<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30599.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-927
CRITICAL MISSION: ASSESSING SPIRAL 1.1 OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
PERSONNEL SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
__________
Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-599 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Jennifer H. Hemingway, Professional Staff Member
Theresa Prych, Professional Staff Member, Oversight of Government
Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
Michael L. Alexander, Minority Staff Director
Lawrence B. Novey, Minority Senior Counsel
Jennifer L. Tyree, Minority Counsel, Oversight of Government
Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 3
WITNESSES
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Hon. Gordon England, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Defense, accompanied by Mary Lacey, NSPS Program Executive
Officer, U.S. Department of Defense............................ 2
Hon. Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management..................................................... 7
Lieutenant General Terry L. Gabreski, Vice Commander, Air Force
Materiel Command, U.S. Air Force............................... 9
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
England, Hon. Gordon:
Testimony.................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Gabreski, Lieutenant General Terry L.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Springer, Hon. Linda M.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 27
APPENDIX
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. England.................................................. 41
Ms. Springer................................................. 54
General Gabreski............................................. 56
Darryl Perkinson, National President, Federal Managers
Association, prepared statement................................ 58
United Department of Defense Workers Coalition (UDWC), prepared
statement...................................................... 62
CRITICAL MISSION: ASSESSING SPIRAL 1.1
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
PERSONNEL SYSTEM
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M.
Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman Collins. Good afternoon. Today, the Committee
holds its third hearing to examine the design and
implementation of the National Security Personnel System. We
will focus on the conversion of approximately 11,000 employees
that began earlier this year.
The pay-for-performance systems underway at the Departments
of Defense and Homeland Security represent the most significant
change in Federal employees' supervision and compensation
methods since the General Schedule was introduced in 1949. When
fully implemented, the new pay-for-performance systems will
cover approximately one-half of the Federal civilian workforce.
Debate on the National Security Personnel System for the
Department of Defense's civilian workforce started in 2003,
when the Department initially submitted a proposal that many of
us believed went too far and failed to provide important
provisions to protect good employees. Since then, considerable
progress has been made. I want to commend Secretary England for
his continued commitment during the past 3 years to ensuring
that the new system is credible and that it appropriately
reflects congressional intent to reward high performers and
avoid unfair consequences. I am very impressed that Secretary
England has stayed personally involved in this project, despite
having the tremendous responsibility of being Deputy Secretary.
Despite the Department's efforts to provide a robust
training program for its employees and their supervisors, I
continue to hear concerns from employees and their
representatives that show their lack of confidence in the new
system.
I have had, for example, employees from the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, express to me concerns about
whether their managers will be fair in their evaluations and
whether they will know how to do their evaluations. There is
not a resistance to evaluation per se. In fact, most employees
tell me they welcome a good evaluation system where their pay
is tied to their performance. But many of them say to me, quite
frankly, ``I do not think my manager is going to be able to do
this in a way that is fair.'' I believe we have a real
challenge to build confidence in the new system.
Secretary England has previously testified that, ``A key to
the success of NSPS is to ensure that employees perceive the
system as fair with trust between employees and supervisors.''
I think that really sums up the challenge before us. I look
forward to learning how the Department is building that trust
that is absolutely critical to achieve a successful
implementation of the new program. If there is not employee
buy-in, if employees do not view NSPS as a fair system that
will truly reward good performers, then the Department is going
to be met with continued resistance and opposition. After all,
the real test of NSPS begins next month, when Spiral 1.1
employees receive their first written performance evaluations
from their supervisors.
Implementation of the new system will, of course, require
honest, accurate, and actionable evaluation and will continue
to be dependent, as I have indicated, on good management,
proper execution, and effective training. Each of those factors
requires adequate resources. I am, therefore, also interested
in hearing what kinds of improvements are planned to ensure
that future employee conversions are properly funded so that
managers and supervisors can make the proper judgment calls.
Whether the system set forth in the final regulation will
achieve the Committee's goal of helping the Department recruit,
reward, and retain a highly skilled workforce and ensuring that
employees are recognized for their contributions to the mission
remains to be seen. As the Department moves forward, this
Committee will continue to scrutinize the system and to assist
to determine if it meets the goal of supporting the best
possible Federal workforce. And that really is the goal that
unites all of us.
I know that Senator Voinovich, who asked me to conduct this
hearing, is very eager to hear the Secretary's remarks. It is
my understanding that he is on the way, so I am going to ask
that the Secretary proceed with his statement, and with your
permission, when Senator Voinovich arrives, I will interrupt
you and defer to him for his opening comments.
Secretary England, we are delighted to have you here today.
TESTIMONY OF HON. GORDON ENGLAND,\1\ DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ACCOMPANIED BY MARY LACEY, NSPS PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. England. Senator Collins, thank you, Madam Chairman,
and it is a delight to be here. I do thank you for the
opportunity to be here. I know you are extraordinarily busy in
the Senate as you get to the end of the session, so it is very
gracious of you, frankly, to hold this hearing today. Thank you
for your comments about my personal involvement, and let me
reciprocate. We appreciate your personal involvement because it
has been most helpful, and we do appreciate your steadfast
support and your help and assistance and suggestions as we have
gone along. So I do thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. England appears in the Appendix
on page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a pleasure to be here today with Linda Springer. She
is our very close partner at OPM. And here is Senator
Voinovich, so maybe I will----
Chairman Collins. We will break, and I will ask you to
withhold.
Senator Voinovich, you have perfect timing. You did not
have to listen to my opening statement, but you did not miss
Secretary England's. I would say that was good timing. So,
Senator Voinovich, I was explaining that the idea for this
hearing originated with you and that we have worked very
closely on a variety of human capital challenges, and I would
like to give you an opportunity to make some opening comments
before the Secretary proceeds.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Thank you for holding this hearing. As you know, this
Committee has had an ongoing interest in the National Security
Personnel System. If it was not for the Chairman of the
Committee and her leadership in the conference committee, NSPS
would look very different. While the legislation establishing
NSPS did not come through this Committee, we have been
conducting oversight of it ever since, haven't we?
I have often said that the changes underway at the
Department are far reaching and will impact Federal workforce
reform across the entire Executive Branch. It is the
responsibility of Congress and this Committee to continue its
oversight to ensure the implementation is progressing in a
positive manner and that employees are benefiting from the
changes embodied in NSPS.
