Comment Number: OL-10512263
Received: 3/17/2005 2:37:31 AM
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:

Comments on Proposed NSPS Regulations (DoD and OPM)--docket number NSPS-2005-001. ……… I find that the 'Case for Action' (pp. 7552-3) overstates the limitations posed by the current personnel system and relies on our disgust and fears following the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks to institute changes that will unnecessarily remove some of the existing safeguards for employees. It is no secret that many DoD management officials consider the personnel system to be 'broken;' yet other federal agencies' human resources offices administer the same system and enjoy a much better reputation. The DoD does not have a strong case for blaming outmoded regulations. ……… Those who review the public comments should be mindful that the DoD utilizes a substantial number of other civilians, who are not subject to part 9901. These include contractors, nonappropriated fund employees, and citizens of other nations working under local laws at DoD installations outside of the US. Even as the DoD argues for the necessity of greater management control over its workforce, it pursues additional competitive sourcing competitions (perhaps more than any other federal agency) and advances plans to convert many of its employees to the nonappropriated fund personnel system. There is a basic inconsistency here. The statement, 'The Department sometimes uses military personnel or contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the right answer' (p. 7553) is directly contradicted by the Department's ambitious efforts in seeking new contractors through competitive sourcing who would displace existing DoD civilians following a succussful bid. ……… The proposed reduction of the Notice Period to 15 days (section 9901.714, p. 7591) is unnecessary. The present rule is sufficient and already contains a crime provision with a shorter notice period. The effect of the new rule on national security is none (in any case where national security is truely threatened, DoD already has the ways and means to respond), but the effect on the employee and his/her family is significant. The more sudden loss of income may prevent some wrongly removed employees from obtaining legal assistance, and there may also be cases where it leads to domestic or social problems. ……… I very strongly object to proposed changes to the standard for employees' recovering attorney fees (sec. 9901.807, p. 7593, also see p. 7568). It will become too easy for management to argue in legal cases that they were unaware of the facts; they may in fact feel encouraged to ignore and flaunt regulations, as ignorance becomes an accepted excuse for mismanagement. Whenever an employee takes legal action against the agency, whether legitimate or not, he or she undertakes a large financial burden and financial risk while opposing agency management with deep pockets to freely utilize taxpayer-funded legal services. ……… These are but two examples of questionable changes in the new Part 9901. There are similar concerns regarding changes to the way the MSPB handles cases as well as creation of a list of mandatory removal offenses. In all of these matters there will be some honest and competent employees who will be hurt. National security is not likely to be enhanced, and the true beneficiaries of these rule changes will be those individual managers who initiate adverse action--rightly or wrongly.