GovernmentExecutive.com

The decision has been made, but we all have to wait a little bit longer to find out the details. In a Tuesday interview with Government Executive, Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James said that she and Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge have come to an agreement on the shape of the new personnel system for DHS.

"Secretary Ridge and I have agreed on a set of regulations, which are now pending," she said. After the regulations emerge from a "clearance process," James added, they will be published in the Federal Register for public comment before being finalized. She declined to say when the preliminary regulations would be announced.

James said she was pleased with the nine-month process during which a design team made up of union leaders, DHS managers and OPM staffers prepared options for Ridge and James to consider. The process, she said, "is an absolute model for what it looks like when it can be done well. Is everyone going to be happy with the outcome? Hardly. Has it been an open and transparent process? Yes, it has."

James said the process of designing new personnel rules has not yet begun at the Defense Department, which received broad authority last fall to craft new personnel rules. But civil servants can expect more personnel reforms in 2004, according to James. The DHS and Defense Department reforms, she said, "are changes that of course we would like to see governmentwide."

State and OPM negotiate differences over SES reform

A resolution may be in the offing for senior foreign service officers disgruntled over legislation passed late last year to reform the pay system for members of the Senior Executive Service.

Ken Nakamura, congressional affairs director for the American Foreign Service Association, which represents government foreign service officers, said that the State Department is negotiating with the Office of Personnel Management to resolve the dispute.

Under the fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization Act, the pay cap for SES members would increase to $154,700, relieving compression at the top pay rate that had resulted in about 70 percent of all SES members receiving the same pay. The new pay system eliminates the six current SES pay levels and replaces them with one pay range with a floor of about $102,000.

But the reforms also eliminate locality pay, and put more of each SES member's annual pay raise at risk. Instead of automatic locality pay increases, annual pay raises will be based solely on performance evaluations under the new system.

By law, pay for members of the Senior Foreign Service, the top echelon of the government's diplomatic corps, is linked to that of the SES.

In a Dec. 17, 2003 letter to Government Executive, John W. Limbert, president of the American Foreign Service Association, said the reforms would adversely affect Senior Foreign Service officers overseas. AFSA represents Foreign Service members in the State, Agriculture and Commerce departments as well as at the Agency for International Development.

The new law freezes senior executives' pay at current levels on Jan. 11, 2004. Limbert said that will cause permanent pay disparities between Senior Foreign Service members currently based in Washington and those overseas. Members of the Foreign Service overseas do not receive locality pay, and instead receive "base pay," which is currently 13 percent less than what they would receive if they were stationed in Washington.

"Professionals overseas at the time of the transition will find their salaries frozen at levels up to $16,000 less than their Washington-based colleagues," Limbert wrote. "Overseas, the unfortunate message to the Foreign Service of the United States from the recent SES pay changes is inescapable: the administration and the Congress value neither our service nor our sacrifice."

Still, the State Department is advocating for foreign service officers, Nakamura said. "I don't know how well it's going," he added, "But the fact that the department is trying to help us out is encouraging."

In addition, Nakamura said he has begun talking to sympathetic congressional offices about seeking a legislative fix in 2004 if negotiations between State and OPM break down.

COMMENTS

• Here's how NOAA pay banding works: I cannot expect to be paid like a contractor. No, half my job is a quarter million dollar contract upstairs. I haven't seen six figures yet! I don't work enough free time for our office. Many other employees work without clocking time and I don't do enough of that. Why, there are contractors starting a business here and they're almost always on the job! I'm no longer entitled to annual leave. I already take too much leave (25 years service), although there hasn't been any sick leave on my books in several years now and I'm at the annual leave ceiling. Management doesn't feel they have to grant my leave requests. I am expected to be on-call 24/7/365 because they gave me a cell phone and I should feel privileged. Management is free to call me on if I'm out on annual leave (or on sick leave) and ask that I rearrange my schedule to their benefit. There is no regard for what might have been scheduled with family and any dollars spent on, say, education, seminars or actual vacation -- it is supposed to be gratefully forfeited without question. Inclement weather and unscheduled leave means I should be at the phone so management can call and request my services. Management is not required to have any backup positions for staff now that everyone is on-call 24/7/365. Management no longer has to actually provide critical elements for evaluation. They stay the same year after year although tasks have been long completed. Management no longer has to present critical elements to the employee within even the first six months of an evaluation period. Go ahead and write up your six month review on what was there last year, after all it hasn't changed even though you completed those tasks. Management now provides useful feedback during review times, such as they don't like who you go to lunch with and you should ask other employees more about their children. Yes, I ,too, am counting the days until retirement. Let the corporations take over of the government continue! GovExec.com reader Posted February 12, 2004 8:26 AM
• I really don't see how any pay-for-performance program will ever work in a mixed workforce of military and civilian personnel. First of all there is no cash award program for the military workforce as there is for civilians. Therefore the military management do not see an awards program as a neceessary incentive or program to have. Second, the cash awards program is almost always the first place that the military managers cut to reduce expenses when faced with budget controls, closely followed by a hiring freeze. The Navy Region in which I am currently employed has announced this year that there will be no cash awards for the entire region in fiscal 2004. They have said that the program must not have had any value since they have not seen any drop in performance since that decision was made. Third, since 9/11 all but one position in management that has become open has been filled by a military on active duty who has retired and stepped into the civil service position. In most cases their behavior has not changed, they still believe that they are wearing the uniform and they are totally unaware of the civilian workforce and its programs and the value of an awards program. I am thankful that I am nearing retirement elgibility. GovExec.com reader Posted January 16, 2004 8:24 AM
• Oh, dear. The end is near. What ever shall they do? Nuts! This article should be titled "Oh please, you sleaze!" Pay-for-performance is the new Washington version of "Don't blame me for the mess". As much as the mental giants in the capitol have downplayed the efforts of the entire civil service, it kind of makes me wonder how we ever got to be a super power with all these losers. Many of these SUPPOSED losers are vets. It seems like Washington has forgotten about them, again. They're men and women who went out and actually risked their lives serving the country. As opposed to the vast majority of politicians now in Washington who did the old "Duck, Dodge, Hide" out of any real military service. After four years in the Army Security Agency I started the rest of my 35+ year federal career as a WG (blue collar) electronics apprentice in a naval shipyard. With 12 years in the trades (six as a union steward) I became a GS (white collar) equipment specialist for Naval Sea Systems Command. I've seen more than my fair share of managerial stupidity and abuse in the Government. But this new pay-for-performance takes the cake. Pure and simple. It ain't gonna work girls. There may be pockets of success. But on a nationwide level? No! Simply put, you've got entirely too much power in ignorant, immature, uneducated hands. And in this situation, having a college degree doesn't necessarily mean you're educated enough to handle this kind of power. If Washington really wants to start a new level of federal management may I suggest the following: Find 100 supervisors who truly understand the next statement and have them train the rest -- A good supervisor doesn't use his/her personnel. He/she uses them to THEIR best potential. Follow that simple rule and you'll be amazed at the results. Art Doss Posted January 14, 2004 2:51 PM