| Comment Number: | OL-10511824 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 5:32:59 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:
My opening remark is that I believe all measures were taken to ensure that industry experts, academia and stakeholders were consulted and that their views/comments/positions were evaluated and valued. With regard to Subpart D (Performance Management), I certainly agree that relevant performance standards must be made part of an employee's rating cycle and that these standards should be current to reflect the atmosphere. However, regulation/caution must exist prior to a supervisor arbitrarily making any mid-course changes, as this will prevent any abuse. Finally, supervisors/managers must be equipped; that is, be capable of managing in the new environment. My experience is that these folks are without degrees, uninvolved on a professional level, and are from the Theory X era. In order to prevent abuse, supervisors/managers must be equipped to lead and manage. With regard to Subpart F (Workforce Shaping), I'm in agreement with the proposed RIF process. However, I do expect that an individual's education and professional involvement such as certification be given consideration in the ranking process when issuing the list. Finally, the ability of a supervisor/manager to reshape its workforce in a non-RIF scenario should never be allowed. An employee should never be dealt away or be coerced in taking a lateral involving displacement from the office, such as being asked to fill or transfer over to an EDAC position because of budget restraints or the elimination of their job. With regard to Subpart G (Adverse Actions), I do agree that streamlining the adverse action procedures is of benefit in accomplishing the mission. However, these MROs should have been listed on this proposal. Furthermore, the concept of taking adverse actions against an employee for unacceptable performance and misconduct certainly allows a supervisor/manager who may have philosophical differences with an employee to vent their displeasure or lack of conformity utilizing this process. Not to say that many supervisors/manager rule by instilling fear into their employees. Come to think of it, supervisors/managers have dreamed of this moment and without proper training and inherent progress in management techniques, our superiors will utilize these rules in self-serving ways. With regard to Subpart H (Adverse Actions), I do agree that the process is set up to retain an employee's right to Due Process and concur with the preserving of the MSPB. However, the Attorney Fees section (subparagraph 8) will place a burden on the individual because it could deter an employee's ability to seek reinstatement/overturn of an adverse action by the Department. With regard to Subpart I (Labor-Management Relations), I do agree with the purpose of the NSLRB and that it will provide the flexibility required to accomplish the mission. However, the NSLRB and the FLRA should be able to co-exist, provided that the government's position to in effect replace the FLRA be curtailed and that more dialogue regarding the responsibilities continue.