 |
 |
 |
|
| February 23 - March 2, 2010 |
font size: T T T |
You are viewing the E-Report for the week starting Feb 23, 2010 
Defense Department Reveals More Information about NSPS Transition
The Department of Defense has revealed more details about the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) transition. The biggest news is that the majority of NSPS employees are scheduled to transition to non-NSPS personnel systems by September 30, 2010, more than a year earlier than required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010. This statute requires all employees to transition from NSPS by no later than January 1, 2012 with no loss of, or decrease in, pay upon conversion. Most employees will transition into the General Schedule (GS) personnel system. Defense Department officials report that components and DoD organizations are in the final stages of determining their transition dates, and plans are being submitted to the NSPS Transition Office for approval. Employees will be notified of the transition date for their NSPS organizations once plans are approved. Some decisions about pay and job classification already have been made, Defense Department officials report. For example: - Classification specialists, or supervisors and managers with delegated classification authority, will determine an employee's grade upon transition from NSPS based on the employee's assigned duties and responsibilities. For example, if a position classifies as a GS-13 under the General Schedule, then the employee's grade will be a GS-13 when he or she transitions to the GS system.
- Once the grade is determined, an employee's current salary will be set on a step within the rate range for the assigned grade using GS compensation rules, as follows:
- If the NSPS adjusted salary falls between two steps, the salary will be set at the higher step.
- If the NSPS adjusted salary falls below step 1 of the grade, the salary will be set at the step 1 rate.
- If the NSPS adjusted salary exceeds step 10 of the grade, the employee will be placed on retained pay.
Further information is available from the NSPS Transition Office, which released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) yesterday. |
EEOC Solicits Comments on Proposed ADEA Rule
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addressing the meaning of "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The agency is soliciting comments from the public and other interested parties by Monday, April 19, 2010. The proposed rule follows a March 31, 2008, NPRM on disparate impact under the ADEA. In addition to requesting comments on its substance, the prior NPRM asked whether the Commission should provide more information on the meaning of the RFOA defense. Most commenters supported addressing the issue and, accordingly, the EEOC is publishing a new NPRM on RFOA. The NPRM has been coordinated with other federal agencies and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The proposed rule explains that the RFOA defense applies only if the challenged practice is not based on age and that a neutral practice that disproportionately affects older workers can be justified only by showing that the practice is objectively reasonable when viewed from the perspective of a reasonable employer under like circumstances. The proposed rule sets forth non-exhaustive lists of factors relevant to determining whether a factor is "reasonable" and "other than age." The EEOC will consider the public comments received and will make appropriate changes based on those comments. A proposed final rule covering this and the March 2008 proposed rules will then be coordinated with other federal agencies and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget before becoming effective. The NPRM was published in the February 18, 2010 Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 32, pp. 7212-7218. ? Read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
Justice Department, USDA Announce $1.25 Billion Settlement Agreement
Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack have announced a historic settlement agreement to resolve longstanding litigation known as "Pigford II." The settlement agreement, which is contingent on appropriation by Congress, will provide a total of $1.25 billion to African American farmers who alleged that they suffered racial discrimination in USDA farm loan programs. The settlement sets up a non-judicial claims process through which individual farmers may demonstrate their entitlement to cash damages awards and debt relief. In 1999, the USDA entered into a consent agreement with black farmers in which the agency agreed to pay farmers for past discrimination in lending and other USDA programs. Thousands of claims have been adjudicated, but thousands of other claims were not considered on their merits because the affected farmers submitted their claims after the settlement claims deadline. To address the remaining claims, Congress provided these farmers another avenue for restitution in the 2008 Farm Bill by providing a right to file a claim in federal court. The total amount offered by the federal government in the agreement announced last week - $1.25 billion - includes the $100 million appropriated by Congress in Section 14012 of the Farm Bill. Last May, President Obama announced his plans to include settlement funds for black farmers in the FY 2010 budget to bring closure to their long-standing litigation against the USDA. The $1.25 billion settlement is contingent on Congress appropriating the $1.15 billion that the President requested. Once Congress