| Comment Number: | OL-10511820 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 5:32:07 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:
General 1)The intent of Congress in legislating 9902 was for unions, employees and Congress to participate in the development of NSPS and comment for specific timeframes, congressional notification, etc. As proposed this HR plan has few details (ie,grades in bands, what the cardinal sins are to get fired (MROs 9901.103), how performance is tied to increases, buy ins from other plans like ACQDEMO...) and yet it seems to be DODs plan to count this as the official comment/notification period, deem the HR system in place starting in July, then release the details after its too late to comment. Appears to be a direct violation of Congressional intent. Congressional leaders will be getting thousands of letters on this one issue. You might want to design your system, seek comment and approval from Congress instead of side stepping the issues or you may end up with no NSPS system as an amendment to this years Defense Appropriations Bill. Specific 1) Congress directed that no one lose money upon conversion. Per 9901.352 setting pay upon reassignment, DOD could convert everyone in, reassign them the next day '"to a different set of duties" and drastically reduce their salaries anywhere in the band. Again, not the intent of Congress. Suggest that upon reassignment or any action that salaries can only be adjusted due to performance. 2) Claiming that employee grievance/protection rules have been preserved is contrary to the words in the register, for example in 9901.103 the SecDEF has "sole,exclusive and unreviewable discretion" to remove someone for a yet to be defined/secret MRO. What's the point of the MSPB, an appeals process and the courts if the SECDEF overides all. Might want to check our constitution. There are three branches, Exec, Legs and Judicial. You set up a 4th called the dod/SECDEF to overide the other 3. Doubt Congress will fall for it. 3) Why include locality pay in performance pay outs. No other DEMO has ever included this for a specific reason. Locale pay was designed/implememented to address cost of living in different locales, it has nothing to do with performance. If you want employees and Congress to go along at least be honest. Why not just say the SECDEF wants sole discretion to pay anyone what ever he wants based upon the guise of National Security.