GovernmentExecutive.com

The Government Accountability Office has reached settlements with 12 of 308 employees denied pay increases last year.

The 12 employees were offered promotions, back pay and associated benefits as if they had been promoted as of Jan. 8, 2006, several sources confirmed Thursday.

The case goes back to June 2005, when GAO issued a plan for splitting one of its pay bands -- Band II -- into Band IIA and Band IIB. Employees placed in Band IIA were not granted pay increases, while employees placed in Band IIB got raises.

Employees were required to earn a "meets expectations" on their performance appraisal to be eligible for Band IIB placement. GAO issued its final placement decisions in December 2005, and gave employees with Band IIA placement 30 days to appeal to the agency's Office of Opportunities and Inclusiveness or its Personnel Appeals Board, one source said.

"Each one of the 12 marched over to the appeals board as an act of personal courage and chose to run the risk of retaliation," the source said.

Several sources said there was little or no justification for the employees' placement in the lower pay band.

The appeals board's general counsel, which represented the 12 employees, found that the data and calculations used to conduct the employees' performance evaluations were unreliable and included significant flaws and inconsistencies.

Several GAO employees and other sources, who spoke under condition of anonymity, questioned why the watchdog agency - which has insisted the pay determinations were justified - decided to settle with the 12 employees.

The 12 employees are prohibited to speak to anyone about the details of the settlement unless asked as part of a congressional inquiry, one source said, adding that Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., has already asked the employees about the settlements.

According to a union newsletter, the settlements enabled GAO to avoid a public hearing before the appeals board on the rules and processes used to make the pay determinations. The newsletter also stated that GAO avoided a potentially unfavorable opinion by the appeals board on the claims submitted by the 12 senior analysts.

Comptroller General David M. Walker said in a statement Thursday that the settlements were in the best interest of all parties. "It will allow GAO to move forward while avoiding significant expenditures of time and potential litigation costs," he said.

Walker added that the remaining Band IIA employees will not be given the opportunity to appeal the decision with the agency's appeals board because of the 30-day rule.

Davis said Friday that he was pleased with the settlements but added that GAO has still left the remaining IIA employees hanging. "We don't know what's going to happen, but we think it might set some kind of precedent," Davis said.

The overall decision to deny raises to Band IIA employees has come under criticism. Walker has argued that the pay determinations were justified by a 2004 study conducted by the consulting firm Watson Wyatt, which concluded that many GAO analysts were overpaid relative to employees with comparable skills and experience at other agencies and outside government.

Though GAO has refused to release the details of the 2004 study, several sources said the numbers used were suspect. The chairs of the House and Senate subcommittees on federal workforce issues, Davis and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, have ordered Walker to hand over data used in the study, including the outside organizations to which GAO compared itself and which occupations within those organizations were used for comparison.

Davis said that while lawmakers have exchanged correspondence with Walker, Congress has not yet received any data related to the study. "We've been promised the data that we're seeking," Davis said.

Walker on Thursday continued to stand by his decision to deny the employees the raises.

"GAO's Executive Committee believes strongly that it had the full legal authority to conduct the Band II restructuring in the manner that it did and used a sound approach for making the related decisions," Walker said.

Jennifer Tyree, minority counsel for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on the federal workforce, said Davis and Akaka plan to hold a joint hearing on GAO's pay issues in late May. Walker and Curtis Copeland of the Congressional Research Service -- who conducted an analysis of why the 308 employees did not receive pay raises last year -- are expected to testify, Tyree said.

"We're certainly hoping the whole matter will get resolved because we don't want the ongoing controversy, especially with what many people consider to be a lead agency," Davis said.

COMMENTS

• Taxpayer raises a point, to a point. Why was the word “promotions” used? Trying to think logically (heaven forbid), I wonder if these weren’t promotions as we historically think, but rather a reinstatement to their previous pay band. The creation of the secondary/subsidiary pay band evidently limited their upward mobility and top possible pay, i.e. was a demotion. Then, under the new human resources, they were “promoted” back into their original pay band to address the grievance. That seems as logical an explanation as I can come up with. Anyone out there in HR know for sure? Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted May 8, 2007 11:42 AM
• "The 12 employees were offered promotions, back pay and associated benefits as if they had been promoted as of Jan. 8, 2006, " How to go from nothing to getting promoted! You really think GAO is doing a good job in any area? It is time for Dabvid Walker to go! His push for OMB to issue orders to the government to go to accrual accounting demonstrates his total lack of knowledge of accounting and its use!~ He is a real waste of government funds. OMB should drop the false accounting practice following FASAB standards that really are GAO and OMB standards that reflect the total lack of knowledge and experience by these people in accural accounting and its usefulness to the government. This entire move is a waste of money and will lead to decisions based on bad data that will waste even more money while the government says we just did what they said. What they said is wrong and should be stopped! Congress - ask any collegfe accounting student and you will find out this process ius wrong and is gong to cst hundreds of millions of dollars for very little if any value! Make OMB and DoD do a cost-benefit analysis of implementation of this new program and you will be shocked. the millions you will save would finance a large part of the social security shortfall that should be of much higher priority. The USA cannot do it all and Congress better start setting priorities or we are going down to China on the economic front. Imports from Chihna should be banned until they controil exports as to fakes and enforce food quality standrads. China simply is lying and they should be stopped from selling in the USA immediately. taxpayer Posted May 3, 2007 7:08 AM
• Interesting that the watchdog agency had to "settle" and still appears to not want to recognize the problem. If they GAO can't get it right.....yes--a harbinger of what to look forward to in NSPS. GovExec.com reader Posted April 30, 2007 12:54 PM