appropriates the money, class members may pursue their individual claims through a non-judicial claims process in front of a neutral arbitrator. Claimants who establish their credit-related claims will be entitled to receive up to $50,000 and debt relief. A separate track may provide actual damages of up to $250,000 through a more rigorous process. The actual value of awards may be reduced based on the total amount of funds made available and the number of successful claims. A moratorium on foreclosures of most claimants' farms will be in place until after claimants have gone through the claims process or the Secretary is notified that a claim has been denied. The claims process agreed to by the parties may provide payments to successful claimants beginning in the middle of 2011. In announcing the settlement, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "Bringing this litigation to a close has been a priority for this Administration. With the settlement announced today, USDA and the African American farmers who brought this litigation can move on to focus on their future. The plaintiffs can move forward and have their claims heard - with the federal government standing not as an adversary, but as a partner." |
Senate Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Interagency Contracting Vehicles
The Senate Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight will hold a hearing this Thursday on interagency contracts and the potential need for reform. Titled "Interagency Contracts (Part I): Overview and Recommendations for Reform," the hearing will examine the rapid proliferation of interagency contracting vehicles in recent years. It will review the potential benefits and shortcomings of interagency contracting, as well as the potential impact these vehicles may have on competition. The hearing will examine the reasons behind the increase in interagency contracting vehicles, and whether agencies are creating and using these vehicles responsibly. Finally, the hearing will assess the need for increased oversight and reform, with a second hearing to be scheduled in the future, in which agency officials will be asked to address the issues raised in Part I.
The hearing is scheduled for this Thursday, February 25, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. It will be held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 342. For more information, go to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs' website. |
Federal Labor Relations Under the Obama Administration
Register for Federal Labor Relations Under the Obama Administration - Learn About Upcoming Changes, the New Executive Order, and Much More Join David Orr of Orr Consulting and OmniGov Training Institute for the course:
What YOU Need to Know About Today's Federal Labor Relations
If you are new to LR, need a refresher, or perform legal advisory, EEO or ADR services - this class is for you. DATE: Wednesday, March 10, 2010
TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
FEE: $395
LOCATION: Washington, DC To learn more about the course and to REGISTER visit our website at www.omnigovtraining.org. OmniGov Training Institute - 202-331-0004 x339 |
Employee Not Entitled to Mileage Reimbursement or Per Diem Because Her Assignment Was a Change of PDS, Not TDY, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules
An employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not entitled to mileage reimbursement or per diem because her assignment was a change of permanent duty station (PDS), not temporary duty (TDY) travel, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals ruled last week. In this case, the FEMA employee worked in the agency's Baton Rouge Area Field Office. In April 2007, however, she was asked to serve as Area Manager of the agency's Alexandria, Louisiana, Recertification Office for that office's remaining duration of operation, expected to be about one year. The employee was told by the agency that she was not entitled to, and would not receive, reimbursement for travel expenses from her residence in Lafayette, Louisiana, to Alexandria. There were no written travel orders issued with regard to the assignment. The employee reported for duty on April 16, 2007, in Alexandria. She commuted daily in her private vehicle from her residence to Alexandria and back for the duration of her employment there. She returned to employment in Baton Rouge on April 12, 2008. The employee asserts that for the entire duration of her employment in Alexandria, her PDS remained Baton Rouge, and Alexandria was her TDY station to which she traveled daily from her residence. To support her claim, she notes that during her employment in Alexandria, her Standard Form (SF) 50 indicated that her PDS was Baton Rouge. She contends further that her work day, including her round trip from her residence to her TDY station in Alexandria, was twelve hours or more per day, which would entitle her to receive 75% per diem per day. As a result, the employee submitted a travel voucher to the agency for, among other things, $24,192 for reimbursement of mileage and $4,387.50 for reimbursement of 75% per diem allowance. The agency denied reimbursement on the basis that the employee was not on TDY while working in Alexandria. The agency took the position that the employee was told she would not receive reimbursement for travel expenses from her residence to Alexandria, and that the employee's PDS had been changed to Alexandria for the duration of her employment there. The agency admitted that the employee's SF 50 did not indicate that her PDS had been