Civil Service Reform

Civil Service Reform
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A20
LIKE MOTHERHOOD or apple pie, "performance-based pay" -- the concept that ostensibly lies at the heart of the civil service reform unveiled at the Department of Homeland Security last week -- is something everybody loves. That better employees should be paid more; that managers should be able to fire the incompetent; that the federal government should offer pay that at least competes with the private sector; that our civil service should be more flexible in the post-Sept. 11 world: None of that is controversial. What is controversial -- and what could be extremely damaging, if not carefully monitored -- are some of the reform's other effects, intended or otherwise.
We have three areas of doubt. The first concerns potential problems with the "performance-based" system itself. At the moment, the vast majority of federal employees are graded either on a five-point scale, from "unsatisfactory" to "outstanding," or on a "pass-fail" criterion that offers no precise definition of "good performance." The vast majority of government managers have no experience making more sophisticated evaluations. Training managers will take an enormous amount of time and money, both of which the government is notoriously stingy about committing. Although DHS's published regulatory schedule calls for some of its employees to be subject to the new system as soon as next fall, no criteria have been published, and no pilot program has been launched. Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution, an advocate of civil service reform, calls the current timetable "wildly optimistic."
Without clear performance criteria and management training, civil service "reform" could slide into civil service politicization: To put it bluntly, if managers can get rid of people whom they perceive as politically unsound simply by handing out bad evaluations, it won't be long before civil servants cease to be politically neutral. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management argue vociferously that the new system contains all of the same protections against politicization as does the old. But the new regulations do reduce the power of some neutral arbitrators. They also appear to raise the standard for employee appeals, which will make it harder to get a disciplinary decision overturned.
Finally, and most worrisomely, the new system appears to undermine government trade unions in ways that are hard to justify. The government already has the ability to bypass unions -- and in particular their right to negotiate working conditions -- in case of a national emergency. Now administration spokesmen argue that they may also need to bypass unions in case of potential emergencies, or simply because they need flexibility. John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, calls this claim "disingenuous" and argues that the changes simply use homeland security as an excuse to "remove employees' rights in a much broader area." It would be nice to believe the administration's fervent denials of a plot to destroy the mostly Democratic unions. But before we do, we'd like to see some clearer arguments from the administration about what the elimination of union bargaining has to do with either the nation's safety or civil service performance.
Before these proposals go further -- the Defense Department is preparing similar reform -- Congress ought to look more closely. Lawmakers should consider legislation that sets broad parameters for performance criteria, an appeals process that preserves civil service neutrality and union involvement. These changes are potentially too political to be left to the managers directly involved.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Homeland Security Policies To Bring Big Changes
By Stephen BarrSunday, January 30, 2005; Page C02
It looks like federal employees are about to take a ride on the reform roller coaster.
The Department of Homeland Security has nailed down its policies for a new personnel system that will markedly change the way 110,000 civil service employees are paid, promoted, deployed and disciplined. The system will launch this spring, with curbs on union rights and a tighter process for appealing disciplinary action. There will be dramatic changes in how employees are rated on job performance, starting with about 10,000 employees later this year, and gradually phasing in more.
The Defense Department selected 60,000 employees last month for the first phase of its new personnel system -- which will eventually cover 300,000 employees -- and hopes to announce proposed rules in the next few weeks. The Pentagon estimates that revamped pay and workplace rules will be in place by 2008, affecting all of the department's 746,000 civil service employees.
Shortly after Homeland Security unveiled its new personnel system, PresidentBush's administration said it will propose legislation to give other agencies the ability to restructure their pay, personnel, labor relations and related systems.
It's probably safe to say that 2005 is shaping up as one of the most dramatic years for changes in civil service policy since 1978, when Congress approved the Civil Service Reform Act.
That law locked in the 15-grade General Schedule for pay, encouraged bonuses to reward good performance and created agencies to administer personnel rules, hear labor-management disputes and provide due process for employees faced with discipline or management reprisal.
Although Homeland Security and Defense pledge to retain employee protections and continue to give veterans a preference in hiring, it seems clear that major parts of the civil service framework, only 27 years old, will soon be dismantled and rebuilt.
For example, Homeland Security will phase out the General Schedule and the annual raise approved by Congress. Recommendations on pay raises will come from a Compensation Committee, made up of 14 members, with four seats reserved for unions. Final decisions on pay will be made by the secretary.
The General Schedule will be replaced with a pay system based on occupation, national and local labor markets and job performance.
The GS grades will be converted into "pay bands," which have wider salary ranges than the GS provides. Salaries in the bands will vary by occupation and by labor market, potentially allowing the department to pay more to a Border Patrol agent in Southern California, which has a competitive job market, than an agent working on Montana's border with Canada.
The pay bands will likely group occupations into common categories -- such as new hires, full performance employees, senior experts and supervisors.
Most Homeland Security employees will receive two annual pay adjustments -- a market adjustment, which keeps them on a par with similar jobs in the private sector and GS increases, and a performance raise, which will vary in size according to job rating. Employees who are turning in unacceptable performance at work will not receive any annual pay increases.
The department also will create a Homeland Security Labor Relations Board, with three members appointed by the secretary, to sort out union and management disagreements. The department will establish a separate panel to hear cases of employees who are being fired because of serious infractions and gross violations of duty.
Under the current system, unions take their complaints to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and employees turn to the Merit Systems Protection Board when appealing stiff disciplinary actions. The two independent agencies will continue to handle some Homeland Security matters, but on a diminished and more expedited basis.
The department has worked on the regulations for the new system for two years, sparking employee complaints that the framework for the new system is too vague, too difficult to understand and looks open to abuse by managers.
The employees are not far off point. Department officials say much work remains ahead -- such as defining occupational clusters, setting up pay bands, establishing rigorous job performance standards and figuring out what should be mandatory firing offenses.