I am glad that Mr. England and Ms. Springer are here today
to testify before the Committee. I appreciate the fact that we
have had such good cooperation with you.
Madam Chairman, I know that issuing the regulations to
establish the National Security Personnel System was not an
easy task, and it took longer than we thought. The
implementation process is going to be even more formidable if
we are to institutionalize NSPS at the Department of Defense.
And failure is not an option.
I want to go back to March 2001, when I Chaired the
Subcommittee hearing titled ``National Security Implications of
the Human Capital Crisis.'' The panel of witnesses that day
included former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who was a
member of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st
Century. At that time Secretary Schlesinger said, ``As it
enters the 21st Century, the United States finds itself on the
brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government.
The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the
quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and military, at
all levels. We must take immediate action in the personnel area
to ensure the United States can meet future challenges. It is
the Commission's view that fixing the personnel problem is a
precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs
repair in the institutional edifice of the U.S. national
security policy.''
And so far this Congress and the Committee, including my
Subcommittee, have held four hearings on the National Security
Personnel System. The most recent was a field hearing where we
examined the training for preparation of Spiral 1.1. We looked
at what they were doing at Pearl Harbor and other military
bases, and we were very impressed.
In addition, my staff has met with the leaders of various
components in Ohio who are preparing for implementation of
Spiral 1.2. While approximately 100 DOD civilian employees in
Ohio were converted to Spiral 1.1, over 3,800 Ohioans will be
converted during Spiral 1.2. Department-wide, I think the total
converting in Spiral 1.2 is about 60,000 more people, starting
in October. That is next month.
During this past year, I have been struck by the excitement
and enthusiasm I have seen in senior career staff as they
prepare for NSPS implementation. In conversations with these
individuals, I know they understand the challenge before them,
and I am committed to ensuring that they have the necessary
support and resources. The Chairman and I worry about the
Department having the resources to support NSPS. Once DOD
converts the next 60,000, are the budgets of the agencies going
to be sufficient to train these folks to make this program
successful?
So today I restate my commitment to work with the
Department, and make sure, Secretary England, that they have
the money to get the job done. Too often around here--and the
Chairman and I have talked about this--we keep asking agencies
to do more. We give them more responsibilities, and we do not
give them more money to get the job done. If we are going to be
successful with this, the Department has to have the resources.
I would hope that you let the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget--Rob Portman--know what you need because
without the support this will not be successful, it will not be
institutionalized. We cannot afford to go back. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Secretary England.
Mr. England. Senator Voinovich, I was just commenting as
you came in. The Chairman was gracious enough to thank me for
staying personally involved, and I was thanking the Senator,
and I also thank you because you have both been very supportive
and extraordinarily helpful, and we enjoy and appreciate
working with you on this very important issue.
It is a pleasure to be here today with Linda Springer, our
partner from OPM, also Mary Lacey, our Program Executive
Officer, and also this afternoon Lieutenant General Terry
Gabreski, who is from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and so
can discuss some on-the-ground real events with you today.
Before I proceed, I just want to give a very brief
thumbnail, but let me first address the issue of budgets. We do
not have a budget issue. The components have the money they
need to do the training to the level they need to do it, and if
they need more for training, they will have more money. This
program is vitally important for the Department of Defense. We
know it is vitally important, and we are fully funding all
aspects of this program. And that is a personal commitment. At
the end of the day, I actually get to sign off on these budgets
and approve them and make sure that projects are fully funded.
I can assure you this program has been and will continue to be
fully funded for training our people. So a commitment on the
budget, Senator, is not going to be an issue. And if there is
an issue, I will tell you, and you can look me directly in the
eye, but I can tell you we are not going to have a funding
issue in terms of training on this program.
I do want to comment--I would like to just give you a
thumbnail sketch because I know time is short and there is a
lot in the Senate going on. But let me say that we are making
significant progress, and I have been personally very pleased
by the feedback. We have been in Spiral 1.1, as you commented,
Madam Chairman. We have 11,000 personnel in 12 different
organizations in Spiral 1.1. And, Senator Voinovich, you are
correct, we start next month. Between October and January, we
will have 66,000 more people join NSPS. So we have a
significant increase, and there are people from around the
world in this next group of people, 66,000. They are from
organizations around the world. I can tell you, supervisors are
engaged, employees are engaged. We have open channels of
communications. Our employees know what is expected. And I am
delighted to tell you that the feedback--what people tell me,
that this is the first time they have ever seen a large-scale
DOD training effort focused on the leadership and our
employees. This is directed to our civilian workforce and our
military workforce who manages civilian employees. And so this
is about improving skills, particularly improving the skills of
our management personnel. And they are very pleased that this
is happening.
The other feedback that is very positive is people are
talking about the mission of the Department. That is, they go
in and talk to their supervisor. And as you know, I have felt
strongly about this from day one. The great benefit is we can
take our national security objectives through the Secretary of
Defense and literally down to ``the deck plate'' and trace that
through expectations, job objectives, and then be able to
evaluate job objectives tied to our mission, and for the first
time, I believe, widespread--people across the Department now
in Spiral 1.1 and getting ready for 1.2, are talking about the
mission and how we accomplish it and how we link job
performance to the mission that we are trying to accomplish. So
I am very pleased.
Now, I will tell you, we do have a hiccup or two in the
program. One of the hiccups, of course, is we do have a
district court decision, and the district court enjoined, that
is, prevented us from implementing some of the labor relations,
specifically the adverse actions, appeals, and the labor
relations portion itself of NSPS. So on three of the issues, we
were enjoined by the court. We expect to have a decision
sometime early next year, hopefully--it depends on the courts,
but our expectation is early next year we will have a decision
on that part of the case.
In the meantime, we are proceeding. And, by the way, I will
tell you there is some degree of frustration. It takes a while
to do this. We get held up by the courts and stop and start. On
the other hand, my view is, literally, God bless America, this
is a case where the Legislative Branch passed a law, the
Executive Branch is implementing it, it goes to the courts, and
ultimately there will be an arbiter, did we do it the way that
the Legislative Branch intended. And so that is the way the
system works, and in the end we will end up with the right
answer, and we will continue to proceed to implement the
system.
