News about Federal Employees

[James48843]

Officials say outsourcing partly to blame for Walter Reed failures

By Jenny Mandel
jmandel@govexec.com


During a Monday hearing to investigate widely publicized problems at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, lawmakers and Army officials placed partial blame on a public-private job competition that sapped the facility of workers, and on uncertainty about the slated closure of the center in the ongoing Base Realignment and Closure process.


Several lawmakers questioned whether it had been a mistake to outsource base operations support through a competition conducted under the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 rules. The Walter Reed competition began in January 2000 and went through numerous protests and appeals. The contractor selected to perform the work, Cape Canaveral, Fla.-based IAP Worldwide Services, finally took over operations on Feb. 4 of this year.


"We certainly could have done it better, and maybe we shouldn't have done it at all," said Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the head of the Army Medical Command and Walter Reed's commander from 2002 to 2004, in response to a question from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.


Maj. Gen. George Weightman, who was fired last week from his command of the center after holding the position for just more than six months, testified that over the course of the extended competition, "not knowing the future has affected garrison operations."


Weightman said the combination of outsourcing and the BRAC process, which is slated to close Walter Reed and consolidate many of its services into the nearby, Bethesda-based National Naval Medical Center, was a "huge destabilizing force on the civilian workforce," which he said represents two-thirds of Walter Reed personnel.


In a March 2 letter to Weightman, the Democratic leaders of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and its subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs, which convened Monday's hearing, warned that they would seek further information about a September internal memorandum from Walter Reed Garrison Commander Col. Peter Garibaldi requesting additional personnel for the facility.


In that memorandum, Garibaldi wrote that skilled personnel were leaving Walter Reed through early retirement, voluntary separation and placement at other agencies, in preparation for a reduction in force for employees affected by the A-76 competition. He warned, though, that the center's workload had gone up significantly since it was measured before Sept. 11, 2001, and the expectations on which the competition had been run were out of date.


The commander requested additional personnel to staff the facility during the transition to IAP, as well as a long-term boost to federal employee numbers. The lawmakers quoted Garibaldi as writing, "Without favorable consideration of these requests, WRAMC Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure."


On Monday, Weightman said attrition reduced the number of employees affected by the competition from a high of 190 down to about 100 people. He said that despite being given authority to staff up to bridge the gap, he was unable to find more than 10 additional people to take positions not slated to last beyond four months.


Earlier in the competition process, the number of affected employees was estimated to be 350, and the committee letter cited that number falling as low as 60, the day before IAP took over base operations last month. Kiley and Weightman repeatedly insisted Monday that the high and low were 190 and 100, respectively, and it was not immediately clear where the discrepancy arose.


The final hearing panel Monday consisted of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody and Pete Geren, the Army undersecretary tapped to serve as acting secretary until a replacement is named for Francis Harvey, who resigned Friday. Subcommittee chair John Tierney, D-Mass., asked who gave the final go-ahead to privatize base operations.


Answering for all three, Geren said he could not explain. "I don't know how the decision is made to engage the A-76 process," he acknowledged.


http://www.govexec.com

[Spaf]

Some of my friends that still work send me some e-mail!


Well this one, I just have to pass it along!


Thought for the Day!


1758

[James48843]

Salary council survey shows widening pay gap

By Brittany R. Ballenstedt bballenstedt@govexec.com (bballenstedt@govexec.com) October 3, 2007

Federal employees make an average of 23 percent less than their private sector counterparts, the Federal Salary Council announced Wednesday.

The body, an independent group of salary experts, employee representatives and federal officials that makes determinations each year on the allocations of locality pay, said at its annual meeting that the average gap widened by 6 percentage points from last year.

The council uses data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the National Compensation Survey to determine the pay gap. Unlike previous years, however, this year's data included small private sector establishments with 50 employees or less, resulting in pay gaps averaging 1.6 percent higher than when such establishments were not included, the council said.

"Each year, federal employees must fight for a higher pay raise than the administration wants," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union and a member of the salary council. "And we need to do this despite a 1994 federal law that was aimed at closing this gap. Pay is a critical factor in the government's ability to recruit and retain skilled and talented employees, and we must do better."

