|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 19, 2002; Noon EDT
The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Sunday through Friday in the Metro section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a staff writer covering the federal bureaucracy. He takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon EDT.
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.
The transcript follows.
Stephen Barr: Many thanks to all of you taking time to join us today. The Bush administration's homeland security reorganization plan has created a lot of interest--and anxiety--in the federal community. Last week, Brookings scholar Paul Light offered some of his views on the reorganization. Hopefully, a number of you will share your views and offer comments during today's discussion. I think this is an important issue and would appreciate feedback from all of you. Now, on to the questions.
Alternative Pay and Personnel System for DoD:
Stephen, I have been following the news carefully on the alternative pay and personnel systems that have been proposed for the TSA and Dept of Homeland Security. I am also aware that DoD has been lobbying the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to get the DoD civilian workforce out from under Title 5 and instead replace it with a pay and personnel system that is more flexible, agile, and adaptive for the environment today and the future. What do you know about the details of this and what do you think the chances are that Congress will go along? If Homeland Security and DoD were both given authority for alternative systems, that would seem to be a clear indication that the industrial-age regulations of Title 5 are wholly insufficient for today's federal workforce. Your thoughts?
Stephen Barr: Excellent points. And a lot to chew on.
I have not checked in some weeks, but it's my understanding that the Defense Department legislative proposal is pending. Basically, the Armed Services committees did not want to wrap it into this year's defense authorization bill without approval from Governmental Affairs. Interestingly, much of the Defense proposal mirrors work that has been done by Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio. He hopes to push a governmentwide bill that would improve federal hiring procedures and give entire agencies a chance to become a "demonstration project" for five to 10 years. That would give agencies frustrated with Title 5 an opportunity to find out what personnel and pay reforms work and which ones don't. Clearly, as you know, the TSA and new Homeland Security Department proposal are what Paul Light calls breakouts from Title 5. The question, as always, is whether Washington can show enough political will to alter the status quo. I always think inertia is Washington's most powerful force.
Virginia:
I spoke to a CIA friend and he said that most people in the new Homeland Security Department will need to have top-secret clearance. Most of the agencies to be shift have mostly personnel cleared at the secret level. More barrier.
Stephen Barr: Hard to say at this point. Interestingly, at a briefing yesterday by two government officials who asked not to be identified, this question came up in a slightly different way. The officials said that all the employees would have to undergo background checks, but provided no other details. I would suspect that some operating divisions of the new department will have more rigorous clearance standards than other parts. After all, a FEMA person providing disaster aid to victims can probably continue doing his job without a top-secret clearance. This proposed department, after all, will be a hodge-podge of missions and duties.
Arlington, Va.:
What I find very odd is how the administration developed its concept of the Homeland Security Department with no input from the people on the Hill, elected and staff, who I believe have far more expertise in government operations that the White House does. It is altogether probable that Bush will get what he wants and then have the darnedest time trying to get it to work.
Stephen Barr: Another excellent point. One observation: the administration wants to fast track this legislation and get the department in place for the start of 2003. So, yes, we'll just leave important details until later.
Rockville, Md.:
Making government work? Why is it so impossible to contact anyone in a federal agency if you want to ask a question? Websites may be helpful in some instances, but often it is necessary to talk to a human to get the information one requests. When you finally do find someone, because websites offer no phone numbers, it is often someone who can't help you or doesn't know what you're talking about. In fact, some websits have shut off access to information that used to be public. Why?
Stephen Barr: Not a clue, but I share your frustration. Part of my professional life includes bouncing through Internet sites for research, etc., and I find relatively few that include telephone numbers. Unfortunately, that's as true of private-sector Web sites as the government sites.
Maryland:
I am to start my new federal career on the 29th of July. When would my health benefits kick in?
Stephen Barr: Here's how the Office of Personnel Management puts it:
"Your enrollment begins on the first day of the pay period that begins after your human resources office receives your FEHBP enrollment request and that follows a pay period during any part of which you were in a pay status."
Clear as mud?
Be sure to check with your personnel office at the place you are joining to pin down the exact date. And good luck!
