|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2002; Noon ET
Is this the time for an overhaul of how the government hires and fires
employees? Does the Bush administration need additional flexibilities in
how it manages the federal workforce? What are we learning from the
congressional debate on how to create a new Department of Homeland
Security?
John M. Palguta, a vice president at the nonprofit Partnership for Public
Service, joins The Post's Stephen Barr, who writes the Federal Diary
column, to take your questions and comments on civil service issues at noon
Wednesday.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Palguta is the Partnership's Vice President for Policy and Research. His
34-year government career peaked with his appointment as Director of the
Office of Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
in June 1997. He previously served as Deputy Director. As Director, he
had overall responsibility for the Board's statutory mission to conduct
periodic studies of federal human resources management policies, programs,
and procedures to determine if they were operating in accord with statutory
merit systems principles and were achieving their intended purposes.
Reports from those studies were directed to the President and the Congress.
Palguta was a career member of the Senior Executive Service. Palguta joined
the Board in December 1979. Prior to joining MSPB, he was a branch chief
in the personnel office of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
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. Our guest is John Palguta, a longtime expert in federal personnel issues.
John, I'd like to get the discussion rolling today by asking you to outline the kind of work you do at the Partnership for Public Service. Then, after you've introduced yourself, please tell us what changes you would propose for Homeland Security and what you find unique about the ongoing debate around Washington.
A special thanks to you, John, for taking time out of your busy schedule to spend time with us.
John Palguta: Steve, thanks for inviting me. You do a great job keeping everyone informed about what’s going on in the federal government, particularly on workforce issues, and it’s a pleasure to be part of that effort today. Now, to answer your question:
I have the great good fortune in my “life after 34 years in government” to have found myself working with a terrific group of people dedicated to the same issues that I care about and worked on for so many years as a federal employee. The Partnership for Public Service (www.ourpublicservice.org) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to doing whatever we can to help the federal government recruit and retain highly qualified and motivated employees. As the vice president for policy and research, my job is to help make sure that there is sound data and analyses guiding the work of the Partnership. Everyone has an opinion, what the Partnership hopes to bring to the table is an informed opinion and a plan for action.
A quick bit of background on the Partnership might help: it was founded a little over a year ago by Samuel J. Heyman, who was himself a federal employee before he left government service in 1968 to take over his family’s business after the death of his father. Even though he left government, however, he never lost his appreciation for the fact that a healthy and vital public service is essential to the welfare of the nation and the effectiveness of the government—as the events last year on and after 9/11 clearly underscore.
More to the point, the Partnership is focused on the fact that good government depends upon good people yet the federal government is having considerable difficulty hiring and retaining the talented workers it so very much needs at a time when many of its most experienced and dedicated employees are retiring or otherwise getting ready to leave government. Since there are no single “magic bullet” solutions out there, the Partnership is pursuing a five-part strategy to help make a positive difference. That strategy includes legislative reform, practical research, a communications program to improve public understanding, partnering with federal agencies to improve the work environment, and an education and outreach program to attract quality applicants to public service. Anyone wanting to know more about us can get additional information on our website or by contacting us directly.
Now to your second question regarding the unfolding drama of Homeland Security:
It’s been really fascinating following the debate on the creation of a Department of Homeland Security unfold over these last several months for at least three reasons:
1. The civil service issues—which are usually not even on the radar screen—are at the core of the disagreements over the shape of the Homeland Security legislation. Not the technology, mission requirements, or financial systems, but the people issues. As someone who spent most of his federal career as an “HR professional” dealing with the people issues in government, I find this refreshing on one level but also disappointing that the disagreements are going unresolved for so long;
2. All the players involved actually want the same bottom-line result—a successful and effective Department of Homeland Security. No one wants the Department to fail, that’s simply not an option. The real disagreement appears to be over what workforce rules and flexibilities will work best; and
3. Some see huge differences in opinion on how much civil service flexibility there should in the new Department. Actually, I think the various players are much closer in what they want than many people realize. I’ve heard this described as an “old rules versus no rules” issue and I just don’t think that’s true. No one, for example, is suggesting that there should not be a merit-based system for hiring people into the new Department. Nor is anyone seriously suggesting that managers should be able to fire employees “at will” without some reasonable due process protections to ensure that the action is not being taken for arbitrary, partisan, or discriminatory reasons.
