GovernmentExecutive.com

Several lawmakers on Tuesday questioned the administration's rush to push through legislation that would create a new civilian personnel system at the Defense Department.

"Are we moving this legislation because it is good government or because it is politically expedient?" asked Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., ranking member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization. The House Government Reform Committee is slated to vote on the proposal Thursday, while the House Armed Services Committee is expected to vote on it next week. Defense officials sent the wide-ranging proposal to Congress on April 10.

Many details of the proposed National Security Personnel System are taken from various Defense laboratory personnel demonstration projects. The broad plan calls for switching to a pay-banding system, implementing a separate pay structure for managers, and modifying job classifications, hiring authorities, pay administration and reduction-in-force procedures. The proposal would also eliminate automatic annual pay increases and instead create a pay-for-performance fund for salary boosts, a measure similar to a governmentwide proposal included in the Bush administration's fiscal 2004 budget proposal.

"What's truly remarkable is the sweeping nature of the bill before us," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "It gives the secretary of Defense a blank check to undo, in whole or in part, many of the civil service laws in the United States Code. This bill goes well beyond the flexibilities that Congress gave the Homeland Security Department last year."

The proposal's plan for union representation mirror those included in legislation creating the Homeland Security Department, which is still crafting its personnel system. Under that law, unions have less bargaining power, but Homeland Security Department leaders must work with union leaders before adopting any new policies. House lawmakers questioned the Defense proposal's inclusion of as yet untested Homeland Security Department provisions.

"We haven't even seen a sliver of a new model at the Department of Homeland Security as of yet," said Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., chairwoman of the subcommittee. "Wouldn't it be wise for Congress to wait and see if it works at the Department of Homeland Security?"

Davis and other subcommittee members questioned Defense officials about the need for the far-reaching flexibilities included in the proposal. David Chu, Defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, argued that the new system was necessary to make the department better able to respond to national security concerns.

"Our challenge is not just whether we won this last war, it's whether we win the next one and that's why we need this flexibility," Chu explained.

Dan Blair, deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management, testified that the Defense proposal was an example of where federal personnel management is headed in the future.

"We're moving to agency-specific plans," said Blair, who also testified that best practices gleaned from 20 years of successful personnel demonstration projects gave Defense and OPM officials a good foundation for reforming the department's civilian personnel system. "You come to a point where you realize it's no longer worth demonstrating, it's worth implementing," Blair said.

COMMENTS

• I have worked 16 years in the Government. There have been some really good changes for the better. But there have been some that begin to set the stage for what the administration wants to happen now with this bill. I've seen the "Buddy system". It's not good at all. That's all this new system is all about. No one wants to work under these conditions. It's bad enough that the government is contracting out to unqualified people. This bill is a "real rotten egg". It will only give out more favors to the favorites. It will not add to the quality of work that needs to be done for our country. We should be moving forward to the future, not backward to the "Buddy System". Throw it AWAY! GovExec.com reader Posted May 28, 2003 11:20 PM
• Strongly recommend that Speaker Hastert "table this Turkey", before it can do any damage. Compartmentalized Civil Service; is that what we are after? We get very little mileage out of our esteemed SES now; about all some of them do is belly-ache that they are underpaid..."SHOW ME THE WORK". If we proceed with this Turkey, Rep Davis' worse fears will be realized. Better listen to Rep. Waxman, he makes lots of sense to this "life-long Republican"...the Secretary does not need a BLANK CHECK, we will live to regret it. My last "maximum" award for service above and beyond, was less than half of a performance award back when I was a "young 12". Fix the system you have, don't throw a new Turkey in the pen; listen to Rep. Jo Ann Davis, make sure the "Homeland Security boondoggle" works before you build a new one! GovExec.com reader Posted April 30, 2003 9:52 AM
• DON'T DO IT! This simply is a way for the administration to get hold of a big big dept and reward its friends. If civil service is a problem correct civil service rules - don't do everything wrong! Anything that does not work correctly leads to the development of an entirely new process or dept (Homeland security for example). Don't allow this one, it is a give away to the administration and its friends. Tax Payer Posted April 30, 2003 6:53 AM