Arlington, Va.:
You mentioned a few weeks ago something about a bill to remove the cap on SES. Can you elaborate more? Seems to me that we need something along these lines with compression of salaries at the top rung. I understand that these significantly lower salaries (compared to the private sector) is what's stopping a lot of highly-qualified folks from entering into government service. Oh, and I don't buy the whole "lifestyle" difference adage. I've got friends in government that work longer and harder than their private sector counterparts!
Also, how does SES pay and political appointee pay compare to the President's? I often heard that those senior folks couldn't make more than the President. Makes sense, yet the President got a raise that nearly doubled some years ago and the current senior management seems to be stuck. Will this change?
Stephen Barr: Check out my June 16 column, in the Federal Diary archives at washingtonpost.com, for an overview of the problem.
Rep. Tom Davis and Sen. John Warner, both Virginia Republicans, are working to raise the cap and provide some sort of base pay raise for members of the Senior Executive Service. But they are not getting much traction among their colleagues.
There was some hope that when the president's salary got doubled--to $400,000--that lawmakers would adjust executive and judicial pay upward. But it hasn't happened, and I think lawmakers are reluctant to tackle the issue because they fear getting accused of trying to give themselves a pay raise. Federal district judges make $150,000; senior executives max out at $138,200. Not near the president's pay, and far below what many could earn in law firms or at big corporations.
Arlington, Va.:
Could you bring on a guest who knows about security clearances? They seem to be necessary to get the job but totally unnecessary to do the job. Thanks.
Stephen Barr: A good idea. I'll start looking for an expert willing to field questions in a public forum. Thanks for the suggestion.
Arlington, Va.:
Speaking of getting information, one of the glories of Washington used to be the ability to walk into a Federal building, go to an office or two, and find out something about a subject that the agency was expert in. I remember going into State and being given all sorts of reports that helped with term papers. Now, even non-essential agencies such as Education are so heavy in security that it is virtually impossible to get past the contract guards to find out about, say, vocational education.
Stephen Barr: You're right about walking in the door. The good old days when a reporter could walk in and cruise the hallways are over, too. Some agencies also have eliminated their publications and library divisions. Much of the information has been posted on the Web, but not all. And sometimes when Web sites are scrubbed, valuable material gets lost forever.
As they say, it's a brave new world.
Southwest, Washington, D.C.:
Your column today said that the proposal for the Homeland Security Department cause employees to "lose their right to form and join unions." Is there something specific in the proposed law requiring this move, or is this an assumption being made by members of the Bush administration after the "flexibility" in department personnel rules are established?
Stephen Barr: The proposed legislation gives the secretary of Homeland Security and the OPM director broad power to set pay, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. The briefers said the issue of union rights would be opened up for debate after a transition period, probably one year. The language is similar to what the TSA undersecretary was given last year, and the White House has not decided on whether TSA screeners will have union rights. So, to some extent, we're making assumptions here.
Arlington, Va.:
I just applied for an attorney position with an agency that will be swept into the new Dept. of Homeland Security. Is there any word of a hiring freeze with those agencies until the new department is created?
Stephen Barr: Have not heard that. Briefers yesterday said the new department would not lay off employees, and one said the department will need all of its employees. Given the new mangement layers that are coming, I would think they will be hiring.
Vienna, Va.:
Do you see a growing demand for techies (engineers and computer types) in the federal government? Or do you think these occupations will give way to more and more outsourcing?
Stephen Barr: Both. Agencies are trying to sort this out and find the right balance, but there will be a strong need for in-house and contract tech experts--especially those that can help agencies "talk" to each other and "connect the dots."
Washington, D.C.:
Stephen, with all of the focus on security in the government these days, do you know if there is a push to have Federal employee security clearances re-done, outside of the normal five year renewal cycle?
Stephen Barr: Have not heard that either, but Defense and a few other agencies are struggling to keep up with their workload (and backlog). Many job applicants find security clearances slow their entry into federal service. Yesterday, at a committee hearing, some lawmakers were asking OPM for more data on the private firm that conducts background checks on rank-and-file employees. As you suggest, there's new interest in all this, but I'm clueless as to where it will end up.
Washington, D.C.:
Hi Stephen,
Could you tell us more about the FEC and
their plans to strictly enforce campaign
finance laws?