In the meantime, of course, we are hopeful that the courts
will rule and resolve all this. We may, depending on what the
rulings of the courts are, we may come back for some
clarification before the Congress next year, specifically as
the program has been delayed. This has not been dictated by the
calendar. We always said this was going to be whatever the
schedule, the appropriate timelines were. But, we do have built
into the law an end date of 2009. So if we are held up long
periods of time, we may indeed come back and ask for an
extension of the 2009 date. I don't know if we will, but,
again, just so you will not be surprised if we do next year,
that is a possibility.
The other thing that we may come back to you for is
clarification regarding national level bargaining. Both the
unions and ourselves would like to do national level
bargaining. Unfortunately, it has been tied in now to the labor
relations parts of NSPS, and now we are precluded from doing
national level bargaining. We would like to separate that. We
do not think that was ever the intent. So depending, again, on
how the court case comes out, we may ask for clarification in
that arena next time. But we will continue to be event driven.
We are adapting as we go; that is, we are learning as we go, we
are modifying as we go. The whole objective is to end up with
an environment for our people to excel, for our Department to
excel. We have not lost sight of what the end objective of this
program is.
We are committed to dialogue. We are doing that with all
the stakeholders, and we have had a lot of communication and
training, and I will let Mary Lacey talk more about that, and
also Linda Springer.
So I just want to tell you, we are committed. We have
applied the resources to the program. We are making progress--
not as fast as we would like, but, frankly, we are going to
have this program a long time. So even if it takes us a little
bit longer, it takes us a little bit longer. But we will get to
the end, and when we get there, it will be a very effective
program. I remain convinced that this will be a very effective
program for our employees, for our Department, and for the
country.
And so I thank you for your support, and I thank all the
people who have worked so hard. We have been at this now
literally for years. A lot of people have spent a lot of time,
energy, and commitment, and I thank them for that commitment
and time and energy on behalf of our employees and our
Department, and I thank this Committee.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I would now like to introduce the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, Linda Springer.
Ms. Springer, we are very glad to have you here today, and
I would ask that you proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER,\1\ DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE
OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Springer. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator
Voinovich. It is a privilege to testify and give you an update
on OPM's role with respect to the NSPS implementation. OPM has
been very deeply involved, and our collaboration with DOD has
been productive. It would not have occurred without DOD's
leadership, especially the senior leadership, and particularly
Secretary England.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Springer appears in the Appendix
on page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of this collaboration is a new human resources
system at the Department of Defense that will support our
national security goals and objectives but at the same time
respect the individuals that create those results. It will
value their performance, their leadership, their commitment to
public service, and really ensure accountability at all levels
while remaining a competitive and cost-effective system.
In November, I testified before you that OPM would be
involved and would support the Department of Defense in every
way to make sure that it was an effective implementation. In my
view, the Spiral 1.1 conversion has met those objectives, and
OPM has played a very important role in that success.
OPM leaders participate on a weekly basis, as well as in ad
hoc and other important meetings, with the DOD project team
leadership to make sure that we are involved in all aspects of
the policy guidance with respect to the implementation. Our
legal staff actively consults with the DOD leadership's legal
staff to ensure that we have met not only statutory
requirements but also judicial restraints on NSPS.
Our policy experts assist in the development of the
implementing issuances.
Our compensation experts were very heavily involved in the
substance of the issuances to make sure that we have a credible
pay-for-performance system that rewards individual performance
and also allows for recognition of organizational results in
developing those rewards.
Our performance management experts were involved in the
development of the performance management aspects of the
implementing issuances to make sure that managers and
supervisors are held accountable for effectively managing the
performance of the people for whom they are responsible and
also that merit systems principles are not overlooked.
Our classification experts reviewed procedures for
classifying positions to ensure that the system was streamlined
and simplified, but not at the expense of employee rights.
Our staffing experts worked with their DOD counterparts to
develop procedures for implementing such features as category
rating, public notice requirements, and veterans' preference
requirements.
All of these OPM experts--legal, policy, compensation,
performance management, classification, and staffing--really
covering the full breadth and scope of the personnel range,
spent many months working with the Department of Defense in
developing implementing issuances. Now our attention has turned
to evaluating how well the NSPS is working, and with a
particular emphasis on training. We have gone through all of
the online training to evaluate whether or not it is in plain
English, whether it is understandable, whether it is
comprehensive, and the OPM experts are convinced that it is. We
are going to be spending time at the on-site instructor-led
training starting with the early October sessions. We will
actually participate, and we will have seats in the training
sessions dedicated for OPM observers.
There are three different formal evaluations that are
planned or already underway. The first is a review of the
performance management system that will allow the Secretary to
determine whether or not by law the NSPS system should extend
beyond the original 300,000 employees that were in the purview
of the system. That assessment will particularly focus on the
Spiral 1.1 conversion all the way through the rating process
and the ultimate payout, as you mentioned, that would happen in
January of 2007. OPM will be involved in the assessment
process.
I have included the development of the criteria for
determining whether or not that assessment is effective in the
OPM Strategic and Operational Plan so that OPM's senior leaders
are being held accountable for making sure that they are
involved in the setting of those assessment criteria and that
they really meet our standards as well as DOD's.
The second review is an ongoing program evaluation that DOD
is conducting, and OPM staff meet regularly with the DOD staff
on their evaluation. That is a routine evaluation.
The third one is really an OPM initiative. Under our own
independent statutory authority, OPM will be conducting an
evaluation of the effectiveness of NSPS. That evaluation will
be very comprehensive. We will look at all levels--managers,
supervisors, employees, other executives--to make sure that as
they spiral into NSPS, the effective training, as well as all
the other aspects of the implementation, are happening as we
would expect and have met our standards. So that third
independent review is one that will be completed by May 1 of
next year, and we will be happy to report to you on the results
of that assessment.
In sum, though, we have worked very closely with DOD on
implementation, and we are now very much engaged and looking
forward to our assessment efforts. And we will continue to be
involved in that way. We appreciate from the very beginning the
Senate and this Committee's work to make sure that OPM does
have an important role, and we take that very seriously, Madam
Chairman, and we look forward to continuing to let you know how
we are doing.
