As a preview of how pay for performance may work for other federal
agencies there would seem to be no better place to look than to the
best and the brightest – the SES.

That is why comments such as these are so interesting:

“The SES cost-of-living increase is smaller than the anticipated
2006 General Schedule raise of 3.1 percent. President Bush still needs
to issue an executive order implementing that pay hike, which Congress
approved in November and the president signed into law Dec. 1.

Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, which
advocates for career federal executives, said disparity between the two
systems is becoming a problem.

“The concern is that, given the fact that the General Schedule increase
inevitably is greater than the Executive Schedule increase and the fact
that any raise related to inflation is really totally discretionary
with agencies [for the SES], there is a growing concern about the
reluctance of the GS-15's to enter the SES,” Bonosaro said. “They feel
as though they lose ground.” “

Isn’t that interesting? The SES which is on pay for performance is
concerned that they will not be able to compete with the GS system
which rewards it’s employees better than the SES pay for performance
system.

Admittedly the potential pay raise was higher for the GS (3.1%)
than for the SES (1.9%) to begin with, but the following statement is
exactly the sort of thing I expect will become the norm for pay for
performance systems:

“Bonosaro said some agencies last year chose to base the amount of
this increase on performance, so that an “outstanding” would receive
1.9 percent, “exceeds fully successful” would receive 1.5 percent and
“fully successful” would receive 1 percent. “

In the NSPS this practice of setting the maximum pay increase at an
arbitrary number like 1.9% could be done with a phone call since there
is no Congressional oversight, no Union input, no employee feedback,
and possibly no pay raise.

The article is located here:


http://www.govexec.com

We'll need more than stars brightly shining to get to the bottom of what's going on inside the Interior Department….

Let's start with today's Washington Post in which Al Kamen reports that former DOI #2, Steven Griles, who has left to do, what else, lobby (in the early days of the Clinton administration, didn't we pass new rules requiring at least the appearance of a waiting period for such departures?)  was apparently the guest of his former boss, DOI Secretary Gale Norton at the agency's Christmas party (shouldn't that be Holiday Party?)  Although one could infer from Al's column that Griles' friend Jack Abramoff lobbies for the crack industry, perhaps he meant that Abramoff is a darned-good lobbyist.  But since the latter doesn't seem to be true anymore, perhaps the former is more likely.  We digress….
The point is that Griles is in some hot water over contacts he's had with Abramoff concerning gambling and four Native American tribes ….
How many of you at Interior rushed to wish him well, or ask after his friends?

Then there are  reports that have appeared on The Forum and elsewhere about the National Park Service and what appear to be nothing short of loyalty oaths to the Bush agenda required of NPS middle managers? 

Further, as reported by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility):

Paul Hoffman who spent the last 10 yeears running the Arabian Horse…..sorry, the Cody Chamber of Commerce (Wyoming), is described as one of a “network of former aides and cronies” that VP DCheney has emedded “throughout the federal bureaaucracy.”  Hoffman recently rewrote the complete book of “National Park Service management policies.”  According to PEER founder and Executive Director, Jeff Ruch, “Hoffman's draft would gut the conservation mission of the Park Service….”

More insidious: Hoffman struck every reference to “evolution” in the document.  No more “naturally evolving ecosystems” or “naturally evolutionary processes.” 

Maybe he's running for school board.

Re: The Best and The Brightest
by Joe at 02:18AM (EST) on Dec 13, 2005
I would recommend the government service in the DOD.

Of course the new graduates won’t be in the old personnel system long enough to get used to it, but the new system is different in some important aspects relating to the new graduates future.

If the new graduates understand the differences and compensate for them then they will be protected as well as they can be.

The new personnel system is designed to reward the new employees. This is good – for a few years, but when the new employees get into their 40’s they will find no protections for them in a RIF. A younger, more ambitious employee could displace them thus eliminating their eligibility for a civil service retirement.

The strategy for cushioning the mid career displacement is simple: invest in the TSP as much as possible to obtain the matching funds. The TSP is portable and will go with them to their next career or be used for living expenses.

Salaries in the NSPS will be set by the Secretary of Defense. Projecting any future earning capacity will be very difficult as salaries will be subject to budgetary and market conditions as well other agendas established by the executive branch. Here again the strategy is to invest in the TSP heavily to compensate for reduced income, displacement, or reduced retirement.