The real question is how much flexibility should there be. The Partnership has come down squarely in the middle on this issue. In a report we issued on July 31, “Homeland Security: Winning the War for Talent to Win the War on Terror,” we find that the challenges facing the new Department require something other than the status quo. However, we think there are a number of “tried and true” flexibilities out there such as "pay banding" that some agencies are successfully using under special authorities that might also work for Homeland Security.
Little Milton, Oxfordshire, England:
Is pay banding the single most important aspect of change needed for the improving the civil service? Should there be a mandatory pay banding approach or optional? Should the General Schedule be abolished to make the change happen?
Does leaving an option to continue as is really bring about change? Think of the dollar coin while the paper dollar remained. Alternately, think of the pound coin when they took away the one pound note.
John Palguta: Pay banding can work--as at least 15 federal organizations have demonstrated. However, it's not easy and certain conditions need to be in place for it to succeed. I would not make it mandatory but certainly an option.
It may be time to scrape the General Schedule system-it underpays some, overpays others, and doesn't reward the high performers. A White Paper on Pay by OPM this summer laid out the problems. Coming up with the alternatives is the tricky part.
San Jose, Calif.:
I think the area that's been lagging behind in reform in the firing of employees in all its methodologies, including the rediculously cumbersome RIF process. There's the perception that the government has a lot of "deadwood" and that's true because we can't easily get rid of them. They are dragging us all down and wasting taxpayers money. Why can't the government get a little closer to "at will" employment? Maybe not all the way to "at will", but a lot closer than we are now. In contrast, hiring has made tremendously helpful changes. I know firing is a problem because I've been an HR Specialist (generalist) for over 20 years in a high visibility agency.
John Palguta: It's not that's its impossible to fire federal employees--between 8,000 to 10,000 involuntary separations occur every year or about one employee every 15 minutes during the average work day. But that's out of a workforce of 1.8 million. I think all things considered, it is too difficult. Due process protections are very important and "at will" employment is not the way to go. But we do need to streamline the process and I think there are ways to do it.
Washington, D.C.:
In light of your opening remarks, do you think the highly politicized debate over homeland security has damaged the prospects for civil service reform? It seems we've just managed to lock everyone into the 1978 law, for better or worse.
John Palguta: It would be a shame if we lost the opportunity to make some needed changes in the federal civil service system via the vehicle of Homeland Security. It would be good for the Department and useful if extended to the rest of the executive branch. I'm an optimist, so let's hope the opportunity is not yet lost.
Arlington, Va:
It seems almost impossible to get hired. What happens when all of the older folks leave? Do we discover we didn't need them? I think it is imperative that someone do something to give the younger federal workers an incentive to hang on, since promotions were all taken up by those eligible to retire. Your view?
John Palguta: The aging federal workforce (70 percent of senior executives eligible to retire in 5 years and up to 50 percent of the rest of the workforce eligible in that time as well) is part of the "burning platform" facing the federal government. We very much need to use the flexiblities we have to hire high quality and high performing employees but also to hang on to the ones we have. We also need some new flexibilities that will require legislation.
Washington, D.C.:
Is there a fear that if the proposed "total flexibility" is granted the administration for Homeland Security, this could lead to similar systems across the federal government (further reducing the current civil service system)? Might implementation of a unique system also lead to every agency developing its own pay and merit system, meaning even less consistency across the government?
John Palguta: I don't think "one size fits all" in terms of the details of how our federal HR systems work so I'm not too bothered by significant flexiblities and variations among agencies. However, I think it also important to have a consistent set of fundamental merit principles that clearly underlies each system. We need a balance, not a single unified system but neither should it be "every agency for itself!"
Chicago, Ill.:
Mr. Palguta, what do you think of the use of outstanding scholar appointment authority? Should it be continued to help correct underrepresentation? Is it inappropriately used? A recent spate of MSPB decisions indicates problems with the use of the authority.
