Government Executive - Authors - David McGlinchey

Retired officials warn BRAC could cause civilian brain drain

David McGlinchey — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Defense Department's base realignment and closure process has generated concern from retired military officials who warn that valuable civilian workers will retire or find private sector jobs instead of relocating.

Last month, House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., raised the issue of a brain drain during a town hall meeting in Northern Virginia. At that meeting a large number of Defense civilian employees indicated that they would seek other employment in the Washington area rather than move.

In May, Defense officials proposed closing 33 major facilities nationwide, realigning 29 others, and closing or realigning hundreds of smaller military locations. Those recommendations have gone to the nine-member BRAC commission, and that panel in turn will pass its revised proposals to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress are required to accept or reject the closures and realignments in their entirety.

In the past week, several retired senior military officials have said that they share Davis' concern about a brain drain, because that phenomenon played out in previous BRAC rounds. The difference now, however, is the country is at war and can ill-afford to lose talented workers, said retired Rear Adm. George Strohsahl, who was involved in the 1991 and 1993 BRAC rounds and did preliminary work for the 1995 BRAC closings.

"This appears to me to be a disregard for intellectual capital in the name of some kind of efficiency," Strohsahl said. He specifically criticized a proposed realignment of workers from coastal Ventura Country, Calif., to China Lake, Calif., in the high desert. These workers, he said, provide technology and intelligence support for overseas deployments.

"The nature of the work is extremely technical, they are on the cutting edge. But that capability-for some period of time-will likely be lost," Strohsahl said. "Maybe 10 [percent] to 15 percent of the people will move. Some of those will go back because they will find out they don't like it at China Lake."

Defense officials will not speculate on the percentage of workers moving between sites this early in the BRAC process, according to Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood. He acknowledged that some will leave the federal workforce instead of relocating, but "a lot of them…will say, 'Sure, I don't mind moving'."

Flood said it was "too early" in the process to comment on the issue.

Several other former Defense officials, however, share the brain drain concern. Retired Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney, now the president of Monmouth University, said, "These people are easily hired in most places; they do not have to move."

"Historically, even when moving from one robust locale like central New Jersey to Maryland, inside the Beltway, one notes that less than 20 percent move," Gaffney said. "When one moves to a less robust locale it will be worse, because these sophisticated workers are also looking at schools, spouse employment and contact with others in their fields."

He agreed with Strohsahl that it is risky to disrupt the civilian workforce during wartime. Gaffney said Defense officials have been "sounding loud alarms" about the need for more science and engineering personnel. He predicted that when the BRAC closures and realignments are put into place, thousands of qualified technical workers will leave the federal workforce.

"It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to reconstitute a workforce of that size in a very short time, if one can even find the supply," Gaffney said. A "large disruption in critical defense programs is sure to result. Who pays the price for that? Can we afford that disruption now, when war has been become such a huge issue?"

Mike Marshall worked for about 20 years in management positions for Navy laboratory operations before retiring recently. He was involved in previous BRAC procedures and estimated this time about 25 percent of a workforce will move with a realignment or closing. He noted that older workers, or employees with more technical skills, are slightly less likely to move.

"We are worried about having enough Americans to go into science and engineering, especially with security clearances," Marshall said. "My concern is that we are going to dump a few thousand more as a result of this BRAC process and then worry about how to hire them back."

]]>

TSP Tech Turnover

David McGlinchey — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Thrift Savings Plan's technology chief is retiring from the agency Friday after a nine-year run that included a massive overhaul of the plan's automated systems.

Agency officials credited Lawrence Stiffler with helping the TSP recover from a failed technology contract with American Management Systems. Mark Haggerty, who has been working with Stiffler during the past year, will assume the director of automated systems role. Stiffler and TSP Executive Director Gary Amelio promised a smooth transition.

During a meeting of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board last week, board members lavished praise on Stiffler.

Haggerty "has got a big pair of shoes to fill," said Board Chairman Andrew Saul. "A great thank you, you've done a great job."

Under Stiffler, the TSP implemented a new automated system that allows TSP participants to regularly check and update their accounts. That system has come with some controversy-TSP officials have criticized the National Finance Center for delays in implementing the current automated system. The NFC handles some administrative tasks for the Thrift plan.

Last year, however, an NFC employee leaked an e-mail exchange between Stiffler and Gilbert Hawk, director of NFC's Information Resources Management Division. The e-mails suggested the responsibility for the delay was shared by both agencies.

During last week's meeting, however, board members focused on the final system that Stiffler has delivered.

"You've done a wonderful job," said board member Gordon Whiting, adding that Stiffler has created "a wonderful platform to take us to the next step."

Saul told the board that he could "go on for 15 minutes talking about what's been accomplished" under Stiffler.

The TSP serves as a 401-(k) style retirement plan for federal employees. It has about 3.5 million members and more than $150 billion in assets.

Against Real Estate Fund

Amelio told the board last week that he had recently met with Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, to share his thoughts on the TSP and the proposed introduction of a real estate investment fund in the Thrift plan. The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts-and many in Congress-have supported the introduction of a REIT fund. The TSP board and agency officials oppose such a fund.

Voinovich serves as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia. That subcommittee oversees the TSP.

Amelio said that he told Voinovich of the opposition to the REIT fund and while the senator did not reveal his opinion on the proposed fund, he listened carefully to the board's points.

Saul thanked Amelio for carrying the board's message to Voinovich.

"Before you do something like this, you should think it through very, very carefully," Saul said. "This is not just something to take lightly, adding new plans."

]]>

FAA workers weigh legal action in pay cap dispute

David McGlinchey — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

A group of FAA employees unhappy with caps on their compensation might pursue their grievance in the federal courts, according to people involved in the complaint.

The group filed a complaint earlier this year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging age discrimination, because most of those affected by the cap are experienced older workers.

But "nothing's been happening with the EEOC," said Tim O'Hara, the leader of the group. "We expected at this point to at least have a hearing scheduled with them. We've heard nothing from them. Literally nothing."

The EEOC did not comment on the FAA case.

