Tom Shoop reports in Government Executive on two surveys measuring the level of performance of our federal bureaucracy.  One was completed by the general public, the other by its employees.

Any guesses as to which one was more critical?

Read Shoop’s article here.  It’s entertaining and informative.

Here’s another potential budget-buster which all fellow retirees like me would love to see come to pass.

As welcome and reasonable as this may appear, its chances for passage may not be so good.  After all, for over 20 years, hundreds of thousands of retirees have been unfairly punished by the Windfall Elimination Provision, which removed funds from deserving civil servants under the misrepresentation that the benefit was a “windfall.”  [See articles appearing earlier in “The Forum” in June, 2006 and September, 2006.]

Now, the price tag for this retiree benefit is but a small fraction of the WEP; however, I’m still not holding my breath for its passage.

What about you?  Are there any federal retirees with insight into this?

I can’t think of a more critical homeland security need than to quickly investigate and process security clearances.

Consider the irony.  For over five years, this country has been striving to improve its intelligence capabilities so that it can better protect citizens.  To do that, additional employees are being hired to meet this need.  However, these workers can’t come to work and begin training for their jobs until they receive a security clearance.

This is reasonable, of course, except when the backlog for such clearances is so large that months upon months transpire before employees can report to their offices.

Brittany Ballenstedt’s article (govexec.com) indicates that things are looking up and that the government is becoming more responsive to the need to bring qualified – and trusted – staff to join in our common cause.

Most would agree that “Public Safety” tops the list of the role of government whether it entails protecting us from foreign enemies or criminals down the street.

Flying the friendly skies may become less friendly if Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staffing levels aren’t more critically evaluated. 

Is the present level of air traffic controllers adequate to keep an appropriate watchful eye over the thousands of airliners soaring high above us every day?

Brittany Ballenstedt's article (govexec.com) provides more background.

Nowhere in the article is the affect of technology mentioned as a means to ameliorate the impact of losing staff to the expected wave of upcoming retirements.  Can’t better equipment help?

What’d’ya think?

If you’re a manager – or an employee with a manager – who needs help in buttressing key supervisory skills, help is here!

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) just launched a tool designed to make managers better at their jobs.

You may find this article interesting.

Do you believe this will (or can) have a positive impact?  Do you believe that managers will know whether or not they need help and, even if they realize it, will they step forward and do something?

Behemoth may not adequately express the size of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whose workforce of 180,000 was forged by a forced marriage among 22 agencies.  Imagine the in-law problems that created.

[I’m so happy to share this article by Brittany Ballenstedt.   She reports that others in this world seemingly detest the phrase “Human Capital” as much as I do.  Ironically, Colleen Kelley, President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), seems to like a phrase that I believe paints people more as widgets than homo sapiens.  She thinks outlawing such phraseology is an empty gesture.  Well, I, for one, would prefer to get my humanity back. If folks are reminded that I’m a living being and not a mere ‘resource,’ better things are likely to evolve.  Maybe Ms. Kelley is simply more in tune with the troops than I.]

So, how big is DHS and how difficult could it be to inculcate a culture of cooperation, excellence, and service?

Here’s how big.  If all DHS employees were laid end-to-end they’d stretch from Washington, DC to the Virginia-North Carolina state line. 

That may not seem like a lot to you, but imagine how they would snarl traffic on I-95 South.

Earlier this week we shared news of a Congressional plan to establish a hard-wired 5-year executive position to ensure (‘hope’ would be a better word) that all the parts of this man-made monster operate smoothly, effectively, and save lives in a disaster.

Perhaps it’s inappropriate to ask at this late stage, but was crafting an agency of 180,000 a wise thing to do?  Can it ever be perceived as a single Department or will it always seem a hodge-podge of entities shuffled from other Departments, which appeared to be achieving their earlier missions quite nicely?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

We all have seen questionable practices in the office but have failed to say something about them.  Maybe we felt that we didn’t know the whole story.  Maybe our boss would get mad.  Maybe we’d get isolated – or fired.

There are many reasons for not surfacing improprieties.  But now there may be more legislative protection for those who step forward and expose corruption, mismanagement, and waste.

Read Stephen Barr’s column today about Congressional deliberations on this matter. 

Will it matter? 

Here’s another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Lower-level military personnel, usually those grunts carrying the burden of battle on their shoulders, receive combat pay tax exclusions, which ironically prevent them from claiming key tax benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Brittany Ballenstedt’s article in Government Executive describes action in the Senate that is designed to correct this anomaly.

Do you agree that our military members, Executive Branch employees all, merit special consideration due to their dangerous duties and, if so, are these accommodations reasonable?  Should additional ones be granted?  If so, what type?

You’ll be assured of work for at least five years, guaranteed by Congress, and if you can succeed, you’ll be appointed King of the U.S.A., if you desire, and if you haven’t burned out by then.

Sign up now for Deputy Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  For some reason, the agency hasn’t been able to get all settled and function like a well-oiled machine after merging a mere 22 agencies with differing cultures and missions.  Gee, how hard could that be? 

Stephen Barr (Federal Diary, The Washington Post) reports on Senate efforts to create a position of some permanence so that key management initiatives are successfully implemented and our dream of a highly-efficient DHS can be realized.

There are new survey results to ponder.  A plurality (45%) of federal employees disagrees with the statement: “Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.”

Read Stephen Barr’s Federal Diary column today [The Washington Post, Feb. 12, 2007].  Do you get the sense that more folks than not are upset with the current pay system and are also upset with and non-supportive of proposed new systems designed to promote, recognize, and reward top performers while preventing marginal or non-performers from receiving undeserved pay increases?

Talk about a conflicted situation where the devil is in the proverbial details.  Not many people – maybe not any – take philosophical umbrage with the proposition that those who work more or better or smarter should be rewarded more than those who don’t.  Beyond that line, however, everything seems to unravel, especially in designing, operating, and selling a performance management system that’s intended to function that way.

Call me a softie.  I’m not quite as upset about so-called longevity increases – I presume these are “the living and breathing increases” referenced in Stephen’s article – as I am about special rewards and recognition.  That’s where the injustice lies.  When one employee clearly out-performs another and demonstrates far more responsiveness and zeal for her job, it hurts when either no ‘bonus’ is given or any insultingly low-value award is conferred upon that solid team player.  Some awards amount to about $.50 per hour, which sounds adequate, but as a percentage of the employee’s salary it is rather paltry (1 or 2 percent). 

I’m reminded of one fellow worker who always, yes, I mean “always,” responded to requests for information, opinions, supporting data, etc.  I’m also reminded of scores of other workers over the years who not only failed to provide any information of value, they also virtually never even acknowledged being asked for help.  Employees in the former category should definitely receive sizable ‘bonuses’ for their consistent, positive engagement on the job, i.e., 5 – 10 percent of their salaries, if I had my way.  You can guess what percentage I would like to see the latter folks receive.

What’s your take?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor