|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2002; Noon EST
What are the prospects for changes in civil service law this year? Will Congress revamp federal hiring and permit agencies to experiment with "alternative personnel systems" and "demonstration projects?" What role will nonprofits and think tanks play in this debate?
Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, joined Federal Diary columnist Stephen Barr at noon Jan. 30 to take your questions and listen to your ideas on how to encourage Americans to choose federal service for some or all of their careers and what the government should do to retain its best employees.
The Partnership for Public Service, founded by Samuel J. Heyman, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with a five-year budget of $25 million. It hopes to revitalize public service through an aggressive campaign of
public-private partnerships, research and educational efforts, and a legislative reform agenda.
Stier has worked in all three branches of the government. He has served on the personal staff of Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and worked as a lawyer at the departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development. He is a graduate of the Stanford Law School.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Stephen Barr:
Many thanks to all of you for joining us today, especially our guest, Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington.
To get things rolling, I'd like to ask Max to outline the Partnership's activities and then follow that with some thoughts on the president's State of the Union message, especially his plans for increased investments in homeland security and how that links to the "human capital crisis" facing numerous federal agencies.
Again, Max, thanks for making time for us today.
Max Stier: Steve, thank you for your hospitality today and for your thoughtful coverage of federal workforce issues.
You did a terrific job summarizing the Partnership's plans in your column two days ago, but I will give a brief synopsis of who we are and our activities.
The Partnership for Public Service is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to revitalizing the public service. Through an aggressive campaign of public-private partnerships, focused research and educational efforts, and legislative advocacy, the Partnership hopes to encourage qualified men and women to choose federal service for some or all of their careers and make it possible for government to retain high-achieving federal employees.
Some of the activities we are pursuing include:
• Speakers Bureau: The Partnership is building a comprehensive database to match current federal employees who would serve as compelling spokespersons with organizations looking for speakers. The Partnership has spread the word about this initiative through postings on our Web site, a call for speakers in our newsletter, placing stories about the speakers bureau with various media outlets around the country, and calls to Federal Executive Boards nationwide. The response so far has been quite strong as federal workers have written, called or emailed the Partnership to offer their services. The speakers bureau will serve primarily as support for the Partnership’s colleges and universities initiative. The speakers bureau volunteers will also serve as a resource for reporters who want to tell positive “people stories” about working in the federal government. Interested government workers should send emails to mmasters@ourpublicservice.org.
• College and Universities Initiative: The Partnership is working with colleges and universities to promote public service on college campuses. The initiative will include events on campuses to educate students about opportunities in federal service and pledges from academic leaders to encourage students to consider public service for at least a part of their careers. OPM is joining the Partnership in this endeavor.
• Federal Innovators Working Group: The Partnership has established a working group of human resources managers at federal agencies, which convenes once a month with the Partnership serving as moderator. The meetings allow federal experts to learn from each other and identify new ways to address human capital challenges within government.
The Partnership is also pursuing a legislative reform agenda to address outdated laws that keep the government from attracting and retaining highly skilled employees, and to implement management practices that enable the government to compete effectively with the private sector.
Chief Human Capital Officer Act: In the 1990s, Congress enacted the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Chief Information Officers Act, which were designed to ensure coordination and discipline in fiscal and information management throughout the federal government. The Partnership proposes to build on these acts with passage of a “Chief Human Capital Officer Act” to elevate human capital management to a similar position of prominence in all federal agencies and to align government personnel practices with the best practices of the private sector. The Act would require all agencies to designate a Chief Human Capital Officer who would be responsible for planning and implementing programs to improve workforce management. It would establish an inter-agency Human Capital Officers Council to provide government-wide leadership in implementing management reforms. The Act would also require the government to develop state-of-the-art performance measures like those used in leading private sector companies, but adapted to the special circumstances of government agencies. Under the Act, all federal agencies would report annually to Congress using these standardized measures.
Tax Free Status for Federal Loan Forgiveness Benefit: Under current tax law, when educational institutions forgive student loan debt owed by their graduates there is no tax due on the amount forgiven if the graduate is employed by government or a non-profit organization. However, if the federal government forgives any federal student loan debt to graduates who join the workforce, the amount forgiven is taxed as additional income, thus reducing the effectiveness of this crucially important recruiting tool. The Partnership is championing legislation to eliminate this disparity so that students choosing public service in or out of the government will be treated equally.
Steve, you also asked about our response to the President's State of the Union speech. Clearly, it was a great speech.
The President’s call for increased volunteerism last night was the right message at the right time, but volunteering is only one way to serve - as our 1.8 million dedicated federal workers prove every day.
The President has already shown leadership in federal workforce issues, proposing legislative management reforms that could significantly change the federal workplace for the better. With over half of all federal employees eligible to retire in the next five years, opportunities for government service will grow dramatically.
The question is not simply a matter of filling jobs, but of filling them with the right people. As the blue-ribbon Commission for National Security/21st Century presciently warned before September 11th, our national security is threatened by a ‘crisis of competence’ in the federal workforce. The President’s plans to increase investments in homeland security must include effective recruitment and retention policies that will ensure government becomes the employer of choice for top-tier talent.
Very long answer, but a big question.
Washington, D.C.:
I am the Director of HR for a small federal agency. I have seen many studies over the years that propose "innovative solutions" to hiring and pay problems, but the studies come out, and then what? Everyone who has been in federal government sees that this needs to be fixed, but legislative changes are required, and there is a reluctance to even approach this. So we see "flexibilities" such as student loan repayments, retention bonuses, etc., but many of these are not viable in agencies with limited funding. How will your studies be different from what we have seen in the past?
Max Stier: You have put your finger on a number of very important issues. The "human capital crisis" is really a collection of interrelated problems that are going to need a variety of solutions. Research and studies are clearly important, but, as you suggest, we already know enough to make a variety of positive changes. For example, existing tools and flexibilities such as student loan repayment authority need to be better funded. Many agencies have engaged in innovative practices that should be shared more broadly in the federal government. We need to move on what we know now, and the Partnership is committed to getting things done.
I would be also be very interested in any specific thoughts you might have about how the Partnership might be able to help you.
Annandale, Va.:
I think anything that can be done to foster and reward excellence and innovation will encourage smart, creative people to consider government employment as a viable alternative to private sector employment. I think a good contra example of this is the current uproar over the IRS's plans to develop electronic tax filing systems. All of a sudden, a lot of people who preach that "government should act more like a business" are afraid that the IRS will do just that by developing a useful product. Of course, what the IRS is doing is simply trying to fulfill its mission more effectively. If we tell people that they must limit their vision and creativity when they work for the government, we will always be fighting an uphill battle to attract the best and brightest talent.
Max Stier: I have to agree that the public benefits more from IRS-administered tax filing systems rather than from fee-based private systems, but the opportunity to grapple with policy disputes over these kinds of issues are what make many federal jobs qualitatively different from jobs in the private sector. IRS has done a lot to improve customer service over the past few years and they recently scored higher than the private sector on several measures on a customer satisfaction survey. I think IRS employees have been gratified by that kind of recognition. Not surprisingly, a lot of those good results came about after the IRS revamped its performance appraisal and compensation systems to try to recognize good performance. There are important lessons there for the rest of the government
Arlington, Va.:
How much do you think the "anti-government" "anti-Washington" rhetoric that Ronald Reagan made famous has to do with people not wanting to enter public service? Recently, a prominent politician promised, without really saying why, to eliminate "middle management" from the federal government. Don't you think resepect for public servants has to start with their own bosses?
Max Stier: There is no question but that past rhetoric from political leaders attacking public servants has done a disservice to our country. I am hopeful that the tide has turned with the events of September 11 as it has become more clear to Americans that our public servants are performing a critical role for our country. We need to make sure that this positive message is reinforced. We need help not only from our political leaders but all of our leaders.
Sacramento, Calif.:
Max, do you think that contracting out federal hiring to a company or organization could solve the problems with the current process? Do you think Congress would approve this?
Max Stier: Some contracting out has already been done with the paper-handling side of hr, but the real trick is to get agencies to incorporate recruitment and retention into their overall strategic plans. I don’t think you can contract out that kind of thoughtful planning.
Chicago, Ill.:
How does your organization expect to make any progress with a Republican administration? Won't they argue that smaller government is better?
Max Stier: Actually, the Bush administration has been very supportive because they have emphasized the importance of improving the management of government. We are for bigger government or smaller government, just smarter government. However, as you heard President Bush say last night, we will need to devote additional resources to our security needs and that includes hiring new people. The challenge is to make sure you hire the right people and that you can keep them. The Bush administration recognizes the importance of this task.
Washington, D.C.:
Most of the partnership's efforts seem directed toward the executive branch. Do you plan any projects that address the retention of congressional staff?
Max Stier: We are focused on the executive branch, and there is clearly quite a bit to do in that arena. The Stennis Center on Public Service is working on similar issues with the legislative branch and we hope to be able to combine forces with the folk there on issues of mutual concern.
Clifton, Va.:
If we modify the way we hire government employees, how can we ensure that cronyism and nepotism don't rule? That is part of the reason for the arcane hiring system. Also lawyers are to blame for making the system more cumbersome.
Max Stier: There are many changes that can be made to the present hiring system without abandoning the principle that hires should be merit-based. In fact, under the current system, too many job openings are restricted to current government employees which increases the chances for favoritism or non-merit based decisions. The best guards against abuse of the process are assessment tools that make sense for the job you are trying to fill and strict insistence on performance thereafter. As a lawyer myself, I have a conflict of interest in defending the entire profession (quite a job!), but I will say that the vast majority of challenges to adverse employment actions are NOT upheld. That’s not to say that the system could not be improved, but management decisions are generally upheld by the courts.
Washington, D.C.:
Max, this sounds like a terrific initiative! My question is: How will your new organization relate to the existing Presidential Management Internship program, which seems to be based on many similar goals and ideals and which would be recruiting from similar talent pools? Thanks in advance for your answer!
Max Stier: Thank you for the nice comment. The Presidential Management Internship program is a terrific program run out of OPM and it is the kind of program that we believe should be supported and encouraged. More however needs to be done both on the recuitment and retention ends in order to address the talent needs of the government. The PMI program right now brings in approximately 400 new federal employees a year -- the federal government has much larger talent needs both at the entry-level (addressed by the PMI program) and at the mid-career level. There are lots of talented workers in the labor market who would be attracted to federal jobs if they knew about them and the system for bringing them into the government was improved.
Arlington, Va.:
Mr. Stier, In Monday's "Federal Diary," Stephen focused on the push to promote telework within the federal workforce. What role, if any, do you think telework has in recruiting and retaining federal employees?
Max Stier: Our research shows that workplace benefits like flexible schedules and telecommuting are increasingly important to the next generation of job seekers. The federal government has got to pay attention to the tastes and preferences of its target recruitment audiences so I think it is very important. OPM Director Kay Coles James, by the way, has been quite forceful in her advocacy on telecommuting and I think you will see it increase across the government. What we would like to see as well is careful attention to measuring the way that increased telecommuting helps to improve recruitment and retention. Nothing helps spread a good practice like empirical evidence that it works.
Cottage Grove, Ore.:
How do we encourage Americans to apply for federal service? We could start by streamlining the hiring process! For private-sector jobs in my field, timelines run from 2 weeks to about 30 days from advertising the opening to filling the position. For other government agencies (state, county, local) the timeframe is 3 to 6 weeks. The same job with federal agencies takes at least 3 months to fill, and applicants often don't even hear back from personnel on classification or hiring results. The hiring process is obviously cumbersome and too time-consuming for the federal personnel staffers, but it's even more cumbersome and time-consuming for the job seeker.
Max Stier: I couldn’t agree more. Length and difficulty of the hiring process is one of the major negative perceptions that young people have about the federal government as an employer. There is plenty of blame to go around. Agency heads frequently impose hiring freezes that slow things down and complying with legal requirements about how applications should be reviewed and ranked also takes up time. In addition, for many jobs, completing a required security clearance investigation can be a tough job for an already overburdened FBI. Sen Thompson had a series of hearings last year examining the different pieces of this issue and we are pursing partnerships with agencies that are interested in analyzing exactly what causes these delays and taking steps to minimize them. In the meantime, we are advocating that the entire government keep better records of their “time to hire” because once you measure it, you have the tools to change it.
Miami, Fla.:
Why are not all jobs open to the America public? We had an excellent attorney leave our agency one ago because of a family situation. She had more than three years of federal service and would like to return now but cannot because all the attorney openings posted are limited to agency attorneys. They are not even open to government-wide competition. If you want the best people, you must open up the areas of consideration to those outside a particular agency and outside the government.
Max Stier: The federal personnel system too readily assumes that jobs at higher levels of pay and seniority can only be filled by current government employees. If you look at the number overall, it is really clear that government increasingly becomes closed to outsiders at the upper ranks. We are preparing a proposal right now to the Executive Session being sponsored by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University on several steps that could be taken to open up government jobs to people outside of government who are in the middle of their careers or even to people who are starting a second career. Targeted fellowships modeled after the Presidential Management Intern program are one idea. This issue is incredibly important because of the impending retirement of large sections of the senior executive service – 70% will reach retirement eligibility within the next five years. Government has got to turn to every available resource to replace this departing talent.
Burke, Va.:
Some quick pointers on what Uncle Sam can do to recruit and retain younger employees:
1. Get responsibility to employees as early as possible. I don't mean the high flyers like the PMI's but the rank and file. Whether this is through rapid promotion or reallocation of duties.
2. Make the pay close enough to the private sector that our superior bennies merit a second look. Two years ago, the pay difference between a fresh out of college computer geek at one of the big contractors and Uncle Sam was over $10K. That's serious money for a kid right out of school with loans to pay off and a household to set up.
3. Create an active, aggressive recruiting program. If we can convince thousands of young Americans to enlist in the military every year, surely we can do the same for the civil service.
4. Stop touting programs like the recruitment/retention bonus if you aren't going to allocate money for them in the budget. With agency budgets tighter than ever, relying on them to find money in their budget simply won't work!
Max Stier: These are good thoughts. Thank you.
Alexandria, Va.:
Mr. Stier, in my experience (lots of years in the federal personnel business) one of the most stubborn obstacles to using HR flexibilities is internal agency management, either at the headquarters or bureau level. Agency cultures can be awfully conservative and fearful of trying new things. They fear not treating everyone exactly the same, they dread administering new programs, etc. Easier to do things the way they always have. Are any of your thinkers thinking about the problems with agency cultures?
Max Stier: I agree that agency culture matters a great deal and any significant change that is going to occur is going to require buy-in from those that are affected -- federal employees. The Partnership is lucky to have several employees with strong HR experience and talent, and we hope to be able to work with agencies to promote a work culture that supports high performance and innovation. These kind of changes take time but they are possible and are very much worth the effort.
Fairfax, Va.:
Does the Partnership for Public Service have any Hispanics on its board of directors? Does the Partnership have any Hispanics in key staff positions? As you know, Hispanics continue to be the only minority group that is significantly underrepresented in the federal sector, and the federal government must take some meaningful steps to correct this inequity.
Max Stier: Diversity is one of the great strengths of the current federal workforce, but more clearly needs to be done. One of the great opportunities that will arise from the big hiring needs that are in the offing is the chance to improve representation in dozens of occupational categories for women and minority groups, including Hispanics. We are pleased to have Luis Caldera, former Secretary of the Army, serving on our Board of Governors, but we have numerous other members of both our Board of Governors and Board of Directors who are deeply committed to the value of diversity.
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Stier, Where do you stand on the use of college loan repayment benefits as a retention tool (essentially rewarding current/past service) vs. as a recruiting tool (new feds only)? The statute (1990) and regulations (2001) make it clear that good current feds can be rewarded via these benefits. Most "good government" gurus, however, seem to favor recruitment, even though all the evidence is in the other direction. For example, several service-type loan forgiveness programs are currently included in the Higher Education Act. They both reward past service and encourage future service. These programs, developed through a lengthy process of statute and regulation, received significant and vocal input from the community. The community, in fact, wanted almost all the benefits to go to past service! Given an environment of tight agency budgets for employee benefits (travel, training, awards, etc.), it seems be be a harsh blow to feds' morale to devote loan repayment funds to recruitment.
Max Stier: Recruitment and retention are two sides to the same coin, and the federal government needs to pursue policies that promote excellence in both. Our focus needs to be on ensuring we have the highest quality federal workforce possible and that will only occur if the federal government properly supports its existing talent and also works hard to make potential federal workers aware of the opportunities in government. It is penny wise and pound foolish not to invest in both areas.
Washington, D.C.:
Max -- I don't recognize any of the people on your Board, or you or Kevin, as being career merit system civil servants. Very bright, able people all, but don't you think that the policy-making functions of your organization would benefit from having active or retired career, merit system civil servants actually participating in the making of policy, and sharing their perspectives with the others responsible for that?
Max Stier: I couldn’t agree more. In point of fact, our Exec VP was a career attorney in the Department of Justice for nearly a decade, our VP for research, John Palguta, is a 34-year career civil service veteran and Joan Timoney, our VP for Programs, was a career employee at the Peace Corps. In addition, Colleen Kelly of the NTEU, which represents thousands of career civil servants, serves on our Board of Governors as do representatives of other federal employee groups. These collective perspectives from “inside” the federal government have been invaluable to us as we chart our course.
Washington, D.C.:
Hiring the best people is a total challenge under current regulations. Have you read OPM's delegated examining handbook? Or better yet, have you ever observed the process that a personnel specialist must go through to give a selecting official a list of candidates? My agency employs federal and nonfederal employees. We don't go through the process for nonfederal, and we get at least as good quality employees, in a fraction of the time. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but legislative change is required.
Max Stier: I’m not sure anyone has read the delegated examining handbook in its entirety and that is a problem – no one truly understands the entire system (except perhaps for our VP of Policy and Research John Palguta). We have seen very promising demonstration projects with innovations like category ranking that free agencies from the Rule of Three that requires managers to only select from the top three candidates from a list of otherwise highly qualified candidates. These demonstration projects allow managers greater flexibility while also protecting veterans preference and preserving other merit-based values that are important to the system. They deserve to be tried on a broader scale.
Stephen Barr:
Max, we're running out of time today and we have dozens of questions still streaming in. But I wanted to ask you to sort of sum up this discussion by giving us a sense of your vision of "human capital" for the future. Hope that makes sense.
Max Stier: Thank you again, Steve, for the opportunity to hear questions from your readers and to share some ideas from the Partnership for Public Service. Let me take one last stab at summarizing the Partnership's mission and vision.
The Partnership’s mission, simply put, is to recruit and retain excellence in the federal workforce. The “recruitment” side of the mission describes the organization’s ambitions to change public perceptions of government employment and to improve both government outreach and its hiring and selection processes. The “retention” side of the mission acknowledges that the task involves more than salesmanship: substantive changes are needed to improve strategic workforce planning and the quality of the federal employment experience.
This statement of the Partnership’s mission points toward it’s larger goals: a federal workforce that enjoys the support and respect of the public at large for their role in the delivery of quality government services, that derives personal satisfaction from working for the federal government, and that occupies positions regarded as desirable by talented and skilled workers at any stage in their career.
Everyone at the Partnership looks forward to trying to help make this vision a reality.
Many thanks again.
Stephen Barr:
Max, again, thanks for joining us, and a thanks to all of you who took time to send in comments and read the transcript. We'll be back at noon next Wednesday, and will try to focus on the president's new budget proposal and what it means for federal agencies, programs and employees. See you then.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
