| Comment Number: | OL-10512134 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 10:01:35 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:
Chapter 43 - Performance Appraisal System, Sections 9901.405 thru 409; Chapter 54 - Dealing with Pay: If new NSPS is definitely implemented, surely revamp the OPM or Service Branch specific performance appraisal worksheets that are now used. Transform the formats to force remarks that tie-in with or relate to mission, vision, strategic planning, long and short term goals and objectives, etc. Consider using some of the same topics that are on the current US Air Force officer and enlisted performance reports. These performance reports outline standardized categories to complete --- initiative, innovation, results, teamwork, cost-savings, transformation, etc. The current performance appraisal format for civilians is way OUT-OF-DATE and not in synchronization with what's really happening in DOD regarding true transformational actions that Service Secretaries really need to gain performance results that help improve DOD. Current ratings are now truly biased from my experiences with civilian personnel issues in the major command --- Air Education and Training Command (AETC). There's plenty of smoozing and rear-end kissing of supervisors by plenty of subordinate people, especially on small bases. There's a lot of favortism in my view, especially in the job selection process. There's no doubt in many individual views that performance appraisals really don't matter. Safeguards must be built into the proposed NSPS to make a course direction change on this issue. As a follow on to implenting changes to appraisal formats, the same needs to take place for the pay and awards process. Checks need to be specified on appraisal forms so that these must be viewed and professionally rated for the pay band selections and awards process. I know on experienced observations of people being awarded GS payments based significantly on smoozing and apparently not related to actual job performance. Seems as though working quality of life issues gains the financial awards over other people really working hard-core, material problem issues that Service Branch Chiefs need to get corrected for SecDef. One really wonders what many people truly have for job descriptions. It amazes me how the Air Force appears to have so much administrative time not related to actual job work or operational production. There are large numbers of civilian personnel contributing significantly to USAF and DOD improvements but there also seems to be very large numbers of excess wood employees that need to get a real job or get out of the way of progress. There appears to be a large number of civilians that are really roadblocks to SecDef Rumsfeld's Transformational objectives truly happening on the front-lines of bases. Perhaps many of these people will retire shortly due to the pressure and stress of transformation actions or schedules. With this being said, these same people get awarded with performance awards. In general, it's just pathetic on how things really happen with the current system. Surely hope NSPS changes these methods. The USAF dosen't need an authorized End Strength increase by Congress --- the service just needs to keep on streamlining what they already have for people, streamline performance tracking methods with best-practice tools, get the team working toward the official mission,vision, goals and objectives, and not working the secondary, hidden agenda, private ones and then ---motivate and award true performance with fair appraisals and the revised awards process. Please ---- DOD, Service Secretaries and CONGRESS ---make dramatic changes to the civilian performance appraisal formats that have been used for 10-15 years or more and bring them in line with 21st Century Best-Practice Corporate procedures that Well-Run American and International Companies use. Using improved performance appraisal methods that result in substantiated and meaningful reports will give us confidence in using NSPS in 2005 and for the future.