John Palguta: The problem with the outstanding scholar appointment authority by which folks can be hired based on a grade point average of 3.5 or better without further competition is 1) GPA alone is not a good predictor of job success, and 2) the authority exists because of a 21 year old consent decree that restricts how agencies can improve their hiring system. It's time for the consent decree to go. There are other better and faster ways to hire.
Arlington, Va.:
If pay banding and other flexible methods of rewarding employees is implemented, I believe there will have to be more checks on managers to ensure that rewards are in fact equitable. Bonuses and raises will have to be documented, and there should be some public acknowledgement of where you fall in the distribution (e.g. 10% got X, the next 10% got Y, etc.) You can't just give these guys a blank check.
John Palguta: Yes--giving managers more flexibility to influence an employees pay works if one has really good managers and a good performance tracking system and some money to actually distribute based on performance. Pay banding is not one of those magic bullets but, again, with the right conditions it can help.
Washington, D.C.:
Regarding the role of unions in the federal government, and given the issues raised in the Homeland Security debate, is it time to rewrite federal labor-management law? Thank you.
John Palguta: Well, we are cetainly seeing a huge amount of interest in the role of unions in the federal government and a wide variety of opinions about how that role should or should not change. I think a good starting point though is for folks to to back to the exisiting legislation put into place in 1978 regarding federal labor-management relations. I think some people are not aware of the current law. Under any scenario, however, it will be very important to involve employees at the ground level in helping to make Homeland Security work and I think employees and their unions want it to work. I'm not sure we need a new labor relations law to achieve that.
Washington, D.C.:
In the homeland debate, we see a lot of blame being cast at federal unions. But no one talks about the role of the federal manager. Are they up to the task? Do they need reform?
John Palguta: Yes, let's not forget the managers. The job of a federal manager (and I was one for more than half of my career) is one of the toughest ones around and I think the goverment has not done nearly enough to select good managers to start with and to develop and support them once they are selected. Bottom line, some managers are not up to the task and that needs to be addressed. We don't need reform to do that, just some real attention on the issue. Finally, please lets not forget about the really good federal managers who are out there doing a great job under difficult circumstances. They deserve our support and appreciation.
Somewhere USA:
What is pay banding?
John Palguta: A good question and I need to remember that not everyone is a former federal HR specialist. Rather than take up the rest of the chat with the details, may I suggest you take a look at our report on Homeland Security on our website--www.ourpublicservice.org or look at OPM's website at www.opm.gov and do a search for "paybanding." Very basically, however, it involves a small number of pay bands in place of a more rigid 1 to 15 grade structure and moverment within and among the bands is driving by one's performance to a larger degree than under the current system.
Washington, D.C.:
Thank you for answering questions. For those of us who are not "HR professionals," just exactly what "flexibilities" are we talking about? And who do HR types do these days?
John Palguta: Some of the other civil service flexibilities that would be helpful have to do with how we hire people. The government still uses, for example, a "rule of three" that dates back to 1871 that requires an agencies to rank all outside candidates for a job and identify from what could be a huge number the "top three" and those are the only ones a manager can consider. If there's a tie (and there often is) the tie is broken but a random number system that makes hiring a lottery situation in that case. Other flexiblities involve how we "shape" the workforce and the ability to use incentives to encourage employees with outdated skills to leave and yet still being able to hire folks with the needed skills, and so on. Again, our report on Homeland Security outlines some of those flexibilities.
Falls Church, Va.:
In your resonse to Chicago, you mentioned "there better and faster ways to hire." Can you elaborate on these better and faster ways?
John Palguta: See my reply to the previous question for one example.
Washington, D.C.:
It appears that comprehensive legislative reform of the civil service might be necessary to address the federal government’s personnel challenges. Would such reform provide federal agencies with a more standard set of tools and flexibilities to manage their workforces, given that agencies currently have different authorities? And would this standardization help the federal government manage competition between agencies for skilled employees?
John Palguta: Good question. I think comprehensive civil service reform is probably needed. The idea of a "standard set of tools" that are consistent with a merit-based civil service yet which also allow agencies to use the flexibilities which best fit with their situation and capabilities is a good one. And yes, some standardization regarding general pay setting flexibilities so that federal agencies are not simply outbiding one another is needed. Whatever is done with reform of the federal compensation system, however, really needs to be market-based and the market we need to be most concerned about is outside the government.