But, in short, I would say the NSPS is providing the
flexibilities that DOD needs to really be responsive to the
ever-increasing and changing national security issues, which
they need to meet on behalf of the American people.
So I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to any questions that you might have.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Director Springer. I
smiled at your closing comments because as you are well aware,
Senator Voinovich and I both felt very strongly about the need
for OPM to be involved at every step of the way to share its
considerable expertise. I know that Secretary England always
welcomed that involvement as well. That was not, however, true
of everyone who was involved in this process.
I am now very pleased to introduce Lieutenant General Terry
Gabreski. General Gabreski is the Vice Commander of the Air
Force Materiel Command and is stationed at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, an installation that is near and dear to my
colleague's heart. She is responsible for the oversight of NSPS
training and implementation within the Air Force Materiel
Command and also oversaw the conversion of 2,400 employees at
Tinker Air Force Base to NSPS earlier this year.
General Gabreski, we are very pleased to have you here to
share your personal experiences.
TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TERRY L. GABRESKI,\1\ VICE
COMMANDER, AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND, U.S. AIR FORCE
General Gabreski. Good afternoon, Chairman Collins and
Senator Voinovich. I, too, want to echo an appreciation for you
all taking time to focus on this important subject for us, not
just in the Department but in Air Force Materiel Command. This
afternoon I would like to briefly share with you some examples
of how we successfully are implementing NSPS Spiral 1.1 out at
Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma and give you some examples of
how we dress for success out there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of General Gabreski appears in the
Appendix on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, we worked extremely hard during the planning
phases of NSPS to ensure that we emphasize training as well as
communication. We continue to work those two specific areas,
and we think that those investments are paying off. The one
thing, I think you would agree, that separates our Armed Forces
from any other in the world is our magnificent people, and
certainly one of the things that makes our people great is the
premium that we place on training.
So just like the training we provide for any operational
mission, it is important that we ensure that our folks are
trained and the emphasis is placed on training in regard to
NSPS.
We have taken great care in training both our civilian and
our military personnel in the specifics of NSPS implementation,
as well as the soft-skill sorts of training, such as how to
manage change in organizations. This training sets the stage
for our continued success as we continue to deploy NSPS.
Now, hand in hand with the training focus is our focus on
communication. The Air Force has made clear that communication
is critical to NSPS as we continue to implement it. We have
used a variety of methods within Air Force Materiel Command and
at Tinker Air Force Base specifically. Our four-star commander
has relayed the importance of NSPS in communications that he
gives to our installations and to our individual employees.
Each Air Force Major Air Command conducted ``Spread the Word''
briefings in which general officers traveled to the
installations in their major commands underscoring the
importance of this program.
One of the key messages that was relayed during these
briefings to our people is that NSPS is much more than just a
new personnel system. It is a commander responsibility, and it
must be led from the top. So at Tinker, as at other AFMC bases,
commanders have informed their personnel about NSPS through
commanders calls, weekly newspaper articles, informative
websites, even down to the electronic marquees on the
installations and talking about important facts about NSPS.
Now, we have had the opportunity to put this training and
communication to the test at Tinker as the first Air Force
installation to deploy NSPS. Twenty-four hundred non-bargaining
employees converted there in April of this year, but well
before that implementation, we stood up at Tinker an NSPS
program office. We have applied a programmatic approach to NSPS
implementation, and we have charged that program office with
the responsibility for every aspect of NSPS deployment.
We placed in charge of that program one of our high-
performing employees who is a non-personnelist, a person who is
an expert in our business and someone who can show the
importance of NSPS as not just a new personnel system.
I visited Tinker last week personally, and I saw firsthand
how their vigorous training and communication is paying off as
I spoke to both employees and managers who have converted. The
employees have experienced a clearer communication of
performance expectations as well as a stronger linkage to the
mission.
Additionally, NSPS has provided to the leadership at Tinker
the flexibility and responsiveness to carry out their mission.
There have been challenges as well as lessons learned at
Tinker, and we continue to share those across the Air Force as
well as the Department.
NSPS provides our commanders the agile human resources
system they need to succeed in today's environment. As you
heard from Secretary England, senior leadership in the
Department is committed to the success of this program, and I
appreciate and thank you for your strong support.
So I look forward to answering any of the questions you
might have on our deployment of NSPS in Air Force Materiel
Command and at Tinker Air Force Base specifically. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, General Gabreski.
A key person in the unveiling and implementation of the
program has been Mary Lacey, the Program Executive Officer for
the National Security Personnel System. Ms. Lacey, I'd like to
give you the opportunity for any comments you would like to
make before we go to questions.
Ms. Lacey. Thank you for having us here today.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Secretary England, the Department has indicated that the
protection of pay pool funding would be addressed in several
different ways. For example, the Department has stated that it
would mandate the minimum composition and expenditure of pay
pool funds. In addition, certain senior-level officials would
be required to certify that the funds allocated to the
performance-based pay pool would be used only for that purpose.
I would like to ask you how the Department is going to
ensure that, in times of tight budgets, managers do not use
money that is intended to support the pay-for-performance
program for other purposes. One of the fears that I hear from
Department employees is that the pay-for-performance system is
not really to reward outstanding employees with additional
compensation, but rather, it is a means to reduce overall
personnel costs.
What is your response to that?
Mr. England. Senator, I frankly believe we are fixing a
problem that used to exist in that regard. It was brought to my
attention when we started that it was not unusual in the past
that if somebody was short on funds, they needed to fix a
building, they fixed the building and, therefore, cut down on
the pay pool for employees. So I believe that was a problem
that existed, frankly, before we implemented this system. It is
not a problem that exists now. We have strict controls in
place. We identify what the pay percentages are, what the
performance pay pool allotments are. We approve those so they
are controlled. People do not have flexibility to move that
money around. We work with the Comptroller to make sure that is
the case.
So under NSPS, I would say that we have a much stricter
process in place in terms of controlling funds that they do not
drift out of this system, and I am confident--we worked this
very hard. That was a commitment when you passed the
legislation and we started implementing this that we would make
sure we had controls in place, and we do. So we approve the
amount of money, we approve what goes in the bonus pools, and
we control those within the Department. And I can tell you,
that money is not going to migrate, and I do not believe it can
migrate the way we have had the Comptroller set this up. And,
Ms. Lacey, you may comment yourself because we are actually
implementing this now as part of our mock pay pools to make
sure we have those controls in place.
