GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: NASA will check backgrounds despite criticism

• 52491
  

  I don't understand the issue here. NASA should be one of the most secure agencys in this country. Anyone trying to sidestep a background check, sure looks like they might have something to hide. An earlier poster that described his submission being rejected because they didn't like his answers...I find that hard to believe. I think you may have been giving answers of a non-cooperative or hostile manner for them to reject your forms. This agency is no joke. NASA is directly related and under the authority of The National Defense and Security Agency. In these times, I don't think anyone working there has a "right" to object to any kind of security check. It's very simple. Submit or leave. These PHDs should surely be intelligent enough to understand this and why it's important....unless of course they really do have something to hide. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much"...

  Tim Posted June 17, 2008 11:05 AM
• 39545
  

  I wonder why no one has mentioned the cost of this program, not just in human terms, but in limited budget dollars. For NASA to institutionalize these investigations (even the Army limits the numbers it investigates), which probably cost on the order of $50K or more apiece, without making any judgment on the impact to their operations and acquisition costs is shortsighted at best. Contractors will charge this back to the government and without specifying shared information with other government agencies, future employers, etc., NASA guarantees repeated investigation of the same contractors. By not specifying who will investigate, what the standards are they investigate against, and what constitutes failure to identify oneself (after all, that's the purpose of HSPD-12, identification), NASA almost certainly will have increased litigation costs. How will they fly, research, and explore? How much bureaucracy can the agency handle? Please don't answer that...after all, it's NASA.

  A Taxpayer Posted December 12, 2007 12:33 PM
• 39498
  

  Keep in mind that something is funny with the whole affair. And it's worse than the article implies, because investigations are being done on people with no relation to classified info who have been in the government a hell of a lot longer than just 10 years.

  I've been NASA for 33 years; haven't had a security clearance for 12 years, don't need one now, nor in the future. (Not sure I'd accept if it was offered anymore, in fact.) Yet they are spending time and effort - processing forms, interview, et al - on someone like me in 2007, when they can't possibly have gone through all the people in government with more involvement with true security issues. This sort of blanket security sweep with limited resources does not make us more secure; it makes us less secure. And it gives security people inordinate power, over people for whom there is no reason -at all - to believe there is a security issue. For example, I was declared in violation of not submitting my forms - at all - because they didn't like how I answered one question. Now, I filled out the forms; I signed them, submitted them. And they were declared to be non-existant because of personal preference. I submitted again, but with a caveat also written into the signature form (that I had also included the first attempt), stating that my signature was approval for government investigators - not contractors - to do the data gathering. Rejected, again; even though there was no objection to the actual data I submitted. I either took it off - or lost my (non-classified) job, after 33 years. That's bad security practice; and it is also an abuse of power. I'm wondering how many other stories of excess are also out there that we are not hearing about.

  Dave Huntsman Posted December 11, 2007 9:43 PM
• 39495
  

  I believe, that everybody who does work for the government, should be investigated to some degree. I have undergone such investigations before my retirement, since I had nothing to hide. Those individuals, that are protesting, must something to hide, as I highly suspect. I know many of them, and know what goes on at these facilities. Also, any body can be replaced. There are many, who would happily replace them.

  Manuel I. Cruz Posted December 11, 2007 7:52 PM
• 39412
  

  It sounds like we need more information on what the background checks consist of.

  Any gov't employee and/or contract worker should not be surprised or offended in a background check, but if it is truly intrusive (why do they need your medical history?), that's another story.

  a taxpayer and a federal worker Posted December 11, 2007 8:17 AM
• 39367
  

  "Their positions are priviledges not a right."

  I'm afraid you are incorrect. Their positions are a business deal entered into by both parties and governed by a contract. The government is trying to change their end of that contract, and not allowing any chance of negotiation. This is not how business is practiced.

  Furthermore, the employees at JPL are employees of Caltech, not the government, and are not afforded the protections nor the benefits of being civil servants. They are in non-sensitive positions, and have no greater access to technology than people working at companies like iRobot and Google. Their jobs do not require security clearances, and this background check is not going to be used as such.

  gerf Posted December 10, 2007 2:46 PM
• 39362
  

  I concur w/ all the prior comments. The people who are resist to having a background check done on them may not be Honest Joes. Being investigated is inherent with coming to work for the Government. We end up hiring too many shady people before we get their background investigations done.

  DoD Security Manager Posted December 10, 2007 1:46 PM
• 39353
  

  The scientists are not objecting to regular background checks, which they underwent as a condition of employment when they first started at NASA. The are objecting to NEW and intrusive conditions:

  "In addition to fingerprints, which will be commingled in the FBI criminal database, the additional information being required includes full financial records; full medical records, including psychological therapy; and criminal history, including traffic infractions such as carpool-lane violations." (from GovExec article "NASA employees object to data-gathering actions", 5/7/07)

  Now, you have to understand that these folks are PhD level scientists, and the other major employer for these kinds of folks are universities. (Indeed, a lot of NASA scientists are doing similar kinds of research that you'd see being done at universities -- in other words, it's more about esoteric questions such as "can organisms survive in really hot or really cold environments" than it is about finding ways to make better bombs.) The government is competing with universities to attract the best and brightest scientists.

  A lot of scientists have spent at least 9 years or so in universities getting their degrees, so they are familiar with the (sometimes extreme) freedom and autonomy that can be enjoyed in academia. The government has to have some powerful incentives to attract folks away from this highly desirable work environment.

  Usually, the government can rely on the incentives of job security and appeals to a sense of community service to attract employees. The question is whether the government can continue to attract the best and the brightest if they are going to subject folks to these perceived extreme background searches. While a person may not have anything to hide, they may simply prefer to work in a place that doesn't ask such intrusive questions, and say "forget it" to federal service.

  jm Posted December 10, 2007 12:18 PM
• 39282
  

  It's about time NASA gets on board with the rest of us down here on earth. Up to date background checks help preclude the security problems that have occurred at the DOE labs. If these folks aren't willing to comply with these most basic requirements, one wonders what other security measures they may be ignoring. Their positions are priviledges not a right.

  John B. Fowler Posted December 8, 2007 10:41 PM
• 39276
  

  Background investigations have been required for 50 years. The Privacy Act of 1974 also applies to employees undergoing an investigation. As a federal employee, I expect my agency to provide a secure working environment. If someone's transgressions are so serious that they refuse an investigation, they don't belong in a government position.

  E Terry Posted December 8, 2007 1:21 PM
• 39272
  

  Why shouldn't they need background clearance BEFORE they're hired, like the rest of us? These people have access to cutting edge technology, and some employees have taken it overseas in the past. As long as the prospective hiree knows in advance re this requirement, and the clearance is fair, what's the problem?

  US Customs Senior Inspector (Retired) Posted December 8, 2007 9:31 AM