Comment Number: OL-10511771
Received: 3/16/2005 5:16:07 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 am a federal employee with 10 years of service, working in Columbus, Ohio for DFAS. Attached are my personal comments about the NSPS regulations that DoD has publicized. These comments focus on two overriding themes; first is the lack of detail provided about NSPS to allow comprehensive public comments and second is factually inaccurate reasons Congress put forth to justify NSPS. While I recognize Congresses faulty reasons for enacting NSPS is outside of your scope of review, I believe it is incumbent upon the drafters of the NSPS to step in and demonstrate that their reasons are factual to support the actions they take with NSPS. The first and foremost problem with NSPS is that too little information about how it works has been provided. The public’s ability to comment on the changes that DoD wants to make is unfairly limited by the lack of information (lack of due process) exercised by DoD. We have the most sweeping set of changes to affect hundreds of thousands of federal employees and yet DoD is playing hide the ball. Denying the public an opportunity to shine a light on the over-reaching they are about to do. It is an abuse of the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as an abuse of the spirit of the NSPS law. As is typical of legislation sponsored by this current Administration and passed by a Congress that blindly follows its leadership, NSPS is horrible flawed by the failure of Congress to do it’s job. As part of examining any bill, Congress first and foremost role is that of fact finder. A bill is sponsored based on ALLEGATION that there is a problem somewhere and the legislation contained in the bill will fix it. The job of Congress is to look into that allegation and investigate to find out what the FACTS are. Through the process of holding hearings and taking testimony, Congress slowly builds a record of whether or not the allegation is true and how best to resolve it. Understanding the full scope of the problem is essential to drafting a law designed to solve the problem. Unfortunately for NSPS, the Republican ALLEGATIONS of problems got thrown into a law as justification for enacting it, without Congress investigating the facts and forming an educated analysis of how to solve it. But, that was not a problem in passing the NSPS law, because it, in and of itself, doesn’t attempt to set forth a legislative answer. The answer will be drafted by DoD in a backroom of Pentagon, far from involvement from other stakeholders. Of course, DoD will invite those absolutely necessary, like OPM to make it look like proper outside involvement was included. But, for all intents and purposes, DoD will be left to roll back 100 years of civil service reform to a time when managers were free to do anything they want. In such a circumstance, DoD should step up to the plate and hold public hearings, take testimony and determine what are the problems and how best to fix them. If Congress failed to investigate and determine what the problems with civil service are, then the writers of the legislation (DoD) should be required to take those steps. As it stands, the justification for moving to NSPS have yet to be show to be accurate. The justification for getting rid of the current system can be summed up by the following: “Our current federal civilian personnel system was created more than fifty years ago. It is based on a rigid structure and lacks flexibility. It fails to provide the top rewards to the top performers, and it limits accountability. This has made it difficult for DoD to retain, recruit and develop the most effective team possible. In short, our current personnel system has encumbered the DoD's ability to achieve its mission.” Let’s examine this happy horse shit that is being used to justify killing our civil service system. “Our current federal civilian personnel system was created more than fifty years.” Well, so what ?? Does that mean there is anything wrong with the current system ?? No, it doesn’t say anything about anything. Automobiles were created over 70 years ago, does that mean we should get rid of automobiles?? No, it is silly and wholly without any logic whatsoever. “It is based on a rigid structure and lacks flexibility.” And, what is wrong with that !! The current civil service system was developed over years of small adjustment and tinkering that tried to strike the proper balance between the rights of the Agency and the rights of the employees. The civil service was designed to be free from political influence so that it could function properly while different political parties took over power and lost power. Regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans held power in Washington, the federal bureaucracy would continue to perform its function insulated from political winds blowing at the time. “It fails to provide the top rewards to the top performers, and it limits accountability.” Where is the evidence to support this !! Again, another assertion put forth without any evidence to support it. Par for the course with this Administration. The fact is people do receive bonus within the current system, people do receive time off awards as well as other forms of recognition for a job well done. Is the Administration saying that MANAGEMENT is incompetent and can not reward people properly under the current system ?? That is the only conclusion I think one can draw from the criticism that they can’t reward top performers. “This has made it difficult for DoD to retain, recruit and develop the most effective team possible.” Show me the Congressional testimony that supports this proposition. What is the one thing that slows the process of hiring a new employee ?? Security checks and background investigations. Does NSPS do anything about speeding up background investigation ?? No, it does not address what is the root cause of our slow hiring process. Instead, it just unfairly lays criticism on our current civil service system as being to slow, without any factual basis. I guess we should never let the FACTS get in the way of a good story. The last justification put forth to support NSPS is “[i]n short, our current personnel system has encumbered the DoD's ability to achieve its mission.” I am sure that it would be nice to disregard all the rules that prevented me from doing whatever I want. I am sure everyone would love to have the authority to do what ever they want all the time and be right all the time. Unfortunately, we have laws that limit the bounds of our behavior. Unless, of course, if you are Donald Rumsfeld, for he is the King. Being King means that you can now overrule all those MSPB, FLRA, and court decisions that hindered your actions. Being King means that you can pay people whatever you felt like, fire whom you want, RIF a group as small as two people, and no one will have the authority to challenge your actions. It means Management will be elevated to the role of masters, whether they are right or wrong. As a friends father pointed out after listening to what NSPS was doing, “the hotels and motels around the workplace are going to be busy.” Is that progress ?? Maybe to some it is, but to me it is an utter failure. Another piece of legislation that has come out of this Administration that is junk. If you are going to take away all of the benefits I now enjoy (job security, COLAS, etc.) and essentially make me an at will employee, why should I stay and be paid less that what I can earn in the private market place. I choose to accept less pay precisely because of the job security that is associated with my position. If you are taking that away, I might as well take my government contracting knowledge and sell it to the highest law firm and make more money. You are taking away any incentive for me to continue with the government. In the end, this will cost you more money. But, I recognize that what you want is lots of federal contractors whose companies contribute money to Republican candidates instead of many individual federal employees who contribute money towards Democratic candidates. Isn’t that what it is all about anyway ?? You sure are not doing this for the reasons stated.