Under the FAA's pay for performance system, almost 2,000 long-term employees are at the top of their pay bands and cannot receive base salary increases. While they are eligible for annual awards for good performance, they say they are losing thousands of dollars in retirement benefits, locality pay increases and overtime pay.

At the same time, thousands of other FAA employees are not affected by the salary freeze because of union agreements, or because they already were above the maximum pay limit when the rule on pay caps went into effect. Employees with frozen base salaries have alleged that the differing compensation rules are unfair. Agency officials say that the solution to the disparity is to bring more employees under the pay cap system, not to exempt the affected 2,000.

On Feb. 28, the employees filed a class-action complaint with the FAA's equal employment opportunity office. That complaint subsequently was forwarded to the EEOC. Since then, "EEOC hasn't done anything, and people are concerned about that," said Barbara Kraft, an attorney representing the employees. "I am surprised that it is taking this long."

Kraft said, however, that she is not implying that there is any intentional delay on the part of the government. "I know that the EEOC is very busy," she said. "All of these enforcement agencies have resources issues."

The FAA employees still will pursue their complaint with the EEOC, but they are also lining up behind one worker, in the hopes that a federal district court judge might allow the employee's complaint to be converted into a class action lawsuit.

According to Kraft, the FAA employees will attempt to pursue their complaints on parallel tracks while not sacrificing their rights in either forum.

"We feel like we are in between a procedural rock and a hard place," she said. "The concern is not to waive any rights."

]]>

Health advocates urge federal officials to prepare for flu pandemic

David McGlinchey — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The federal government must take a more active role in preparing for a potentially catastrophic strain of flu, according to a report released last week by a public health advocacy group.

Trust for America's Health, a nonpartisan public health watchdog group, said that 500,000 Americans could die and more than 2.3 million could be sickened if even a moderately severe strain of a pandemic flu virus hits the country.

A pandemic flu is a strain for which humans have no natural immunity. During the 20th century, flu pandemics occurred in 1918, 1957 and 1968. The 1918 outbreak was by far the deadliest.

The House Government Reform Committee will meet Thursday to consider the possibility that a killer flu could wreak havoc on an unprepared population.

"The Government Reform Committee has held several hearings over the last few years to let people know that the flu is not something to take lightly," said Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va. "TFAH's report clearly demonstrates that the emergence of a pandemic flu could exact a tremendous toll on U.S. health and economic stability."

Davis said the hearing would focus on problem areas in the public health system and planning and response efforts that the federal government can take.

The report found that by 2006 the federal government will probably have enough anti-viral pharmaceuticals to treat 5.3 million people. According to numerical models, there still would be more than 60 million at-risk people without access to vaccine.

Flu vaccine must be matched to individual strains of flu, and some health experts worry about the gap between the time a pandemic strain would emerge and the time an appropriate vaccine would be available. In the interim, public health workers would attempt to treat patients with anti-viral pharmaceuticals.

"This is not a drill. This is not a planning exercise," said TFAH Executive Director Shelley A. Hearne. "Americans are being placed needlessly at risk. The U.S. must take fast and furious action to prepare for a possible pandemic outbreak here at home."

She applauded the committee for holding the hearing.

"It's time for federal leadership to address some unsettling gaps in pandemic readiness," Hearne said. "There are a number of steps we can take to improve our short- and longer-term response."

]]>

New OPM chief confirmed by Senate

David McGlinchey — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Senate voted Friday to confirm Linda Springer as the new head of the Office of Personnel Management.

Springer takes over the agency during a tumultuous period for the federal workforce. The Defense and Homeland Security departments are in the process of overhauling their personnel frameworks, scrapping the General Schedule system, reducing union collective bargaining rights and streamlining the appeals process. The two agencies are also implementing pay-for-performance systems.

The Bush administration has proposed expanding these changes to the rest of the federal government. Union officials and some lawmakers have vocally opposed some of the moves and everal unions have taken legal action in an attempt to block their implementation.

Springer is the former controller at the Office of Management and Budget, a position that also required Senate confirmation. In March, President Bush nominated Springer to lead OPM, but her confirmation was stalled by the Senate's contentious debate over filibusters and judicial nominees.

Before working at OMB, Springer was a senior vice president and controller at financial services company Provident Mutual and a vice president at Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co.

After Springer was confirmed Friday, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, applauded the new appointee.

"This position is vitally important, given the challenges facing the federal civil service and the many missions the government carries out on behalf of the nation," Collins said. "The OPM director must ensure our government has the ability to recruit and retain a highly skilled workforce. Ms. Springer appears to have the executive management and leadership skills necessary to do the job well. I look forward to continuing working with her on the challenges that lie ahead."

Springer is replacing Kay Coles James, who resigned from her position in January. Dan Blair has been serving as the acting director at OPM since James left the government.

]]>

Flexible spending deadline extended for federal workers

David McGlinchey — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Office of Personnel Management followed the private sector this week by extending the "use it or lose it" deadline for Flexible Spending Accounts.

Last month, the Treasury Department made the same adjustment for workers in the private sector, prompting a federal workers' union to request the same benefit for the civil service. Flexible Spending Accounts allow workers to set aside untaxed income for certain expenses not covered by standard health insurance, including co-payments, deductibles, laser eye surgery and dental work. The accounts have been available to private sector workers for years, but federal employees were not allowed to use the benefit until 2003.

The previous, and much maligned, rules required federal workers to use all the funds in their FSA by the end of calendar year. The new rules are effective for the 2005 calendar year and allow employees to use the funds in their account for an additional two and a half months. The new regulations also give employees one extra month-until May 31, 2006-to submit reimbursement claims for 2005 expenses.

In May, OPM officials had indicated that there were no plans to mirror the private sector change. Agency officials did not explain the decision to adopt the new policy.

The National Treasury Employees Union applauded the move. When the Treasury Department made its private sector announcement, NTEU officials called on OPM to extend the benefit to the federal workforce.

"The changes made by OPM will reduce the amount of money set aside by federal workers that could otherwise have been lost at the end of the calendar year," said NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley. She said that this is "the kind of action the government needs to take in order to compete with the private sector as the employer of choice."

