| Comment Number: | OL-10511614 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 4:20:23 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:
1. Page 7556 - "Outreach to Employees" states 106 Focus Group sessions were held. How many included employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program? Among my hundreds of contacts, I have not talked to one who attended, was invited to, or heard of a Focus Group session open to them. I feel Corps civil works employees have not had adequate input to the implementation and have not been adequately considered in the planned regulation. 2. Page 7557 - "Eligibility and Coverage" I suggest that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program employees be excepted from NSPS for the following reasons: a) Corps Civil Works budget is separate from and governed by a different Committee in Congress than the Defense and Homeland Security budgets; b) Corps Civil Works business lines are more closely tied to domestic infrastructure improvements, support of domestic industry and utilities, reduction of damages to localities, and provision of economic stimulus and resource stewardship in local U.S. communities; and c) many employees of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works program are employed in job series that are not readily exchangeable with employees in traditional support of military operations. 3. "Pay and Pay Administration" Subpart C, Page 7559. It appears the use of a "pool" of funds for pay increases within bands may lead to adverse effects on the employee over his/her career. This "pool" is sure to become a target of budget-cutting efforts during lean times, leading to even a good performer being paid less than he/she would have been under the traditional GS pay system. 4. "Performance Management" Subpart D, page 7562. Provisions for consideration of employee behavior as a performance factor, element or objective and to impact the employee's performance assessment is unnecessary. A fully functioning, fair system to deal with conduct problems exists and is relatively easy to utilize. In my 8 years as supervisor of 15-20 employees, I have found the provisions for dealing with conduct problems to be easy to use and effective in correcting problems. Dealing with these issues through the performance appraisal system will only "muddy the waters" and be less effective in quickly correcting conduct problems. In addition, it seems like "double jeapordy" for the employee to be reprimanded or suspended and then also penalized for poor performance for his/her conduct problem. 5. Also in "Performance and Behavior Accountability" page 7562. I find the reference to "behavioral expectations specifically related to the local organization" to be offensive at best and unacceptably vague. It seems to leave great latitude for local officials to establish "norms" which may or may not be meaningful. Its language implying behavior control is remininscent of the world depicted in the novel "1984." 6. SS9901.516, page 7588. What is the meaning of this provision regarding Internal placement? Seems unnecessarily broad. If this means worldwide mobility for all employees, it will have a dramatic negative impact on recruitment of employees in many job series. I recruit, hire, and train Park Rangers (Series 025). In so doing, I must compete with the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and others to hire the best employees. The Corps will not be the agency of choice for employees in this career field if possible deployment overseas or reassignment to unrelated duties is a realistic possibility. 7. SS.9901.712 "Mandatory Removal Offenses" The provision for the Secretary to have the sole, exlusive, and unreviewable discretion to identify such offenses vests too much power in the Secretary in this regard. This infringes on the discretion of the supervisor to prescribe appropriate disciplinary actions. 8. I find that the majority of employees, of all grades & varying job descriptions, have grave misgivings about the implemenatation of this regulation & feel that is has not been a participative process.