Ms. Lacey, if you want to add to that?
Chairman Collins. Ms. Lacey.
Ms. Lacey. We have built that into policy, which has the
force of internal regulations in the Department of Defense. So
those floors for the amount of money available have been set in
policy already. The money is set in place in the budgets. It
will be there for the January payouts for the employees, and we
will continue to do that year in and year out. It is
institutionalized.
Chairman Collins. So, Secretary England, just to close out
this issue for the Federal employees who are watching today or
who may read about this hearing, there is no intention on the
part of the Department to spend less on overall pay under NSPS
than under the old system. That is not a goal of the system.
Mr. England. That is not a goal. As a matter of fact, as I
recall, Senator, I believe we are actually precluded by law
from spending less. So, we will spend the money allocated. It
will not be less than it would have otherwise been. I think in
some cases it will be more because of the pay-for-performance
aspect. It will not be less. More importantly, the money is
being protected to make sure that it actually goes to pay pools
for employees. So employees can feel very confident that under
NSPS there is a defined pot of money for employee raises and
for pay-for-performance.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. The reason I wanted to spend
some time on that issue is because pay-for-performance has a
hollow ring to it if, in fact, you cannot get additional
compensation because the money is not there.
Mr. England. Right.
Chairman Collins. And that is why I think that is a really
important point.
Mr. England. You are absolutely right, Senator.
Chairman Collins. General Gabreski, I am very interested in
your observations as someone who has overseen the conversion of
some 2,400 employees. What do you think needs to be improved?
What kind of feedback can you give us, can you give the
Secretary, Ms. Lacey, and Director Springer?
General Gabreski. When I was out at Tinker last week, I got
some very up close and personal feedback from the folks that
have converted, and several lessons come through loud and
clear. One of them is that they really appreciated the quality
and the quantity of training, and, if anything, they are
wanting to continue that level of training to keep their skills
sharp. But as important, as they go through these mock pay
pools, the fact that writing objectives between supervisors and
employees is harder than they thought it would be. So they are
wanting specifically to improve their skills in that area so
that everyone can be successful in the end, that they properly
sit down with employees, outline the objectives and their
expectations, and that they follow the process through in the
best way.
So those are really the two takeaways I had from last
week's interface and observations as we have deployed this.
Chairman Collins. Ms. Springer, the General Accountability
Office has constantly emphasized the importance of an ongoing
review which incorporates lessons learned during
implementation. How is OPM making sure that changes such as the
ones that were just identified by General Gabreski are fed back
into the system so that the next conversion can learn from the
past conversion?
Ms. Springer. The first step is to make sure that OPM is
involved, that we are actually sitting in on training courses,
which we are doing, and that we are actually going in and using
the online tools and training. Then, when we meet with
individuals and interview them, as we will be doing during our
assessment and independent evaluation, we can actually have a
working knowledge of what it is that they are using. As a
result of that level of involvement, when the individuals with
whom we meet come back and say, well, this part of it needs to
be enhanced or this part of it was more or less valuable to us,
we already have an understanding and are able to give direction
on how to incorporate those findings. It is not as if we will
be in a learning mode. In many ways, our actual experience will
help us to validate independently what we are being told.
The notion and the observation that the objective setting
is a key part of this is no surprise to OPM. It is similar to
evaluations we have done of demo projects. In fact, we are
making sure that the questions that we ask and the assessment
metrics that we look at are very closely aligned with what we
have learned are important from evaluating demo projects. There
is a very close relationship. And that is why it was so
important to make sure that these objectives were put in
writing because that written exercise forces people to come to
grips with a clear articulation of measurable goals. So that is
not an unexpected observation.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Ms. Lacey, are there examples of changes that either have
been made or will be made to Spiral 1.2 as a result of employee
feedback from Spiral 1.1?
Ms. Lacey. Yes, there are several. Let me start with the
aperture for the conversion. With Spiral 1.1, we converted
everybody on virtually the same day, over a period of 3 or 4
days, the personnelists working to do all the electronic
conversions. That meant everybody had to be prepared and
trained up by the same day.
For Spiral 1.2, we have opened that aperture, opened that
window, to do the conversion over a 4-month period. This makes
it a lot less stressful for us to actually get people trained
up and ready to go. And so we have done that. It also enables
the commanders to make the final decision ``my organization is
ready,'' so they do not have that pressure of having to go by a
certain date.
On the training, every single training class has feedback
built right into it. We have two different kinds of feedback.
We have the usual how did the instructor do in teaching you the
material, but we also have a pre-test and a post-test to get a
sense of how much learning did this employee actually get while
they were sitting through this course. And we are using that
feedback to continuously upgrade the training material so that
we can ensure that employees have the opportunity to learn as
deeply and richly as possible.
So we have made those changes all along, even through some
of the Spiral 1.2 training that has been going on. We have
added several training modules and vehicles to the toolkit. We
have recently put up online some Web-based training, Camtasia
training for folks so that they can get a better understanding
of the automated tools that are available on employee and
managers' desktops. We are adding an additional module to what
we call our NSPS 101 to put more information in about pay pools
and the performance management process. This certainly has
caught the attention of our employees, and they want to know
more. So we are adding more details there.
We also have provided additional ad hoc courses on writing
performance objectives for commands and organizations that
wanted a graduate school program, if you will, as they went
through that process.
So we will continue to listen to that feedback and continue
to do those things to ensure that we have the best experience.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to continue discussing how
pay adjustments work.
Congress passes a pay increase across the board for
everyone, right? Then that money is allocated to the various
departments, so they are going to get X number of dollars. In
Spiral 1.1, which will be the first group to be paid on the
basis of performance, you take that pool of workers and then
you allocate X number of dollars differently. Is that right?
Ms. Lacey. The law provides for us to do that, but from a
policy point of view, we have chosen not to for this payout.
For Spiral 1.1's payout, any across-the-board raises that
Congress passes, we will make structural adjustments to
employees' pay so they will receive that.
Senator Voinovich. So the first Spiral will get their
automatic pay increase, a cost-of-living increase, and then
have extra money for those whose performances are higher.
Correct?