The council also recommended that locality pay raises be distributed next year so that employees living in areas with the largest pay gaps receive the largest increases. That strategy would be in line with President Bush's decision last year (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1106/113006r1.htm) to change the locality pay formula so that it takes into consideration the increasing difference between private and public sector pay in some cities, such as New York, compared to others.

The council recommended that employees in all pay areas receive at least some portion of the locality funds in 2008. But allotting larger portions to cities with the largest pay gaps will mean that many cities and the "Rest of U.S." category will get a slightly smaller locality adjustment.

President Bush has proposed a 3 percent average pay raise next year, and has until Nov. 10 to submit a plan for dividing the raise between an across the board increase and locality pay. The House and Senate have drafted legislation providing a 3.5 percent average pay boost. The council recommended that whatever the final overall raise figure turns out to be, that next year's across the board increase should be at least 2.5 percent.

In years past, the council has voted to shift some cities into or out of the "Rest of U.S." category, but this time it kept the same 32 locality areas as last year. The private-federal pay gap for Louisville, Ky., rose slightly above that of the "Rest of U.S." category last year, but the council decided to keep the city in the catch-all category and monitor it closely next year. The council also pledged to closely monitor gaps in Austin, Texas, and Memphis, Tenn.

Meanwhile, the council also rejected two locality pay proposals during the meeting.

The Federal Executives Association of Northeastern New York recommended that the council establish a new locality pay area in the Capital Region of New York, where federal agencies have struggled to compete with the private sector and state government on pay and benefits. The federal government in this area also is struggling because of its close proximity to New York City, where employees receive a 24.57 percent locality pay adjustment, the association said.

Representatives from Western Massachusetts unsuccessfully made a case for adding Berkshire County to the nearby Hartford, Conn., locality pay area.

The council's recommendations will go to the President's Pay Agent, a board made up of the heads of the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Management and Budget and the Labor Department. Board members will consider the council's stance and submit their recommendation to President Bush by Nov. 30.


Sourcce: http://govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38212&dcn=todaysnews

[ChemEng]

Thankfully NSPS will fix all this!

:notrust:

I wonder if this is based solely on salary or includes benefits comparison as well?

[FundSurfer]

Thankfully NSPS will fix all this!

:notrust:

I wonder if this is based solely on salary or includes benefits comparison as well?

Yep, includes salary and benefits. It also includes up and down the pay scale.

I've wondered if government employees haven't been moved up the ladder and are doing the work of a lower paygrade just so the government can keep employees. I know I've had personel discussions where we try to figure out how to move employees we want to keep up the ladder so that they don't leave for a higher paying job. It seems to me that some fed jobs are paid more than the going rate and some considerably less. I don't study it for a living so I guess I should just leave it to those over worked and under paid professional federal employees to figure it all out. Or was this study outsourced??? .... hmmmm

[khunk]

love the dog picture

[James48843]

New Draft Salary Tables have been release by OPM.

President Bush is issuing an executive order, for a 3% raise, instead of the 3.5% that Congress had passed.

Unless Congress does something different between now and January 1st, the overall 3% number will be used.

Here is the link to read the OPM Memo, which also contains a hot-link to the newly released draft Salary Tables for GS employees for 08.

https://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2007/2007-12.asp

[Rustynutt]

New Draft Salary Tables have been release by OPM.

President Bush is issuing an executive order, for a 3% raise, instead of the 3.5% that Congress had passed.

Unless Congress does something different between now and January 1st, the overall 3% number will be used.

Here is the link to read the OPM Memo, which also contains a hot-link to the newly released draft Salary Tables for GS employees for 08.

https://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2007/2007-12.asp

Anyone seen the Demo pay scales online? Thought I did somewhere, but can't find them. Hope all that are getting a piece of the .5% appreciate the rest of us taking one for the Gipper. Sorry, I don't like the sliding payscale idea. You live where you do by choice, and service wide COLA should not be adjusted for each individual area, that's what locality pay is for.:mad:

[JOVARN]

