TOPICS
TOPICS
Appropriators block funding for DHS personnel reforms
A House panel late Tuesday approved language that would block funding for a controversial human resources system at the Homeland Security Department.
The House Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to approve a $36.2 billion fiscal 2008 DHS spending bill that would block funding for the department's personnel system - now called the Human Capital Operational Plan.
This would mark a significant setback for the system. Congress approved $20 million for the personnel plan for fiscal 2007, and the Bush administration requested $15 million in its fiscal 2008 budget proposal.
"The committee's intent was to intentionally starve the system out of resources -- to starve it out of existence," said Eric Shulman, a lobbyist with the American Federation of Government Employees.
The measure would still provide DHS' human capital office with $3 million for "human resource activity, including a human capital survey," according to a report on the bill.
The committee markup comes on the heels of the full House's approval last month of language in the fiscal 2008 DHS authorization bill that would repeal the 2002 law that allowed the department to develop a new personnel system. But the White House has threatened to veto the authorization bill should it include that provision.
Federal labor unions have been lobbying Congress to halt funding, charging that DHS has moved ahead with the personnel overhaul despite an appeals court decision upholding a ruling that portions illegally curtail the collective bargaining rights of employees.
Nearly 11,000 nonbargaining unit employees have come under the performance management portion. The remaining parts -- appeals, adverse actions, classification, labor relations and pay for performance -- have not yet been fully implemented. And the department has been barred from bringing bargaining unit employees under the plan until it makes changes to the labor relations rules struck down by the court last year.
"This decision to provide no funds to implement a human resources program is the latest in a series of steps I hope will lead to an end by DHS to impose personnel rules that would further devastate already slumping morale within DHS and impede the ability of this agency to meet its important mission," said National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley.
Meanwhile, the appropriations bill also would provide $50 million for DHS to grant law enforcement officer status to Customs and Border Protection officers, to improve DHS' recruitment and retention ability.
But the administration claims that CBP officers do not meet the definition of law enforcement officers and therefore are ineligible for the early retirement option granted to such officers. It has threatened to veto legislation that would grant the status to CBP officers, on the grounds that doing so could endanger national security.
The bill also would provide $27 million for DHS to hire an additional 250 CBP officers to ensure compliance with the 2006 port security law.
The measure also would prohibit DHS from cutting the number of Federal Protective Service police until FPS provides local law enforcement agencies with information on the number and types of cases FPS police handle and reaches agreement with them on how such cases will be dealt with in the future.
At a hearing last month, lawmakers expressed skepticism over whether an FPS proposal to eliminate 249 police officers and create a workforce composed mainly of inspectors and contract security guards would leave federal facilities more vulnerable. Lawmakers questioned whether cutting the officer role would transfer the responsibility of responding to calls from federal agencies to local law enforcement officers, who already face tight budgets and other responsibilities.
DHS would not comment on the bill, as a matter of policy against commenting on pending legislation.
COMMENTS
- (Minor point, but OPM hasn't approved LEO coverage for positions since about '93. Agencies have been approving their own since OPM got out of that business back then.) Please understand that I understand the work and the risk involved and I really do appreciate ALL that CBP Officers, etc., do to keep this nation safe. I think each of us owes them a debt of gratitude. However, while they (and others) perform what we traditionally tend to think of as "law enf." duties, they don't perform what the LAW describes as law enf. duties & that's ultimately what counts. I’m no fan of the current administration, but opposition to LEO coverage for CBP Officers and others really isn't about heartlessness. It's about protecting a very expensive benefit. It’s also about equity. Congress narrowed the definition to prevent people who are only tangentially involved in "law enf." work from getting the same benefits as people whose primary duties are law enf.. There’s more to it than carrying guns, making arrests, and “putting your life on the line”. We could say that a security guard or a police officer on a naval base does these same things. Think about this -If you were a covered LEO, (let's say a criminal investigator), would you want someone who sat behind a desk all day (but who made arrests and carried a gun) to get the same early retirement and enhanced annuity that you get? According to your definition, they’re performing “law enf” duties too, right? Uh-huh. I tend to think you wouldn’t. As for MAXHR, pay-for-performance, etc., I agree that there's nothing wrong with the GS system. It's already pay-banded (grades & steps) and it already features pay for performance (when used CORRECTLY). bee-bee Posted June 26, 2007 3:21 PM
- IMHO, the title “Law Enforcement Officer” may be being denied for the same reason that the conflict/deployment in Iraq is not a “War”. If I may, to all participants Iraq IS a war. To all LEOs out there doing the work, surviving and accomplishing the mission, there is little to differentiate you from those bearing the designation. I see the only reasons for your denial of LEO status as the innate changes that would automatically take place upon your status confirmation. LEOs, by law and right or wrong, are treated differently on many levels. This status and treatment comes with a tangible cost. Once more, it seems to me, it’s all about semantics and money. The administration does not wish to incur the cost of that many additional LEOs; whose retirement and job benefits exceed those of the average civil servant. Heck, they’re trying to cut us back so how do you expect them to treat someone they feel have even better benefits? This is all consistent; if not equitable or honest. Tip off Posted June 18, 2007 10:03 AM
- Let's see, a year and after being officially retired, this is still being debated? LOL .... what do I miss? nada Thankfully; retired Customs manager Posted June 15, 2007 3:29 PM