Under the FSA guidelines, participants are allowed to put aside up to $4,000 for these expenses and up to $5,000 in dependent care accounts for child care and elder care costs.

"Health care costs continue to top the list of increasing concerns to all Americans and federal employees," said acting OPM Director Dan Blair. "These enhancements encourage all employees to take full advantage of options available in the [FSA] program."

]]>

Power Struggle

David McGlinchey — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The public portion of Monday's board meeting was about to conclude when board member Thomas Fink put forward his informal but controversial proposal to exert more control over the executive director's decisions. Fink suggested that the executive director be required to seek board approval for decisions that involve more than 10 percent of the Thrift plan's budget or for issues that a majority of board members deem important.

Gary Amelio is the executive director of the TSP. The plan operates as a 401(k)-style retirement system for federal employees. It has about 3.5 million participants and more than $150 billion in assets.

Fink said that his idea is not a slight to Amelio, and he suggested that the policy could provide legal protection for the executive director. At least one board member, however, rushed to squash the idea.

Alex Sanchez told Fink he saw no reason to implement limits on Amelio's decision making.

"I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that question," Sanchez said.

Thrift board Chairman Andrew Saul said that he wants board members to think over the proposal before the next meeting.

"I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm not saying it's a great idea," Saul said. "I just want to talk about this...I'm not going to pocket it; we're going to talk about it."

TSP staff members said that a discussion of the issue should take place on the record at a meeting. Sanchez noted that Amelio always has brought major decisions to the board's attention. Fink replied that he wants to formalize that process.

"He didn't have to" bring the information, Fink said. "I think he should have to do it."

]]>

DHS management directives spark union outrage

David McGlinchey — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Federal workers unions lashed out Thursday at the Homeland Security Department over draft documents that will implement new rules on adverse actions, appeals and labor relations by the beginning of August.

Union officials said the management directives further reduce independent oversight for DHS disciplinary procedures. The directives also detail responsibility for various officials under the new system. For example, the DHS secretary will hold ultimate responsibility for the fair execution of the adverse action and appeals process. The undersecretary for management will be responsible for implementing operational guidance documents and establishing regulations to govern reprimand and adverse action files. Line supervisors and managers will be responsible for assessing performance and administering written reprimands and adverse actions.

The draft management directives were made public by the American Federation of Government Employees. AFGE officials said the measures do not reveal any startling information, but take another step in the controversial overhaul of the DHS personnel system.

"The directives aren't as disturbing as the regulations they are implementing," said AFGE general counsel Mark Roth. "We think that the underpinnings are illegal. Whether it's the chief human capital officer or the guy at the guard desk who implements these regulations, it doesn't change the fact that they are neither legal nor wise."

Agency officials said the management directives are not yet final.

When Congress created DHS, agency officials were allowed to develop their own personnel system. In January, Homeland Security leaders unveiled an overhaul that would streamline the appeals process, reduce union collective bargaining rights and discard the General Schedule pay system. In place of the GS framework, officials are implementing a pay-for-performance system. On Wednesday, five employee unions filed an injunction in federal court asking that implementation of the new personnel system be postponed until concerns can be addressed.

Some union officials said that the most troubling sections of the management directives are the steps to codify the revised appeals process.

"It's becoming an internal review process. Why are we making this an internal review process?" said Charles Showalter, president of American Federation of Government Employees National Homeland Security Council 117. "This society prides itself on people being able to face their accusers and do it in a public forum. The DHS regulations are trying to create these secret, inside, nonreviewable procedures."

The directives also contained information on the range of disciplinary options that will be available to managers, from written reprimands that carry no pay penalty to "suspension or removal in the interest of national security." In all, there are eight levels of disciplinary actions, including furlough of 30 days or less, reduction in pay, demotion, suspension, termination during a probationary period and removal.

Union officials said the new rules will undermine morale and workers' rights.

"It's the road map," Roth said. "It is how they are going to implement these draconian regulations."

On Wednesday, AFGE, NTEU and three other unions filed an injunction in federal court asking that implementation of the new system be delayed until questions about the legality of the rules can be addressed. Officials said Thursday that the court had not yet made a decision on the injunction. ]]>

Government Reform chairman says base-closing plan could cause brain drain

David McGlinchey — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Senior Virginia lawmakers said Monday that the Pentagon's base realignment and closure process could result in a brain drain from the Defense Department.

"That is something [BRAC commissioners] need to factor in," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, during a town hall meeting in Arlington, Va. Last month, Defense Department officials proposed closing 33 major facilities nationwide, realigning 29 others, and closing or realigning hundreds of smaller military locations. The Pentagon recommended moving more than 20,000 employees out of leased office space in northern Virginia-including Arlington.

Those recommendations have gone to the nine-member BRAC commission, and that panel will pass its revised recommendations to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress are required to accept or reject the closures and realignments in their entirety.

During the town hall meeting, Davis asked Defense workers if they were tied to their jobs or to the area.

"How many of you would be willing to move to Fort Sam Houston, Texas?" Davis asked. No one in the standing-room-only audience raised a hand.

"Redstone Arsenal, Alabama?" he asked. Again, no response.

When the congressman asked about Fort Meade in nearby Maryland, several workers raised their hands.

One audience member, who said he worked in research and development for the Defense Department, told the lawmakers he would leave the civil service before relocating.

"I'll flip burgers in Arlington before I go to Bethesda [Maryland]," he said.

Davis acknowledged, however, that the highly trained Defense workforce in Arlington would most likely not end up in the food service industry. He told the audience that there were already significant temptations to leave the public service for a defense contractor.

"There are a lot of opportunities to make more money, especially if you have a security clearance," Davis said, suggesting that the Pentagon should be aware of the potential pitfalls of the BRAC process.

Davis and Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., lauded the balance and mutual support between the Defense Department and the local community. Both lawmakers appealed to constituents to contact them and voice their opinions on the BRAC process.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., also attended the town hall meeting but was less strident in his defense of northern Virginia facilities. He acknowledged that Virginia as a whole had fared well in the BRAC recommendations, although some communities stand to be hit hard.

Warner told the crowd that he would fight to ensure that "politics play no role" in the BRAC process.