The Veterans Affairs has dinosaurs within top level nursing leadership, as the VA’s feeble minded focus over the past 10 years has created an environment that restricts young nurses from entering the VA health care network. The American Nurses Association (ANA) has been trying to get the private sector health care institutions to adopt the agenda of Bachelor degree as entry level into the nursing profession, and that has been met with failure. The VA Nursing leadership bought into the misguided adventure of the ANA and that has left the VA health care system in a situation where they are having difficulty with the recruitment of young Nurses, and that has lead to a staffing crisis with in the VA health care network.. The VA has laws on the books that state they cannot be the pay leader for recruitment, but once in the system, when the benefits are added to the entry pay level, the VA is competitive; but as well all know benefits don’t pay the bills at the end of the month and young families need cash in their hand in early years.
The lack of action by the VA to address this problem has left them with a work force who’s average age is fast approaching 50 yrs of age, and in many location through out the country mandatory overtime is the word of the day.
The inaction by the VA to correct the obvious, may be a back door attempt to support contracting out, and we all know contracting out is also the agenda of our leaders in Washington. Who knows, the VA may soon change its name to the Halliburton Health Care Network and Dickey may be the CEO.

[James48843]

From: http://govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38919&dcn=todaysnews

Bush declares pocket veto of defense authorization bill

By Ben Feller, Associated Press December 28, 2007

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.

In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."
The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.

The pocket veto means that troops will get a 3 percent raise Jan. 1 instead of the 3.5 percent authorized by the bill.

Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while vacationing at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.

The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.

Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto."

When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications - such as veto messages - from the White House during the monthlong break.

A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.

In a message to Congress, the president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed."
Democratic aides said they have not ruled out any legislative options, including dropping the language on lawsuits against Iraq and sending the rest of the bill back to Bush.

The sponsor of the contested provision, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the provision would allow "American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable - plain and simple."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called on lawmakers to "move rapidly to fix this section" when Congress returns in January so that the underlying bill can be signed.

Democratic congressional leaders complained that Bush's move was a last-minute stunt because he had never indicated his intention to veto the bill.

Bush aides said they had signaled concern about the controversial provision for weeks, although there had been no formal veto threat. They said their concern grew urgent recently after a legal review and feedback from U.S. diplomats in Iraq and Iraqi leaders.

The disputed section of the bill would reshape Iraq's immunity to lawsuits, exposing the new government to litigation in U.S. courts stemming from treatment of Americans in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Even cases that had once been rejected could be refiled.

Bush's aides warned of a dire scenario - a rush of litigation that could freeze tens of billions of dollars in Iraqi assets being held in U.S. banks. Money at the heart of the Iraqi rebuilding effort would be tied up in court, potentially halting the very stabilization efforts that could get U.S. troops home faster, the aides said.

Yet Democrats fumed that Bush could have worked out the technical fix sooner if he had wanted, without rejecting an entire bill that contains extra help and money for troops.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the administration will work with Congress to get the additional pay raise approved and retroactive to Jan. 1 under a reworked bill. He said the bulk of the raise for the troops -- 3 percent -- is slated to go into effect anyway.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

[James48843]

Veterans for Common Sense Denounces
President Bush’s Veto of Defense Bill

Legislation Contained Pay Raise for Soldiers and Benefits for Veterans


For Immediate Release: December 28, 2007 – Veterans for Common Sense, a non-profit non-partisan advocacy group based in Washington, DC, denounced today's annoucement by President George W. Bush that he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9031). VCS, one of the main organizations fighting for the "Wounded Warriors with Dignity Act" (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8974) that is part of the legislation, hopes Congress will quickly override the President's veto in January 2008.

The Defense Bill, as it is commonly called, passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support in early December:
* The House approved the bill by a vote of 370 – 49 on Dec. 12
* The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 – 3 on Dec. 14.

“With one stroke of his pen, President Bush ignored huge bi-partisan majorities in both the House and Senate who support our service members and veterans. Bush is now on record as opposing a much-needed pay raise for our soldiers and Marines fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush opposes desperately needed legislative reforms prompted by the notorious Walter Reed fiasco,” said Paul Sullivan, a Gulf War veteran and executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

“Our Nation has a proud tradition of caring for our military and our veterans. President Bush has undermined that trust once again because he wants to block the right of a few of our Gulf War veterans to sue the Iraqi government. Dozens of our Desert Storm veterans were prisoners of war in 1991, and they were brutally tortured by Saddam Hussein’s government. These veterans earned the right to have their day in court. Similarly, U.S. citizens and others waterboarded and otherwise brutalized under illegal Bush Administration torture policies should also have their day in court,” Sullivan said.