Ms. Lacey. Correct.
Senator Voinovich. OK. So, in effect, you are spending more
money than you would ordinarily spend.
Ms. Lacey. Not quite. The source of that other money is
money that we are no longer spending that used to be automatic,
the within-grade pay raises that folks got. Career ladder
promotions that went away because the bands----
Senator Voinovich. OK. So the extra money would come from
where?
Ms. Lacey. Step increases, that we would have otherwise----
Senator Voinovich. Step increases.
Ms. Lacey. Right.
Senator Voinovich. The step increases are gone, so
employees will get an across-the-board increase, then you take
the funds that would have funded step increases to fund
performance increases. Is that right?
Ms. Lacey. Correct, and across the Department, the white-
collar portion of the workforce, the GS/GM, acquisition demo
equivalents, that number is actually 2.26 percent of salaries.
That is what we have historically spent on within-grades that
we are no longer going to be spending.
Senator Voinovich. And there are 11,000 trained to do
performance evaluations.
Ms. Lacey. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Just to be sure I really understand
this, of the 11,000 only a certain number of them are managers
that are going to do performance evaluations. But you have gone
beyond the managers in training employees to familiarize
everyone with how NSPS is going to work.
So 11,000 have been trained on NSPS, but the jacket, the
heavy jacket is on the managers to write performance
evaluations. Is that right?
Ms. Lacey. That is correct.
Mr. England. Yes, Senator, that is well said. And this is a
critical part of the program. You have heard a few people say
that. You have alluded to it. This heavy training for managers
and supervisors to be able to sit down with employees,
literally write out objectives, come to agreement, and make
sure those objectives track with what the objectives of the
Department are so that we link these throughout the
organization and that they are in sufficient clarity that you
can actually then measure against the objective because at the
end of the day it is pay-for-performance, so you have to be
able to measure performance. And this is the very crucial part
of the program.
And, Madam Chairman, when we talked earlier about the
fairness of the system, this is the crux of it, to make sure
that people understand how to do that.
Senator Voinovich. Right, but the fact of the matter is
that the first real snapshot that we are going to have of the
program is when that is done. When will that take place?
Mr. England. Well, we have a mock payout this fall, so we
will have feedback from the mock payout. Now, again, that is
not a real payout. It is a mock. It is part of the training
process. But it is just like you go through the whole process,
get evaluated for the whole thing, but your pay is not
dependent on that evaluation. So it is called a mock because
your pay is not going to be dependent on it. We want people to
go through this process so we can learn ourselves and make sure
we have it right.
Senator Voinovich. This is an important part of a
government-wide reform bill that I have introduced. All of the
managers would go through the training. This ought to be done
anyhow just in terms of a management objective. People should
know how they fit in the organization, what the organization
wants to accomplish.
Well, I am interested to see, once that happens, what kind
of feedback you are going to get.
General, how do you monitor the folks that you are
responsible for? Do you hear feedback or have you developed
metrics that you judge whether NSPS is effective?
General Gabreski. Absolutely, Senator. We have a variety of
ways that we monitor how we are deploying and how well we are
doing. One of them is at the local levels; our installations
have established various forms of executive steering groups at
the senior leadership level so that they can, on a routine
basis, get feedback from pay pool managers, from supervisors,
from their NSPS program offices. And they use metrics that
measure how much training has been done versus how much needs
to be done.
For instance, at Tinker Air Force Base, they have filled
17,000 training seats just in getting ready for their 2,400
folks who went into Spiral 1.1. So at the local level, we
monitor all of that very closely.
Senator Voinovich. Do you have some kind of piece of paper
that you get back, kind of an information sheet that the folks
that have had the training can offer feedback. In other words,
anything in writing right now that so you know whether the
training is working or not?
General Gabreski. Yes, sir. As Ms. Lacey mentioned, we get
the feedback at the end of the training, but we also ask--
particularly useful in doing this, in asking for this back, is
our website, where folks can tell us what they need more of or
what needs to be done just a little bit better. And because we
are in the first spiral out there, they are able to actually
help tweak the system.
Senator Voinovich. So you have a paper method for employees
to get back to you, and they get feedback through e-mail.
General Gabreski. You bet.
Senator Voinovich. Do you get a lot of that from folks?
General Gabreski. Yes, sir, we do. Our employees are not
shy, and the one big takeaway in terms of not being shy that I
got last week is between the employees and the managers, they
are actively engaged in working their way through what each
group has to do to get this thing done properly.
Senator Voinovich. They are sort of excited about this,
aren't they?
General Gabreski. Actually, they are. They really are.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Secretary England, when are we
going to get to the unionized employees?
Mr. England. Senator, I expect to wait to see what happens
with the court case because----
Senator Voinovich. Does the court case preclude you from
doing pay-for-performance for unionized employees?
Mr. England. No, it does not. We can do that. But it does
get a little bit complicated because, you know, pay then gets
into the labor system, particularly if you have an issue or a
problem then it goes into labor relations. So it does make it
somewhat complicated.
Senator Voinovich. I hate to interrupt you, but would the
elimination of the step increases be something that might be
touchy?
Mr. England. I am not sure that is touchy. I will tell you
where I have been on this, and folks, sort of our senior group,
all agree with this, and that is, while the court case is going
on, we actually do not want to put our employees nor the union
employees in an uncomfortable position. There is really no rush
to do this. We have 66,000 people in Spiral 1.2. The court case
will be determined early next year. So why put people in a
difficult position?
Senator Voinovich. The point is that down the road is when
the unionized employees would be transitioned, in Spiral what?
Mr. England. One point three, or something.
Senator Voinovich. So you have time before that to get this
court case resolved and come back to us.
Mr. England. You are correct, sir.
Senator Voinovich. OK. If NSPS is implemented with the non-
unionized employees and the feedback is positive, that will be
the best thing to allay employees' fears. But I know there will
be some unhappy people. How successful you are with NSPS will
have a lot to do with whether it will continue under a new
administration. They may have a different point of view. That
is why what you are doing right now has got to be quality. If
you want to institutionalize NSPS, how well you do is going to
make the difference for the future of the program.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator.
I have no further questions for this panel, just a
concluding comment for this panel. Do you have additional
questions?
Senator Voinovich. I do.
