Comment Number: OL-10511725
Received: 3/16/2005 4:58:48 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 agree the personnel system needs to be overhauled in order to meet its mission; however, I do not think certain aspects of the proposed program will meet them. For example, our directorate heads are political appointees--most of their decisions/actions seem to be politically motivated, either for the political party or themselves. They also have their little cliques of followers--if you aren't one of the favored, forget bonuses, promotions, etc. Supervisors who are civil servants don't rock the boat, but instead agree with everything. I don't see how this will change under the new system when it will still be political appointees in the head positions--it will just make it easier for them to remove someone from a job--quoting national security--to give it to a buddy or someone owed a favor. The system could work, but not when people can do so much damage to someone who disagrees with them. For example, if you ask a question now, you get a stock answer "everything's changed since 9/11 and we don't have to..." I can't imagine what it will be like when it's harder to disagree; no one will want to take a chance. Also, a number of the political appointee supervisors don't like civil service employees who have been working for DoD for years and have made it clear that they think they should leave/be replaced. Under the new system, I don't see where there would be anything to stop them. It all boils down to employee protection--the proposed regulations can promise all the protection in the world and DoD can say all of the supervisors/agencies are above doing this, but I don't see where someone who wants to get rid of you is going to have any trouble doing it--all they have to do is say national security--and you're gone, with little recourse. The same people will be running the organization that currently do. Also, I'm afraid what's happening in Maryland with Gov. Erlich's whoseale replacement of workers who disagree with him (on politics, etc.), could easily happen in DoD. It would not surprise me to find a sneak in the office who will report to the supervisors that so-and-so disagrees with the office's politics or the boss or... Who will ensure this does not happen? The proposal says that employee protection against adverse actions won't go away, but will remain. I disagree--there is little protection now for someone who doesn't go along with the gameplan, as the bosses see it. There won't be any after the new system goes into effect. Also, leaving so much power in supervisors' hands--such as bonuses and other personnel actions--could lead to more abuse of the system, pitting workers against each other, instead of working for the best of DoD. Thank you.