JOINT HEARINGS TO SCRUTINIZE PROPOSED OVERHAUL AT HOMELAND SECURITY BY Stephen Barr of the Washington Post*****More employee BULLYING AND MOBBING is anticipated!****** A review of these proposed personnel initiatives reflect federal employees would be left at the mercy of the "good-old boy network" ****** Employees will be subjected to more discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and severe hostile working environment by their BULLY supervisors and managers.

"The Key to Homeland Security: The New Human Resources System," underscores the stakes involved as the Department of Homeland Security strives to revamp its personnel system. The hearing was triggered by the department's publication last week of a proposed regulation that would change the way 110,000 Homeland Security employees are paid, disciplined and represented by unions.

As a federal employee working for the Department of Homeland Security, are you concerned about your constitutional civil rights? If you are, I urge you to read the following article by Stephen Barr of the Washington Post. The same goes to any federal employee concerned about the future working for the United States government.

Normally, when a federal agency invents new personnel policies, other federal agencies follow suit. What this proposed overhaul at the Department of Homeland Security would do is to inflict and create more fear among federal employees when reporting criminal and administrative misconduct.

All federal agencies have strict written conduct & ethics policies and regulations. Agencies expect employees to report any allegation of misconduct. This is one of the reasons, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) was passed, and this is one of the main reasons the U.S. Office of the Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board were created, to provide safeguards and guarantees that no employee who reported wrongdoing was to be punished for making a disclosure. These proposed personnel changes would promote more corruption within our government, and would further permeate and glorify the good-old boy network that is already in place in any federal agency.

Current statistics indicate that discrimination complaints by federal employees are increasing instead of decreasing, complaints filed with the US Office of Special Counsel, the federal watchdog agency for reporting government misconduct are likewise sky high. With the No Fear Act law, federal agencies are now responsible for footing the bill in discrimination complaints and lawsuits, instead of dipping into a special fund created by congress for this purpose. Now if an agency is found to have discriminated against an employee, that agency must use its own financial resources, which it would only take a few lawsuits to bankrupt any agency.

I urge you to please write to your local US Senator, Representative, and the president of the united states media representative, etc., and tell them the proposed DHS personnel initiatives would only promote more corruption within our government because employees would be afraid to report allegations of gross mismanagement, fraud, abuse of authority. The Whistleblower Protection Act can provide confidentiality and protection from retaliation to federal employees, former employees, or applicants who report misconduct.

The general standards for employee conduct are that his/her actions must be above reproach. Employees must adhere to basic standards of integrity and decency and conduct themselves professionally, honestly, impartially and ethically.

They must avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest. They must not engage in conduct that is criminal, dishonest, immoral or prejudicial to the government. Employees must report to their employers internal affairs unit or their respective Offices of Inspector General or other designated source, evidence or allegations of any misconduct involving other employees.

************************************************

Joint Hearing to Scrutinize Proposed Overhaul at Homeland Security
By Stephen Barr
Washington Post Tuesday, February 24, 2004; Page B02

Two members of Congress with a keen interest in the welfare of federal employees, Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis (R-Va.), plan to team up tomorrow for a hearing on one of the biggest changes in decades for the civil service system. The title of the joint hearing, "The Key to Homeland Security: The New Human Resources System," underscores the stakes involved as the Department of Homeland Security strives to revamp its personnel system. The hearing was triggered by the department's publication last week of a proposed regulation that would change the way 110,000 Homeland Security employees are paid, disciplined and represented by unions.

The success of the new system may depend on how many employees buy into the changes, whether managers send consistent messages about the changes over the next five years and how skillfully senior officials referee turf battles.
Voinovich and Davis chair committees that oversee federal personnel policy and their press secretaries said the lawmakers are interested in whether the department's personnel plan could be a model for the rest of the government.
For the moment, the department's biggest challenge probably will be explaining the 41-page regulation, which is open for comment from employees and the public through March 22.

A cursory reading of the regulation shows that the proposed changes probably will prompt questions from employees such as:

• How will the new pay system work? Will it keep pace with the General Schedule (the system used to pay white-collar employees in other parts of the government)?

The regulation indicates that the department will have considerable leeway in setting pay.

In general, pay raises would go to employees who meet or exceed job performance expectations, at the discretion of management. Those employees would receive an annual raise and a locality pay supplement that may differ based on occupation, and many employees also would receive an annual performance-based pay raise.

The regulation leaves the impression that the department intends to keep pace with General Schedule raises, as provided annually by Congress, because it wants to remain competitive with the rest of the government in hiring and retaining employees.

But because the department expects to be more sensitive to local labor markets, the regulation indicates that employees in some metropolitan areas might come out ahead of the General Schedule while employees in other areas might fall behind.

Regardless, the department will be challenged to make pay decisions on a timely basis each year because of the complex nature of its pay-setting process.

• Will it be harder for Homeland Security employees to take on the department over disciplinary actions when they feel that the punishment was blown out of proportion?

The regulation modifies the employee appeals process in an effort to speed up decisions. Employees who are fired may continue to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, unless they are removed for a "mandatory removal offense," which will be defined later.

But the regulation takes away the board's authority to impose a lesser penalty than the one sought by the department, except if the department is wrong on the facts or has engaged in discrimination or other prohibited practices.

The regulation changes the standard of proof in disciplinary cases, from a preponderance of the evidence (more likely to be true than untrue) to substantial evidence (less than a preponderance but enough to support a reasonable conclusion). It makes it harder for an employee to win payment of legal fees in cases in which some charges are not sustained.

• Will Homeland Security employees be forced to relocate against their will?

It happens today, of course. But under the regulation, the department will no longer be required to bargain with unions over the procedures used to reassign employees. In general, union agreements with agencies typically invoke some sort of criteria, such as seniority, in deciding who gets deployed.

The regulation does not rule out accepting volunteers for reassignment, but it appears intended to ensure that the department controls who is selected for deployment in an effort to get the right skills in the right place.

The department promises to consult with unions. That may help alleviate concerns, especially in cases where employees feel that a temporary deployment is turning into a permanent reassignment.

E-mail: "mailto:barrs@washpost.com"