Alexandria, Va.:
Does the Partnership for Public Service ever team up with private (non-federal) companies or federal agencies to bring about change and actually implement steps to improve the civil service?
John Palguta: As our name implies, the Partnership for Public Service realizes that as a small non-profit there's a lot we cannot do, but in partnership with other public, private, and non-profit organizations there's a lot that can be done. Yes, we do team up with a wide variety of organizations and to good effect. We are currently have great success with our "Call to Serve" initiative involving 380 colleges and universities, the Office of Personnel Management, and over 60 federal agencies to reconnect the federal government with the college campuses (see www.calltoserve.org. We also recently entered into an agreement with Monster.com by which we will provide them with information about the federal hiring system, opportunities, and so on, and they will devote a portion of their site to make that information available to any of the more than 45 million visitors to their site each month.
Madison, Wis.:
Last week, at a conference on government recruiting and staffing, there was a discussion of several HR "experiments" in the Defense Department and other agencies that involve faster hiring processes, more flexible compensation systems, etc. These experiments have been going on for years. Is it now time to implement them more widely?
John Palguta: Yes! DoD has been at the forefront of trying out some new ways of doing business via "demonstration projects." Some of these successful projects date back more than 20 years and have been independently evaluated and verified. The idea was to have them serve as examples of what might be more widely implemented and its time to do just that.
Springfield, Va.:
OPM is currently undergoing a major restructuring. How do you foresee that changing the way OPM will function? In particular, do you see this changing the way OPM leads in the HR policy arena or in the way it conducts its Governmentwide oversight responsibilities?
John Palguta: I think there are probably some employees in OPM itself wondering the same thing! I think the planned restructuring is certainly well-intentioned but like all major restructuring (including the proposed Homeland Security restructuring) is difficult to fully predict the outcomes in advance. I think OPM's particular efforts could do some good things in terms of their role but there are still a fair number of details to be worked out and implemented.
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Palguta, does the federal government have internships or co-ops for students? I know friends who have gone on to work for companies that they interned with as students, but haven't heard much about government internships. If the answer is yes, how do I find out more, and are there positions anywhere besides Washington?
John Palguta: The federal government actually hired over 50,000 students last year through a variety of programs. Unfortunately, the word on these opportunities does get out widely enough nor does the government do a good job of seeing these student hiring programs as a very fertile applicant pool for future permanent needs. The Partnerhsip also has an intern report on our website with some recommendations for anyone who is interested.
Bethesda, Md.:
I have worked in the private sector for 18 years and started looking for a federal job in June. I received a job offer last week at the GS-13 level. I had assumed that my salary, because it fell in the range for a 13, would be matched as closely as possible. However, I was offered a GS-13, step 1 position which meant a $16,000 annual pay cut for me. Of course I turned the position down because I can not afford to take such a cut, but I am very confused. I was told by the personnel officer that as a new federal employee, I had to come in at a step 1. Is this true? How is it possible that anyone from the private sector, at a mid-level position, would want to enter the federal government if they can't retain their salary?
John Palguta: Thanks for sharing your experience and I'm sorry that it wasn't a better one. Often overlooked in the government's traditional focus on entry-level hirng is the fact that the world has changed in terms of worker expectations and the government has a very thin "bench" of experienced workers that needs to be supplemented by bringing in more people at an experienced level. Right now, only about 13 percent of all jobs above a GS-12 level are filled with people outside of government. To change things, we do need to be more competitive in terms of salary--we don't need to pay the highest salaries but neither should experienced applicants should not be required to take a vow of poverty! There are some circumstances under which applicants can be offered a salary above the step 1 depending on the applicant's qualifications. I'm sorry this option was not explored in your case.
Well, Steve informs me that we're out of time even though there are still some great questions that I haven't been able to type fast enough to get too. I would welcome additional questions and comments if you would like to send them to me via the "contact" page of our website at www.ourpublicservice.org.
Steve, thanks very much for having me on. It's been a pleasure.
Stephen Barr:
John, thanks for your time and insights. Many thanks to all of you who sent in questions; as usual, we could not get to all of them. Please join us again here at noon next Wednesday for another session of Federal Diary Live.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