Chairman Collins. Please feel free to proceed.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Secretary England, you
mentioned that you may need an extension of the date. What is
the relevance of that? I am not sure I understand the relevance
of it.
Mr. England. Senator, there is a sunset clause that we have
to have a certified system, and basically we have to have--as I
recall, the whole system has to be certified and in place by
the end of 2009.
Now, as you know, when we started the system, that sounded
like a long way down the road. But, also, we decided not to
have a calendar-driven system but an event-driven system. That
is, we were never going to move to the next phase--your recent
comments, make absolutely certain we are doing this right and
employees benefit from it, and we are confident as we go
forward. Plus the court case has been delaying because it has
been a bit disruptive to us.
So at the end of the day, it may be that we may--and,
again, I am not sure we will. We will wait and see where we are
next year, but we may end up asking for an extension.
Senator Voinovich. OK. What does the sunset mean?
Mr. England. We need to have a certified system of the
first, I believe, 300,000 people before we are allowed to go
forward. So it has to be certified before we can go beyond
300,000 people. That is the certification between ourselves and
OPM that----
Senator Voinovich. So when NSPS was authorized, it was
capped at 300,000 employees initially. You are saying you
cannot get to 300,000 because, first of all, it took longer to
develop the regulations, and I frankly think you took a lot of
time with them. That was good. You are just saying we need more
time because the whole system has been slowed down. Is that
right?
Mr. England. That could indeed be the case. Again, we will
decide, but we did not want you to be surprised if we came back
and talked to you about that next year.
Ms. Lacey. Let me add just a little bit here, sir. The
specific piece that sunsets, according to the current
legislation, pertains to our authority to change anything in
the labor relations world. That is the piece that we are most
concerned about because the anticipation was by then we would
have had several years of run time under a new LR system to
determine was it fair, was it credible, was it working, and if
it wasn't, it ought to----
Senator Voinovich. But you will not know because the court
case still is pending.
Ms. Lacey. Right.
Senator Voinovich. You might have to come back and ask for
an extension as to that portion of the law.
Mr. England. Right.
Senator Voinovich. OK. I want to get back again to the
issue of the training because when I was out and met with the
folks at Pearl Harbor, many of them said they were able to fold
training into the current budget. However, they were somewhat
concerned that when NSPS expands, they would not be able to
absorb the costs into their regular budget process.
Now, Mr. Secretary, you said that you were going to be
watching that? General, you have been doing this with your
regular budget, haven't you?
General Gabreski. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. You have been somehow doing it; there is
no question about it. We did total quality management in Ohio,
but we did ultimately have to get some more money for it.
What is your perspective on how you are going to be able to
handle that? Are you going to be able to handle the next Spiral
with the current budget, or are you going to need more
resources in order to do the job?
General Gabreski. Senator, we have already allocated in
fiscal year 2007 the funds that we need to continue into this
next spiral, and we don't currently see any problem at all,
just as the Secretary said.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Secretary, have you looked at the
budget for future years to see if they are going to need more
to get the job done?
Mr. England. Well, what happens is the services have a
certain allocation of money, and then they have to fit lots of
requirements in there, and this is one of the requirements. So
they prioritize and they juggle, and at the end of the day,
they make it fit. And our direction to them is you have to do
NSPS, it is important to the Department, and it gets done.
Senator Voinovich. Now, I want to make sure that the money
that you use for other training does not evaporate. We often
ask an agency to take on new responsibilities and then leave it
up to the agency to figure out how to fund the program.
Agencies then end up having things that really need to get done
but do not because the resources have been put into some other
area.
Mr. England. I would expect that we are like all other
agencies, and we do not have extra money. There are always more
things you can do. The demand is always greater than the money.
That is just the nature of every organization. But like the
nature of every other organization, you prioritize what needs
to get done, and you decide that this is one of those things we
need to do, it is important. Ultimately, we are all convinced
that we will be more efficient and more effective with NSPS, so
it is an investment. And we just need to invest now so we get
the benefit for our employees and for the organization later.
And our management team understands that, Senator, and that is
the path we are on.
Senator Voinovich. Well, General, we would like to get
feedback, and if I do not get it from you, I am going to be out
visiting your people, and I will get it from them. [Laughter.]
With NSPS in Ohio, I always like to get out and talk to the
folks that are involved. I think a couple of my staff members
were out at Wright-Patterson, weren't they?
General Gabreski. Yes, sir, just recently, in August.
Senator Voinovich. Good. Now, I was wondering, what is your
plan to deal with managers who find they do not want to be in
this new role? Have you run into that at all? If they do not
want to do it, have you decided what you are going to do?
Ms. Lacey. That would not be a surprise to us based on the
experience we had with all of the other demonstration programs
over the last 15 or 20 years. Truth be told, when people have
been put in senior leadership, senior management positions,
their job is to be a manager. We have changed the rules of the
game. We understand that. We have several places that have
already gone through the mock payout process, and managers have
said, ``I cannot handle this. I am the wrong person. This is
the wrong job for me,'' and their line management is working
with them to see about assigning them to other duties--which,
by the way, is much easier in NSPS than it would have been
otherwise--so that they can continue to make meaningful
contributions to the organizations.
Truth be told, though, we may not be able to find
equivalent senior-level positions, non-managerial positions for
every individual, but we----
Senator Voinovich. So you might have to say to somebody,
``I know you do not want to do this, but we do not have a
different job for you?''
Ms. Lacey. No. I think the answer would be, ``We do not
have a different job for you that is not a manager's job.'' We
would take the managerial duties away. We may not be able to
place them in their perfect job right away at their current
salary.
Senator Voinovich. But the point is that you expect that
might happen.
Ms. Lacey. We expect that might happen. In fact, it has
happened, and we have organizations that are working with line
managers as we speak.
I will also say, though, sir, that there are many folks
that have gone through this mock payout process, the mock pay
pool process, the training, and they have said, ``Now that I
get it, now that I have had the training, now that I have had
the conversations, it is not as scary to me today as it was
anticipating it 6 months ago.'' So that training and
retraining, which is built into our program, is very important
as well. A little bit of knowledge takes a lot of the fear
away.
Senator Voinovich. General, could you share with me how
long it is going to take for a manager to do a complete
performance evaluation?