]]>

Thrift board sends more call center work to contractors

David McGlinchey — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board announced a five-year, $18.1 million contract Monday that will establish a Thrift Savings Plan call center in southwestern Virginia.

SI International, a Virginia-based technology systems company, was awarded the contract to operate the call center in Clintwood, Va., according to Thrift board officials. The contract is currently being handled by the National Finance Center, a government agency run by the Agriculture Department, in New Orleans. NFC will no longer handle call center work for the Thrift plan, but the facility will still be responsible for other administrative tasks, including data entry and accounting. TSP Executive Director Gary Amelio said the NFC call center work costs the Thrift plan $12.5 million annually to operate.

"We are going to save the plan's participants $40 million over five years," Amelio said. "And I have no doubt the service levels will be superior as well."

TSP-which serves as a 401(k)-style plan for federal employees-has 3.5 million participants and more than $150 billion in assets. It previously awarded a contract for a parallel call center in Maryland. TSP officials have praised the Maryland facility, but some plan participants have expressed concerns about their personal and financial information being handled by a private contractor.

Thrift board members have pressed staff to seek greater savings and efficiencies. Board Chairman Andrew Saul lauded the most recent contract.

The Clintwood call center was previously used by Internet travel broker Travelocity, which closed it in late 2004 in an attempt to reverse poor financial fortunes. Saul said the community needed an employer and TSP found a great deal.

"It is a win-win situation," Saul said. "We have a very reliable partner down there."

On top of the $18.1 million contract, TSP officials will also spend up to $500,000 upfront to purchase existing equipment. Still, Thrift staff members said the plan is coming out ahead in the deal.

The new call center should be up and running in about two months. Amelio said Travelocity left an experienced and eager workforce in place.

"There is already a highly trained nucleus," he told the Thrift board. "We happened to be at the right place at the right time and got an incredible deal."

"We couldn't have found a better building," said Mark Hagerty, the incoming director for automated systems at the Thrift plan.

]]>

House reform committee passes civil service bills

David McGlinchey — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The House Government Reform Committee passed three bills Thursday assisting federal employees with student loans, transit payments and retirement health care.

The most contentious of the bills is H.R. 994, also known as premium conversion. That legislation-introduced by the committee's chairman, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.-allows retired military personnel and federal employees to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. It also gives active duty military personnel a tax deduction when they pay supplemental insurance premiums. The bill moved quickly through the committee last year as well, but it was blocked by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif.

Federally Employed Women, a civil service advocacy group, applauded the premium conversion legislation. In a press release, FEW noted Thomas' opposition, but expressed hope that the bill's strong support will allow it to move to the full House.

"Considering the bill has 198 co-sponsors and a lot of support, the Ways and Means Committee should hold hearings as soon as possible," said Rhonda Trent, FEW vice president for congressional and government relations. "Members of the House of Representatives should be given the opportunity to vote on this benefit, but they cannot do so until it moves out of the Ways and Means Committee."

Davis said that the premium conversion bill could save retirees almost $500 annually.

"The federal government's most important asset is our people, and we must have better means to recruit, retain and reward them. Although not a permanent answer to rising health-care costs, H.R. 994, the premium conversion bill, will take the next step in helping improve quality of life for those retirees and active duty personnel living on a fixed income," Davis said. "It has been estimated that retirees would save nearly $450 per year under this legislation."

The Government Reform Committee also passed H.R. 1765, known as the GOFEDS Act. It would allow federal workers who take the student loan repayment benefit to receive it tax-free. The legislation also would require the Office of Personnel Management to provide an annual report to Congress on agencies that do not provide the benefit.

Committee members unanimously passed H.R. 1283, which was introduced by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., and mandates that federal agencies give their Washington area employees tax-free transportation benefits. The legislation allows federal agencies to provide transportation for employees to and from mass transit stations. That bill has been sent to the full House.

"As the region's largest employer, the federal government can help alleviate some of the burdens imposed on one of the most congested traffic systems in the country by encouraging federal employees to use mass transit," Davis said.

]]>

New Recruits

David McGlinchey — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

A group of Federal Aviation Administration employees that has taken legal action against the agency are attempting to add to its numbers.

The employees previously appealed to the agency to uncap their salaries, and finally resorted to legal action in March. Under the FAA's performance pay system, more than 800 long-term employees have reached the top of their pay bands and are not eligible for base salary increases. They are able to receive lump-sum annual awards for good performance, but the employees say they are losing thousands of dollars in retirement benefits, locality pay increases and overtime pay. At the same time, however, thousands of other FAA employees are exempt from this rule because of union agreements or because they already were above the maximum pay limit when the rule on pay caps went into effect.

The agency has repeatedly insisted that the solution is to bring all employees into the system, not exempt more employees from it. In May, the FAA brought in Joseph Miniace as the agency's deputy assistant administrator for strategic labor management relations. His job is to bring the exempt union employees into the pay cap arrangement.

The disgruntled employees are skeptical that Miniace can succeed. On June 6, the group appealed to FAA employees who are just now reaching the top of their pay bands and who are experiencing the cap for the first time.

"I'm sending this message to you because you have been identified to me by the FAA as being at the top of your pay band," wrote Tim O'Hara, the group's leader.

The message and several supporting documents were sent to about 1,130 employees.

"The Core Compensation System, as currently constructed, is not a personnel payment system," O'Hara wrote. "It is a 'caste' system, with clear groups of employees being the 'haves,' vs. us as the distinct 'have nots.'"

O'Hara estimates that more than 22,000 FAA employees are exempt from the payband caps and less than 3,000 are affected by the policy.

]]>

Unions continue fight against Pentagon personnel system

David McGlinchey — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Union leaders promised a spirited fight Thursday to achieve significant changes in the new National Security Personnel System before it is issued in its final form.

Representatives from a coalition of Defense unions delivered a letter of protest and a list of recommendations for the new personnel system to Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England during an hourlong meeting Thursday morning. The letter was signed by Byron Charlton of the United DoD Workers Coalition.

Pentagon officials recently concluded more than a month of "meet and confer" sessions with union representatives. Defense is now developing the final regulations for the NSPS. During a Thursday afternoon press conference, American Federation of Government Employee officials said they plan legal action to block the new system as soon as the final regulations are sent to Congress.