changed, but maintained that this documentation was not conclusive. The agency further relied on the fact that on April 15, 2007, a Duty Tour Information Edit Form was issued, which the agency states was routinely used in lieu of the SF 50 to officially change employees' PDS designations, and which changed the FEMA employee's PDS from Baton Rouge to Alexandria. After the employee returned to work in Baton Rouge, another Duty Tour Information Edit Form was issued by the agency indicating that her PDS was changed back to Baton Rouge. Finally, the agency contended, according to agency policy, an employee may not be assigned to a single temporary work location for more than fifty consecutive weeks. Thus, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals stated that the question presented in this case was whether the FEMA employee's assignment to Alexandria constituted a temporary or permanent relocation of her PDS. The Board explained that this is a question of fact to be determined from the orders directing the assignment, the duration of the assignment, and the nature of the duties performed. In this case, the Board found that the agency reasonably treated the employee's assignment to Alexandria as a change of PDS rather than a TDY. The Board explained that: (1) there was no dispute that the employee was advised she would not receive reimbursement of travel expenses for her travel to Alexandria; (2) the duration of the assignment - one year - supported the agency's determination that the assignment was permanent rather than temporary; (3) the agency's policy was that assignments of that duration would be permanent, not temporary, duty; (4) the employee served in a supervisory position in the Alexandria office, which was a further indication of a permanent assignment; (5) it was clear that both the employee and the agency expected the employee to spend her entire time working in the Alexandria office for the duration of the assignment; and (6) the employee's SF 50 was not conclusive proof of the employee's permanent duty station. Thus, given all of these factors, the Board concluded that the agency reasonably treated the employee's assignment to Alexandria as a change of PDS rather than a TDY. Additionally, the Board stated, it is well settled that an employee who is engaged in commuting between his or her residence and official duty station is performing personal business, not official business for the Government, and the agency will not pay the transportation costs that the employee incurs while commuting. Because the expenses claimed by the employee constitute commuting costs between her home and her official station, the Board determined that the agency properly denied the employee's claim for reimbursement. The case is In the Matter of Susan M. Spillman, United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, CBCA 1619-TRAV, February 16, 2010. |
Reduce your risk of having subordinates file complaints against you
Is it just inevitable that a federal manager cannot complete a career without having accusations of wrongdoing lodged against him or her by an unhappy subordinate? Maybe so. But there may be something you could do to reduce the risk of becoming the subject of a subordinate's EEO, OSC, or OIG hotline complaint. Here are a few ideas. First, play by the rules. Especially the rules on time and attendance, leave, and travel. When a subordinate becomes disillusioned by a manager or gets into an attack mindset, these are the most common items subordinates tend to report about their bosses to OIG hotlines. If you don't leave yourself vulnerable by bending these rules, then you should clear the OIG investigation into the Hotline referral. Second, get to know your workforce - even those you might not necessarily become friends with. Make an effort to reach out to everyone on issues and ideas related to their jobs. Be consistent and evenhanded, and don't give an appearance that you tend to favor one staff member over another. No one likes a workplace where there are "favorites." That's the second most common complaint to an OIG hotline. Another suggestion is to avoid making drastic changes in the workplace in secret, behind closed doors. We're not suggesting that the entire staff be included in the process for making organizational changes. Keep in mind that the federal workplace is the great rumor mill and catches on quickly to indicators that big changes are coming, then the rumors start to flow. Find a way to let employees know at the right intervals that changes are under consideration. It's the specter, of some great workplace change that creates anxiety in the elements of the workplace perceived to be affected, which then sends them into the EEO or OIG office complaining about their job security. Finally, stay in touch. Be a good communicator to your subordinates about job expectations, but be pleasant. In the end, no one likes a boss that is curt, abrupt, or seemingly disengaged. That kind of treatment by the boss almost always results in a complaint of some kind. |
|
Smile of the Week
A policeman was taking a vandalism report at an elementary school when he was interrupted by a young girl. She looked the officer up and down and asked, "Are you a policeman?" "Yes, I am," he replied. "My mom told me that if I ever needed help, I should ask a policeman. Is that right?" the girl asked. "That's right," said the policeman. The girl extended her foot and said, "OK, then, would you tie my shoe?" |
Weekly Leadership Reflection
Don't do modesty unless you have earned it.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