When I first heard what Congress passed
(a law that did little more than double the
amount people could give), I figured we
the people were doomed.
But a ray of light is shining through -- the
FEC may actually get tough and maybe,
just maybe, we can start to get money out
of politics.
Should I keep my fingers crossed?
Stephen Barr: No. As long as the FEC is split evenly among Democrats and Republicans, I fear no meaningful enforcement of campaign laws will take place. But that's my uninformed opinion; try to catch David Broder, Dan Balz, or another Post political reporter on this site and put the question to them.
Rockville, Md.:
I'm a fed, my husband is a contractor for the feds. How does this cut down on the size of government? Also, it may be easier to fire a contractor, but sometimes the government managers are downright capricious (fire so-and-so, he came in 10 minutes late) and hold the contractors to an impossible standard (perfection) that they themselves cannot hold government employees to, or themselves.
Not that they should. But I sometimes wonder if they don't manage vicariously through the contractors simply because it's easier to get rid of marginal or reward good ones vs. government employees (hard to fire or reward).
Your thoughts on the matter would be very interesting.
Stephen Barr: Good question. We don't really cut down the size of government through outsourcing. Some GAO reports suggest that agencies do save money through contracting, but this is a very contentious area with few reliable data sources.
But your other point seems on target to me. A number of federal managers have told me they would rather work with contract employees because its easier to change personnel, if someone fails to perform, and to reorganize the work. Unions, of course, point out that too many contractors are given latitude to do as they please and run up costs.
Regardless, it seems to me that large organizations, in and out of government, are moving toward contract and temp employees because it is an easy way to react to shifting demands and markets.
What we know little about, I fear, are the trade offs, especially in the area of quality and fairness.
Gaithersburg, Md.:
Good afternoon! I'm a previous federal employee, now working for a non-profit but looking to return to federal service. My question is, how can I tell which job announcements are "real," and which are just being posted because they have to be posted? I usually won't consider applying if the application period is short, two or three weeks, or if the KSA's seem very specific, i.e., things that only someone currently working at the agency would know.
Lately I've seen announcements with long open periods, but very specific KSA's, which has me confused. Also, some announcements say "Merit Promotion Announcement" -- are those intended for internal applicants?
Answering KSA's is pretty time-consuming, so I'd like to focus my efforts on positions that are really open. I'm in a fairly specialized field, if that makes a difference.
Thank you for any insight you can offer!
Stephen Barr: KSAs are time consuming and disliked by many job applicants. You might check previous Diary Live discussion pages to hear what Kathy Troutman and others think of KSAs.
Some research data suggests that agencies prefer to hire and promote from the inside, so that makes it tough for an outsider to apply and get meaningful feedback. There are always jobs that are wired. In general, watch out for phrases like "status only," which means the job is restricted to someone with current civil service status. A merit promotion announcement likely will give someone on the inside the right to the position without undergoing competition.
And you have figured out a crucial part--if the KSAs are very specific, it's probably a sign that the agency is looking in-house.
Anyone out there with some advice or insights?
Northern Virginia:
As a comment to your answer to the question posed by SW, Washington, D.C.: There is an additional assumption that all employees would vote to form a union. I work for one of the agencies to be "assimilated" by Homeland Defense and are subject to existing union rules. Being of the IT community trying to field new systems or upgrades and witnessing how the union's influence can dely and sometimes stop progress, I can appreciate the idea of a non-union dept. I also don't expect the Administration to implement a change like this in an open and collabrative manner.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for making that point.
This area will be interesting to watch. The administration plans to move the unions and their collective bargaining agreements over to the new department, then open the issue of union rights up after a year or so of transition time. Unions may be hard pressed to maintain existing pacts if the administration feels it must shift people around quickly on borders, at airports and in other places. Then, as you note, there will be the question of pulling all the technology together and upgrading systems.
This new department could be one of the toughest management tasks in recent history. Will employees engulfed in the reorganization opt to retire earlier than they would have? All sorts of moving parts here.
Stephen Barr: Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks to all of you who took time to participate or to read this transcript. See you at noon next Wednesday!
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