"NSPS represents an opportunity for substantial positive change or an opportunity for failure, wasted resources and harm to organizational performance," Charlton wrote in the protest letter. "We hope that you and the secretary will reverse what has been a sham process in which DoD has ignored the legislative intent, the 58,000 public comments and the employee union representatives in the 'meet and confer' process at DoD."

In 2003, Congress allowed Pentagon to reshape its civilian personnel system. In January of this year, Defense personnel officials proposed the removal of the General Schedule system, the implementation of a performance pay framework, a streamlined appeals process and a reduction in collective bargaining.

The list of recommendations sent to England accepted the implementation of several personnel changes, including performance pay and market-based compensation. The unions argued, however, that performance pay should be a smaller part of overall pay and that civilian pay at Defense should be increased comparable with military pay. The recommendation paper-partially titled, "Labor's Proposals For Positive Change Versus Management's Unlawful Return to the 19th Century"-was not subtle in its criticisms of Defense Department policies.

"Management has demanded unlawful elimination of rights," according to the paper. "DoD should change course, and comply with the law."

Defense unions have argued against many of the proposed changes and a coalition of labor organizations filed a lawsuit in February to block the NSPS. That lawsuit claims that Defense officials disregarded congressional instructions to include unions in the development of the new system.

AFGE President John Gage said Thursday that Defense officials had been completely inflexible during the "meet and confer" sessions. Union officials said England had promised to read the union recommendations, but Gage said it would require intense effort to block rollout of NSPS. He predicted more congressional hearings to examine the new system.

"We're very frustrated, but we've got to keep working the process," Gage said. "I think we've really got to ratchet up."

]]>

Congressmen schedule base closing meeting in Virginia

David McGlinchey — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Two senior congressmen will hold a town hall meeting in northern Virginia next week to discuss the base closure and realignment process.

House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., will host the event, according to Moran's office. Last month, Defense Department officials proposed closing 33 major facilities nationwide, realigning 29 others, and closing or realigning hundreds of smaller military locations. The Pentagon recommended moving more than 20,000 employees out of leased office space in northern Virginia and moving 18,000 workers to Ft. Belvoir, about 20 miles south.

Local government officials and congressmen have expressed concerns about traffic patterns, road capacity and potential economic hardships.

Overall, the state will lose about 1,500 Defense employees. Nationwide, the Defense Department will reduce its workforce by more than 18,000 civilians.

The Pentagon facility recommendations have been sent to the nine-member BRAC commission, and that panel will pass its proposals to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress are required to accept or reject the base closures and realignments in their entirety.

"Clearly it's a huge issue for northern Virginia, as it is for many places," said Davis spokesman Rob White.

The town hall will be held June 20 at George Mason University's law school in Arlington at noon. It also will feature former Army undersecretary Joe R. Reeder, who is the co-chairman of the Virginia Commission on Military Bases. That group was established by Virginia Gov. Mark Warner to support the state's military facilities and communities through the BRAC process.

]]>

Subpoena spurs Pentagon to release base-closing documents

David McGlinchey — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The chairwoman and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said Tuesday that they have been successful in gaining more base realignment and closure documents from the Pentagon.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., issued a subpoena last week after the Pentagon delayed the public release of some BRAC papers. The Defense Department has proposed closing 33 major facilities nationwide, realigning 29 others, and closing or realigning hundreds of smaller military locations.

On Monday, Lieberman issued a statement saying the Pentagon has been "at least partially responsive" to questions about BRAC.

The recommendations have been sent to the nine-member BRAC commission and that group is scheduled to pass on its proposals to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress are required to accept or reject the base closures and realignments in their entirety.

Lawmakers protested, however, saying some communities were at a disadvantage during local public hearings held by the BRAC commission because the Pentagon had not made available all its base-closing material. The Pentagon has recently released more information, according to congressional staffers.

"We are gratified that, as a result of Senators Lieberman's and Collins' subpoena, the Pentagon has increased the stream of data it is making available," said Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for Lieberman. "We expect some of this information will be helpful in answering our questions, although additional analysis is needed to confirm that."

Collins and Lieberman represent states that would be among the hardest hit by the base realignment and closure process. Under the plan, Connecticut would lose 8,586 civilian and military jobs and Maine would lose 6,938.

Earlier this week, Collins and Lieberman praised the Pentagon for its renewed cooperation in sharing information. They extended the subpoena's deadline because of what they called a "good faith effort" on the part of the Pentagon to release BRAC documents, according to Lieberman's office.

The new deadline is set for Friday.

"We expect the information flow to continue through the week," Phillips said.

]]>

Case for personnel reform varies by agency

David McGlinchey — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The "business case" for overhauling the governmentwide pay system is different than justification for personnel changes at the Defense and Homeland Security departments, according to a senior Bush administration official.

Congress supported Defense and Homeland Security personnel reform because of the threat of terrorism and the need to support ongoing military operations overseas. Clay Johnson, the deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said governmentwide personnel restructuring is needed to improve recruitment and retention in the federal workforce.

The current Defense and Homeland Security personnel overhauls scrap the General Schedule system, implement performance pay, limit union bargaining and streamline the appeals process. Officials at the Office of Personnel Management developed legislation last month that would extend similar changes to the rest of the federal workforce.

"We're not very good at managing people," Johnson said last week in a conversation with reporters. "The civil service we have now places almost all its emphasis on longevity, it rewards attendance … I'm thinking the federal government doesn't seem like the most attractive place to work if all employees are given the same raise every year."

Johnson said the revisions at Defense and Homeland Security will provide more flexibility.

"The business case for Homeland Security and Defense departments was, we are at war," Johnson said. "For instance, in the war on terror and defending our homeland … you might have an hour or half a day to make a personnel change."

Union leaders have opposed many of the proposed personnel changes, describing them as political power grabs enabled by a tense political situation. American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage sharply criticized Johnson for presenting a different justification for governmentwide personnel reform, calling it a "scam" and called it "completely absurd."

