that a performance management system is in place that will distinguish employees in terms of individual performance, such that a pay-for-performance system can be implemented. The performance management system that exists today features annual appraisals rated either pass or fail, and as such is totally inadequate to distinguish individual employees for submittal for pay for performance. This DoD system is the only system I have experienced in my career that is a 2-tier, pass/fail system. This could be changed in the current system, instead of implementing an entirely new system. This would provide a better instrument for supervisors to determine the productive from not-productive employees and reward their performance(s). No details exist about the new performance management system described in Subpart D. The details are to be specified in “implementing issuances,” as specified in Section 9901.405(a): “DoD will issue implementing issuances that establish a performance management system for DoD employees, subject to the requirements set forth in this subpart.” Basically, this NSPS regulation as presented establishes nothing. Everything will come from the “implementing issuances” that no one will be able to review or have any say about. This means that civil personnel, not military personnel, will be under a dictatorial rule. I perform my job duties well and find this idea totally repulsive. I do as my supervisor requests, but am also permitted to express my opinion. This regulation is broad and generic and provides an opportunity for people not involved with my immediate job supervision to mandate any arbitrary and capricious requirements that they may have a whim or desire to implement. This is not fair to DoD civil servants and will result in lower work productivity and morale. Under the proposed NSPS system, the modest raises in pay will disappear forever. They will be replaced by “0” for the middle-of-the-crowd, dedicated, hard-working civil servant that is not normally involved in spectacular or unusually noticeable achievements. For these employees morale will likely drop as the NSPS is implemented. Removal of the small progression in pay over a career timeframe may result in a disincentive for personnel to stay in the civil service for any length of time. Elimination of the existing GS-pay system with its promise of small pay raises over a career may further destabilize overall civil service by increasing the turnover of government employees who leave for other employment. I have been at the top step of my civil service pay grade for four years, because I used to be at a higher grade GS level. I have not benefited from an annual pay increase. Any statement that all federal employees receive automatic raises is totally untrue for those of us who have worked in civil service for a long time. Both the annual Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and the Locality Pay Adjustment systems appear to be threatened by the proposed NSPS system. A COLA and locality pay adjustment are designed to adjust everyone’s pay to the same degree to allow some sort of salary parity with the increased cost of living our everyday lives. The nation-wide locality pay system is already well established. Substantial locality percentages exist in carefully defined locality regions of America. This system should not be changed. Locality region designations and pay percentages under the OPM should be the same, regardless of the individual federal agency involved. Locality pay should be preserved as is. The draft proposal contains no details. Significant implementing issuances will be developed to spell out all of the specifics of the various proposals. Those implementing issuances will result in the success or failure of the NSPS proposal. The “implementing issuances” are what civil employees will either agree with or disagree with. It is difficult to fully assess the NSPS proposal without having the implementing issuances for review. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: SUBPART B § 9901.211 As a DoD natural resource planner, I find career group classification to be a problem. Being grouped with engineers just doesn’t work well. The current system has engineers as a separate group. Also natural resource planners/biologists are relatively minor players in the DoD and as such, will probably not be classified and/or evaluated fairly, without prejudice, in light of the small representation. This could definitely come into play when funding dries up or a need exists to get rid of FTE (full-time equivalent) positions that are not considered important. The NSPS would serve to create an atmosphere where planners/biologists always worried about being employed, resulting in lower morale and a general feeling little importance even if they perform well. SUBPART C § 9901.313(a) We are currently in the middle of FY 05. The stated 2004-2008 range of years must be revised. No one has been converted to the NSPS as of the current date. This entire section, especially in § 9901.313(b) appears to provide justification for reducing the amount of funding provided for civil servant salaries. What is meant by “…flexibility to accommodate changes in the function of the organization and other changed circumstances that might impact pay levels?” This language could be utilized to justify nearly anything, and an across-the-board pay decrease lies within the realm of possibilities. What is meant by “changes in function” and “other changed circumstances” as relates to federal pay? This proposed new language must be totally deleted from the proposed NSPS. § 9901.331 § 9901.332 § 9901.333 § 901.334 These sections and discussion of rate range adjustment is the part of the proposed NSPS that appears to be an altered COLA or locality pay adjustment. It is clearly stated that different percentages will be given to different employees, which defeats the purpose of a COLA or locality pay adjustment. Each civil employee is entitled to and should receive the same COLA percentage or appropriate locality pay adjustment. The locality pay adjustment is the only thing that raises pay since I am at the highest step in my grade. The equal percentage for all COLA or locality pay adjustments should not be changed by the new NSPS. The OPM already has regulations that establish locality pay for the United States. The existing across the board system is fair to all civil employees. The consequences of the NSPS proposal may be different locality pay adjustment rates between DoD and other agencies, producing different rates of pay for civil servants working and living in the same community. This does not make sense. The local market supplement provision should be dropped from the proposed NSPS and the existing OPM locality pay adjustment system should be retained. § 9901.341 § 9901.342 § 9901.343 § 9901.344 §9 901.345 § 9901.342(a) Performance pay will be limited by the amount of money assigned to the performance pay pool. The only indication of a “guarantee” of money assigned to the pay pool is the assurance in 9901.313(a) that the performance pay pool will be at least the amount available under the present system for 2004-2008. 2004 is already in the past. The lack of a minimum dollar guideline for DoD to fund the performance pay pool is a significant deficiency in the performance-based pay proposal. This is a very important difference between the “old” system that features very small increases across an 18-year career (assuming a single GS-grade) and the NSPS proposal. Specific criteria for annually funding of DoD performance pay pools must be inserted into the NSPS proposal. § 9901.342(b)(1) and (c)(1) It is difficult to understand the critical nature of the NSPS proposal for pay without first having the “issuances” to review. This same comment applies to all the subsections of Section 9901.342. § 9901.342(d)(3) and (4) The NSPS earlier introduced broad pay bands for determining employee salary. Introduced in these sections is capability of establishing “control points” within pay bands as a tool to limit pay advance within pay bands. This concept of “control points” is a controlling factor for “pay bands.” Pay bands should be defined as having control points within them. Alternatively, the concept of “control points” should be deleted from the NSPS proposal. § 9901.351 § 9901.352 § 9901.353 § 9901.354 § 901.355 § 9901.356 § 9901.352(a) This provision appears to contain an authorization to DoD to set pay higher or lower for an employee. This section requires more specific clarifying language. The ability to drop employee pay during a management reassignment must be explained and justified. § 9901.53 A promotion should never result in a pay decrease. This section requires more specific clarifying language, and the possibility of a pay decrease as a result of a promotion should be eliminated. SUBPART D None of the relevant details of a new performance management system are contained in the Subpart. All the details will be specified in subsequently published DoD “implementing issuances.” It is inappropriate to proceed with promulgation of the proposed new performance management system without first knowing important details of the components of the system, especially with respect to the format and form of any new employee annual appraisal system. The details must be available for review before the new system is approved for implementation. CONCLUSION Overall, I am not convinced that a new (NSPS) personnel system is warranted. The NSPS seems to create more inequality for DoD civil employees than the existing personnel system. As such, the NSPS will serve to undermine morale and decrease productivity of present civil employees and discourage potential future employees from applying for work in the DoD. For the well-being of the DoD and our great country, the NSPS should be eliminated or reworked to include more substantive details and explanations. If some change is needed, DoD should look at changing problems in the existing personnel system, instead of trying to design its own system that will require unnecessary monetary expenditures and commitment of other resources. Valerie Elliott 9221 Skokomish Way NE #5 Olympia, Wa 98516