Letters
I wasn't aware that the Defense Department was in such a bind with its acquisition workforce until I read "Drained," (February).
I agree with Keith Charles who says Defense is not being strategic in its cuts. I ought to know since I'm living it-I'm being RIF'd. The new Defense acquisition worker definitely will have to have a broader understanding of a multitude of requirements, whether that knowledge is gained from classroom instruction or experience.
Speaking from the purchasing side, it's the nature of our business to be as diversified as possible. Since no one will try to correct the problem, I'll just have to take my experience, knowledge and education elsewhere. Instead of leaving federal service, I'd like to stay 17 more years.
Gary Binge
The Defense Department not only is experiencing problems with its acquisition workforce, but is having the same, if not greater, problems with its maintenance personnel.
Defense's repair facilities maintain all types of heavy military equipment. Workers who have been performing these needed jobs over the last 20 years are reaching retirement age. But it's gotten harder and harder to hire replacements.
The big issue is pay. Pay for blue-collar employees has not increased at the same rate as that of General Schedule employees. Those who work in blue-collar trades are leaving faster than they can be replaced. They are either seeking higher-paying General Schedule positions or going to the private sector. Moreover, as military equipment ages, repairs increase. Therefore, it's essential that skilled workers be encouraged to stay and that others be hired if we are to properly maintain military equipment.
As the government moves to address the problems described in "Drained," it should not forget the small number of personnel-the maintenance workers-who serve this nation in a critical capacity. Without these skilled workers, the aircraft couldn't fly. They must be included in any future consideration for pay and other benefits, just like those in the acquisition world.
Barry K. Adams
President
Jacksonville Naval Air Station Association
The Defense Department has created its own staffing problems. The agency too often limits recruitment and hiring in the mid- to high-grade administrative management jobs, including procurement positions, to Defense personnel.
With 25 years of federal service, including five years in the military and 12 years in the civil service with a Defense organization, I have experience dealing with the highly insular (and wrongheaded) organizational culture that pervades Defense organizations.
Too many Defense managers and hiring officials do not give qualified, seasoned and educated federal applicants from other agencies an opportunity to legitimately compete for their vacancies. The agency either limits applicants to Defense employees, or it crafts position qualifications so narrowly that only those with experience with Defense systems and procedures can legitimately compete.
I have worked in four different departments in the administrative management discipline, and like most other progressive managers, I realize that many skills a federal employee acquires in one federal agency can be readily transferable to another. Further, many of the basic systems and procedures within agencies are not terribly disparate. In fact, most are similar. There is no reason Defense should impose unnecessary and self-constraining recruitment and hiring procedures.
Michael J. Smith
Supervisory Budget Analyst
Internal Revenue Service
Slug Fest
In "Pitching Public Service" (March), the bar chart that includes several job satisfaction issues does not refer to job satisfaction per se. With no job satisfaction (an acknowledgement by the worker and others of an important job "well done"), most employees will seek employment elsewhere, no matter how high on the scale other issues are. In short, if you are treated like a slug, you slip away.
Bert Polk
Overrating the Reserves
In "The Peacekeepers" (March), author James Kitfield says "Reserve officials have discovered that troop retention and reenlistment actually increase in units that deploy for peacekeeping missions." That is true for some units, especially those with excellent leadership and meaningful missions, but I have seen just the opposite in units that have deployed under poor leaders with unclear or boring missions. Even in the latter units, officials might have concluded that retention improved because overall unit strength grew. But when replacements are recruited ahead of a unit's return, the unit remains near full strength, even when many members depart after their return from overseas.
Without tracking each deploying member, the best indicator on the impact of deployment would be unit skill qualification. New members can offset strength but not qualification, because it takes a year or so to train a new soldier. Furthermore, our survey of nearly 1,000 Reservists, suggests that soldiers most often view frequent peacekeeping deployments negatively. Those who view these missions negatively are more likely to get out, so those who remain have a more positive view.
The average soldier under good leadership probably enjoys a deployment that keeps him or her meaningfully involved and in training. At the same time, I doubt that repeated deployments are appreciated by employers who feel their employees cannot afford frequent work interruptions.
Walter R. Schumm, Ph.D.
Professor of Family Studies
Kansas State University
'A' for Attack
It is readily apparent that Dick Kirschten struggled futilely to hold his anti-Bush, anti-conservative bias in check in his March column ("The 'A' Word is In," Political World). Using loaded phrases like "in his uncharacteristically eloquent inaugural address," Mr. Kirschten denigrated the President and attempted to sway readers. The hidden message is the Democratic canard that Bush is not smart enough to be President. What errant nonsense. Stupid people do not fly high-performance aircraft, make millions in business or govern the State of Texas so well that the Democratic lieutenant governor calls him the best governor that Texas ever had.
In his attempt to poison the well for readers, Mr. Kirschten cites incomplete information. For instance, in his attempt to misstate President Bush's record on the environment as governor of Texas, Mr. Kirschten says "four of the major metropolitan areas-Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston-Galveston, Beaumont-Port Arthur and El Paso-do not meet federal air quality standards." While this is true, it leaves out crucial facts. The reason El Paso has such poor air quality is that it is adjacent to Juarez, Mexico. Mexican environmental laws are more often in the breach than in compliance.
Obviously, the governor of Texas can do little about air pollution produced south of the border, and it is patently unreasonable to attempt to hold him accountable for it. To people who do not know the facts, however, Mr. Kirschten's arguments could seem persuasive.
Bruce C. Prater
Uncovering Bush
Political ideologies aside, my colleagues and I expected Government Executive to have more respect for the office of the President than you displayed on your March cover. We hope you can make different choices in the future.
Nicholas David
We have truly strayed far if this kind of cover can be published without any thought about how it demeans and disrespects the office of the President of the United States.
We need to work on returning respect and decency to our government, and the presidency is a good place to start.
Annie Izquierdo
I found your March cover totally inappropriate and not at all funny. At a minimum, it is woefully lacking the respect due the President. I remember no cover in which you portrayed any other President in such a state of undress!
Further, I would be embarrassed to have the magazine seen on my desk. Had a woman been portrayed in such a state, a man displaying the magazine could have been criticized for creating a hostile work environment. Based on my discomfort and the government's sexual harassment rules, your cover wasn't respectful of women, either.
Obviously, the "old boy" network is fully in charge if, in editor Tim Clark's words, you "could think of no better symbol of the incoming President's dilemma than Harry Houdini in chains" (Editor's Notebook, March). Harry Houdini was an entertainer and a promoter, not the President of the United States. Had you portrayed Mr. Bush bound and chained in a suit and tie, you would have gotten the same point across without offending your readers.
Therese M. Dougherty