GovernmentExecutive.com

A senator highly involved in government reform introduced a bill Tuesday to heighten the federal government's focus on employee performance.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, offered the legislation as an alternative to the Bush administration's proposed Working for America Act, which would introduce pay for performance in every federal agency but failed to attract any congressional sponsors since being floated last summer.

Voinovich's bill (S. 3492), which he first publicly mentioned in May, stops short of linking pay raises to performance appraisals, as the administration wanted, but would deny annual raises and within-grade increases to employees who don't meet satisfactory performance levels. It also would link bonuses to ratings and require managers to give annual written evaluations according to specific guidelines monitored by the Office of Personnel Management.

Though Voinovich's bill falls short of the administration's proposal, OPM Director Linda Springer said Tuesday that she supports it.

"[OPM] believes an effective federal civilian workforce can be encouraged and fostered by ensuring pay is commensurate with performance rather than longevity," Springer said in a statement. "This legislation will help achieve this goal by requiring managers to receive the training necessary to make sound, objective judgments on employee performance, ensuring fairness."

In remarks on the Senate floor, Voinovich, who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, said he wants to layer stricter rules for performance evaluations on top of the existing General Schedule, instead of introducing broad paybands and other more drastic reforms.

"Instead of taking one giant bite at the apple," Voinovich said, "I believe it will be easier for federal agencies to implement enhanced employee appraisals first... I am optimistic this will create less anxiety among federal employees."

Notably, Voinovich's bill -- titled the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act -- does not include any changes to federal labor laws. In the Defense and Homeland Security departments, pay reforms came bundled with a decrease in negotiating power for labor unions, triggering two ongoing lawsuits.

Though Voinovich's proposal steered clear of the labor system, unions were still unhappy with it. In a statement, National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley called the bill a "back-door attempt to advance the administration's stalled agenda to revamp civil service rules and institute a new pay system."

Kelley said she thinks much of the bill is redundant with requirements already in place, such as annual performance evaluations. But Voinovich said the existing appraisal system is vague and lacks a governmentwide mandate.

Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, a think tank and training center devoted to government workforce issues, said he supports Voinovich's bill and thinks the beefed-up evaluations will make a difference.

"Most [existing] evaluations are ... broad and nebulous; they are not based on agency goals," DeMaio said. "We won't have quality evaluations of our employees, candid evaluations that provide good employee feedback, until we have better guidelines."

Another organization with interests in federal personnel, the Partnership for Public Service, came out Tuesday in support of Voinovich's bill. Max Stier, the group's president, said he supports the "emphasis on federal managers and their responsibilities to better assess, develop and manage workers."

In addition to performance appraisals and pay raises, the Voinovich bill would require managers to receive training in conducting appraisals and would allow agencies with OPM-certified performance systems to pay their senior-level, non-Senior Executive Service employees up to Executive Schedule II, the second highest level of pay. Right now, those positions are capped out at Executive Schedule III.

COMMENTS

• Well, I'm sure he has good intentions. And we all know where good intentions make great paving material. Seriously, aren't most of the things this legislation is supposed to do already in place? Managers can already stop step increases for unsatisfactory performance -- it just requires some actual work on their part. But we can't have managers forced to actually do their jobs. That would never do. Sar Chasm Posted June 15, 2006 2:40 PM
• Is it only me, but are there others out there who get annoyed by the too often (but patently and completely false) parroted claims and assertions to purportedly defend the "need" for new pay or labor relations systems that General Schedule staff are unjustly rewarded (with pay increases) solely on non-merit longevity factors. The truth of the matter is that within grade step increases can be and are many times held back under current pay and labor relations regulations if and when an employee is not performing at least at the "C" or satisfactory level of performance. It is both distressing and annoying to constantly read quotes from OPM officials, members of Congress and others who ought to know better repeating the big lie that GS staff members receive pay increases just for showing up for work. That assertion is untrue and it's nonsense. Performance is and always has been the factor when managers opt to approve or disapprove longevity step increases. Let's call this false claim false each time it is repeated! Maybe then, they'll become too embarrassed to repeat it in the future. But maybe not?? Michael J. Smith Posted June 13, 2006 6:22 PM
• Sounds like the wolf in sheep’s clothing. When you can change human nature this might be a viable idea. Know of any way to guarantee that no management can play favorites or trade special favors then I'd think about joining the band wagon. All the schooling in the world can't do that. I am lucky to have what seem to me to be good managers and I'm told I do my job well. But there are other shops where I would take a promotion or transfer that I would not take if I had to count on that manager to promote and give raises fairly. All this sounds like to me is, we couldn't get it in the way we stated it so let’s repackage it to look like a lesser evil and sneak it in. I just don't see all managers being fair and objective. Human nature says the odds on that aren't very high. GovExec.com reader Posted June 14, 2006 2:14 AM