“When Congress returns in January, veterans expect that their first order of business will be to override President Bush’s disgraceful veto. America and Congress support our troops and veterans, and President Bush should, too,” concluded Sullivan.

Additional Background Information:

1. Dec. 26, 2007, Senator Webb keeps Senate in session: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/26/senate.pro.forma/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/26/senate.pro.forma/index.html)

2. Mar. 19, 2003, Gulf War veteran describes torture as prisoner of war during Desert Storm in 1991: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20030319/ai_n12495573 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20030319/ai_n12495573)

3. April 4, 2002, lawsuit against Iraq by former U.S. prisoners of war: http://www.pownetwork.org/gulf/us_district_court%20_suit.htm (http://www.pownetwork.org/gulf/us_district_court%20_suit.htm)

4. Sep. 10, 1999, National Gulf War Resource Center statement in favor of allowing veterans to sue Iraq: http://www.idir.net/~krogers/adviso~1.html (http://www.idir.net/~krogers/adviso~1.html)

5. Undated, Gulf War veteran lawsuit against Iraq for illnesses associated with chemical exposures: http://www.gulfwarvetlawsuit.com/gpitts.html (http://www.gulfwarvetlawsuit.com/gpitts.html)

###

[Pill]

So is it confirmed that we are getting a 3.5 pay raise?

http://www.fedsmith.com/

[Wrngway]

FedExec.com reported that the president signed the spending bill authorizing the increase.

[EW_ret]

Actually President Bush vetoed the spending bils on December 28, 2007. Here is the link, Bush declares pocket veto of defense authorization bill (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38919&dcn=todaysnews). So unless Congress modifies the spending bills to remove certain language, the 3.0% average raise will stand. This will not happen until January sometime.

[Wrngway]

If Bush vetoed the raise, than what is this?

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38912&dcn=todaysnews

[hessian]

Come on guys, there are 2 Bills, the Defense bill (that Bush pocket veto'd), had change put in for the 3.0% raise for Military personnel.

The other was an, Omnibus Spending Bill, for the Federal budget, within this one was the 3.5% raise for Federal civilians. BOTH include in them, a generalized amount specified to be used for locality-pay adjustments.

I should say what I really feel, but I think I'll just say, I'm angry how they treat our military and vets, and believe in parity. The 3.5% should have been maintained for both.
VR

[Aspiration]

Civil servants are already approved for the 3.5% overall pay raise.

Not that it makes it all better (I think the military should at least get the pay increase at the same time as civil service), but the president has said he supports giving the 3.5% overall pay increase to military retroactively. As soon as Congress amends the offending provision about allowing US lawsuits against US-located Iraq monies to cover for acts of terrorism, the military should get their 3.5%, too. In the long run, all (military and civil service) should get the desired 3.5% overall pay increase.

[EW_ret]

Thanks for clarifying that there were two 2008 authorization bills. The Defense bill was not signed and the Omnibus Authorization bill was signed on December 26th. I read the two articles as the same authorization bill. The December 28 article was the latest news and it read Bush decided not to sign the defense bill. Its confusing that pay raises for civilians working in Defense is tied to the U.S. Treasury authorization and the military raise is tied to the Defense bill.

[Wrngway]

The OPM Salary page was updated with a note concerning a 3.5% annual increase.

As far as the military personnel go...I hate to see those guys get stuck in the middle of a political battle, but I expect them to see a retroactive 3.5% raise. I would definitely be surprised if it didn't work out that way.

[swsop]

New Policy in Place for Civilian Pay Raises at Defense

By Stephen Barr
Friday, January 4, 2008

It's a new year and there's a new pay policy at the Defense Department.