General Gabreski. I would tell you that after I chatted
with the managers specifically out at Tinker, the fact that the
training, in conjunction with the pay pool, kind of completes
the cycle, just as Ms. Lacey said, that is really part and
parcel of their job as supervisors and managers. So in the
future, that will be part of their jobs. But now, as they are
doing the training, they are getting that comfort level. And I
would tell you it is not just the managers. It is the employees
in terms of getting feedback, which is something different than
they have had before, having to sit down face to face and
eyeball to eyeball----
Senator Voinovich. Do you have any idea of how long it
would probably take to conduct a performance appraisal?
For example, a manager sits down with an employee to
discuss the written performance appraisal. By the way, is that
going to be uniform throughout the system?
General Gabreski. Well, actually, the way it works is the
training that they have had and that we have been doing has
been going on for about a year and a half.
Senator Voinovich. But the document that you are going to
use, is that uniform throughout the system?
General Gabreski. Yes, it is.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. And have you gotten any feedback in
the training process as to whether people think that the format
is a good instrument to do the evaluation? Have you discussed
that one yet?
General Gabreski. We have both sides of the coin. Once they
get used to it and they are familiar with it and comfortable
with it, they are going, OK, now I get it. But as you go into
it, it is a little bit scary, but once you start doing it, it
is a matter of the training and the on-the-job training.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that is really
important is the instrument you are using. It is going to be
uniform, but does it really help get the job done? Is that
something you already had, or have you worked with a
consultant?
Ms. Lacey. Well, sir, if I can, let me answer that
question. This is built into the Defense Civilian Personnel
System tool that we currently have. We have a single integrated
database for all of our civilian personnel information in the
Department of Defense. That particular system has some
functionality in it for doing performance appraisals. It is
used in the private sector. It is an Oracle-based product that
we have modified to include the NSPS performance standard
system. And that is now available at the desktop to all
employees and supervisors as they transition into Spiral----
Senator Voinovich. So they can see it?
Ms. Lacey. They can see it. They can make modifications.
Senator Voinovich. And as you go through this, if somebody
feels there is something that needs to be changed, there are
ways to do that? It is really important that employees feel
comfortable that the tool that you are using is fair.
Ms. Lacey. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. It must capture the things that really
are necessary to do the job.
Ms. Lacey. In fact, I am actually changing the tool as we
speak. Based on the preliminary results from the mock payouts,
they said, ``We need more characters that we can put in our
self-assessments.'' So we are making that change so it will be
ready for the final payouts this fall.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mr. England. Senator, if I can make one comment, too, just
for clarity, because the objective is not to sit down at the
beginning with the employee and arrive at objectives and
criteria, then at the end of the year sit down again. The
objective is to work with the employee throughout the year so--
--
Senator Voinovich. Yes, but the point is you have to have
the employee involved at the beginning.
Mr. England. Right.
Senator Voinovich. A good performance evaluation is one
that you do not wait a year to do. As you go through the year,
people should hear constant feedback, so when it is the end of
the year, employees have a pretty good idea of how they are
doing.
Chairman Collins. It should not be a surprise.
Mr. England. That is my point.
Senator Voinovich. Good.
Chairman Collins. Exactly.
Mr. England. Exactly my point. By the end of the year----
Senator Voinovich. I am all for that.
Mr. England. Right.
Senator Voinovich. It is unfortunate Mr. Perkinson is not
here, and we ought to talk to him to see how he is looking at
the system.
One last thing, I really think it is important that you
spend a lot of time collecting feedback from folks about
whether or not they think NSPS is fair or not. Some will not be
happy, but they need to know their supervisors are doing it
fairly, that it is not subjective. The biggest concern we are
going to hear from the unions is that this is arbitrary. How
are you going to guarantee that it is being implemented the way
it should be to deal with some concerns in that area?
Chairman Collins. Senator Voinovich, before the witnesses
respond to that excellent question, I am going to have to
leave, and so I am going to turn the hearing over to you.
Senator Voinovich. Well, this is the last question, but
thank you. Thanks for staying.
Chairman Collins. I will allow you to finish.
Senator Voinovich. If she had not been willing to hold this
hearing, you might not be here. [Laughter.]
Chairman Collins. I apologize to our witnesses. I am
involved in the negotiations on four bills right now that I am
trying to complete. And I hope you will keep my friend busy for
a long time because chemical security is one of those bills.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. And I want to talk to you about sunset.
Chairman Collins. I had a feeling that you did.
But I did want to place in the record the testimony of
Darryl Perkinson, the National President of the Federal
Managers Association, who has had an unexpected event arise
that precludes him from being here today.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Perkinson appears in the Appendix
on page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to close my comments by citing for the record his
conclusion. Mr. Perkinson says, ``Education and training are
easing many concerns and providing initial calm to anxious
managers and supervisors. Four and a half months into the new
system, this is encouraging, but we have a long way to go.'' I
really think that sums up so well where we are, and it also
indicates how absolutely critical that education and training
process is to not only ensure that people understand the new
system and implement it correctly, but also to ease those fears
and those anxieties.
I thought that Mr. Perkinson said it very well, and since
he is not here to say it for himself, I did want to say it
publicly on his behalf.
Again, I want to thank Senator Voinovich for all of his
work on this issue and thank all of our witnesses for being
here today. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich, the gavel is yours.
Senator Voinovich [presiding]. Thank you. Well, it is going
to be for one second.
The main thing is to make sure there is in place a
mechanism for employees to provide feedback. DOD must be able
to identify a potential problem area before it gets out of
control.
Thank you very much. We appreciate it and look forward to
seeing you after the first pay outs under NSPS.
Mr. England. Absolutely. Senator, thanks. We do appreciate
your personal involvement. You have indeed been very helpful to
this whole process, and we do thank you. It is greatly
appreciated.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the reason why I included the
quote from Schlesinger is I really believe that this is
fundamental to our national security. It really is.
Mr. England. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. Again, how well you do in the next 2
years is going to have a lot to do with whether or not this
program is going to be successful and become institutionalized.
That is a big challenge. I think from your perspective that it
may be the greatest contribution particularly, Mr. Secretary
and Director, that you can make to your country.
Mr. England. Absolutely. We agree. Senator, thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.044
<all>