GovernmentExecutive.com

A top Office of Personnel Management official on Wednesday reiterated the Bush administration's commitment to push for governmentwide changes in civil service rules.

During a morning seminar sponsored by Government Executive, Marta Brito Perez, OPM associate director for human capital leadership and merit system accountability, dismissed arguments that the administration should wait to see how civil service reform at the Defense and Homeland Security departments works before pushing ahead.

"This is absolutely not new," Perez said, noting that Defense has conducted personnel demonstration projects for the past 25 years. "I don't think we need to wait. I think the time is right."

In its fiscal 2006 budget proposal, the Bush administration said it would seek legislation to extend reforms similar to those now being put in place at Defense and Homeland Security to the rest of the executive branch. The plan was immediately met with skepticism on Capitol Hill, even among important Republicans, such as Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the Government Reform Committee.

Employee unions, which have fought the Homeland Security and Defense changes, blasted plans to go governmentwide. And the administration, so far, has not sent proposed legislation to Capitol Hill.

In 2002 and 2003, Homeland Security and Defense won authority from Congress to revamp civil service rules. Later this year, they plan to begin rolling out systems that will replace the 15-grade, 10-step General Schedule pay and classification system with wider pay bands. Employees will receive raises based on performance evaluations conducted by their supervisors. The scope of labor bargaining will also be restricted and employee disciplinary rules will be tightened.

At the seminar, both Ronald James, Homeland Security chief human capital officer, and Charles S. Abell, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, defended the systems they are creating, but noted the need to follow through with sufficient training for managers.

Defense expects that its new rules, part of its National Security Personnel System, will provide a "lead for the rest of government to follow," Abell said, adding he hoped other agencies would "take the best parts of NSPS and get a better deal than we got" from Congress.

Abell took issue with the argument that employees are upset with the changes. "I don't think the [harsh] rhetoric [of union officials] at the national level matches the feeling at the local level, even among union stewards," he said.

But James said labor relations changes, which eliminate management's obligation to bargain over work procedures and the use of technology, amount to a "big sea change" in labor relations. He said managers would be wise to keep employees in the loop and to make reasonable accommodations for workers. We've "got a lot of heavy lifting to do," he said.

Claudia Cross, the chief human capital officer at the Energy Department, was the only panelist to express reservations about the plan to go governmentwide with civil service reform. Cross argued that many of the problems with the current system are not inherent, but stem from inadequate management training. "Before we go in and say it's all broken... we need to [focus training on] the softer side: managing human beings," she said.

COMMENTS

• I don't know if NSPS will be any better than the Acquisition Demonstration Project we had the last seven years at Edwards AFB CA that was a disaster. I am a 12-year Air Force veteran, and I've been in a GS-5 limbo status for seven years as a "secretary." Due to the fact that my supervisors never recognized the work I did (and yes I did put forth extra effort), my rating is the same as when I started in 1999. The GS system at least recognized experience and abilities and received step increases, where I have received none. This is so unjustified, unfair and should be readjusted for the well being of all concerned here. I am now unemployable, have been turned down for many positions I qualified for because, it looks like I am a failure with being a GS-5 step 1 going nowhere after eight years. So, what's up with that, picking on the strapped already and no doubt I have 10 point preference and have received no preference for positions here or anywhere else for that matter. I would like to get my well-deserved wages I've lost over the years, or file a lawsuit, but I need a job and I have a family to support which makes it very difficult for me. I am probably barking up the wrong tree but, advice is always welcome. Mary Beth Haugen Posted June 22, 2006 6:27 PM
• Jill, I share your thoughts and it is so true, I've given up on writing my selective officials because there has never been any type of response or change, it's politics, this administration seems so hell bent on dismantling us or generating so much confusion that employees really don't know what to do anymore so I tell them to do their job and ignore the politics, the sad fact is that as a manager I really can't justify it or even explain it properly, we have all these stupid president agenda thingies we're suppose to do, you know red light, yellow light, green light, it's all just stupid, it ultimately takes away from just doing our jobs effectively but then I guess that's the true objective here from Bushwacker, keep us spinning around while he undoes things GovExec.com reader Posted April 21, 2005 9:31 PM
• Abell is not a moron and he certainly is not stupid. He is just following administration policy when faced with facts. That policy is "Tell the Big Lie." And if you repeat the "big lie" often enough, it is amazing how many people will fall for it. Poor Richard GovExec.com reader Posted April 20, 2005 3:33 PM