Johnson said that he held a series of focus groups in 2005 and he heard caution and enthusiasm from federal employees over the prospect of personnel reform. He met with about 200 total employees in Boston, Miami and Philadelphia.

"They said it's good and bad," he said. "It's all about the implementation."

]]>

Bush administration expanding personnel reform quickly

David McGlinchey — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Bush administration is not waiting for the Defense and Homeland Security departments to complete their personnel overhauls before moving the effort to the larger federal government, a senior Bush administration official said Friday.

The current Defense and Homeland Security personnel overhauls are designed to scrap the General Schedule system, implement performance pay, limit union bargaining and streamline the appeals process. Officials at the Office of Personnel Management developed legislation last month that would extend similar changes to the rest of the federal workforce. Some lawmakers, however, have called on the Bush administration to wait for results from the ongoing overhauls.

Clay Johnson, the deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said that every agency will deal with personnel reform differently, and there is no benefit in waiting for results from Defense or Homeland Security.

"We should not wait to see what happens at DoD or Homeland Security; these are all independent events," Johnson said during a conference call with reporters. "There are some agencies, in my opinion, that could more readily implement [reform] than DoD or DHS."

According to the draft legislation, agencies would be required to have a plan developed by 2008 for the implementation of an OPM-certified performance pay system. If agencies cannot meet that deadline, they would be required to adopt a standard OPM system. The plan calls for the General Schedule system to be eliminated by 2010.

The proposed legislation has not yet been sent to Congress, and OPM officials have declined to discuss it. On Friday, Johnson said the bill would be sent to lawmakers "in the weeks ahead."

In February, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said that he wanted to see results from the first reforms before the initiative was "cascaded" to other agencies. He acknowledged that he has a difference of opinion with the Bush administration, but he said he would try to slow the timeline.

Union leaders criticized the faster timeline.

"I think it's pretty arrogant. The final regulations aren't even written at the Department of Defense, and at DHS the implementation is far down the line," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. "At the minimum, wait to get some experience in this."

Johnson also said that federal employees would not have their salaries lowered in the new system. Gage, however, said that he believed the underlying motivation for the new pay system was to lower federal pay levels.

]]>

Courtesy Pay

David McGlinchey — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The personnel reform plan under development at the Office of Personnel Management would move federal employees into a performance pay system based on clearly defined benchmarks as well as significantly less structured measurements, according to draft documents.

The draft civil service reform bill proposes a new governmentwide system, closely mirroring the personnel overhauls under way at the Defense and Homeland Security departments. The proposal calls for the General Schedule to be discarded by 2010 and replaced with a pay-for-performance system. Experts have said that carefully considered performance metrics are critical in such a system.

Congressional staffers and union officials have expressed concern, however, about ambiguous performance measures. The proposed legislation was accompanied by a draft letter to House and Senate leaders, to be signed by Acting OPM Director Dan G. Blair. The letter indicates that performance will be measured by a range of factors, including behavior and "courtesy".

"Federal employees would be held to more than just written performance expectations and rules of conduct-agency policies and procedural manuals, oral instructions, and even implicitly expected workplace behaviors like courtesy would also count," the letter states. "And if they fail to meet those expectations, the proposal would provide for a simplified, streamlined process for holding them accountable, without compromising on the fundamental due process rights."

A Democratic congressional staffer, who asked not to be identified, said that the "oral instructions" section might cause some lawmakers to hesitate in endorsing the bill. The staffer suggested that the language, if passed into law, could create contentious disputes over job expectations and undocumented conversations between managers and federal workers.

OPM officials said the bill has not been sent to Congress, and they declined to comment on any language in the legislation.

Union representatives also expressed concerns about the performance measures.

"These new types of personnel systems, where agency managers are the judge, jury executioner and witness, are fundamentally flawed," said Charles Showalter, president of American Federation of Government Employees National Homeland Security Council 117. "For a performance system to be understood and met, you have to have quantifiable standards."

]]>

Union opposes draft civil service changes

David McGlinchey — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The National Treasury Employees Union on Thursday said it would fight any effort by the Bush administration to extend pending personnel changes at the Defense and Homeland Security departments to the entire civilian workforce.

The Bush administration has drafted a civil service reform bill that proposes governmentwide system based on reforms that are being rolled out at the Defense and Homeland Security departments. The proposal would scrap the General Schedule pay system by 2010 and replace it with a pay-for-performance system. The new proposal was expected, although many lawmakers and observers believed the administration would wait until the Defense and Homeland Security systems were in place before expanding the effort across the civil service.

"All along NTEU has said that it will steadfastly oppose any effort by the Bush administration to extend throughout the federal government personnel changes similar to those under way at Homeland Security and Defense," said NTEU President Colleen Kelley. "It is NTEU's strong belief that the DoD and DHS systems will fail because those systems are not fair and transparent, and neither managers nor front-line employees understand or support the regulations."

The legislation and its supporting documents have not yet been sent to Congress and officials at the Office of Personnel Management declined to comment.

In a draft letter addressed to House and Senate leaders, but not yet sent, OPM acting Director Dan G. Blair called the General Schedule system a "failure" and said the proposed overhaul is needed to provide essential personnel flexibility and competitive pay rates.

In terms of labor relations, the draft legislation requires bargaining only when "proposed management action had a significant, substantial and continuing adverse impact on employees," according to OPM documents.

Agencies also will be able to "prepare for or prevent any emergency, or prevent any fiscal or budgetary exigency without bargaining with unions first," the draft documents stated.

"There is nothing in the draft governmentwide legislation currently circulating that has diminished our strong opposition to extending these personnel changes," Kelley said. "It is foolhardy to rush further changes into law without first gaining experience and understanding the lessons to be learned from the changes at DoD and DHS."

]]>

Senators subpoena base closing documents

David McGlinchey — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Two senators issued a subpoena Tuesday for Pentagon documents relating to the base realignment and closure process.

Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chairwoman and ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, threatened to subpoena documents late last month after the Pentagon delayed the public release of some BRAC papers.

Defense officials subsequently allowed lawmakers and congressional staffers to view classified documents in a secure location and released a limited cache of documents to the public. Collins and Lieberman said Tuesday, however, that the available documents are insufficient.

