GovernmentExecutive.com

A group of Republican lawmakers has offered a proposal aimed at providing pay equity for federal law enforcement officers, but some labor union officials who were once hopeful about the effort are disappointed.

The Republican staff of the Senate subcommittee that oversees compensation issues and its House counterpart last week released a 25-page "concept paper" on the issue.

Central to the debate is the definition of who qualifies as a "law enforcement officer." There is great disparity in retirement benefits between employees who are recognized as being law enforcement officers, and those who are not -- most notably Customs and Border Protection officers.

Employees deemed law enforcement officers can retire with 20 years of service at age 50. Standard federal employees aren't eligible until they have 30 years or more of service and are at least are 55.

The House and Senate subcommittees, which are chaired by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said their plan strives to "bring common-sense parity to a disparate system that has fractured over time through the legislative, regulatory and judicial processes."

The Republican concept paper defines law enforcement positions as those with: arrest authority; rigorous physical requirements; and the primary duty of apprehending suspected criminals, protecting U.S. officials against threats, and investigating, detecting or preventing criminal violations.

According to House Government Reform Committee spokesman Drew Crockett, that definition includes CBP officers. But the paper also suggests giving the director of the Office of Personnel Management "broad discretion in applying or defining" law enforcement positions.

American Federation of Government Employees lobbyist Eric Shulman told Government Executive in September that the impending Republican proposal represented a "unique opportunity to enact a long sought-after goal." But last week's concept paper is not what the union expected, he said Monday, adding that AFGE would oppose this proposal if presented as a bill.

"Looking at this proposal, it appears to us to be little more than an OPM power grab," Shulman said. "Essentially they want to transfer over tremendous amounts of authority on pay [to OPM]."

Shulman said he is pleased that CBP officers may be brought into the law enforcement fold. But he said that because the OPM director is politically appointed, the definition of "law enforcement officer" could change with each administration. Congress should be left to provide a definition and make decisions on how pay and retirement systems are structured, he said.

The concept paper suggests granting the director of OPM the "authority to establish, and from time to time adjust, a governmentwide framework of retirement...classification, basic and premium pay for law enforcement employees."

National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley said she is "encouraged by the apparent suggestions contained in the working paper for improved retirement benefits for some groups, including CBP officers." But she voiced similar concerns about the authorities recommended for OPM, and said that, if unchanged, NTEU would oppose a bill in this form.

"There is no system in the federal government where retirement benefits are set by regulation as opposed to statute," Kelley said in a statement.

OPM's deputy associate director for pay and performance policy, Donald Winstead, said OPM was given a key role in regulating benefits for employees under the personnel systems in the works at the Homeland Security and Defense departments.

"Both of those pieces of legislation gave OPM joint authority to issue regulations that establish new classification and pay systems for DHS and DoD," Winstead said. "There is a precedent for that."

Both OPM officials and the congressional staff who produced the paper stressed that it has not yet been introduced as legislation.

"The concept paper is a starting point for discussion on reforming [law enforcement officer] pay and classification," Crockett said. "We want to hear from stakeholders and work with them toward drafting a bill. This is just the first step in a long process."

Voinovich's communications director, Marcie Ridgway, said her office hasn't heard directly from the unions yet, but added that the senator is very open to input. She said the committees have asked the unions to comment on the proposal after Thanksgiving.

This is "a working relationship that the senator takes very, very seriously," Ridgway said.

There is, however, one area of the proposal where AFGE sees promise, Shulman said. The proposal suggests giving OPM authority to provide housing allowances for officers required to move to certain high-cost areas. The allowances would be equal to 10 percent of the median value of homes in the area.

The proposal also calls for the creation of a Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Retirement Council, made up of union representatives and government officials, to advise the OPM director on compensation decisions, and to bring the compensation of law enforcement positions outside of the Defense and Homeland Security departments in line with that in those agencies.

COMMENTS

• Congress and OPM are not looking at the real work performed by CBP officers. We are the first to encounter terrorists, smugglers and other criminal elements. How can we be a level II LEO (somewhat less a LEO than others)? The criminal investigator faces danger most often when he is accompanied by many other agents in making an arrest. They have the benefit of prior knowledge. Our encounters are just as dangerous and they are unexpected. Our work is more often in line with the inherent dangers of police work. Investigations are most often conducted out of the office. Just check the arrest records. Legacy Custom inspectors have made more arrests than all other LEO's. And for those of you who are evaluating the benefits; the charge to BICE to round up illegal aliens makes no sense. Being here illegally isn't even a crime and chasing those with criminal records is simple police work. Where is the equity? We have been fighting for LEO recognition for more than 25 years. It is time the whole picture is studied. And how can the report say all employees engaged in law enforcement work will be covered. Those under CSRS are excluded in this concept paper. What a disgrace. This administration is only trying to take away benefits. The only fair bill is H.R. 1002. Just as a previous commenter stated that investigators with NRC were included as LEO's without justification, so are we excluded because those making the decisions haven't taken the time to evaluate our work. GovExec.com reader Posted December 1, 2005 1:24 PM
• "If it walks like a duck . . . " One of the greatest travesties in the civil service system today is the abuse of uniformed, armed inspectors in CBP. Simply take out that one ridiculous word (investigate) and all former INS and Customs Inspectors (the real title) qualify. They have arrest powers, qualify for a government-issued weapon, and perform virtually all the functions of a LEO. As to the Special Agents, they won't lose their benefits/pensions, so who cares? It's time to stop subsidizing an underclass of armed officers because of one word in the definition. Street cops don't conduct investigations, yet they have a 20-year retirement. GovExec.com reader Posted November 2, 2005 2:13 AM