About 100,000 civil service employees covered by a new performance-based pay system will receive 60 percent of the base salary increase that most other government workers get this month, and the remaining 40 percent of their raise will hinge on their job evaluation, defense personnel officials said yesterday. Full Story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010304036.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Swsop

[James48843]

Bush signs executive order, and OPM releases new salary tables:


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 4, 2008
Executive Order: Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay



http://www.whitehouse.gov/imgs/release_tools_icons_rss.gif White House News (http://www.whitehouse.gov/rss/news.xml)




http://www.whitehouse.gov/imgs/icon_release_infocus.gif Draft 2008 Salary Tables and Related Information (http://www.whitehouse.gov/goodbye/5c0d19a2646ec0848395f5f6039f4c8bf54caf75.html)

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the laws cited herein, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Statutory Pay Systems. The rates of basic pay or salaries of the statutory pay systems (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5302(1)), as adjusted under 5 U.S.C. 5303(a), are set forth on the schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof:
(a) The General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332(a)) at Schedule 1;
(b) The Foreign Service Schedule (22 U.S.C. 3963) at Schedule 2; and
(c) The schedules for the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs (38 U.S.C. 7306, 7404; section 301(a) of Public Law 102 40) at Schedule 3.
Sec. 2. Senior Executive Service. The ranges of rates of basic pay for senior executives in the Senior Executive Service, as established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5382, are set forth on Schedule 4 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sec. 3. Certain Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries. The rates of basic pay or salaries for the following offices and positions are set forth on the schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof:
(a) The Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312 5318) at Schedule 5;
(b) The Vice President (3 U.S.C. 104) and the Congress (2 U.S.C. 31) at Schedule 6; and
(c) Justices and judges (28 U.S.C. 5, 44(d), 135, 252, and 461(a), section 140 of Public Law 97 92, and section 305 of Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008), at Schedule 7.
Sec. 4. Uniformed Services. The rates of monthly basic pay (37 U.S.C. 203(a)) for members of the uniformed services, as adjusted under 37 U.S.C. 1009, and the rate of monthly cadet or midshipman pay (37 U.S.C. 203(c)) are set forth on Schedule 8 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sec. 5. Locality-Based Comparability Payments.
(a) Pursuant to section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, and section 740 of Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, locality based comparability payments shall be paid in accordance with Schedule 9 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement these payments and to publish appropriate notice of such payments in the Federal Register.
Sec. 6. Administrative Law Judges. The rates of basic pay for administrative law judges, as adjusted under 5 U.S.C. 5372(b)(4), are set forth on Schedule 10 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sec. 7. Effective Dates. Schedule 8 is effective on January 1, 2008. The other schedules contained herein are effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2008.
Sec. 8. Prior Order Superseded. Executive Order 13420 of December 21, 2006, is superseded.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 4, 2008.
# # #


Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html)

[James48843]

CORRECTION:


The Salary Tables listed in this link are NOT yet updated with the 3.5% pay raise. The link from the White House is still showing a link to the DRAFT 3.0% that employees would have gotten had the Omnibus not been signed into law.

The White House issued the Press Release of the executive order this afternoon, but the link to the 3.5% increase is NOT yet fixed over at OPM. (and they've had two weeks to get ready for this day).

[lochaven]

Thanks, since transfering to the Postal Service from my days in the government agencies in DC, I'd forgot about these tables.

[James48843]

CORRECTION:


The Salary Tables listed in this link are NOT yet updated with the 3.5% pay raise. The link from the White House is still showing a link to the DRAFT 3.0% that employees would have gotten had the Omnibus not been signed into law.

The White House issued the Press Release of the executive order this afternoon, but the link to the 3.5% increase is NOT yet fixed over at OPM. (and they've had two weeks to get ready for this day).

OK- OPM updated the tables late this afternoon after the President made the Executive Order annoucement:

Here is the link to the "final" 2008 Pay Changes, including links to the GS pay table:

http://www.chcoc.opm.gov/transmittal_detail.cfm?id=878

[James48843]

Poll from the website: http://pollingreport.com

What is your opinion- how do you view the favorablity of these government entities?



3000


Interesting answers. Looks like our Post Office workers are the most favorable aspect of Government today.

[Wolverine]

Ha, the favorability of the Postal Workers is due to the favorability people feeling sorry for us Letter Carriers having to deal with Dog Attacks on a daily basis. LOL:D