The Pentagon has proposed closing 33 major facilities nationwide, realigning 29 others, and closing or realigning hundreds of smaller military locations. The recommendations have been sent to the nine-member BRAC commission, and that group is scheduled to pass its recommendations on to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress are required to accept or reject the closures and realignments in their entirety.

Collins and Lieberman said the delayed release of key documents is preventing communities from defending their bases when the BRAC commission holds field hearings.

"[Defense] department officials informed us that they are in the process of declassifying additional information that was previously made available only in classified form, which is of no use in public hearings," the senators said in a joint statement. "While we were hopeful that this release of information was a sign that the department is finally complying with our request as well as federal law, the reality is that BRAC field hearings are quickly approaching. Yet, communities that support bases still do not have access to much of the vital information they need to prepare for these important hearings."

Collins and Lieberman said the Pentagon has "failed to comply with its statutory obligations" and called on Defense officials to make the documents public "immediately".

Pentagon officials have maintained that they cannot yet release all the information because of the large quantity of sensitive or classified material. Officials did not respond directly to the subpoena Wednesday.

"We are committed to ensuring that the commission, Congress and the public have access to necessary information," said Glenn Flood, a Pentagon spokesman. "We have put a lot of information out there, and we will continue to put out more."

]]>

Bush administration developing governmentwide personnel reform bill

David McGlinchey — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Bush administration has drafted a civil service reform bill that proposes governmentwide implementation of a new system based on reforms that are being implemented at the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

The legislation is known as the 2005 Civil Service Modernization Act and a draft letter addressed to House and Senate leaders that accompanies the bill is signed by Dan G. Blair, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. OPM officials said Tuesday that the bill is still being refined and has not yet been sent to Congress.

In the draft letter, which was obtained by Government Executive, Blair called the General Schedule pay framework a "failure" and proposed its complete removal by 2010.

According to a draft of the legislation, OPM proposes to implement a new civil service system with occupational pay groups, pay bands within those groups and pay for performance across the federal government. Agencies would be required to have a plan developed by 2008 for the implementation of an OPM-certified performance pay system. If agencies cannot meet that deadline, they would be required to adopt a standard OPM system.

Under the proposal, the General Schedule system that has governed the federal civil service since the late 1940s would be eliminated by 2010.

"We need a compensation system that does a far better job of reflecting differences in occupations, locations, and unique agency requirements," the OPM draft letter stated. "The General Schedule is a failure in this regard, with its rigid, 'one size fits all' approach masking often dramatic disparities in the market value of different federal jobs. We simply cannot afford to overpay for some occupations and underpay for others."

Under the new system, OPM and the Office of Management and Budget would annually adjust minimum and maximum pay levels for pay bands and for occupational groups. OPM and OMB would also set "local market supplements" to be added to the based federal pay levels.

Under the proposal, an agency would also be allowed, with OPM and OMB approval, to set pay rates in "key occupational groups" to "precisely reflect the value of those occupations to its unique mission."

In the area of labor relations, OPM's proposal would extend some but not all of the changes being implemented at Defense and DHS to the rest of government. "Bargaining (and agreement) in most instances would continue to be required before an agency could act, but only when a proposed management action had a significant, substantial and continuing adverse impact on employees," OPM said.

Under the bill, agencies would be allowed to meet with employees to discuss operational matters without first having to contact their union representatives. They will also be able to make minor changes in working conditions and "prepare for, or prevent any emergency or prevent any fiscal or budgetary exigency without bargaining with unions first."

The new proposal will have to go through the House Government Reform Committee, but its chairman, Tom Davis, R-Va., was noncommittal about the bill Tuesday.

"Last month, OMB said they planned to start lobbying the Senate and House authorizers after the Memorial Day recess," said committee spokesman Drew Crockett. "We will be meeting with administration officials within the next few weeks to learn more about the proposed civil service reforms. Congressman Davis should have more to say on the plans at that point."

The bill is likely to face intense scrutiny and skepticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats and labor unions have opposed portions of the Homeland Security and Defense personnel systems. The OPM letter said that the governmentwide system "picks up where these two leave off."

"The blueprint we offer seeks nothing less than to codify many of their results," Blair wrote. "This blueprint serves as the foundation for a 21st century civil service system."

]]>

FBI, Santa Fe police probe attack on Los Alamos employee

David McGlinchey — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The FBI and the Santa Fe Police Department are conducting a joint investigation into an attack Sunday on a Los Alamos National Laboratory who has alleged financial impropriety at the facility, according to law enforcement officials.

Tommy Hook, an auditor at Los Alamos National Laboratory, was assaulted and severely beaten in the parking lot of Cheeks, a Santa Fe strip club, at about 2 a.m. Sunday. Susan Hook, the victim's wife, Bob Rothstein, his attorney, and Chuck Montano, a fellow Los Alamos whistleblower, said Monday that Hook was at the club to meet with another employee who claimed to have information that would support charges of wrongdoing.

Tommy Hook and Montano were scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. Susan Hook and Montano alleged Monday that the assault was related to Tommy Hook's impending testimony.

They did not provide the name of the person that Hook was allegedly in contact with.

"When they were beating him up, they were telling him … 'If you know what is good for you, you will keep your mouth shut,' " said Susan Hook. Tommy Hook suffered a fractured jaw and a herniated disk and is being treated at St. Vincent Regional Medical Center. He was not made available to the media.

The nightclub's doorman ran into the parking lot and broke up the attack, according to a club employee who witnessed the end of the incident. The employee, who asked not to be identified, said Hook was assaulted by a group of men.

Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Eric Johnson said that officers responded to the scene but were not aware of the alleged Los Alamos connection until FBI agents showed up at the station this morning.

"The officers did locate Mr. Hook, who appeared to be battered," Johnson said. "At this point, we are conducting an investigation with the FBI."

FBI Special Agent Bill Elwell confirmed that federal agents are investigating with Santa Fe police officers. He said they are "still trying to figure out" what happened at the nightclub.

"We are looking into the allegations made by Mr. Hook," Elwell said.

Los Alamos issued a statement that did not address the possibility that the attack on Hook was related to his allegations, but decried the assault.