The new personnel system in the DOD will very likely require employees to travel to distant places or where ever they are needed to accomplish the mission. This is to be expected so one should be prepared to go where one is needed. There may be a mobility agreement to sign either upon employment or at a later time.

Some will say that the present personnel system may require mobility agreements just as the NSPS will, but there is an important difference. A refused assignment in the NSPS could result in termination within 15 days. New employees and older employees should learn the system and know their responsibilities and options before they are required to make a decision regarding their assignments.

Those are just a few of the changes new employees will see as they enter their federal career in the NSPS. If they do manage to stay competitive with other employees of all ages, and if their skills do not fade over a 40 year span then they may reach retirement.

They will have a more interesting and perhaps more exciting career than the career that I have had. If I were a young graduate I would understand the risks and take the chances.

It would be a rewarding career however long it may last.

If you're ready to retire from the federal, state or local government,
what would be your best advice for attracting the best and the
brightest of this country's college students to follow in your
footsteps?  Or would you even recommend such a path? 

Stephen Barr (“Federal Diary,” Washington Post) reported that Max Stier (Partnership for Public Service) and others are endeavoring to lure alluring talent to government ranks.OPM and Stier’s organization are working with hundreds of colleges and dozens of federal agencies to achieve a laudable goal.  There’s only one problem.  It won’t work.Too much of today’s dialogue about not being able to attract the best and brightest, motivated and energetic, misses the point.  It’s not because high performers aren’t adequately compensated.  It’s not that rewards, pecuniary and otherwise, are insufficient.  It’s because bureaucracies kill.  They squeeze the ever-living daylights out of you.  They inhale oxygen, leaving none for the denizens.When you first hear the words “federal government” what pops into your mind?  I doubt it’s wide-open, proving-ground, technology leader, or creativity hotbed.It’s the bureaucracy, the reams of rules, regs, laws, mandates, procedures, review layers, policies, practices, protocols, traditions, redundancies, correspondence manuals, operating manuals, etc., etc., that prevents the blossoming of society’s flowers.If a sunflower seed is placed in a coffee cup, the stalk won’t grow as large as if it were planted in the middle of a meadow.  Ironically and paradoxically, leviathan organizational structures, larger than many meadows, offer psychological growing fields no bigger than a coffee cup – small, unventilated, and malnourished.Let’s cease worrying for the moment about attracting Young Turks to government service until we transform the current environment, which suffocates everything and everyone it touches.I think I have a handle on the WHAT is the problem, but I have no handle on the HOW to fix.  Do you?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

By 2007, the Government Accountability Office predicts the Interior
Departmennt will lose 61 percent of its program managers; the Forest
Service will lose 49 percent of its foresters and 61 percent of its
entomologists (as western forests are being ravaged by the bark
beetle).  EPA will lose 45 percent of its toxicologists.

44 percent of federal employees are eligible to retire within five years.

and

72 percent of recent college graduates surveyed said they had, at most, limited interest in working for the Federal Government.

Following this statement Mr. Reigel, whose great-great-grandfather waslost on the Titanic, proceeded to walk under thirteen ladders and past ablack cat.  He then used the cat to break thirteen mirrors.

Seriously - having carried out nuclear plant cyber safety audits, I candefinitively state that Mr. Reigel is wrong.  I don't know what movedhim to make this baseless claim, but in my experience all it would taketo seriously affect a nuclear plant system would be an insider, alaptop, and a cybercafe.  And the insider would just be a convenience.

You're doing a heckuva job, Mr. Reigel.

In a provocative move, FBI Assistant Director LouisReigel, who heads the enforcement agency's Cyber Division, said todaythat Al Qaeda and other militant groups do not have the ability todisable power plants, airports and other "critical infrastructure"through the Internet.

http://today.reuters.com/

Those who find it disturbing that OPM might
misrepresent the facts in order to promote an administration’s agenda
on personnel reform should not read this analysis by what was the
General Accounting Office at that time.

Those who can handle the distress should read this report. You may find it very interesting.

Think in modern day terms as you read. Keep in mind the present
Working For America Act and the personnel reforms now being implemented
at the DOD and the DHS. The language is very similar. You will feel as
if you have heard this before – maybe even in recent months.

What will history teach us? Can we learn from past mistakes, or are we doomed to repeat them?

We will not fully comprehend the lesson until the now Government
Accountability Office does another analysis of present reforms a few
years from now.

Read on if you will:

http://archive.gao.gov/pdf/122788.pdf