GovernmentExecutive.com

Lawmakers last week cut millions of dollars in requested funding for the Homeland Security Department's new personnel system.

After House-Senate negotiations, the two bodies settled on $25 million for the system in fiscal 2007. That figure, which was included in the DHS appropriations bill conference report completed Thursday and approved late Friday by the House and Senate, is less than the $71.5 million requested in the president's budget and the $29.7 million Congress gave the system last year.

DHS' personnel system, authorized by Congress in 2002 when it formed the department, will feature a market and performance-based pay approach to replace the decades-old General Schedule under which most civil servants work.

According to DHS budget documents, the $41.8 million extra for fiscal 2007, which started Oct. 1, would have been used in part to create 29 positions. This included six spots on the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board, which would take the place of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in adjudicating labor-management disputes and is highly contested by federal unions. DHS said the extra money also would go toward centralizing human resources functions and hiring, placement and training initiatives.

The entire personnel system has been delayed by a court case initiated by unions in which a panel of judges said the proposed labor relations portion of the system was illegal because it did not provide for adequate collective bargaining rights. Most recently, DHS lost its last avenue for appeal when the solicitor general declined to bring the department's case to the Supreme Court. Without labor reforms, DHS has been unable to bring its unionized employees into the human resources system.

Right now, about 4,000 nonbargaining unit employees are working under the new performance management system. This month, the department plans to bring about 6,700 more managers and supervisors in the Citizenship and Immigration Services agency and the Customs and Border Protection bureau into the program.

Eventually, 110,000 employees are scheduled to work under the personnel system. DHS originally had planned for 48,000 employees to enter it by early 2007.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, one of the unions that sued DHS, called the funding cut "a major victory, both for NTEU and the dedicated men and women of DHS." Federal employee unions have fought the system because they say it will encourage cronyism and salary cuts in the long term.

In budget request documents, DHS said the $41.8 million would go to the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer "to continue implementation of the human resources system initiative...[that] rewards employees for their contributions to the mission of the department, not simply for longevity."

Department officials did not respond to a request for comment. The cuts came the same week lawmakers blocked funding for the Defense Department's similar labor system.

In the NSPS language, lawmakers said no money could be spent on changes to labor-management relations, adverse actions or appeals rules in governmentwide law. Congress in 2003 gave the Pentagon legal authority to change its personnel system, but a court also ruled those labor relations changes illegal in February. That case is under appeal.

COMMENTS

• I think that reform at the Defense Department at least would be wonderful. I work under pay for performance and I like it fine, but I work hard. I can understand if you have a bad boss, it might be terrible but, I'm also a military spouse that has had to deal with a months long backlog when a screw-up in my husband's pay continues to get worse only because the civilian pay clerk has no incentive to do any better. I have had to deal with rude, ignorant people who get their jobs because they had "spousal" preference rather than experience and hide behind civil service protections and continue to do at best shoddy work while still getting paid and garnering benefits. The Defense Department really needs a rework on its hiring and civil service laws -- quickly. Christie Posted October 23, 2006 7:54 PM
• Pay for performance means we will pay you when we feel like paying you. Or, an even better excuse is, we don't have the money to pay you this year. My wife is on a pay for performance system. She has recently been told that "you have performed your duties better than last year, but you get a raise that is 1 percent less than last year’s raise. Pay for performance -- right! ICED!!!! Posted October 4, 2006 8:37 PM
• I’ve been thinking (shhh, please don’t tell anyone), what is this all about? Attempts to reform the civil service have been going on for decades with little pockets of special test cases and one large omnibus system as the result; so why this big push and all the finger pointing now? It seems to me the issue, quite simply, is control; control over people, money, and too many over our safety and freedom. That statement may seem overly simplistic; I grant you that the components causing this issue are complex, many, and varied. A knee jerk response to 9/11 sent us into a reactionary, force projection mode similar to what Israel is often criticized for. Our leader felt we needed to show the world that we were to be reckoned with. The Congress needed to show we were behind him; and they continued in that mode passing several pieces of legislation that, otherwise, may not have withstood the glaring light of constitutionality. Regardless of our personal opinions, this administration will go down in history as pivotal in the expansion and consolidation of federal power. That is its legacy. Now, five years later, we have had time to breathe. Today, we are looking back trying to figure out if that was a pig-in-a-poke that we bought into or not. Some think we should continue whole hog; others think that the ham has points but the jowls were too much. The only tools Congress has over the executive branch are those of censure and the purse strings. The pulse of the people is not yet sufficient to censure those who reacted in our name, but many feel we can stop throwing good money after bad. While I will not weigh in on that nasty conflict issue, I see many, including my representative, reexamining the other longer term issues of legislation taken shortly after that horrendous event. Personally I think this is a good thing. As a matter of fact, later this year I will again weigh in on this particular debate, and I will do so with my ballot. See you there? Tip off. GovExec.com reader Posted October 4, 2006 9:36 AM