"The University of California and the laboratory are outraged that a laboratory employee was the victim of a weekend assault in Santa Fe. Director [Robert] Kuckuck was made aware of the attack this morning and expressed his hope that the individual will make a quick recovery," the statement said. "Director Kuckuck, the University of California and the laboratory believe that any form of physical violence toward an individual is unacceptable. The laboratory is in contact with the Santa Fe Police Department and is providing the laboratory's full support and cooperation with the ongoing investigation."

Rothstein said that a person claiming to be an auditor from Los Alamos had contacted Hook a week before and had offered to share information about financial issues at the laboratory. Rothstein said that one meeting had already fallen through, but the second was arranged on Saturday night at the strip club. Hook went to the club and waited for an hour before leaving. He was assaulted as he approached his car.

Susan Hook said that his wallet and the car were not taken.

]]>

Enabling the Disabled

David McGlinchey — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The House voted last week to speed up a reform that would give more compensation to about 29,000 military retirees who are too disabled to work.

The move came in an amendment to the fiscal 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed May 25 by a vote of 390-39. The "concurrent receipt" effort seeks to help military retirees with more than 20 years of service and a Veterans Affairs disability rating of higher than 50 percent. Those veterans previously had their retirement benefits reduced by the amount of their disability compensation.

In previous legislation, Congress had voted to phase out the benefit reductions over nine years and immediately remove the reductions for the most severely disabled retirees. Rep. G. K. Butterfield, D-N.C., pushed last week to speed up the effort to remove the reductions for retirees with 60 to 90 percent disability ratings.

Currently, those veterans would have the reduction phased out by Jan. 1, 2014. The Butterfield effort would move that up to 2009. The funding needed to support the move-about $164 million-would be generated by selling surplus defense stockpile materials, according to Butterfield's office.

"With [the] nation's debt approaching $8 trillion, it's critical to find solutions that don't drive us further into debt," Butterfield said. "By selling surplus defense stockpiles, we can meet our obligations to veterans without going further into debt."

A spokesman at the congressman's office acknowledged that veterans with a 50 to 59 percent disability rating would still be required to wait until 2014 for their reduction to be phased out.

"With the money we could find, this is who we could help," said Butterfield spokesman Ken Willis.

"It's unfair and needs to be eliminated," Butterfield said of the benefits reduction. "By doing so, we can fulfill the promises our country made to our brave fighting men and women who have sacrificed so much."

Congressional staffers said that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is expected to offer an amendment to match the House effort.

]]>

Senators say base closing documents fall short

David McGlinchey — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Two senators said Thursday that the Defense Department has not released all the documents that were used to develop the base realignment and closing recommendations.

On Tuesday night, the Pentagon opened a secure room for lawmakers and congressional staffers with security clearances to view the BRAC documents. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the material should be available to the public on Saturday.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and ranking member Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., criticized the Pentagon this week for not making the BRAC documents available to the public before the BRAC panel visits regional bases and holds hearings to make their decisions on the recommendations.

On Thursday, Collins and Lieberman went even further, saying an initial review showed that the classified documents made available this week still fall far short of congressional demands. The senators previously had threatened to subpoena the documents from the Defense Department.

"The documents made available [Tuesday night], unfortunately, do not appear to come close to addressing the requests that we made last week," Collins and Lieberman said in a joint statement. "While these documents are currently undergoing review, we have no indication thus far that they satisfy our request. Once the review of these documents is completed, we will determine whether a subpoena is necessary."

Collins and Lieberman have demanded all relevant information, including "e-mails, memoranda, spreadsheets, analyses, raw data, handwritten notes and telephone logs."

The senators said that the "specific information that we requested" could help ensure the "integrity" of the base realignment and closure process.

Defense Department officials did not return calls seeking comment on the senators' statement.

Last month, the Defense Department recommended closing or realigning hundreds of military facilities, including the shuttering of 33 major military bases. The BRAC commission now is visiting bases and will make its own recommendations, based on the Pentagon list. Congress and President Bush then will have to accept or reject the BRAC list in its entirety.

The delayed release of the BRAC information has prevented local communities from launching full-fledged defenses of their local bases, according to Collins and Lieberman.

]]>

Pentagon targets Saturday for release of base closing information

David McGlinchey — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Senior Defense officials said Wednesday that they hope to have all documentation used in the base realignment and closure process available to the public by June 4.

A senior Republican senator protested the delay and argued that the Pentagon's postponement in releasing and declassifying key documents has prevented communities from fighting recommendations to close their military bases.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, continued her sharp criticism of the Defense Department over the base realignment and closure process. Collins and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., last week threatened to subpoena the documents used to justify the BRAC recommendations if they were not immediately released. On Tuesday night, the Pentagon opened a secure room where lawmakers and staffers with security clearances could view the classified documents.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the June 4 target date for releasing the background data is not unreasonable, because "there's a great deal more information than ever before."

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers said lawmakers "have what they're supposed to have, and they'll get more."

Collins, however, reserved judgment on the subsequent use of a subpoena to obtain all the documents she requested.

"The documents made available last night are currently undergoing review, but Sen. Collins has no indication that the information she requested is included in the classified documents that DoD made available," Collins' office said in a statement. "Once the review of these documents is completed, Sen. Collins will determine whether a subpoena is necessary."

Collins and Lieberman have demanded the release of a variety of information, including "e-mails, memoranda, spreadsheets, analyses, raw data, handwritten notes and telephone logs." Collins said the information Defense provided Tuesday night was not useful because it could not be shared and discussed publicly.

"The documents cannot be used at public hearings, public meetings, or in any open forum, and cannot be analyzed and discussed over the phone, by e-mail, or at meetings that are not held in a classified facility by people all with relevant security clearances," Collins said in a release. "It also means that the documents would not be available for individual bases to use to make their cases in defense of keeping their facilities open."

In his press briefing Wednesday, Rumsfeld defended the work of the Defense Department in releasing information on the BRAC recommendations.

"The Pentagon is supplying the proper information," Rumsfeld said. "The department has made a mountain of material available to the BRAC commission."

]]>